User login
CDC recommends high-dose flu vaccines for seniors
In an online statement Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent, Flublok Quadrivalent, and Fluad Quadrivalent flu vaccines are among those specified in the release.
The organization says that these higher-dose vaccines may be more effective for the aging population, who often have difficulty mounting a strong enough immune response to protect themselves against the flu virus. People older than 65 years struggle the most during flu season and have the highest proportion of hospitalizations and deaths from flu, according to the release.
But the CDC believes that higher-dose vaccines have the potential to better protect against that danger. One study, from The New England Journal of Medicine, reported that high-dose/adjuvanted vaccines prevented flu in older patients 24% better than did lower-dose/nonadjuvanted vaccines.
These types of vaccines work by creating a larger immune response than a standard vaccine dose. In particular, adjuvanted vaccines contain an extra ingredient within them that helps the immune system produce a stronger reaction to the vaccine. These may be things like aluminum salts, which signal the body to respond faster. Higher-dose vaccines similarly promote a stronger immune response by having more particles of the target virus in their mixture. In theory, this means the body will create an enhanced response to the vaccine. For example, a higher-dose vaccine may quadruple the amount of antigens, compared with the standard dose.
The hope is that this recommendation may increase vaccine use across the board, says José Romero, MD, the director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. As quoted in the CDC announcement, Dr. Romero said that this may help reduce racial inequities in access to flu vaccines. A 2019 meta-analysis concluded that Black and Hispanic people are around 30%-40% less likely to get the flu vaccine. So increasing the access to this medication “could help reduce health disparities by making these vaccines more available to racial and ethnic minority groups,” said Dr. Romero.
The decision, spearheaded by CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, follows recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which presented on this topic during a June 22 meeting. It is now part of official CDC policy and will continue to be developed as the 2022-2023 flu season approaches.
In addition, the organization says they’ll reveal more details for their plan later this summer, in their Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). For now, seniors should know that they should try to get the recommended high-dose vaccines, but if they can’t, then a standard dose of whatever their provider has on hand will do.
At this point, there is still no specific vaccine recommendation for people aged under 65 years. The CDC historically avoids specifying one type of vaccine over another and says each should still be effective in younger patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In an online statement Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent, Flublok Quadrivalent, and Fluad Quadrivalent flu vaccines are among those specified in the release.
The organization says that these higher-dose vaccines may be more effective for the aging population, who often have difficulty mounting a strong enough immune response to protect themselves against the flu virus. People older than 65 years struggle the most during flu season and have the highest proportion of hospitalizations and deaths from flu, according to the release.
But the CDC believes that higher-dose vaccines have the potential to better protect against that danger. One study, from The New England Journal of Medicine, reported that high-dose/adjuvanted vaccines prevented flu in older patients 24% better than did lower-dose/nonadjuvanted vaccines.
These types of vaccines work by creating a larger immune response than a standard vaccine dose. In particular, adjuvanted vaccines contain an extra ingredient within them that helps the immune system produce a stronger reaction to the vaccine. These may be things like aluminum salts, which signal the body to respond faster. Higher-dose vaccines similarly promote a stronger immune response by having more particles of the target virus in their mixture. In theory, this means the body will create an enhanced response to the vaccine. For example, a higher-dose vaccine may quadruple the amount of antigens, compared with the standard dose.
The hope is that this recommendation may increase vaccine use across the board, says José Romero, MD, the director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. As quoted in the CDC announcement, Dr. Romero said that this may help reduce racial inequities in access to flu vaccines. A 2019 meta-analysis concluded that Black and Hispanic people are around 30%-40% less likely to get the flu vaccine. So increasing the access to this medication “could help reduce health disparities by making these vaccines more available to racial and ethnic minority groups,” said Dr. Romero.
The decision, spearheaded by CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, follows recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which presented on this topic during a June 22 meeting. It is now part of official CDC policy and will continue to be developed as the 2022-2023 flu season approaches.
In addition, the organization says they’ll reveal more details for their plan later this summer, in their Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). For now, seniors should know that they should try to get the recommended high-dose vaccines, but if they can’t, then a standard dose of whatever their provider has on hand will do.
At this point, there is still no specific vaccine recommendation for people aged under 65 years. The CDC historically avoids specifying one type of vaccine over another and says each should still be effective in younger patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In an online statement Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent, Flublok Quadrivalent, and Fluad Quadrivalent flu vaccines are among those specified in the release.
The organization says that these higher-dose vaccines may be more effective for the aging population, who often have difficulty mounting a strong enough immune response to protect themselves against the flu virus. People older than 65 years struggle the most during flu season and have the highest proportion of hospitalizations and deaths from flu, according to the release.
But the CDC believes that higher-dose vaccines have the potential to better protect against that danger. One study, from The New England Journal of Medicine, reported that high-dose/adjuvanted vaccines prevented flu in older patients 24% better than did lower-dose/nonadjuvanted vaccines.
These types of vaccines work by creating a larger immune response than a standard vaccine dose. In particular, adjuvanted vaccines contain an extra ingredient within them that helps the immune system produce a stronger reaction to the vaccine. These may be things like aluminum salts, which signal the body to respond faster. Higher-dose vaccines similarly promote a stronger immune response by having more particles of the target virus in their mixture. In theory, this means the body will create an enhanced response to the vaccine. For example, a higher-dose vaccine may quadruple the amount of antigens, compared with the standard dose.
The hope is that this recommendation may increase vaccine use across the board, says José Romero, MD, the director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. As quoted in the CDC announcement, Dr. Romero said that this may help reduce racial inequities in access to flu vaccines. A 2019 meta-analysis concluded that Black and Hispanic people are around 30%-40% less likely to get the flu vaccine. So increasing the access to this medication “could help reduce health disparities by making these vaccines more available to racial and ethnic minority groups,” said Dr. Romero.
The decision, spearheaded by CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, follows recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which presented on this topic during a June 22 meeting. It is now part of official CDC policy and will continue to be developed as the 2022-2023 flu season approaches.
In addition, the organization says they’ll reveal more details for their plan later this summer, in their Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). For now, seniors should know that they should try to get the recommended high-dose vaccines, but if they can’t, then a standard dose of whatever their provider has on hand will do.
At this point, there is still no specific vaccine recommendation for people aged under 65 years. The CDC historically avoids specifying one type of vaccine over another and says each should still be effective in younger patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Heart attack care not equal for women and people of color
Radiating chest pain, shortness of breath, nausea, lightheadedness. Everyone knows the telltale signs of a myocardial infarction. Yet a new study shows that despite this widespread recognition, heart attacks aren’t attended to quickly across the board. Historically, the study says, women and people of color wait longer to access emergency care for a heart attack.
Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco published these findings in the Annals of Emergency Medicine. The study used the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development dataset to gather information on 453,136 cases of heart attack in California between 2005 and 2015. They found that over time, differences in timely treatment between the demographics narrowed, but the gap still existed.
The study defined timely treatment as receiving care for a heart attack within 3 days of admission to a hospital. Women and people of color were found to wait 3 days or more to receive care than their White male counterparts. A disparity of this sort can cause ripples of health effects across society, ripples that doctors should be aware of, says lead author Juan Carlos Montoy, MD. Dr. Montoy was “sadly surprised by our findings that disparities for women and for Black patients only decreased slightly or not at all over time.”
In the study, the team separated the dataset between the two primary types of heart attack: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), caused by blood vessel blockage, and non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), caused by a narrowing or temporary blockage of the artery.
