MDedge Emergency Medicine

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LISBON, PORTUGAL — Few people with suspected heart failure and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels are receiving a diagnosis after a year, reported investigators, who say high rates of hospitalization are common.

Presenting here at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2024, researchers shared results from the REVOLUTION-HF study involving almost 8000 people who consulted outpatient primary and secondary care over a 5-year period.

About two thirds of the patients had suspected heart failure; however, less than 30% of the people received a diagnosis within a year.

Yet hospitalization was eight times higher in the suspected heart failure group than in the control group, and all-cause mortality was nearly doubled. The outcomes were even worse in patients with high NT-proBNP levels.

Patients with suspected heart failure are “waiting far too long to see a specialist, and that results in a delay to guideline-directed medical therapy, despite the fact that we’re perfectly happy to slap them all on diuretics,” said study presenter Lisa Anderson, MD, PhD, Cardiovascular Clinical Academic Group, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s Hospital, University of London, England.

“We need to rethink our management of heart failure patients presenting in the community,” she said.

A big gap exists internationally between presentation with heart failure, an elevated NT-proBNP, and confirmatory specialist assessment, she explained.

“It’s a scandal that patients are coming to the GP with signs and symptoms of heart failure, they get tested for natriuretic peptides, and nothing happens,” said co-author Antoni Bayés-Genís, MD, PhD, Heart Institute director, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol Catedràtic, Barcelona, Spain.

“These patients may receive an echo, or not, in the coming 12 months,” and “during these 12 months, there is a huge number of heart failure hospitalizations and deaths that could probably be prevented.”
 

Why the Reluctance to Diagnose?

Many issues get in the way of early diagnosis, Dr. Bayés-Genís said. “Inertia, comorbidities, ageism.”

A lot of patients with heart failure are elderly women with some degree of weight gain, he said. “And they come to the clinic with fatigue, so we tell them, ‘Well, that’s normal.”

But “it may not be normal,” he added. “This is a very important topic that we, as a society, need to address.”

There are several “misconceptions” about heart failure, said Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, the Robert Stein Chair for Quality and Safety, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.

For example, “we’re all convinced that guideline-directed medical therapy works,” but the evidence is only for patients “with a diagnosis.” In addition, “millions of patients get tested” for heart failure, but they already have a “known diagnosis.”

“When we study these drugs, we’re studying them on patients with manifest disease,” who are only then randomized, Dr. Piña said. “But we seldom see them while they’re developing heart failure. And it’s a process; it doesn’t happen overnight.”

Patients initially often think they may have asthma, and so what follows is an extended period of “uncertainty” and “important time lost” before they finally undergo the assessments that show that they have heart failure, she said.

However, “uncertainty” often lands a patient “in the emergency room or with an unscheduled office visit, where NT-proBNP might get ordered and there’s a long lineup for an echo.”

There are several strengths of the current study, Dr. Piña said, including the fact that 50% of the study population were women, and they were older than a typical trial population. Nevertheless, the results were “eye-opening but not surprising” and, in the end, “disappointing.”

“I agree, we need a revolution, Dr. Anderson,” Dr. Piña said. “The revolution of paying attention to the NT-proBNP when you get it and it’s elevated” and then following through with echocardiography and starting “guideline-directed medical therapy early.”

The diagnosis of heart failure “relies on the presentation of patients with nonspecific signs and symptoms,” such as dyspnea and peripheral edema, “but initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy — life-saving treatment — has to wait until we have a formal echocardiography and specialist clinician assessment,” Dr. Anderson said.

The latest clinical consensus statement from the Heart Failure Association “proposes both rule-in and rule-out NT-proBNP levels for heart failure diagnosis, and obviously we all recognize that it’s important to treat patients as soon as they’re diagnosed,” she explained.
 

REVOLUTION-HF

To examine the risk profile for patients presenting to outpatient care with suspected heart failure, the researchers conducted REVOLUTION-HF, which leveraged nationwide Swedish linked data from general practices, specialists, pharmacies, hospitals, and cause of death registers.

“Really impressively, most of these NT-proBNP tests were coming back within a day,” Dr. Anderson said, “so a really, really good turnaround.”

Individuals were excluded if they had an inpatient admission, echocardiography, or heart failure diagnosis between presentation and the NT-proBNP measurement.

These people were then compared with those presenting to primary or secondary outpatient care for any reason and matched for age, sex, care level, and index year. Both groups were followed up for 1 year.

“Despite this really impressive, almost immediate NT-proBNP testing,” the waiting times to undergo echocardiography were “really disappointing,” Dr. Anderson said.

The median time to first registered echocardiography was 40 days, and only 29% of patients with suspected heart failure received a diagnosis within a year of the index presentation date, which she described as “inadequately slow.”

“And how does this translate to medical therapy?” she asked.
 

Heart Failure Drugs

After the index presentation, the rate of loop diuretic use quadrupled among individuals suspected of having heart failure, but there was a “muted response” when it came to the prescribing of beta-blockers and the other pillars of heart failure therapy, which Dr. Anderson called “very disappointing.”

For outcomes after the index presentation, the rate of hospitalization was much higher in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (16.1 vs 2.2 events per 100 person-years). And all-cause mortality occurred more often in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (10.3 vs 6.5 events per 100 person-years).

Among patients with NT-proBNP levels of 2000 ng/L, there was a “rapid” onset of hospitalization “within the first few days” of the index presentation, which was tracked by a more linear rise in all-cause deaths, Dr. Anderson reported.

In the United Kingdom, “we are very proud of our 2- and 6-week pathways,” which stipulate that suspected heart failure patients with NT-proBNP levels between 400 and 2000 ng/L are to have a specialist assessment and transthoracic echocardiography within 6 weeks; for those with levels > 2000 ng/L, that interval is accelerated to 2 weeks, she said.

The current results show that “2 weeks is too slow.” And looking at the rest of the cohort with lower NT-proBNP levels, “patients have already been admitted and died” by 6 weeks, she said.

When patients are stratified by age, “you get exactly what you would expect,” Dr. Anderson said. “The older patients are the most at risk” for both hospitalization and all-cause mortality.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LISBON, PORTUGAL — Few people with suspected heart failure and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels are receiving a diagnosis after a year, reported investigators, who say high rates of hospitalization are common.

Presenting here at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2024, researchers shared results from the REVOLUTION-HF study involving almost 8000 people who consulted outpatient primary and secondary care over a 5-year period.

About two thirds of the patients had suspected heart failure; however, less than 30% of the people received a diagnosis within a year.

Yet hospitalization was eight times higher in the suspected heart failure group than in the control group, and all-cause mortality was nearly doubled. The outcomes were even worse in patients with high NT-proBNP levels.

Patients with suspected heart failure are “waiting far too long to see a specialist, and that results in a delay to guideline-directed medical therapy, despite the fact that we’re perfectly happy to slap them all on diuretics,” said study presenter Lisa Anderson, MD, PhD, Cardiovascular Clinical Academic Group, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s Hospital, University of London, England.

“We need to rethink our management of heart failure patients presenting in the community,” she said.

A big gap exists internationally between presentation with heart failure, an elevated NT-proBNP, and confirmatory specialist assessment, she explained.

“It’s a scandal that patients are coming to the GP with signs and symptoms of heart failure, they get tested for natriuretic peptides, and nothing happens,” said co-author Antoni Bayés-Genís, MD, PhD, Heart Institute director, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol Catedràtic, Barcelona, Spain.

“These patients may receive an echo, or not, in the coming 12 months,” and “during these 12 months, there is a huge number of heart failure hospitalizations and deaths that could probably be prevented.”
 

Why the Reluctance to Diagnose?

Many issues get in the way of early diagnosis, Dr. Bayés-Genís said. “Inertia, comorbidities, ageism.”

A lot of patients with heart failure are elderly women with some degree of weight gain, he said. “And they come to the clinic with fatigue, so we tell them, ‘Well, that’s normal.”

But “it may not be normal,” he added. “This is a very important topic that we, as a society, need to address.”

There are several “misconceptions” about heart failure, said Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, the Robert Stein Chair for Quality and Safety, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.

For example, “we’re all convinced that guideline-directed medical therapy works,” but the evidence is only for patients “with a diagnosis.” In addition, “millions of patients get tested” for heart failure, but they already have a “known diagnosis.”

“When we study these drugs, we’re studying them on patients with manifest disease,” who are only then randomized, Dr. Piña said. “But we seldom see them while they’re developing heart failure. And it’s a process; it doesn’t happen overnight.”

Patients initially often think they may have asthma, and so what follows is an extended period of “uncertainty” and “important time lost” before they finally undergo the assessments that show that they have heart failure, she said.

However, “uncertainty” often lands a patient “in the emergency room or with an unscheduled office visit, where NT-proBNP might get ordered and there’s a long lineup for an echo.”

There are several strengths of the current study, Dr. Piña said, including the fact that 50% of the study population were women, and they were older than a typical trial population. Nevertheless, the results were “eye-opening but not surprising” and, in the end, “disappointing.”

“I agree, we need a revolution, Dr. Anderson,” Dr. Piña said. “The revolution of paying attention to the NT-proBNP when you get it and it’s elevated” and then following through with echocardiography and starting “guideline-directed medical therapy early.”

The diagnosis of heart failure “relies on the presentation of patients with nonspecific signs and symptoms,” such as dyspnea and peripheral edema, “but initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy — life-saving treatment — has to wait until we have a formal echocardiography and specialist clinician assessment,” Dr. Anderson said.

The latest clinical consensus statement from the Heart Failure Association “proposes both rule-in and rule-out NT-proBNP levels for heart failure diagnosis, and obviously we all recognize that it’s important to treat patients as soon as they’re diagnosed,” she explained.
 

REVOLUTION-HF

To examine the risk profile for patients presenting to outpatient care with suspected heart failure, the researchers conducted REVOLUTION-HF, which leveraged nationwide Swedish linked data from general practices, specialists, pharmacies, hospitals, and cause of death registers.

“Really impressively, most of these NT-proBNP tests were coming back within a day,” Dr. Anderson said, “so a really, really good turnaround.”

Individuals were excluded if they had an inpatient admission, echocardiography, or heart failure diagnosis between presentation and the NT-proBNP measurement.

These people were then compared with those presenting to primary or secondary outpatient care for any reason and matched for age, sex, care level, and index year. Both groups were followed up for 1 year.

“Despite this really impressive, almost immediate NT-proBNP testing,” the waiting times to undergo echocardiography were “really disappointing,” Dr. Anderson said.

The median time to first registered echocardiography was 40 days, and only 29% of patients with suspected heart failure received a diagnosis within a year of the index presentation date, which she described as “inadequately slow.”

“And how does this translate to medical therapy?” she asked.
 

Heart Failure Drugs

After the index presentation, the rate of loop diuretic use quadrupled among individuals suspected of having heart failure, but there was a “muted response” when it came to the prescribing of beta-blockers and the other pillars of heart failure therapy, which Dr. Anderson called “very disappointing.”

For outcomes after the index presentation, the rate of hospitalization was much higher in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (16.1 vs 2.2 events per 100 person-years). And all-cause mortality occurred more often in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (10.3 vs 6.5 events per 100 person-years).

Among patients with NT-proBNP levels of 2000 ng/L, there was a “rapid” onset of hospitalization “within the first few days” of the index presentation, which was tracked by a more linear rise in all-cause deaths, Dr. Anderson reported.

In the United Kingdom, “we are very proud of our 2- and 6-week pathways,” which stipulate that suspected heart failure patients with NT-proBNP levels between 400 and 2000 ng/L are to have a specialist assessment and transthoracic echocardiography within 6 weeks; for those with levels > 2000 ng/L, that interval is accelerated to 2 weeks, she said.

The current results show that “2 weeks is too slow.” And looking at the rest of the cohort with lower NT-proBNP levels, “patients have already been admitted and died” by 6 weeks, she said.

When patients are stratified by age, “you get exactly what you would expect,” Dr. Anderson said. “The older patients are the most at risk” for both hospitalization and all-cause mortality.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LISBON, PORTUGAL — Few people with suspected heart failure and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels are receiving a diagnosis after a year, reported investigators, who say high rates of hospitalization are common.

Presenting here at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2024, researchers shared results from the REVOLUTION-HF study involving almost 8000 people who consulted outpatient primary and secondary care over a 5-year period.

About two thirds of the patients had suspected heart failure; however, less than 30% of the people received a diagnosis within a year.

Yet hospitalization was eight times higher in the suspected heart failure group than in the control group, and all-cause mortality was nearly doubled. The outcomes were even worse in patients with high NT-proBNP levels.

Patients with suspected heart failure are “waiting far too long to see a specialist, and that results in a delay to guideline-directed medical therapy, despite the fact that we’re perfectly happy to slap them all on diuretics,” said study presenter Lisa Anderson, MD, PhD, Cardiovascular Clinical Academic Group, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s Hospital, University of London, England.

“We need to rethink our management of heart failure patients presenting in the community,” she said.

A big gap exists internationally between presentation with heart failure, an elevated NT-proBNP, and confirmatory specialist assessment, she explained.

“It’s a scandal that patients are coming to the GP with signs and symptoms of heart failure, they get tested for natriuretic peptides, and nothing happens,” said co-author Antoni Bayés-Genís, MD, PhD, Heart Institute director, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol Catedràtic, Barcelona, Spain.

“These patients may receive an echo, or not, in the coming 12 months,” and “during these 12 months, there is a huge number of heart failure hospitalizations and deaths that could probably be prevented.”
 

Why the Reluctance to Diagnose?

Many issues get in the way of early diagnosis, Dr. Bayés-Genís said. “Inertia, comorbidities, ageism.”

A lot of patients with heart failure are elderly women with some degree of weight gain, he said. “And they come to the clinic with fatigue, so we tell them, ‘Well, that’s normal.”

But “it may not be normal,” he added. “This is a very important topic that we, as a society, need to address.”

There are several “misconceptions” about heart failure, said Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, the Robert Stein Chair for Quality and Safety, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.

For example, “we’re all convinced that guideline-directed medical therapy works,” but the evidence is only for patients “with a diagnosis.” In addition, “millions of patients get tested” for heart failure, but they already have a “known diagnosis.”

“When we study these drugs, we’re studying them on patients with manifest disease,” who are only then randomized, Dr. Piña said. “But we seldom see them while they’re developing heart failure. And it’s a process; it doesn’t happen overnight.”

Patients initially often think they may have asthma, and so what follows is an extended period of “uncertainty” and “important time lost” before they finally undergo the assessments that show that they have heart failure, she said.

However, “uncertainty” often lands a patient “in the emergency room or with an unscheduled office visit, where NT-proBNP might get ordered and there’s a long lineup for an echo.”

There are several strengths of the current study, Dr. Piña said, including the fact that 50% of the study population were women, and they were older than a typical trial population. Nevertheless, the results were “eye-opening but not surprising” and, in the end, “disappointing.”

“I agree, we need a revolution, Dr. Anderson,” Dr. Piña said. “The revolution of paying attention to the NT-proBNP when you get it and it’s elevated” and then following through with echocardiography and starting “guideline-directed medical therapy early.”

The diagnosis of heart failure “relies on the presentation of patients with nonspecific signs and symptoms,” such as dyspnea and peripheral edema, “but initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy — life-saving treatment — has to wait until we have a formal echocardiography and specialist clinician assessment,” Dr. Anderson said.

The latest clinical consensus statement from the Heart Failure Association “proposes both rule-in and rule-out NT-proBNP levels for heart failure diagnosis, and obviously we all recognize that it’s important to treat patients as soon as they’re diagnosed,” she explained.
 

REVOLUTION-HF

To examine the risk profile for patients presenting to outpatient care with suspected heart failure, the researchers conducted REVOLUTION-HF, which leveraged nationwide Swedish linked data from general practices, specialists, pharmacies, hospitals, and cause of death registers.

“Really impressively, most of these NT-proBNP tests were coming back within a day,” Dr. Anderson said, “so a really, really good turnaround.”

Individuals were excluded if they had an inpatient admission, echocardiography, or heart failure diagnosis between presentation and the NT-proBNP measurement.

These people were then compared with those presenting to primary or secondary outpatient care for any reason and matched for age, sex, care level, and index year. Both groups were followed up for 1 year.

“Despite this really impressive, almost immediate NT-proBNP testing,” the waiting times to undergo echocardiography were “really disappointing,” Dr. Anderson said.

The median time to first registered echocardiography was 40 days, and only 29% of patients with suspected heart failure received a diagnosis within a year of the index presentation date, which she described as “inadequately slow.”

“And how does this translate to medical therapy?” she asked.
 

Heart Failure Drugs

After the index presentation, the rate of loop diuretic use quadrupled among individuals suspected of having heart failure, but there was a “muted response” when it came to the prescribing of beta-blockers and the other pillars of heart failure therapy, which Dr. Anderson called “very disappointing.”

For outcomes after the index presentation, the rate of hospitalization was much higher in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (16.1 vs 2.2 events per 100 person-years). And all-cause mortality occurred more often in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (10.3 vs 6.5 events per 100 person-years).

Among patients with NT-proBNP levels of 2000 ng/L, there was a “rapid” onset of hospitalization “within the first few days” of the index presentation, which was tracked by a more linear rise in all-cause deaths, Dr. Anderson reported.