Regardless of the type of heart attack, the standard first step in treatment is a coronary angiogram. After finding out where blood flow is disrupted using the angiogram, a physician can proceed with treatment.
But when looking back, the team found that it took a while for many patients to receive this first step in treatment. In 2005, 50% of men and 35.7% of women with STEMI and 45% of men and 33.1% of women with NSTEMI had a timely angiography. In the same year, 46% of White patients and 31.2% of Black patients with STEMI underwent timely angiography.
By 2015, timely treatment increased across the board, but there were still discrepancies, with 76.7% of men and 66.8% of women with STEMI undergoing timely angiography and 56.3% of men and 45.9% of women with NSTEMI undergoing timely angiography. Also in 2015, 75.2% of White patients and 69.2% of Black patients underwent timely angiography for STEMI.
Although differences in care decreased between the demographics, the gap still exists. Whereas this dataset only extends to 2015, this trend may still persist today, says Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, who was not involved in the study. Therefore, physicians need to consider this bias when treating patients. “The bottom line is that we continue to have much work to do to achieve equality in managing not only medical conditions but treating people who have them equally,” Dr. Glatter said.
“Raising awareness of ongoing inequality in care related to gender and ethnic disparities is critical to drive change in our institutions,” he emphasized. “We simply cannot accept the status quo.”
The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Glatter and the authors declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Radiating chest pain, shortness of breath, nausea, lightheadedness. Everyone knows the telltale signs of a myocardial infarction. Yet a new study shows that despite this widespread recognition, heart attacks aren’t attended to quickly across the board. Historically, the study says, women and people of color wait longer to access emergency care for a heart attack.
Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco published these findings in the Annals of Emergency Medicine. The study used the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development dataset to gather information on 453,136 cases of heart attack in California between 2005 and 2015. They found that over time, differences in timely treatment between the demographics narrowed, but the gap still existed.
The study defined timely treatment as receiving care for a heart attack within 3 days of admission to a hospital. Women and people of color were found to wait 3 days or more to receive care than their White male counterparts. A disparity of this sort can cause ripples of health effects across society, ripples that doctors should be aware of, says lead author Juan Carlos Montoy, MD. Dr. Montoy was “sadly surprised by our findings that disparities for women and for Black patients only decreased slightly or not at all over time.”
In the study, the team separated the dataset between the two primary types of heart attack: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), caused by blood vessel blockage, and non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), caused by a narrowing or temporary blockage of the artery.
Regardless of the type of heart attack, the standard first step in treatment is a coronary angiogram. After finding out where blood flow is disrupted using the angiogram, a physician can proceed with treatment.
But when looking back, the team found that it took a while for many patients to receive this first step in treatment. In 2005, 50% of men and 35.7% of women with STEMI and 45% of men and 33.1% of women with NSTEMI had a timely angiography. In the same year, 46% of White patients and 31.2% of Black patients with STEMI underwent timely angiography.
By 2015, timely treatment increased across the board, but there were still discrepancies, with 76.7% of men and 66.8% of women with STEMI undergoing timely angiography and 56.3% of men and 45.9% of women with NSTEMI undergoing timely angiography. Also in 2015, 75.2% of White patients and 69.2% of Black patients underwent timely angiography for STEMI.
Although differences in care decreased between the demographics, the gap still exists. Whereas this dataset only extends to 2015, this trend may still persist today, says Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, who was not involved in the study. Therefore, physicians need to consider this bias when treating patients. “The bottom line is that we continue to have much work to do to achieve equality in managing not only medical conditions but treating people who have them equally,” Dr. Glatter said.
“Raising awareness of ongoing inequality in care related to gender and ethnic disparities is critical to drive change in our institutions,” he emphasized. “We simply cannot accept the status quo.”
The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Glatter and the authors declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Radiating chest pain, shortness of breath, nausea, lightheadedness. Everyone knows the telltale signs of a myocardial infarction. Yet a new study shows that despite this widespread recognition, heart attacks aren’t attended to quickly across the board. Historically, the study says, women and people of color wait longer to access emergency care for a heart attack.
Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco published these findings in the Annals of Emergency Medicine. The study used the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development dataset to gather information on 453,136 cases of heart attack in California between 2005 and 2015. They found that over time, differences in timely treatment between the demographics narrowed, but the gap still existed.
The study defined timely treatment as receiving care for a heart attack within 3 days of admission to a hospital. Women and people of color were found to wait 3 days or more to receive care than their White male counterparts. A disparity of this sort can cause ripples of health effects across society, ripples that doctors should be aware of, says lead author Juan Carlos Montoy, MD. Dr. Montoy was “sadly surprised by our findings that disparities for women and for Black patients only decreased slightly or not at all over time.”
In the study, the team separated the dataset between the two primary types of heart attack: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), caused by blood vessel blockage, and non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), caused by a narrowing or temporary blockage of the artery.
Regardless of the type of heart attack, the standard first step in treatment is a coronary angiogram. After finding out where blood flow is disrupted using the angiogram, a physician can proceed with treatment.
But when looking back, the team found that it took a while for many patients to receive this first step in treatment. In 2005, 50% of men and 35.7% of women with STEMI and 45% of men and 33.1% of women with NSTEMI had a timely angiography. In the same year, 46% of White patients and 31.2% of Black patients with STEMI underwent timely angiography.
By 2015, timely treatment increased across the board, but there were still discrepancies, with 76.7% of men and 66.8% of women with STEMI undergoing timely angiography and 56.3% of men and 45.9% of women with NSTEMI undergoing timely angiography. Also in 2015, 75.2% of White patients and 69.2% of Black patients underwent timely angiography for STEMI.
Although differences in care decreased between the demographics, the gap still exists. Whereas this dataset only extends to 2015, this trend may still persist today, says Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, who was not involved in the study. Therefore, physicians need to consider this bias when treating patients. “The bottom line is that we continue to have much work to do to achieve equality in managing not only medical conditions but treating people who have them equally,” Dr. Glatter said.
“Raising awareness of ongoing inequality in care related to gender and ethnic disparities is critical to drive change in our institutions,” he emphasized. “We simply cannot accept the status quo.”
The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Glatter and the authors declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Irritable bowel syndrome therapy removed from market (again)
Zelnorm (tegaserod), an oral short-term treatment of irritable bowel syndrome and constipation (IBS-C), is being removed from the U.S. market effective June 30, according to the manufacturer, Alfasigma.
The Italian pharmaceutical company said the drug is being removed for business purposes, not because of any concern involving its safety or efficacy, nor has it been recalled.
The drug has been through a teeter totter of regulations since its inception.
When it was first introduced in 2002, Zelnorm was a first-of-its-kind drug and was intended to treat all women with IBS-C in the short term. But it was removed from the market 5 years later following concerns about cardiovascular side effects. Clinical data showed an increased incidence of stroke and angina in women taking Zelnorm.
Despite these concerns, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted to reintroduce the drug into the market in 2019, but only for women without a history of heart health problems.
Though Alfasigma will stop making the drug, a company news release said current users can continue use for a while.
“Patients will continue to have access to Zelnorm (tegaserod) for as long as the existing supply of product remains in the trade channel,” Alfasigma said in a news release about the drug removal. The company urged its customers to discuss alternative IBS medications with their doctor.
Zelnorm is a serotonin agonist, meaning it binds to receptors and stops the release of serotonin into the system. These sorts of drugs can decrease the pain associated with IBS and help increase gut motility in order to pass stool. Other drugs besides Zelnorm that use this mechanism include alosetron and cilansetron.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Zelnorm (tegaserod), an oral short-term treatment of irritable bowel syndrome and constipation (IBS-C), is being removed from the U.S. market effective June 30, according to the manufacturer, Alfasigma.
The Italian pharmaceutical company said the drug is being removed for business purposes, not because of any concern involving its safety or efficacy, nor has it been recalled.
The drug has been through a teeter totter of regulations since its inception.
When it was first introduced in 2002, Zelnorm was a first-of-its-kind drug and was intended to treat all women with IBS-C in the short term. But it was removed from the market 5 years later following concerns about cardiovascular side effects. Clinical data showed an increased incidence of stroke and angina in women taking Zelnorm.
Despite these concerns, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted to reintroduce the drug into the market in 2019, but only for women without a history of heart health problems.
Though Alfasigma will stop making the drug, a company news release said current users can continue use for a while.
“Patients will continue to have access to Zelnorm (tegaserod) for as long as the existing supply of product remains in the trade channel,” Alfasigma said in a news release about the drug removal. The company urged its customers to discuss alternative IBS medications with their doctor.
Zelnorm is a serotonin agonist, meaning it binds to receptors and stops the release of serotonin into the system. These sorts of drugs can decrease the pain associated with IBS and help increase gut motility in order to pass stool. Other drugs besides Zelnorm that use this mechanism include alosetron and cilansetron.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Zelnorm (tegaserod), an oral short-term treatment of irritable bowel syndrome and constipation (IBS-C), is being removed from the U.S. market effective June 30, according to the manufacturer, Alfasigma.
The Italian pharmaceutical company said the drug is being removed for business purposes, not because of any concern involving its safety or efficacy, nor has it been recalled.
The drug has been through a teeter totter of regulations since its inception.
When it was first introduced in 2002, Zelnorm was a first-of-its-kind drug and was intended to treat all women with IBS-C in the short term. But it was removed from the market 5 years later following concerns about cardiovascular side effects. Clinical data showed an increased incidence of stroke and angina in women taking Zelnorm.
Despite these concerns, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted to reintroduce the drug into the market in 2019, but only for women without a history of heart health problems.
Though Alfasigma will stop making the drug, a company news release said current users can continue use for a while.
“Patients will continue to have access to Zelnorm (tegaserod) for as long as the existing supply of product remains in the trade channel,” Alfasigma said in a news release about the drug removal. The company urged its customers to discuss alternative IBS medications with their doctor.
Zelnorm is a serotonin agonist, meaning it binds to receptors and stops the release of serotonin into the system. These sorts of drugs can decrease the pain associated with IBS and help increase gut motility in order to pass stool. Other drugs besides Zelnorm that use this mechanism include alosetron and cilansetron.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Class I recall: Batteries for CARESCAPE 2860 Ventilator
A total of 1,533 complaints allege that the batteries are draining much faster than expected, prompting manufacturer GE Healthcare to initiate the recall. There have been no injuries, and no deaths associated with the use of this device, according to an FDA corrected announcement.
Health care personnel and those patients who receive breathing support with these ventilators should be cautious about using CARESCAPE battery products moving forward, the agency said.
This type of ventilator is primarily powered by plugging into a wall outlet, but it has the capability to operate on backup batteries. These batteries are not solely for emergency situations such as power outages, but are also for routine situations such as transporting a patient within the hospital. GE Healthcare supplies these backup batteries with the ventilator, and sells replacements when they run out.
However, if the ventilator loses power because of battery malfunction, the patient may lose access to oxygen, leading to hypoxia, which can lead to brain injury and death. Therefore, if these batteries drain quicker than anticipated, it may put the patient at risk.
To prevent this danger, GE Healthcare recommends customers perform a battery performance test after they see this notice and every 3 months following. Consumers should take extra precaution and make sure their batteries are charged following a long period of inactivity. If the device is inactive for a while, the company says users should keep it plugged in to avoid draining the battery. Batteries should be replaced at a minimum of every 3 years.
When these devices are still plugged into the wall, they’re safe to use, according to the FDA. But when using the backup power source, clinicians should make sure to have alternative routes for breathing support on hand, such as with a bag-valve mask system.
There are 4,222 of these possibly defective batteries currently on the market. They were distributed from April 2, 2019, through April 18 of this year, when GE Healthcare stopped distributing these products and began the recall process. Any issues with these products should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch database or by sending a medical device notification acknowledgment response to GE at the email address listed at the bottom of the recall announcement.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 7/6/22.
A total of 1,533 complaints allege that the batteries are draining much faster than expected, prompting manufacturer GE Healthcare to initiate the recall. There have been no injuries, and no deaths associated with the use of this device, according to an FDA corrected announcement.
Health care personnel and those patients who receive breathing support with these ventilators should be cautious about using CARESCAPE battery products moving forward, the agency said.
This type of ventilator is primarily powered by plugging into a wall outlet, but it has the capability to operate on backup batteries. These batteries are not solely for emergency situations such as power outages, but are also for routine situations such as transporting a patient within the hospital. GE Healthcare supplies these backup batteries with the ventilator, and sells replacements when they run out.
However, if the ventilator loses power because of battery malfunction, the patient may lose access to oxygen, leading to hypoxia, which can lead to brain injury and death. Therefore, if these batteries drain quicker than anticipated, it may put the patient at risk.
To prevent this danger, GE Healthcare recommends customers perform a battery performance test after they see this notice and every 3 months following. Consumers should take extra precaution and make sure their batteries are charged following a long period of inactivity. If the device is inactive for a while, the company says users should keep it plugged in to avoid draining the battery. Batteries should be replaced at a minimum of every 3 years.
When these devices are still plugged into the wall, they’re safe to use, according to the FDA. But when using the backup power source, clinicians should make sure to have alternative routes for breathing support on hand, such as with a bag-valve mask system.
There are 4,222 of these possibly defective batteries currently on the market. They were distributed from April 2, 2019, through April 18 of this year, when GE Healthcare stopped distributing these products and began the recall process. Any issues with these products should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch database or by sending a medical device notification acknowledgment response to GE at the email address listed at the bottom of the recall announcement.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 7/6/22.
A total of 1,533 complaints allege that the batteries are draining much faster than expected, prompting manufacturer GE Healthcare to initiate the recall. There have been no injuries, and no deaths associated with the use of this device, according to an FDA corrected announcement.
Health care personnel and those patients who receive breathing support with these ventilators should be cautious about using CARESCAPE battery products moving forward, the agency said.
This type of ventilator is primarily powered by plugging into a wall outlet, but it has the capability to operate on backup batteries. These batteries are not solely for emergency situations such as power outages, but are also for routine situations such as transporting a patient within the hospital. GE Healthcare supplies these backup batteries with the ventilator, and sells replacements when they run out.
However, if the ventilator loses power because of battery malfunction, the patient may lose access to oxygen, leading to hypoxia, which can lead to brain injury and death. Therefore, if these batteries drain quicker than anticipated, it may put the patient at risk.
To prevent this danger, GE Healthcare recommends customers perform a battery performance test after they see this notice and every 3 months following. Consumers should take extra precaution and make sure their batteries are charged following a long period of inactivity. If the device is inactive for a while, the company says users should keep it plugged in to avoid draining the battery. Batteries should be replaced at a minimum of every 3 years.
When these devices are still plugged into the wall, they’re safe to use, according to the FDA. But when using the backup power source, clinicians should make sure to have alternative routes for breathing support on hand, such as with a bag-valve mask system.