In the United Kingdom, “we are very proud of our 2- and 6-week pathways,” which stipulate that suspected heart failure patients with NT-proBNP levels between 400 and 2000 ng/L are to have a specialist assessment and transthoracic echocardiography within 6 weeks; for those with levels > 2000 ng/L, that interval is accelerated to 2 weeks, she said.

The current results show that “2 weeks is too slow.” And looking at the rest of the cohort with lower NT-proBNP levels, “patients have already been admitted and died” by 6 weeks, she said.

When patients are stratified by age, “you get exactly what you would expect,” Dr. Anderson said. “The older patients are the most at risk” for both hospitalization and all-cause mortality.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Emergency department (ED) visits in the United States for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm show an increasing trend from 2011 to 2020, with visits being most common among adolescents and the largest increase in visits being seen in adults aged 65 years or older.

METHODOLOGY:

• This study used data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, an annual nationwide cross-sectional survey, to track trends in ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm in the United States from 2011 to 2020.
• Researchers identified visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm, along with diagnoses of any co-occurring mental health conditions, using discharge diagnosis codes or reason-for-visit codes.
• The focus was to identify the percentages of ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm, with analyses done per 100,000 persons and for changes possibly linked to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019-2020.

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of ED visits owing to suicide attempts and intentional self-harm increased from 1.43 million in 2011-2012 to 5.37 million in 2019-2020 (average annual percent change, 19.5%; 95% confidence interval, 16.9-22.2).
• The rate of ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm was higher among adolescents and young adults, particularly women, and lower among children.
• Despite a surge in ED visits for self-harm, less than 16% included a mental health evaluation, with visits among patients with mood disorders decreasing by 5.5% annually and those among patients with drug-related disorders increasing by 6.8% annually.
• In 2019-2020, those aged 15-20 years had the highest rate of ED visits (1552 visits per 100,000 persons), with a significant increase seen across all age groups; the largest increase was among those aged 65 years or older.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given that suicide attempts are the single greatest risk factor for suicide, evidence-based management of individuals presenting to emergency departments with suicide attempts and intentional self-harm is a critical component of comprehensive suicide prevention strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Tanner J. Bommersbach, MD, MPH, Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, was published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm were identified based on discharge diagnostic and reason-for-visit codes, which may have led to an underestimation of visits for suicide attempts. ED visits for suicidal vs nonsuicidal self-injury could not be distinguished due to reliance on discharge diagnostic codes. Visits for suicidal ideation, which was not the focus of the study, may have been miscoded as suicide attempts and intentional self-harm.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding source was reported for the study. Some authors received funding grants from various institutions, and one author disclosed receiving honoraria for service as a review committee member and serving as a stakeholder/consultant and as an advisory committee member for some institutes and agencies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Emergency department (ED) visits in the United States for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm show an increasing trend from 2011 to 2020, with visits being most common among adolescents and the largest increase in visits being seen in adults aged 65 years or older.

METHODOLOGY:

• This study used data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, an annual nationwide cross-sectional survey, to track trends in ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm in the United States from 2011 to 2020.
• Researchers identified visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm, along with diagnoses of any co-occurring mental health conditions, using discharge diagnosis codes or reason-for-visit codes.
• The focus was to identify the percentages of ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm, with analyses done per 100,000 persons and for changes possibly linked to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019-2020.

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of ED visits owing to suicide attempts and intentional self-harm increased from 1.43 million in 2011-2012 to 5.37 million in 2019-2020 (average annual percent change, 19.5%; 95% confidence interval, 16.9-22.2).
• The rate of ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm was higher among adolescents and young adults, particularly women, and lower among children.
• Despite a surge in ED visits for self-harm, less than 16% included a mental health evaluation, with visits among patients with mood disorders decreasing by 5.5% annually and those among patients with drug-related disorders increasing by 6.8% annually.
• In 2019-2020, those aged 15-20 years had the highest rate of ED visits (1552 visits per 100,000 persons), with a significant increase seen across all age groups; the largest increase was among those aged 65 years or older.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given that suicide attempts are the single greatest risk factor for suicide, evidence-based management of individuals presenting to emergency departments with suicide attempts and intentional self-harm is a critical component of comprehensive suicide prevention strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Tanner J. Bommersbach, MD, MPH, Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, was published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm were identified based on discharge diagnostic and reason-for-visit codes, which may have led to an underestimation of visits for suicide attempts. ED visits for suicidal vs nonsuicidal self-injury could not be distinguished due to reliance on discharge diagnostic codes. Visits for suicidal ideation, which was not the focus of the study, may have been miscoded as suicide attempts and intentional self-harm.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding source was reported for the study. Some authors received funding grants from various institutions, and one author disclosed receiving honoraria for service as a review committee member and serving as a stakeholder/consultant and as an advisory committee member for some institutes and agencies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Emergency department (ED) visits in the United States for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm show an increasing trend from 2011 to 2020, with visits being most common among adolescents and the largest increase in visits being seen in adults aged 65 years or older.

METHODOLOGY:

• This study used data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, an annual nationwide cross-sectional survey, to track trends in ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm in the United States from 2011 to 2020.
• Researchers identified visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm, along with diagnoses of any co-occurring mental health conditions, using discharge diagnosis codes or reason-for-visit codes.
• The focus was to identify the percentages of ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm, with analyses done per 100,000 persons and for changes possibly linked to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019-2020.

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of ED visits owing to suicide attempts and intentional self-harm increased from 1.43 million in 2011-2012 to 5.37 million in 2019-2020 (average annual percent change, 19.5%; 95% confidence interval, 16.9-22.2).
• The rate of ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm was higher among adolescents and young adults, particularly women, and lower among children.
• Despite a surge in ED visits for self-harm, less than 16% included a mental health evaluation, with visits among patients with mood disorders decreasing by 5.5% annually and those among patients with drug-related disorders increasing by 6.8% annually.
• In 2019-2020, those aged 15-20 years had the highest rate of ED visits (1552 visits per 100,000 persons), with a significant increase seen across all age groups; the largest increase was among those aged 65 years or older.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given that suicide attempts are the single greatest risk factor for suicide, evidence-based management of individuals presenting to emergency departments with suicide attempts and intentional self-harm is a critical component of comprehensive suicide prevention strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Tanner J. Bommersbach, MD, MPH, Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, was published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm were identified based on discharge diagnostic and reason-for-visit codes, which may have led to an underestimation of visits for suicide attempts. ED visits for suicidal vs nonsuicidal self-injury could not be distinguished due to reliance on discharge diagnostic codes. Visits for suicidal ideation, which was not the focus of the study, may have been miscoded as suicide attempts and intentional self-harm.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding source was reported for the study. Some authors received funding grants from various institutions, and one author disclosed receiving honoraria for service as a review committee member and serving as a stakeholder/consultant and as an advisory committee member for some institutes and agencies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When combined with clinical scores, a “game-changing” blood test can expedite the diagnosis and treatment of large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke, potentially saving many lives, new data suggested.

Using cutoff levels of two blood biomarkers, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP; 213 pg/mL) and D-dimer (600 ng/mL), and the field assessment stroke triage for emergency destination (FAST-ED) (score, > 2), investigators were able to detect LVOs with 81% sensitivity and 93% specificity less than 6 hours from the onset of symptoms.

GFAP has previously been linked to brain bleeds and traumatic brain injury.

The test also ruled out all patients with brain bleeds, and investigators noted that it could also be used to detect intracerebral hemorrhage.

“We have developed a game-changing, accessible tool that could help ensure that more people suffering from stroke are in the right place at the right time to receive critical, life-restoring care,” senior author Joshua Bernstock, MD, PhD, MPH, a clinical fellow in the department of neurosurgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in a press release.

The findings were published online on May 17 in Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology.
 

Early Identification Crucial

Acute LVO stroke is one of the most treatable stroke types because of the availability of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). However, EVT requires specialized equipment and teams that represent a small subset of accredited stroke centers and an even smaller subset of emergency medical facilities, so early identification of LVO is crucial, the investigators noted.

Dr. Bernstock and his team developed the TIME trial to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the blood biomarkers and scale cutoff values for identifying LVO vs non-LVO stroke.

As part of the observational prospective cohort trial, investigators included consecutive patients admitted to the Brandon Regional Hospital Emergency Department in Brandon, Florida, between May 2021 and August 2022 if they were referred for a suspected stroke and the time from symptom onset was under 18 hours.

Patients were excluded if they received thrombolytic therapy before blood was collected or if it was anticipated that blood collection would be difficult.

Investigators gathered information on patients’ clinical data, hematology results, time since last known well, and imaging findings to construct a clinical diagnosis (LVO, non-LVO, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, or transient ischemic attack [TIA]).