There are 4,222 of these possibly defective batteries currently on the market. They were distributed from April 2, 2019, through April 18 of this year, when GE Healthcare stopped distributing these products and began the recall process. Any issues with these products should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch database or by sending a medical device notification acknowledgment response to GE at the email address listed at the bottom of the recall announcement.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 7/6/22.
FDA Volara ventilator warning upgraded to full recall
The Food and Drug Administration has changed the warning about the Volara system to a Class I recall, the most severe level of recall, which is reserved for products that may cause injury or death. At the time of the warning, one injury had been associated with the product; as of June 23, there have been two deaths and one complaint, according to the FDA’s release.
Normally, the Volara system is used for breathing treatments that are administered at home. The medical device company that manufactures it, Baxter International, says the product is designed to help expand the airways and clear mucus for patients who use it. But because of recent product malfunctions, patients are at risk of choking on mucus, developing an infection in their lungs that cuts off their ability to take in oxygen, or in the worst cases, developing brain injury and death.
The risk is especially high because Volara is designed to be used in outpatient settings, not in the hospital under the supervision of a health care professional. It’s supposed to require less supervision than other ventilators. But if there is a problem with the device, or if it’s not connected properly, or if no one is available to assist, people are more likely to be harmed.
People who use the Volara ventilator system at home or people who assist in the use of it should be on alert for these problems. But the FDA advises that patients continue using the therapy if the device has been recommended by a doctor. The device should be used with extra precaution, and patients should be monitored for signs of distress, the release says. Problems while using the device should be reported to the FDA’s Medwatch database.
In addition to these reports, Baxter and its subsidiary company Hillrom say they will update the instructions for the device and will dispatch trainers to make home visits for users. The contact information for the company, as well as additional resources, are listed at the bottom of the release.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has changed the warning about the Volara system to a Class I recall, the most severe level of recall, which is reserved for products that may cause injury or death. At the time of the warning, one injury had been associated with the product; as of June 23, there have been two deaths and one complaint, according to the FDA’s release.
Normally, the Volara system is used for breathing treatments that are administered at home. The medical device company that manufactures it, Baxter International, says the product is designed to help expand the airways and clear mucus for patients who use it. But because of recent product malfunctions, patients are at risk of choking on mucus, developing an infection in their lungs that cuts off their ability to take in oxygen, or in the worst cases, developing brain injury and death.
The risk is especially high because Volara is designed to be used in outpatient settings, not in the hospital under the supervision of a health care professional. It’s supposed to require less supervision than other ventilators. But if there is a problem with the device, or if it’s not connected properly, or if no one is available to assist, people are more likely to be harmed.
People who use the Volara ventilator system at home or people who assist in the use of it should be on alert for these problems. But the FDA advises that patients continue using the therapy if the device has been recommended by a doctor. The device should be used with extra precaution, and patients should be monitored for signs of distress, the release says. Problems while using the device should be reported to the FDA’s Medwatch database.
In addition to these reports, Baxter and its subsidiary company Hillrom say they will update the instructions for the device and will dispatch trainers to make home visits for users. The contact information for the company, as well as additional resources, are listed at the bottom of the release.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has changed the warning about the Volara system to a Class I recall, the most severe level of recall, which is reserved for products that may cause injury or death. At the time of the warning, one injury had been associated with the product; as of June 23, there have been two deaths and one complaint, according to the FDA’s release.
Normally, the Volara system is used for breathing treatments that are administered at home. The medical device company that manufactures it, Baxter International, says the product is designed to help expand the airways and clear mucus for patients who use it. But because of recent product malfunctions, patients are at risk of choking on mucus, developing an infection in their lungs that cuts off their ability to take in oxygen, or in the worst cases, developing brain injury and death.
The risk is especially high because Volara is designed to be used in outpatient settings, not in the hospital under the supervision of a health care professional. It’s supposed to require less supervision than other ventilators. But if there is a problem with the device, or if it’s not connected properly, or if no one is available to assist, people are more likely to be harmed.
People who use the Volara ventilator system at home or people who assist in the use of it should be on alert for these problems. But the FDA advises that patients continue using the therapy if the device has been recommended by a doctor. The device should be used with extra precaution, and patients should be monitored for signs of distress, the release says. Problems while using the device should be reported to the FDA’s Medwatch database.
In addition to these reports, Baxter and its subsidiary company Hillrom say they will update the instructions for the device and will dispatch trainers to make home visits for users. The contact information for the company, as well as additional resources, are listed at the bottom of the release.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New treatment reduces risk of anal cancer in people with HIV
It all began with the question, “Has your butt been getting enough attention?”
Though that may seem unorthodox, it led researchers to discovering a treatment that may help prevent anal cancer in people with HIV/AIDS. It’s still featured on their study’s website, with this further explanation: “You get your viral load checked, your T-cell count checked, but what about your anus? Did you know that half of HIV+ men have cell changes in their anus caused by HPV?”
The Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study, led by Joel Palefsky, MD, was published in The New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Palefsky, an infectious disease expert at the University of California, San Francisco, and his team set out to determine whether a treatment that prevents cervical cancer in people with human papillomavirus (HPV) would benefit people with HIV/AIDS. The new treatment reduced the likelihood of anal cancer by more than 50%.
The team worked over 7 years, during which time they tested 4,459 men, women, transgender, and nonbinary individuals at 25 sites across the United States. The participants were sorted into two groups: Some received treatment for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs), and some did not but were monitored for signs of disease. These included individuals over 35 who were living with HIV/AIDS and who were found to have patches of abnormal cells in their rectal lining.
HSILs are the cells gynecologists look for in performing a pap smear. They are precancerous cells commonly found in the cervix of persons with HPV. Finding HSILs during a gynecologic examination alerts clinicians to potential problems.
HSILs can also be found in the anal tract of men and women with HIV. Dr. Palefsky therefore hypothesized that, as with HPV and cervical cancer, these anal HSILs may be a precursor of anal cancer.
The scientists decided to treat these cells the same way they would treat them if found in the cervix and to see whether that reduced the risk of cancer. Doctors used lidocaine to numb the area, then removed the HSILs with an electric probe. The team then assessed whether the treatment prevented people from getting cancer.
It turns out that in many cases, it did. The study concluded after 30 of the participants developed anal cancer. Of those, 21 patients had not received HSIL treatment, compared with nine who did receive the treatment. The treatment resulted in a 57% reduction in the rate of anal cancer among patients who received treatment for their HSILs.
These results are encouraging, said Aasma Shaukat, MD, director of outcomes research in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at NYU Langone Health. Dr. Shaukat was not involved with the study. She believes it’s going to cause ripples across the field.
“The study is likely to change guidelines in favor of active and early treatment for HSIL and away from watchful waiting in individuals living with HIV to reduce the risk of developing anal squamous cell carcinoma, akin to removing polyps during colonoscopy to progression to and incidence of colorectal cancer,” she said in an email interview.
Treatments for this group of patients are more important now than ever. Since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, the number of people with HIV has increased, Dr. Palefsky detailed in a press conference announcing the ANCHOR results. That’s partially because of new transmissions and partially owing to the fact that new treatments make it possible for people with HIV to live long, healthy lives. So as more people with HIV move into their sunset years, there are more people at risk for developing cancer, which is a disease associated with aging. Anal cancer sits at the intersection of risk for aging people who have HIV.
Any defense we have against the risk of cancer in this growing demographic is a good thing, says Hanna K. Sanoff, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who was also not involved in the study. Although it’s not ready to be applied in doctors’ offices now, it could be a tool in the future. “Anything we can do to try and decrease the chance of precancerous lesions progressing to a real invasive cancer is of great importance. This kind of prevention work is critical to helping minimize the burden of cancer on our communities,” Dr. Sanoff said in an interview.
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and was conducted through the NCI-supported AIDS Malignancy Consortium. Dr. Shaukat and Dr. Sanoff report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It all began with the question, “Has your butt been getting enough attention?”
Though that may seem unorthodox, it led researchers to discovering a treatment that may help prevent anal cancer in people with HIV/AIDS. It’s still featured on their study’s website, with this further explanation: “You get your viral load checked, your T-cell count checked, but what about your anus? Did you know that half of HIV+ men have cell changes in their anus caused by HPV?”
The Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study, led by Joel Palefsky, MD, was published in The New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Palefsky, an infectious disease expert at the University of California, San Francisco, and his team set out to determine whether a treatment that prevents cervical cancer in people with human papillomavirus (HPV) would benefit people with HIV/AIDS. The new treatment reduced the likelihood of anal cancer by more than 50%.
The team worked over 7 years, during which time they tested 4,459 men, women, transgender, and nonbinary individuals at 25 sites across the United States. The participants were sorted into two groups: Some received treatment for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs), and some did not but were monitored for signs of disease. These included individuals over 35 who were living with HIV/AIDS and who were found to have patches of abnormal cells in their rectal lining.
HSILs are the cells gynecologists look for in performing a pap smear. They are precancerous cells commonly found in the cervix of persons with HPV. Finding HSILs during a gynecologic examination alerts clinicians to potential problems.
HSILs can also be found in the anal tract of men and women with HIV. Dr. Palefsky therefore hypothesized that, as with HPV and cervical cancer, these anal HSILs may be a precursor of anal cancer.
The scientists decided to treat these cells the same way they would treat them if found in the cervix and to see whether that reduced the risk of cancer. Doctors used lidocaine to numb the area, then removed the HSILs with an electric probe. The team then assessed whether the treatment prevented people from getting cancer.
It turns out that in many cases, it did. The study concluded after 30 of the participants developed anal cancer. Of those, 21 patients had not received HSIL treatment, compared with nine who did receive the treatment. The treatment resulted in a 57% reduction in the rate of anal cancer among patients who received treatment for their HSILs.
These results are encouraging, said Aasma Shaukat, MD, director of outcomes research in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at NYU Langone Health. Dr. Shaukat was not involved with the study. She believes it’s going to cause ripples across the field.
“The study is likely to change guidelines in favor of active and early treatment for HSIL and away from watchful waiting in individuals living with HIV to reduce the risk of developing anal squamous cell carcinoma, akin to removing polyps during colonoscopy to progression to and incidence of colorectal cancer,” she said in an email interview.
Treatments for this group of patients are more important now than ever. Since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, the number of people with HIV has increased, Dr. Palefsky detailed in a press conference announcing the ANCHOR results. That’s partially because of new transmissions and partially owing to the fact that new treatments make it possible for people with HIV to live long, healthy lives. So as more people with HIV move into their sunset years, there are more people at risk for developing cancer, which is a disease associated with aging. Anal cancer sits at the intersection of risk for aging people who have HIV.
Any defense we have against the risk of cancer in this growing demographic is a good thing, says Hanna K. Sanoff, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who was also not involved in the study. Although it’s not ready to be applied in doctors’ offices now, it could be a tool in the future. “Anything we can do to try and decrease the chance of precancerous lesions progressing to a real invasive cancer is of great importance. This kind of prevention work is critical to helping minimize the burden of cancer on our communities,” Dr. Sanoff said in an interview.
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and was conducted through the NCI-supported AIDS Malignancy Consortium. Dr. Shaukat and Dr. Sanoff report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It all began with the question, “Has your butt been getting enough attention?”
Though that may seem unorthodox, it led researchers to discovering a treatment that may help prevent anal cancer in people with HIV/AIDS. It’s still featured on their study’s website, with this further explanation: “You get your viral load checked, your T-cell count checked, but what about your anus? Did you know that half of HIV+ men have cell changes in their anus caused by HPV?”
The Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study, led by Joel Palefsky, MD, was published in The New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Palefsky, an infectious disease expert at the University of California, San Francisco, and his team set out to determine whether a treatment that prevents cervical cancer in people with human papillomavirus (HPV) would benefit people with HIV/AIDS. The new treatment reduced the likelihood of anal cancer by more than 50%.
The team worked over 7 years, during which time they tested 4,459 men, women, transgender, and nonbinary individuals at 25 sites across the United States. The participants were sorted into two groups: Some received treatment for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs), and some did not but were monitored for signs of disease. These included individuals over 35 who were living with HIV/AIDS and who were found to have patches of abnormal cells in their rectal lining.
HSILs are the cells gynecologists look for in performing a pap smear. They are precancerous cells commonly found in the cervix of persons with HPV. Finding HSILs during a gynecologic examination alerts clinicians to potential problems.
HSILs can also be found in the anal tract of men and women with HIV. Dr. Palefsky therefore hypothesized that, as with HPV and cervical cancer, these anal HSILs may be a precursor of anal cancer.
The scientists decided to treat these cells the same way they would treat them if found in the cervix and to see whether that reduced the risk of cancer. Doctors used lidocaine to numb the area, then removed the HSILs with an electric probe. The team then assessed whether the treatment prevented people from getting cancer.
It turns out that in many cases, it did. The study concluded after 30 of the participants developed anal cancer. Of those, 21 patients had not received HSIL treatment, compared with nine who did receive the treatment. The treatment resulted in a 57% reduction in the rate of anal cancer among patients who received treatment for their HSILs.
These results are encouraging, said Aasma Shaukat, MD, director of outcomes research in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at NYU Langone Health. Dr. Shaukat was not involved with the study. She believes it’s going to cause ripples across the field.
“The study is likely to change guidelines in favor of active and early treatment for HSIL and away from watchful waiting in individuals living with HIV to reduce the risk of developing anal squamous cell carcinoma, akin to removing polyps during colonoscopy to progression to and incidence of colorectal cancer,” she said in an email interview.
Treatments for this group of patients are more important now than ever. Since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, the number of people with HIV has increased, Dr. Palefsky detailed in a press conference announcing the ANCHOR results. That’s partially because of new transmissions and partially owing to the fact that new treatments make it possible for people with HIV to live long, healthy lives. So as more people with HIV move into their sunset years, there are more people at risk for developing cancer, which is a disease associated with aging. Anal cancer sits at the intersection of risk for aging people who have HIV.
Any defense we have against the risk of cancer in this growing demographic is a good thing, says Hanna K. Sanoff, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who was also not involved in the study. Although it’s not ready to be applied in doctors’ offices now, it could be a tool in the future. “Anything we can do to try and decrease the chance of precancerous lesions progressing to a real invasive cancer is of great importance. This kind of prevention work is critical to helping minimize the burden of cancer on our communities,” Dr. Sanoff said in an interview.
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and was conducted through the NCI-supported AIDS Malignancy Consortium. Dr. Shaukat and Dr. Sanoff report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FTC decision to investigate pharmacy benefit managers applauded by rheumatologists
The Federal Trade Commission’s announcement June 7 of a plan to investigate the business practices of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) was welcome news to rheumatologists. Widespread concern about the cost of prescription drugs and an additional 24,000 comments from the public prompted the agency’s decision to examine PBMs, which act as intermediaries between insurers, manufacturers, and pharmacies.