In addition to the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, patients were assessed with the FAST-ED, the Rapid Arterial oCclusion Evaluation (RACE), the Cincinnati Stroke Triage Assessment Tool, and the Emergency Medical Stroke Assessment.

Of 323 patients in the final study sample, 29 (9%) had LVO ischemic stroke, and 48 (15%) had non-LVO ischemic stroke. Another 13 (4%) had hemorrhagic stroke, 12 had TIA (3.7%), and the largest proportion of patients had stroke mimic (n = 220; 68%), which included encephalopathy, hyperglycemia, hypertensive emergency, migraine, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, and undetermined.
 

The Case for Biomarkers

When investigators looked at those with LVO ischemic stroke, they found the concentration of plasma D-dimer was significantly higher than that in patients with non-LVO suspected stroke (LVO suspected stroke, 1213 ng/mL; interquartile range [IQR], 733-1609 vs non-LVO suspected stroke, 617 ng/mL; IQR, 377-1345; P < .001).

In addition, GFAP was significantly increased in the plasma of patients with hemorrhagic stroke vs all other patients with suspected stroke (hemorrhagic stroke, 1464 pg/mL; IQR, 292-2580 vs nonhemorrhagic suspected stroke, 48 pg/mL; IQR, 12-98; P < .005).

Combinations of the blood biomarkers with the scales FAST-ED or RACE showed the best performance for LVO detection, with a specificity of 94% (for either scale combination) and a sensitivity of 71% for both scales.

When investigators analyzed data for just those patients identified within 6 hours of symptom onset, the combination of biomarkers plus FAST-ED resulted in a specificity of 93% and a sensitivity of 81%.

Given that clinical stroke scales in patients with hemorrhagic stroke frequently suggest LVO and that these patients are not candidates for EVT, a tool capable of ruling out hemorrhage and identifying only nonhemorrhagic ischemic LVO is essential, the investigators noted.

“In stroke care, time is brain,” Dr. Bernstock said. “The sooner a patient is put on the right care pathway, the better they are going to do. Whether that means ruling out bleeds or ruling in something that needs an intervention, being able to do this in a prehospital setting with the technology that we built is going to be truly transformative.”

The study was funded by the Innovate UK grant and private funding. Dr. Bernstock has positions and equity in Pockit Diagnostics Ltd. and Treovir Inc. and is on the boards of Centile Bio and NeuroX1. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When combined with clinical scores, a “game-changing” blood test can expedite the diagnosis and treatment of large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke, potentially saving many lives, new data suggested.

Using cutoff levels of two blood biomarkers, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP; 213 pg/mL) and D-dimer (600 ng/mL), and the field assessment stroke triage for emergency destination (FAST-ED) (score, > 2), investigators were able to detect LVOs with 81% sensitivity and 93% specificity less than 6 hours from the onset of symptoms.

GFAP has previously been linked to brain bleeds and traumatic brain injury.

The test also ruled out all patients with brain bleeds, and investigators noted that it could also be used to detect intracerebral hemorrhage.

“We have developed a game-changing, accessible tool that could help ensure that more people suffering from stroke are in the right place at the right time to receive critical, life-restoring care,” senior author Joshua Bernstock, MD, PhD, MPH, a clinical fellow in the department of neurosurgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in a press release.

The findings were published online on May 17 in Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology.
 

Early Identification Crucial

Acute LVO stroke is one of the most treatable stroke types because of the availability of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). However, EVT requires specialized equipment and teams that represent a small subset of accredited stroke centers and an even smaller subset of emergency medical facilities, so early identification of LVO is crucial, the investigators noted.

Dr. Bernstock and his team developed the TIME trial to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the blood biomarkers and scale cutoff values for identifying LVO vs non-LVO stroke.

As part of the observational prospective cohort trial, investigators included consecutive patients admitted to the Brandon Regional Hospital Emergency Department in Brandon, Florida, between May 2021 and August 2022 if they were referred for a suspected stroke and the time from symptom onset was under 18 hours.

Patients were excluded if they received thrombolytic therapy before blood was collected or if it was anticipated that blood collection would be difficult.

Investigators gathered information on patients’ clinical data, hematology results, time since last known well, and imaging findings to construct a clinical diagnosis (LVO, non-LVO, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, or transient ischemic attack [TIA]).

In addition to the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, patients were assessed with the FAST-ED, the Rapid Arterial oCclusion Evaluation (RACE), the Cincinnati Stroke Triage Assessment Tool, and the Emergency Medical Stroke Assessment.

Of 323 patients in the final study sample, 29 (9%) had LVO ischemic stroke, and 48 (15%) had non-LVO ischemic stroke. Another 13 (4%) had hemorrhagic stroke, 12 had TIA (3.7%), and the largest proportion of patients had stroke mimic (n = 220; 68%), which included encephalopathy, hyperglycemia, hypertensive emergency, migraine, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, and undetermined.
 

The Case for Biomarkers

When investigators looked at those with LVO ischemic stroke, they found the concentration of plasma D-dimer was significantly higher than that in patients with non-LVO suspected stroke (LVO suspected stroke, 1213 ng/mL; interquartile range [IQR], 733-1609 vs non-LVO suspected stroke, 617 ng/mL; IQR, 377-1345; P < .001).

In addition, GFAP was significantly increased in the plasma of patients with hemorrhagic stroke vs all other patients with suspected stroke (hemorrhagic stroke, 1464 pg/mL; IQR, 292-2580 vs nonhemorrhagic suspected stroke, 48 pg/mL; IQR, 12-98; P < .005).

Combinations of the blood biomarkers with the scales FAST-ED or RACE showed the best performance for LVO detection, with a specificity of 94% (for either scale combination) and a sensitivity of 71% for both scales.

When investigators analyzed data for just those patients identified within 6 hours of symptom onset, the combination of biomarkers plus FAST-ED resulted in a specificity of 93% and a sensitivity of 81%.

Given that clinical stroke scales in patients with hemorrhagic stroke frequently suggest LVO and that these patients are not candidates for EVT, a tool capable of ruling out hemorrhage and identifying only nonhemorrhagic ischemic LVO is essential, the investigators noted.

“In stroke care, time is brain,” Dr. Bernstock said. “The sooner a patient is put on the right care pathway, the better they are going to do. Whether that means ruling out bleeds or ruling in something that needs an intervention, being able to do this in a prehospital setting with the technology that we built is going to be truly transformative.”

The study was funded by the Innovate UK grant and private funding. Dr. Bernstock has positions and equity in Pockit Diagnostics Ltd. and Treovir Inc. and is on the boards of Centile Bio and NeuroX1. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When combined with clinical scores, a “game-changing” blood test can expedite the diagnosis and treatment of large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke, potentially saving many lives, new data suggested.

Using cutoff levels of two blood biomarkers, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP; 213 pg/mL) and D-dimer (600 ng/mL), and the field assessment stroke triage for emergency destination (FAST-ED) (score, > 2), investigators were able to detect LVOs with 81% sensitivity and 93% specificity less than 6 hours from the onset of symptoms.

GFAP has previously been linked to brain bleeds and traumatic brain injury.

The test also ruled out all patients with brain bleeds, and investigators noted that it could also be used to detect intracerebral hemorrhage.

“We have developed a game-changing, accessible tool that could help ensure that more people suffering from stroke are in the right place at the right time to receive critical, life-restoring care,” senior author Joshua Bernstock, MD, PhD, MPH, a clinical fellow in the department of neurosurgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in a press release.

The findings were published online on May 17 in Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology.
 

Early Identification Crucial

Acute LVO stroke is one of the most treatable stroke types because of the availability of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). However, EVT requires specialized equipment and teams that represent a small subset of accredited stroke centers and an even smaller subset of emergency medical facilities, so early identification of LVO is crucial, the investigators noted.

Dr. Bernstock and his team developed the TIME trial to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the blood biomarkers and scale cutoff values for identifying LVO vs non-LVO stroke.

As part of the observational prospective cohort trial, investigators included consecutive patients admitted to the Brandon Regional Hospital Emergency Department in Brandon, Florida, between May 2021 and August 2022 if they were referred for a suspected stroke and the time from symptom onset was under 18 hours.

Patients were excluded if they received thrombolytic therapy before blood was collected or if it was anticipated that blood collection would be difficult.

Investigators gathered information on patients’ clinical data, hematology results, time since last known well, and imaging findings to construct a clinical diagnosis (LVO, non-LVO, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, or transient ischemic attack [TIA]).

In addition to the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, patients were assessed with the FAST-ED, the Rapid Arterial oCclusion Evaluation (RACE), the Cincinnati Stroke Triage Assessment Tool, and the Emergency Medical Stroke Assessment.