PBMs negotiate drug prices and rebates with manufacturers, reimburse pharmacies for drug costs, and create insurers’ drug formularies. But it’s widely held that instead of managing and leveling costs, PBMs have ratcheted up prices at multiple junctures to gain more profit.
The FTC’s investigation will focus on the six largest PBMs: CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, OptumRx, Humana, Prime Therapeutics, and MedImpact Healthcare Systems. CVS Caremark is owned by CVS, Express Scripts is owned by Cigna, and OptumRx is owned by UnitedHealth. The companies will have 90 days to respond to the commission’s official request for information.
Some of the information the FTC plans to ask about includes how the companies may be pushing patients toward using PBM-owned pharmacies and how rebates affect insurers’ formularies and the cost of drugs for patients.
The purchase or establishment of PBMs by the largest insurance companies – known as vertical integration – makes it nearly impossible for outsiders to determine what’s really causing price increases for prescription drugs. “The black box of secretive contracts and monies changing hands between manufacturers and PBMs has grown quite large since the Department of Justice and the FTC allowed the big three PBMs to be part of the three largest health insurance companies,” Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, a rheumatologist at the Rheumatology Group, New Orleans, and president of the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, told this news organization.
Dr. Feldman and fellow rheumatologists at the American College of Rheumatology are happy that the FTC has decided to pursue this investigation. They note that rheumatologists have been calling for action for years and are eager to see change.
This probe aims to determine not only how the PBM industry affects pharmacists but also how their practices create ripple effects across the prescription drug industry, said Dr. Feldman. “I was very happy to see that they will be investigating how rebates and other manufacturer price concessions affect formulary construction and utilization management tools, ultimately increasing drug prices and patient cost share.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Federal Trade Commission’s announcement June 7 of a plan to investigate the business practices of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) was welcome news to rheumatologists. Widespread concern about the cost of prescription drugs and an additional 24,000 comments from the public prompted the agency’s decision to examine PBMs, which act as intermediaries between insurers, manufacturers, and pharmacies.
PBMs negotiate drug prices and rebates with manufacturers, reimburse pharmacies for drug costs, and create insurers’ drug formularies. But it’s widely held that instead of managing and leveling costs, PBMs have ratcheted up prices at multiple junctures to gain more profit.
The FTC’s investigation will focus on the six largest PBMs: CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, OptumRx, Humana, Prime Therapeutics, and MedImpact Healthcare Systems. CVS Caremark is owned by CVS, Express Scripts is owned by Cigna, and OptumRx is owned by UnitedHealth. The companies will have 90 days to respond to the commission’s official request for information.
Some of the information the FTC plans to ask about includes how the companies may be pushing patients toward using PBM-owned pharmacies and how rebates affect insurers’ formularies and the cost of drugs for patients.
The purchase or establishment of PBMs by the largest insurance companies – known as vertical integration – makes it nearly impossible for outsiders to determine what’s really causing price increases for prescription drugs. “The black box of secretive contracts and monies changing hands between manufacturers and PBMs has grown quite large since the Department of Justice and the FTC allowed the big three PBMs to be part of the three largest health insurance companies,” Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, a rheumatologist at the Rheumatology Group, New Orleans, and president of the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, told this news organization.
Dr. Feldman and fellow rheumatologists at the American College of Rheumatology are happy that the FTC has decided to pursue this investigation. They note that rheumatologists have been calling for action for years and are eager to see change.
This probe aims to determine not only how the PBM industry affects pharmacists but also how their practices create ripple effects across the prescription drug industry, said Dr. Feldman. “I was very happy to see that they will be investigating how rebates and other manufacturer price concessions affect formulary construction and utilization management tools, ultimately increasing drug prices and patient cost share.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Federal Trade Commission’s announcement June 7 of a plan to investigate the business practices of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) was welcome news to rheumatologists. Widespread concern about the cost of prescription drugs and an additional 24,000 comments from the public prompted the agency’s decision to examine PBMs, which act as intermediaries between insurers, manufacturers, and pharmacies.
PBMs negotiate drug prices and rebates with manufacturers, reimburse pharmacies for drug costs, and create insurers’ drug formularies. But it’s widely held that instead of managing and leveling costs, PBMs have ratcheted up prices at multiple junctures to gain more profit.
The FTC’s investigation will focus on the six largest PBMs: CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, OptumRx, Humana, Prime Therapeutics, and MedImpact Healthcare Systems. CVS Caremark is owned by CVS, Express Scripts is owned by Cigna, and OptumRx is owned by UnitedHealth. The companies will have 90 days to respond to the commission’s official request for information.
Some of the information the FTC plans to ask about includes how the companies may be pushing patients toward using PBM-owned pharmacies and how rebates affect insurers’ formularies and the cost of drugs for patients.
The purchase or establishment of PBMs by the largest insurance companies – known as vertical integration – makes it nearly impossible for outsiders to determine what’s really causing price increases for prescription drugs. “The black box of secretive contracts and monies changing hands between manufacturers and PBMs has grown quite large since the Department of Justice and the FTC allowed the big three PBMs to be part of the three largest health insurance companies,” Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, a rheumatologist at the Rheumatology Group, New Orleans, and president of the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, told this news organization.
Dr. Feldman and fellow rheumatologists at the American College of Rheumatology are happy that the FTC has decided to pursue this investigation. They note that rheumatologists have been calling for action for years and are eager to see change.
This probe aims to determine not only how the PBM industry affects pharmacists but also how their practices create ripple effects across the prescription drug industry, said Dr. Feldman. “I was very happy to see that they will be investigating how rebates and other manufacturer price concessions affect formulary construction and utilization management tools, ultimately increasing drug prices and patient cost share.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA cautions against using OTC products to remove skin spots, moles
Those moles, skin tags, and liver spots should stay on your skin until you see a doctor, according to a new alert from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The alert warns against the use of over-the-counter products for removing moles, seborrheic keratoses (wart-like growths that are often brown), or skin tags, emphasizing that none are approved by the FDA for at-home use.
Dermatologists and the FDA say these products may lead to scarring and disfigurement.
Risks include “skin injuries, infection requiring antibiotics, scarring, and delayed skin cancer diagnosis and treatment,” according to the alert, which adds that the agency has received reports of people “who developed permanent skin injuries and infections after using products marketed as mole or skin tag removers. “
These products come in the form of gels, liquids, sticks, or ointments and commonly contain ingredients like salicylic acid, which are cytotoxic, or cell-killing. These chemicals are what make the products potentially dangerous, as each contains unregulated, and likely very high, amounts of these corrosive agents. Even products marketed as natural or organic have these same issues, said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who notes that bloodroot is another ingredient found in these products.
Dr. Friedman explained that using these products without the supervision of a health care provider can create a chemical burn in the skin, leading to scarring. He’s treated patients for open wounds and infected ulcers caused by these products. “Over my career, I’ve seen many cases of patients coming in with self-inflicted harm due to using these quote, unquote, safe and natural products to remove benign, or even worse, potentially malignant neoplasms,” he told this news organization.
Another concern is that these spots on the skin are often the only sign of a serious issue – cancer. Early signs of melanoma, a type of skin cancer, include large, misshapen, or rapidly changing moles. Dr. Friedman said that if a patient uses one of these products on what is actually a cancerous mole, they will likely only remove the surface, and in turn, destroy the only sign of cancer – effectively killing the canary in the coal mine.
There’s a good chance that the root of the mole has been left intact under the skin surface, and as a result, the cancer has the potential to spread unnoticed. “If people aren’t going to a dermatologist to be properly diagnosed and properly managed, they’re going to cause more harm by thinking that they’ve taken care of a problem,” he said.
If you are concerned about any type of spot on your skin, a visit to the dermatologist will prove much simpler and safer for treating it than doing so at home. In the office, Dr. Friedman said, providers can use a range of highly studied techniques to remove skin lesions with minimal pain and scarring. From freezing, burning, snipping, or a quick moment under a scalpel, you’ll be healed in no time.
Anyone who has experienced an adverse event with one of these products and health care professionals should report cases to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting Program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Those moles, skin tags, and liver spots should stay on your skin until you see a doctor, according to a new alert from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The alert warns against the use of over-the-counter products for removing moles, seborrheic keratoses (wart-like growths that are often brown), or skin tags, emphasizing that none are approved by the FDA for at-home use.
Dermatologists and the FDA say these products may lead to scarring and disfigurement.
Risks include “skin injuries, infection requiring antibiotics, scarring, and delayed skin cancer diagnosis and treatment,” according to the alert, which adds that the agency has received reports of people “who developed permanent skin injuries and infections after using products marketed as mole or skin tag removers. “
These products come in the form of gels, liquids, sticks, or ointments and commonly contain ingredients like salicylic acid, which are cytotoxic, or cell-killing. These chemicals are what make the products potentially dangerous, as each contains unregulated, and likely very high, amounts of these corrosive agents. Even products marketed as natural or organic have these same issues, said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who notes that bloodroot is another ingredient found in these products.
Dr. Friedman explained that using these products without the supervision of a health care provider can create a chemical burn in the skin, leading to scarring. He’s treated patients for open wounds and infected ulcers caused by these products. “Over my career, I’ve seen many cases of patients coming in with self-inflicted harm due to using these quote, unquote, safe and natural products to remove benign, or even worse, potentially malignant neoplasms,” he told this news organization.
Another concern is that these spots on the skin are often the only sign of a serious issue – cancer. Early signs of melanoma, a type of skin cancer, include large, misshapen, or rapidly changing moles. Dr. Friedman said that if a patient uses one of these products on what is actually a cancerous mole, they will likely only remove the surface, and in turn, destroy the only sign of cancer – effectively killing the canary in the coal mine.
There’s a good chance that the root of the mole has been left intact under the skin surface, and as a result, the cancer has the potential to spread unnoticed. “If people aren’t going to a dermatologist to be properly diagnosed and properly managed, they’re going to cause more harm by thinking that they’ve taken care of a problem,” he said.
If you are concerned about any type of spot on your skin, a visit to the dermatologist will prove much simpler and safer for treating it than doing so at home. In the office, Dr. Friedman said, providers can use a range of highly studied techniques to remove skin lesions with minimal pain and scarring. From freezing, burning, snipping, or a quick moment under a scalpel, you’ll be healed in no time.
Anyone who has experienced an adverse event with one of these products and health care professionals should report cases to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting Program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Those moles, skin tags, and liver spots should stay on your skin until you see a doctor, according to a new alert from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The alert warns against the use of over-the-counter products for removing moles, seborrheic keratoses (wart-like growths that are often brown), or skin tags, emphasizing that none are approved by the FDA for at-home use.
Dermatologists and the FDA say these products may lead to scarring and disfigurement.
Risks include “skin injuries, infection requiring antibiotics, scarring, and delayed skin cancer diagnosis and treatment,” according to the alert, which adds that the agency has received reports of people “who developed permanent skin injuries and infections after using products marketed as mole or skin tag removers. “
These products come in the form of gels, liquids, sticks, or ointments and commonly contain ingredients like salicylic acid, which are cytotoxic, or cell-killing. These chemicals are what make the products potentially dangerous, as each contains unregulated, and likely very high, amounts of these corrosive agents. Even products marketed as natural or organic have these same issues, said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who notes that bloodroot is another ingredient found in these products.
Dr. Friedman explained that using these products without the supervision of a health care provider can create a chemical burn in the skin, leading to scarring. He’s treated patients for open wounds and infected ulcers caused by these products. “Over my career, I’ve seen many cases of patients coming in with self-inflicted harm due to using these quote, unquote, safe and natural products to remove benign, or even worse, potentially malignant neoplasms,” he told this news organization.
Another concern is that these spots on the skin are often the only sign of a serious issue – cancer. Early signs of melanoma, a type of skin cancer, include large, misshapen, or rapidly changing moles. Dr. Friedman said that if a patient uses one of these products on what is actually a cancerous mole, they will likely only remove the surface, and in turn, destroy the only sign of cancer – effectively killing the canary in the coal mine.
There’s a good chance that the root of the mole has been left intact under the skin surface, and as a result, the cancer has the potential to spread unnoticed. “If people aren’t going to a dermatologist to be properly diagnosed and properly managed, they’re going to cause more harm by thinking that they’ve taken care of a problem,” he said.
If you are concerned about any type of spot on your skin, a visit to the dermatologist will prove much simpler and safer for treating it than doing so at home. In the office, Dr. Friedman said, providers can use a range of highly studied techniques to remove skin lesions with minimal pain and scarring. From freezing, burning, snipping, or a quick moment under a scalpel, you’ll be healed in no time.
Anyone who has experienced an adverse event with one of these products and health care professionals should report cases to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting Program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA warning released for Volara respiratory system
The Food and Drug Administration published a warning from the medical device company Baxter International, citing problems with their device used for at-home respiratory therapy. The release cautions Volara system users that using certain therapies from the device may cause a change in lung pressure and a decrease in oxygen level. This cautionary warning was issued following a single reported case of oxygen loss while using the device.
The Volara system is meant to help patients with persistent pulmonary problems who are transitioning from the hospital to the outpatient setting. It can connect to three pieces commonly used in treating the respiratory conditions – a tracheostomy tube, a mask, and an in-line ventilator. The device offers three therapies – one to expand lungs (OLE), one to shake mucus from the lungs (CHFO), and a nebulizer to deliver medication.
This particular warning is relevant only to patients who use the system with an in-line ventilator or to patients who use OLE and CHFO therapies. The concern is that a rapid change in lung pressure (barotrauma), could damage the tissue by overextending the surface of the organ. Additionally, as noted in the reported case, Volara users may be at risk for a decrease in the level of oxygen while using the device (oxygen desaturation).
If patients have been directed to use Volara by a physician, the FDA recommends they continue to use it as prescribed. But they should look out for signs of respiratory distress. These include changes in alertness, the appearance of a blue tint around the mouth, increased breathing rate, and wheezing. If a patient or caregiver sees these signs, the patient should stop using Volara immediately and should seek help if their symptoms don’t improve.
In response to these precautions, Baxter says it will update the instructions for the use of its device and will add additional warnings. The company says it will dispatch a trainer to patients’ homes to help them understand the newest guidelines.
Both the FDA and Baxter urge patients who have experienced any problems with the device to report it to the hotlines listed at the bottom of their release.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration published a warning from the medical device company Baxter International, citing problems with their device used for at-home respiratory therapy. The release cautions Volara system users that using certain therapies from the device may cause a change in lung pressure and a decrease in oxygen level. This cautionary warning was issued following a single reported case of oxygen loss while using the device.