Of 323 patients in the final study sample, 29 (9%) had LVO ischemic stroke, and 48 (15%) had non-LVO ischemic stroke. Another 13 (4%) had hemorrhagic stroke, 12 had TIA (3.7%), and the largest proportion of patients had stroke mimic (n = 220; 68%), which included encephalopathy, hyperglycemia, hypertensive emergency, migraine, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, and undetermined.
 

The Case for Biomarkers

When investigators looked at those with LVO ischemic stroke, they found the concentration of plasma D-dimer was significantly higher than that in patients with non-LVO suspected stroke (LVO suspected stroke, 1213 ng/mL; interquartile range [IQR], 733-1609 vs non-LVO suspected stroke, 617 ng/mL; IQR, 377-1345; P < .001).

In addition, GFAP was significantly increased in the plasma of patients with hemorrhagic stroke vs all other patients with suspected stroke (hemorrhagic stroke, 1464 pg/mL; IQR, 292-2580 vs nonhemorrhagic suspected stroke, 48 pg/mL; IQR, 12-98; P < .005).

Combinations of the blood biomarkers with the scales FAST-ED or RACE showed the best performance for LVO detection, with a specificity of 94% (for either scale combination) and a sensitivity of 71% for both scales.

When investigators analyzed data for just those patients identified within 6 hours of symptom onset, the combination of biomarkers plus FAST-ED resulted in a specificity of 93% and a sensitivity of 81%.

Given that clinical stroke scales in patients with hemorrhagic stroke frequently suggest LVO and that these patients are not candidates for EVT, a tool capable of ruling out hemorrhage and identifying only nonhemorrhagic ischemic LVO is essential, the investigators noted.

“In stroke care, time is brain,” Dr. Bernstock said. “The sooner a patient is put on the right care pathway, the better they are going to do. Whether that means ruling out bleeds or ruling in something that needs an intervention, being able to do this in a prehospital setting with the technology that we built is going to be truly transformative.”

The study was funded by the Innovate UK grant and private funding. Dr. Bernstock has positions and equity in Pockit Diagnostics Ltd. and Treovir Inc. and is on the boards of Centile Bio and NeuroX1. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new antibiotic uses a never-before-seen mechanism to deliver a direct hit on tough-to-treat infections while leaving beneficial microbes alone. The strategy could lead to a new class of antibiotics that attack dangerous bacteria in a powerful new way, overcoming current drug resistance while sparing the gut microbiome.

“The biggest takeaway is the double-selective component,” said co-lead author Kristen A. Muñoz, PhD, who performed the research as a doctoral student at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). “We were able to develop a drug that not only targets problematic pathogens, but because it is selective for these pathogens only, we can spare the good bacteria and preserve the integrity of the microbiome.”

The drug goes after Gram-negative bacteria — pathogens responsible for debilitating and even fatal infections like gastroenteritis, urinary tract infections, pneumonia, sepsis, and cholera. The arsenal of antibiotics against them is old, with no new classes specifically targeting these bacteria coming on the market since 1968.

Many of these bugs have become resistant to one or more antibiotics, with deadly consequences. And antibiotics against them can also wipe out beneficial gut bacteria, allowing serious secondary infections to flare up.

In a study published in Nature, the drug lolamicin knocked out or reduced 130 strains of antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in cell cultures. It also successfully treated drug-resistant bloodstream infections and pneumonia in mice while sparing their gut microbiome.

With their microbiomes intact, the mice then fought off secondary infection with Clostridioides difficile (a leading cause of opportunistic and sometimes fatal infections in US health care facilities), while mice treated with other compounds that damaged their microbiome succumbed.
 

How It Works

Like a well-built medieval castle, Gram-negative bacteria are encased in two protective walls, or membranes. Dr. Muñoz and her team at UIUC set out to breach this defense by finding compounds that hinder the “Lol system,” which ferries lipoproteins between them. 

From one compound they constructed lolamicin, which can stop Gram-negative pathogens — with little effect on Gram-negative beneficial bacteria and no effect on Gram-positive bacteria. 

“Gram-positive bacteria do not have an outer membrane, so they do not possess the Lol system,” Dr. Muñoz said. “When we compared the sequences of the Lol system in certain Gram-negative pathogens to Gram-negative commensal [beneficial] gut bacteria, we saw that the Lol systems were pretty different.”

Tossing a monkey wrench into the Lol system may be the study’s biggest contribution to future antibiotic development, said Kim Lewis, PhD, professor of Biology and director of Antimicrobial Discovery Center at Northeastern University, Boston, who has discovered several antibiotics now in preclinical research. One, darobactin, targets Gram-negative bugs without affecting the gut microbiome. Another, teixobactin, takes down Gram-positive bacteria without causing drug resistance. 

“Lolamicin hits a novel target. I would say that’s the most significant study finding,” said Dr. Lewis, who was not involved in the study. “That is rare. If you look at antibiotics introduced since 1968, they have been modifications of existing antibiotics or, rarely, new chemically but hitting the same proven targets. This one hits something properly new, and [that’s] what I found perhaps the most original and interesting.”

Kirk E. Hevener, PharmD, PhD, associate professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, agreed. (Dr. Hevener also was not involved in the study.) “Lolamicin works by targeting a unique Gram-negative transport system. No currently approved antibacterials work in this way, meaning it potentially represents the first of a new class of antibacterials with narrow-spectrum Gram-negative activity and low gastrointestinal disturbance,” said Dr. Hevener, whose research looks at new antimicrobial drug targets.

The UIUC researchers noted that lolamicin has one drawback: Bacteria frequently developed resistance to it. But in future work, it could be tweaked, combined with other antibiotics, or used as a template for finding other Lol system attackers, they said.

“There is still a good amount of work cut out for us in terms of assessing the clinical translatability of lolamicin, but we are hopeful for the future of this drug,” Dr. Muñoz said.
 

Addressing a Dire Need

Bringing such a drug to market — from discovery to Food and Drug Administration approval — could take more than a decade, said Dr. Hevener. And new agents, especially for Gram-negative bugs, are sorely needed.

Not only do these bacteria shield themselves with a double membrane but they also “have more complex resistance mechanisms including special pumps that can remove antibacterial drugs from the cell before they can be effective,” Dr. Hevener said.

As a result, drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria are making treatment of severe infections such as sepsis and pneumonia in health care settings difficult. 

Bloodstream infections with drug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae have a 40% mortality rate, Dr. Lewis said. And microbiome damage caused by antibiotics is also widespread and deadly, wiping out communities of helpful, protective gut bacteria. That contributes to over half of the C. difficile infections that affect 500,000 people and kill 30,000 a year in the United States. 

“Our arsenal of antibacterials that can be used to treat Gram-negative infections is dangerously low,” Dr. Hevener said. “Research will always be needed to develop new antibacterials with novel mechanisms of activity that can bypass bacterial resistance mechanisms.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new antibiotic uses a never-before-seen mechanism to deliver a direct hit on tough-to-treat infections while leaving beneficial microbes alone. The strategy could lead to a new class of antibiotics that attack dangerous bacteria in a powerful new way, overcoming current drug resistance while sparing the gut microbiome.

“The biggest takeaway is the double-selective component,” said co-lead author Kristen A. Muñoz, PhD, who performed the research as a doctoral student at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). “We were able to develop a drug that not only targets problematic pathogens, but because it is selective for these pathogens only, we can spare the good bacteria and preserve the integrity of the microbiome.”

The drug goes after Gram-negative bacteria — pathogens responsible for debilitating and even fatal infections like gastroenteritis, urinary tract infections, pneumonia, sepsis, and cholera. The arsenal of antibiotics against them is old, with no new classes specifically targeting these bacteria coming on the market since 1968.

Many of these bugs have become resistant to one or more antibiotics, with deadly consequences. And antibiotics against them can also wipe out beneficial gut bacteria, allowing serious secondary infections to flare up.

In a study published in Nature, the drug lolamicin knocked out or reduced 130 strains of antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in cell cultures. It also successfully treated drug-resistant bloodstream infections and pneumonia in mice while sparing their gut microbiome.

With their microbiomes intact, the mice then fought off secondary infection with Clostridioides difficile (a leading cause of opportunistic and sometimes fatal infections in US health care facilities), while mice treated with other compounds that damaged their microbiome succumbed.
 

How It Works

Like a well-built medieval castle, Gram-negative bacteria are encased in two protective walls, or membranes. Dr. Muñoz and her team at UIUC set out to breach this defense by finding compounds that hinder the “Lol system,” which ferries lipoproteins between them. 

From one compound they constructed lolamicin, which can stop Gram-negative pathogens — with little effect on Gram-negative beneficial bacteria and no effect on Gram-positive bacteria. 

“Gram-positive bacteria do not have an outer membrane, so they do not possess the Lol system,” Dr. Muñoz said. “When we compared the sequences of the Lol system in certain Gram-negative pathogens to Gram-negative commensal [beneficial] gut bacteria, we saw that the Lol systems were pretty different.”

Tossing a monkey wrench into the Lol system may be the study’s biggest contribution to future antibiotic development, said Kim Lewis, PhD, professor of Biology and director of Antimicrobial Discovery Center at Northeastern University, Boston, who has discovered several antibiotics now in preclinical research. One, darobactin, targets Gram-negative bugs without affecting the gut microbiome. Another, teixobactin, takes down Gram-positive bacteria without causing drug resistance. 

“Lolamicin hits a novel target. I would say that’s the most significant study finding,” said Dr. Lewis, who was not involved in the study. “That is rare. If you look at antibiotics introduced since 1968, they have been modifications of existing antibiotics or, rarely, new chemically but hitting the same proven targets. This one hits something properly new, and [that’s] what I found perhaps the most original and interesting.”

Kirk E. Hevener, PharmD, PhD, associate professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, agreed. (Dr. Hevener also was not involved in the study.) “Lolamicin works by targeting a unique Gram-negative transport system. No currently approved antibacterials work in this way, meaning it potentially represents the first of a new class of antibacterials with narrow-spectrum Gram-negative activity and low gastrointestinal disturbance,” said Dr. Hevener, whose research looks at new antimicrobial drug targets.

The UIUC researchers noted that lolamicin has one drawback: Bacteria frequently developed resistance to it. But in future work, it could be tweaked, combined with other antibiotics, or used as a template for finding other Lol system attackers, they said.

“There is still a good amount of work cut out for us in terms of assessing the clinical translatability of lolamicin, but we are hopeful for the future of this drug,” Dr. Muñoz said.
 

Addressing a Dire Need

Bringing such a drug to market — from discovery to Food and Drug Administration approval — could take more than a decade, said Dr. Hevener. And new agents, especially for Gram-negative bugs, are sorely needed.

Not only do these bacteria shield themselves with a double membrane but they also “have more complex resistance mechanisms including special pumps that can remove antibacterial drugs from the cell before they can be effective,” Dr. Hevener said.

As a result, drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria are making treatment of severe infections such as sepsis and pneumonia in health care settings difficult. 

Bloodstream infections with drug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae have a 40% mortality rate, Dr. Lewis said. And microbiome damage caused by antibiotics is also widespread and deadly, wiping out communities of helpful, protective gut bacteria. That contributes to over half of the C. difficile infections that affect 500,000 people and kill 30,000 a year in the United States. 

“Our arsenal of antibacterials that can be used to treat Gram-negative infections is dangerously low,” Dr. Hevener said. “Research will always be needed to develop new antibacterials with novel mechanisms of activity that can bypass bacterial resistance mechanisms.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new antibiotic uses a never-before-seen mechanism to deliver a direct hit on tough-to-treat infections while leaving beneficial microbes alone. The strategy could lead to a new class of antibiotics that attack dangerous bacteria in a powerful new way, overcoming current drug resistance while sparing the gut microbiome.

“The biggest takeaway is the double-selective component,” said co-lead author Kristen A. Muñoz, PhD, who performed the research as a doctoral student at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). “We were able to develop a drug that not only targets problematic pathogens, but because it is selective for these pathogens only, we can spare the good bacteria and preserve the integrity of the microbiome.”

The drug goes after Gram-negative bacteria — pathogens responsible for debilitating and even fatal infections like gastroenteritis, urinary tract infections, pneumonia, sepsis, and cholera. The arsenal of antibiotics against them is old, with no new classes specifically targeting these bacteria coming on the market since 1968.

Many of these bugs have become resistant to one or more antibiotics, with deadly consequences. And antibiotics against them can also wipe out beneficial gut bacteria, allowing serious secondary infections to flare up.

In a study published in Nature, the drug lolamicin knocked out or reduced 130 strains of antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in cell cultures. It also successfully treated drug-resistant bloodstream infections and pneumonia in mice while sparing their gut microbiome.

With their microbiomes intact, the mice then fought off secondary infection with Clostridioides difficile (a leading cause of opportunistic and sometimes fatal infections in US health care facilities), while mice treated with other compounds that damaged their microbiome succumbed.
 

How It Works

Like a well-built medieval castle, Gram-negative bacteria are encased in two protective walls, or membranes. Dr. Muñoz and her team at UIUC set out to breach this defense by finding compounds that hinder the “Lol system,” which ferries lipoproteins between them. 

From one compound they constructed lolamicin, which can stop Gram-negative pathogens — with little effect on Gram-negative beneficial bacteria and no effect on Gram-positive bacteria. 

“Gram-positive bacteria do not have an outer membrane, so they do not possess the Lol system,” Dr. Muñoz said. “When we compared the sequences of the Lol system in certain Gram-negative pathogens to Gram-negative commensal [beneficial] gut bacteria, we saw that the Lol systems were pretty different.”

Tossing a monkey wrench into the Lol system may be the study’s biggest contribution to future antibiotic development, said Kim Lewis, PhD, professor of Biology and director of Antimicrobial Discovery Center at Northeastern University, Boston, who has discovered several antibiotics now in preclinical research. One, darobactin, targets Gram-negative bugs without affecting the gut microbiome. Another, teixobactin, takes down Gram-positive bacteria without causing drug resistance. 

“Lolamicin hits a novel target. I would say that’s the most significant study finding,” said Dr. Lewis, who was not involved in the study. “That is rare. If you look at antibiotics introduced since 1968, they have been modifications of existing antibiotics or, rarely, new chemically but hitting the same proven targets. This one hits something properly new, and [that’s] what I found perhaps the most original and interesting.”

Kirk E. Hevener, PharmD, PhD, associate professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, agreed. (Dr. Hevener also was not involved in the study.) “Lolamicin works by targeting a unique Gram-negative transport system. No currently approved antibacterials work in this way, meaning it potentially represents the first of a new class of antibacterials with narrow-spectrum Gram-negative activity and low gastrointestinal disturbance,” said Dr. Hevener, whose research looks at new antimicrobial drug targets.

The UIUC researchers noted that lolamicin has one drawback: Bacteria frequently developed resistance to it. But in future work, it could be tweaked, combined with other antibiotics, or used as a template for finding other Lol system attackers, they said.

“There is still a good amount of work cut out for us in terms of assessing the clinical translatability of lolamicin, but we are hopeful for the future of this drug,” Dr. Muñoz said.
 

Addressing a Dire Need

Bringing such a drug to market — from discovery to Food and Drug Administration approval — could take more than a decade, said Dr. Hevener. And new agents, especially for Gram-negative bugs, are sorely needed.

Not only do these bacteria shield themselves with a double membrane but they also “have more complex resistance mechanisms including special pumps that can remove antibacterial drugs from the cell before they can be effective,” Dr. Hevener said.

As a result, drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria are making treatment of severe infections such as sepsis and pneumonia in health care settings difficult. 

Bloodstream infections with drug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae have a 40% mortality rate, Dr. Lewis said. And microbiome damage caused by antibiotics is also widespread and deadly, wiping out communities of helpful, protective gut bacteria. That contributes to over half of the C. difficile infections that affect 500,000 people and kill 30,000 a year in the United States. 

“Our arsenal of antibacterials that can be used to treat Gram-negative infections is dangerously low,” Dr. Hevener said. “Research will always be needed to develop new antibacterials with novel mechanisms of activity that can bypass bacterial resistance mechanisms.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Five commonly prescribed drugs may be associated with a lower risk for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH), a drug-wide association study suggested.

The blood pressure drug lisinopril; the cholesterol drug simvastatin; the diabetes drug metformin; and the drug tamsulosin, prescribed for an enlarged prostate, were all associated with decreased aSAH risk, investigators found.

Conversely, four other drugs were associated with an increased risk for this severely morbid, often deadly, condition.

“The motivation for this study was the fact that we can currently prevent bleeding from intracranial aneurysms only by invasive treatment of those aneurysms with inherent complication risks,” said study investigator Ynte Ruigrok, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology and neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. “Drugs to reduce or eliminate this risk are not yet available. This study is a first step in identifying such drugs.”

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Surprising Results

For the study, the researchers used the Secure Anonymized Information Linkage data bank in Wales to identify 4879 patients with aSAH between January 2000 and December 2019 and 43,911 patients without aSAH matched on age, sex, and year of database entry. Clustering resulted in 2023 unique drugs, of which 205 were commonly prescribed.

After adjusting for other factors such as high blood pressure, alcohol abuse, smoking, and a total number of health conditions, the results yielded two surprises, Dr. Ruigrok observed.