The Volara system is meant to help patients with persistent pulmonary problems who are transitioning from the hospital to the outpatient setting. It can connect to three pieces commonly used in treating the respiratory conditions – a tracheostomy tube, a mask, and an in-line ventilator. The device offers three therapies – one to expand lungs (OLE), one to shake mucus from the lungs (CHFO), and a nebulizer to deliver medication.
This particular warning is relevant only to patients who use the system with an in-line ventilator or to patients who use OLE and CHFO therapies. The concern is that a rapid change in lung pressure (barotrauma), could damage the tissue by overextending the surface of the organ. Additionally, as noted in the reported case, Volara users may be at risk for a decrease in the level of oxygen while using the device (oxygen desaturation).
If patients have been directed to use Volara by a physician, the FDA recommends they continue to use it as prescribed. But they should look out for signs of respiratory distress. These include changes in alertness, the appearance of a blue tint around the mouth, increased breathing rate, and wheezing. If a patient or caregiver sees these signs, the patient should stop using Volara immediately and should seek help if their symptoms don’t improve.
In response to these precautions, Baxter says it will update the instructions for the use of its device and will add additional warnings. The company says it will dispatch a trainer to patients’ homes to help them understand the newest guidelines.
Both the FDA and Baxter urge patients who have experienced any problems with the device to report it to the hotlines listed at the bottom of their release.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration published a warning from the medical device company Baxter International, citing problems with their device used for at-home respiratory therapy. The release cautions Volara system users that using certain therapies from the device may cause a change in lung pressure and a decrease in oxygen level. This cautionary warning was issued following a single reported case of oxygen loss while using the device.
The Volara system is meant to help patients with persistent pulmonary problems who are transitioning from the hospital to the outpatient setting. It can connect to three pieces commonly used in treating the respiratory conditions – a tracheostomy tube, a mask, and an in-line ventilator. The device offers three therapies – one to expand lungs (OLE), one to shake mucus from the lungs (CHFO), and a nebulizer to deliver medication.
This particular warning is relevant only to patients who use the system with an in-line ventilator or to patients who use OLE and CHFO therapies. The concern is that a rapid change in lung pressure (barotrauma), could damage the tissue by overextending the surface of the organ. Additionally, as noted in the reported case, Volara users may be at risk for a decrease in the level of oxygen while using the device (oxygen desaturation).
If patients have been directed to use Volara by a physician, the FDA recommends they continue to use it as prescribed. But they should look out for signs of respiratory distress. These include changes in alertness, the appearance of a blue tint around the mouth, increased breathing rate, and wheezing. If a patient or caregiver sees these signs, the patient should stop using Volara immediately and should seek help if their symptoms don’t improve.
In response to these precautions, Baxter says it will update the instructions for the use of its device and will add additional warnings. The company says it will dispatch a trainer to patients’ homes to help them understand the newest guidelines.
Both the FDA and Baxter urge patients who have experienced any problems with the device to report it to the hotlines listed at the bottom of their release.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA: Urgent device correction, recall for Philips ventilator
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has announced a Class I recall for Philips Respironics V60 and V60 Plus ventilators, citing a power failure leading to potential oxygen deprivation. Class I recalls, the most severe, are reserved for devices that may cause serious injury or death, as noted in the FDA’s announcement. As of April 14, one death and four injuries have been associated with this device failure.
These ventilators are commonly used in hospitals or under medical supervision for patients who have difficulty regulating breathing on their own. Normally, if oxygen flow is interrupted, the device sounds alarms, alerting supervisors. The failure comes when a power fluctuation causes the device to randomly shut down, which forces the alarm system to reboot. This internal disruption is the reason for the recall.
When the device shuts down out of the blue, it may or may not sound the requisite alarm that would allow providers to intervene. If the device does not sound the alarm, patients may lose oxygen for an extended period, without a provider even knowing.
Philips was notified of these problems and began the recall process on March 10. Currently, it is estimated that 56,671 devices have been distributed throughout the United States. The FDA and Philips Respironics advise that if providers are already using these ventilators, they may continue to do so in accordance with extra set of instructions.
First, customers should connect the device to an external alarm or nurse call system. Second, they should use an external oxygen monitor and a pulse oximeter to keep track of air flow. Finally, if one is available, there should be a backup ventilator on the premises. That way, if there is an interruption in oxygen flow, someone will be alerted and can quickly intervene.
If there is a problem, the patient should be removed from the Philips ventilator and immediately placed on an alternate device. The FDA instructs customers who have experienced problems to report them to its MedWatch database.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has announced a Class I recall for Philips Respironics V60 and V60 Plus ventilators, citing a power failure leading to potential oxygen deprivation. Class I recalls, the most severe, are reserved for devices that may cause serious injury or death, as noted in the FDA’s announcement. As of April 14, one death and four injuries have been associated with this device failure.
These ventilators are commonly used in hospitals or under medical supervision for patients who have difficulty regulating breathing on their own. Normally, if oxygen flow is interrupted, the device sounds alarms, alerting supervisors. The failure comes when a power fluctuation causes the device to randomly shut down, which forces the alarm system to reboot. This internal disruption is the reason for the recall.
When the device shuts down out of the blue, it may or may not sound the requisite alarm that would allow providers to intervene. If the device does not sound the alarm, patients may lose oxygen for an extended period, without a provider even knowing.
Philips was notified of these problems and began the recall process on March 10. Currently, it is estimated that 56,671 devices have been distributed throughout the United States. The FDA and Philips Respironics advise that if providers are already using these ventilators, they may continue to do so in accordance with extra set of instructions.
First, customers should connect the device to an external alarm or nurse call system. Second, they should use an external oxygen monitor and a pulse oximeter to keep track of air flow. Finally, if one is available, there should be a backup ventilator on the premises. That way, if there is an interruption in oxygen flow, someone will be alerted and can quickly intervene.
If there is a problem, the patient should be removed from the Philips ventilator and immediately placed on an alternate device. The FDA instructs customers who have experienced problems to report them to its MedWatch database.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has announced a Class I recall for Philips Respironics V60 and V60 Plus ventilators, citing a power failure leading to potential oxygen deprivation. Class I recalls, the most severe, are reserved for devices that may cause serious injury or death, as noted in the FDA’s announcement. As of April 14, one death and four injuries have been associated with this device failure.
These ventilators are commonly used in hospitals or under medical supervision for patients who have difficulty regulating breathing on their own. Normally, if oxygen flow is interrupted, the device sounds alarms, alerting supervisors. The failure comes when a power fluctuation causes the device to randomly shut down, which forces the alarm system to reboot. This internal disruption is the reason for the recall.
When the device shuts down out of the blue, it may or may not sound the requisite alarm that would allow providers to intervene. If the device does not sound the alarm, patients may lose oxygen for an extended period, without a provider even knowing.
Philips was notified of these problems and began the recall process on March 10. Currently, it is estimated that 56,671 devices have been distributed throughout the United States. The FDA and Philips Respironics advise that if providers are already using these ventilators, they may continue to do so in accordance with extra set of instructions.
First, customers should connect the device to an external alarm or nurse call system. Second, they should use an external oxygen monitor and a pulse oximeter to keep track of air flow. Finally, if one is available, there should be a backup ventilator on the premises. That way, if there is an interruption in oxygen flow, someone will be alerted and can quickly intervene.
If there is a problem, the patient should be removed from the Philips ventilator and immediately placed on an alternate device. The FDA instructs customers who have experienced problems to report them to its MedWatch database.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.