The first was a significant decrease in aSAH risk for current use of lisinopril, compared with nonuse (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.90), and a nonsignificant decrease with current use of amlodipine (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65-1.04).

“Hypertension is a major risk factor for occurrence and bleeding from aneurysms. If there is indeed a specific blood pressure–lowering drug that not only has a blood pressure–lowering effect but also has additional protection against aSAH, then perhaps that drug should become the drug of choice in aneurysm patients in the future,” he said.

Notably, recent use of both drugs, defined as between 1 year and 3 months before the index date, was associated with an increased risk for aSAH. This trend was not found for other antihypertensives and was significant for amlodipine but not lisinopril.

The reasons are unclear, but “we trust the findings on lisinopril more,” Dr. Ruigrok said. “The findings on amlodipine may be due to confounding by indication, specifically caused by hypertension. Therefore, it is important to validate our findings in an independent research cohort, and we are in the process of doing so.”

The study’s second surprise was the antidiabetic drug metformin and cholesterol-lowering drug simvastatin were also associated with reduced aSAH risk, Dr. Ruigrok noted.

“We already knew from previous studies that diabetes and high cholesterol are protective factors for aSAH,” he said. “Our results suggest that perhaps not the conditions themselves are protective for aSAH but rather the drugs used to treat these conditions with are.”

The risk for a ruptured brain aneurysm among current users was 42% lower with metformin (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43-0.78), 22% lower with simvastatin (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.96), and 45% lower with tamsulosin (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.93).

An increased risk for aSAH was found only in current users of warfarin (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.02-1.79), venlafaxine (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.01-2.75), prochlorperazine (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.45-3.18), and co-codamol (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.10-1.56).

Other drugs within the classes of vitamin K antagonists, serotonin reuptake inhibitors, conventional antipsychotics, and compound analgesics did not show an association with aSAH.

The study was limited by the use of drug prescriptions, and patients may not take their drugs or use them incorrectly, noted the researchers, led by Jos P. Kanning, MSc, also with University Medical Center Utrecht.

The study was supported by the European Research Council. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Five commonly prescribed drugs may be associated with a lower risk for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH), a drug-wide association study suggested.

The blood pressure drug lisinopril; the cholesterol drug simvastatin; the diabetes drug metformin; and the drug tamsulosin, prescribed for an enlarged prostate, were all associated with decreased aSAH risk, investigators found.

Conversely, four other drugs were associated with an increased risk for this severely morbid, often deadly, condition.

“The motivation for this study was the fact that we can currently prevent bleeding from intracranial aneurysms only by invasive treatment of those aneurysms with inherent complication risks,” said study investigator Ynte Ruigrok, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology and neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. “Drugs to reduce or eliminate this risk are not yet available. This study is a first step in identifying such drugs.”

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Surprising Results

For the study, the researchers used the Secure Anonymized Information Linkage data bank in Wales to identify 4879 patients with aSAH between January 2000 and December 2019 and 43,911 patients without aSAH matched on age, sex, and year of database entry. Clustering resulted in 2023 unique drugs, of which 205 were commonly prescribed.

After adjusting for other factors such as high blood pressure, alcohol abuse, smoking, and a total number of health conditions, the results yielded two surprises, Dr. Ruigrok observed.

The first was a significant decrease in aSAH risk for current use of lisinopril, compared with nonuse (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.90), and a nonsignificant decrease with current use of amlodipine (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65-1.04).

“Hypertension is a major risk factor for occurrence and bleeding from aneurysms. If there is indeed a specific blood pressure–lowering drug that not only has a blood pressure–lowering effect but also has additional protection against aSAH, then perhaps that drug should become the drug of choice in aneurysm patients in the future,” he said.

Notably, recent use of both drugs, defined as between 1 year and 3 months before the index date, was associated with an increased risk for aSAH. This trend was not found for other antihypertensives and was significant for amlodipine but not lisinopril.

The reasons are unclear, but “we trust the findings on lisinopril more,” Dr. Ruigrok said. “The findings on amlodipine may be due to confounding by indication, specifically caused by hypertension. Therefore, it is important to validate our findings in an independent research cohort, and we are in the process of doing so.”

The study’s second surprise was the antidiabetic drug metformin and cholesterol-lowering drug simvastatin were also associated with reduced aSAH risk, Dr. Ruigrok noted.

“We already knew from previous studies that diabetes and high cholesterol are protective factors for aSAH,” he said. “Our results suggest that perhaps not the conditions themselves are protective for aSAH but rather the drugs used to treat these conditions with are.”

The risk for a ruptured brain aneurysm among current users was 42% lower with metformin (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43-0.78), 22% lower with simvastatin (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.96), and 45% lower with tamsulosin (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.93).

An increased risk for aSAH was found only in current users of warfarin (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.02-1.79), venlafaxine (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.01-2.75), prochlorperazine (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.45-3.18), and co-codamol (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.10-1.56).

Other drugs within the classes of vitamin K antagonists, serotonin reuptake inhibitors, conventional antipsychotics, and compound analgesics did not show an association with aSAH.

The study was limited by the use of drug prescriptions, and patients may not take their drugs or use them incorrectly, noted the researchers, led by Jos P. Kanning, MSc, also with University Medical Center Utrecht.

The study was supported by the European Research Council. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Five commonly prescribed drugs may be associated with a lower risk for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH), a drug-wide association study suggested.

The blood pressure drug lisinopril; the cholesterol drug simvastatin; the diabetes drug metformin; and the drug tamsulosin, prescribed for an enlarged prostate, were all associated with decreased aSAH risk, investigators found.

Conversely, four other drugs were associated with an increased risk for this severely morbid, often deadly, condition.

“The motivation for this study was the fact that we can currently prevent bleeding from intracranial aneurysms only by invasive treatment of those aneurysms with inherent complication risks,” said study investigator Ynte Ruigrok, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology and neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. “Drugs to reduce or eliminate this risk are not yet available. This study is a first step in identifying such drugs.”

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Surprising Results

For the study, the researchers used the Secure Anonymized Information Linkage data bank in Wales to identify 4879 patients with aSAH between January 2000 and December 2019 and 43,911 patients without aSAH matched on age, sex, and year of database entry. Clustering resulted in 2023 unique drugs, of which 205 were commonly prescribed.

After adjusting for other factors such as high blood pressure, alcohol abuse, smoking, and a total number of health conditions, the results yielded two surprises, Dr. Ruigrok observed.

The first was a significant decrease in aSAH risk for current use of lisinopril, compared with nonuse (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.90), and a nonsignificant decrease with current use of amlodipine (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65-1.04).

“Hypertension is a major risk factor for occurrence and bleeding from aneurysms. If there is indeed a specific blood pressure–lowering drug that not only has a blood pressure–lowering effect but also has additional protection against aSAH, then perhaps that drug should become the drug of choice in aneurysm patients in the future,” he said.

Notably, recent use of both drugs, defined as between 1 year and 3 months before the index date, was associated with an increased risk for aSAH. This trend was not found for other antihypertensives and was significant for amlodipine but not lisinopril.

The reasons are unclear, but “we trust the findings on lisinopril more,” Dr. Ruigrok said. “The findings on amlodipine may be due to confounding by indication, specifically caused by hypertension. Therefore, it is important to validate our findings in an independent research cohort, and we are in the process of doing so.”

The study’s second surprise was the antidiabetic drug metformin and cholesterol-lowering drug simvastatin were also associated with reduced aSAH risk, Dr. Ruigrok noted.

“We already knew from previous studies that diabetes and high cholesterol are protective factors for aSAH,” he said. “Our results suggest that perhaps not the conditions themselves are protective for aSAH but rather the drugs used to treat these conditions with are.”

The risk for a ruptured brain aneurysm among current users was 42% lower with metformin (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43-0.78), 22% lower with simvastatin (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.96), and 45% lower with tamsulosin (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.93).

An increased risk for aSAH was found only in current users of warfarin (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.02-1.79), venlafaxine (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.01-2.75), prochlorperazine (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.45-3.18), and co-codamol (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.10-1.56).

Other drugs within the classes of vitamin K antagonists, serotonin reuptake inhibitors, conventional antipsychotics, and compound analgesics did not show an association with aSAH.

The study was limited by the use of drug prescriptions, and patients may not take their drugs or use them incorrectly, noted the researchers, led by Jos P. Kanning, MSc, also with University Medical Center Utrecht.

The study was supported by the European Research Council. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

They call it the “golden hour”: 60 minutes, give or take, when the chance to save the life of a trauma victim is at its greatest. If the patient can be resuscitated and stabilized in that time window, they stand a good chance of surviving. If not, well, they don’t.

But resuscitation is complicated. It requires blood products, fluids, vasopressors — all given in precise doses in response to rapidly changing hemodynamics. To do it right takes specialized training, advanced life support (ALS). If the patient is in a remote area or an area without ALS-certified emergency medical services, or is far from the nearest trauma center, that golden hour is lost. And the patient may be as well.

But we live in the future. We have robots in factories, self-driving cars, autonomous drones. Why not an autonomous trauma doctor? If you are in a life-threatening accident, would you want to be treated ... by a robot?

Enter “resuscitation based on functional hemodynamic monitoring,” or “ReFit,” introduced in this article appearing in the journal Intensive Care Medicine Experimental.

The idea behind ReFit is straightforward. Resuscitation after trauma should be based on hitting key hemodynamic targets using the tools we have available in the field: blood, fluids, pressors. The researchers wanted to develop a closed-loop system, something that could be used by minimally trained personnel. The input to the system? Hemodynamic data, provided through a single measurement device, an arterial catheter. The output: blood, fluids, and pressors, delivered intravenously.

The body (a prototype) of the system looks like this. You can see various pumps labeled with various fluids, electronic controllers, and so forth.

Nate Langer, UPMC

Nate Langer, UPMC

Nate Langer, UPMC

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

They call it the “golden hour”: 60 minutes, give or take, when the chance to save the life of a trauma victim is at its greatest. If the patient can be resuscitated and stabilized in that time window, they stand a good chance of surviving. If not, well, they don’t.

But resuscitation is complicated. It requires blood products, fluids, vasopressors — all given in precise doses in response to rapidly changing hemodynamics. To do it right takes specialized training, advanced life support (ALS). If the patient is in a remote area or an area without ALS-certified emergency medical services, or is far from the nearest trauma center, that golden hour is lost. And the patient may be as well.

But we live in the future. We have robots in factories, self-driving cars, autonomous drones. Why not an autonomous trauma doctor? If you are in a life-threatening accident, would you want to be treated ... by a robot?

Enter “resuscitation based on functional hemodynamic monitoring,” or “ReFit,” introduced in this article appearing in the journal Intensive Care Medicine Experimental.

The idea behind ReFit is straightforward. Resuscitation after trauma should be based on hitting key hemodynamic targets using the tools we have available in the field: blood, fluids, pressors. The researchers wanted to develop a closed-loop system, something that could be used by minimally trained personnel. The input to the system? Hemodynamic data, provided through a single measurement device, an arterial catheter. The output: blood, fluids, and pressors, delivered intravenously.

The body (a prototype) of the system looks like this. You can see various pumps labeled with various fluids, electronic controllers, and so forth.

Nate Langer, UPMC

Nate Langer, UPMC

Nate Langer, UPMC

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

They call it the “golden hour”: 60 minutes, give or take, when the chance to save the life of a trauma victim is at its greatest. If the patient can be resuscitated and stabilized in that time window, they stand a good chance of surviving. If not, well, they don’t.

But resuscitation is complicated. It requires blood products, fluids, vasopressors — all given in precise doses in response to rapidly changing hemodynamics. To do it right takes specialized training, advanced life support (ALS). If the patient is in a remote area or an area without ALS-certified emergency medical services, or is far from the nearest trauma center, that golden hour is lost. And the patient may be as well.

But we live in the future. We have robots in factories, self-driving cars, autonomous drones. Why not an autonomous trauma doctor? If you are in a life-threatening accident, would you want to be treated ... by a robot?

Enter “resuscitation based on functional hemodynamic monitoring,” or “ReFit,” introduced in this article appearing in the journal Intensive Care Medicine Experimental.

The idea behind ReFit is straightforward. Resuscitation after trauma should be based on hitting key hemodynamic targets using the tools we have available in the field: blood, fluids, pressors. The researchers wanted to develop a closed-loop system, something that could be used by minimally trained personnel. The input to the system? Hemodynamic data, provided through a single measurement device, an arterial catheter. The output: blood, fluids, and pressors, delivered intravenously.

The body (a prototype) of the system looks like this. You can see various pumps labeled with various fluids, electronic controllers, and so forth.

Nate Langer, UPMC

Nate Langer, UPMC

Nate Langer, UPMC

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — The anti-inflammatory agent colchicine failed to show significant benefit in the treatment of patients with non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke in the primary analysis of the CONVINCE trial. However, the results did reveal a significant reduction in recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events in the per-protocol analysis and in the subgroup of patients with coronary artery disease.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, the CONVINCE results support the hypothesis that long-term anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine may reduce recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events, specifically in stroke patients with atherosclerosis,” lead investigator Peter Kelly, MD, University College Dublin School of Medicine, Dublin, Ireland, concluded.

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2024.

Inflammation, Dr. Kelly said, plays an important role in the pathophysiology of atherosclerotic plaque, a major cause of cardiovascular events and ischemic strokes.

Colchicine, an established, widely available, low-cost drug that reduces inflammatory response, has been shown to reduce recurrent vascular events in patients with coronary artery disease.

The CONVINCE trial was conducted to see whether colchicine could show similar benefits in patients with non-severe, non-cardioembolic stroke or transient ischemic attack.

Conducted in 16 European countries and Canada, the CONVINCE trial included 3154 patients with a recent non-cardioembolic nondisabling ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack. They were randomly assigned to receive colchicine (0.5 mg/d) or placebo.

Key exclusion criteria included evidence of atrial fibrillation or other source of cardioembolism, a defined cause of stroke other than atherosclerosis or small vessel disease, a glomerular filtration rate below 50 mL/min, and the use of drugs that interact with colchicine.

The primary endpoint was a composite of first recurrent ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Study participants were followed-up over 36 months.

Results of the primary intention-to-treat analysis showed that the primary endpoint occurred in 153 patients randomized to low-dose colchicine (9.8%) versus 185 in the placebo group (11.8%). This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.68-1.05; P = .12) — a nonsignificant result.

Reduced levels of C-reactive protein in the colchicine group showed the anti-inflammatory effect of treatment with colchicine, Dr. Kelly reported.

In a prespecified on-treatment analysis (excluding patients with major protocol violations), colchicine did show a significant benefit in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-0.99).
 

A Novel Target for Stroke Treatment

In addition, significantly reduced rates of recurrent stroke or cardiovascular events were observed in the subgroup of patients with a history of coronary artery disease.

In an updated meta-analysis of existing colchicine studies including CONVINCE, there was a significant reduction in the risk for ischemic stroke (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.90).

“The signals of benefit of colchicine in secondary analyses are in line with findings from previous trials and indicate the potential of colchicine in prevention after stroke,” Dr. Kelly said.

He pointed out that the COVID pandemic reduced the planned follow-up time in the CONVINCE trial, which led to the study being underpowered for the primary analysis.

“Further trials are needed in all stroke subtypes, but with particular focus on patients with objective evidence of atherosclerosis,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Mira Katan, MD, University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland, noted that inflammation represents a novel target for stroke treatment.

“We have never before looked at treating inflammation in stroke. Although the primary endpoint was not reached in the CONVINCE study, the on-treatment analysis and meta-analysis showed a risk reduction, and we know colchicine works in cardiology. I think this is a fantastic trial, giving us a new target for stroke therapy,” Dr. Katan said.

“I think we have a new tool, but of course we need further trials to confirm that,” she added.

The CONVINCE trial was supported by Health Research Board Ireland, Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft, Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO), and the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Kelly received funding from the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Katan reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — The anti-inflammatory agent colchicine failed to show significant benefit in the treatment of patients with non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke in the primary analysis of the CONVINCE trial. However, the results did reveal a significant reduction in recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events in the per-protocol analysis and in the subgroup of patients with coronary artery disease.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, the CONVINCE results support the hypothesis that long-term anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine may reduce recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events, specifically in stroke patients with atherosclerosis,” lead investigator Peter Kelly, MD, University College Dublin School of Medicine, Dublin, Ireland, concluded.

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2024.

Inflammation, Dr. Kelly said, plays an important role in the pathophysiology of atherosclerotic plaque, a major cause of cardiovascular events and ischemic strokes.

Colchicine, an established, widely available, low-cost drug that reduces inflammatory response, has been shown to reduce recurrent vascular events in patients with coronary artery disease.

The CONVINCE trial was conducted to see whether colchicine could show similar benefits in patients with non-severe, non-cardioembolic stroke or transient ischemic attack.

Conducted in 16 European countries and Canada, the CONVINCE trial included 3154 patients with a recent non-cardioembolic nondisabling ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack. They were randomly assigned to receive colchicine (0.5 mg/d) or placebo.

Key exclusion criteria included evidence of atrial fibrillation or other source of cardioembolism, a defined cause of stroke other than atherosclerosis or small vessel disease, a glomerular filtration rate below 50 mL/min, and the use of drugs that interact with colchicine.

The primary endpoint was a composite of first recurrent ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Study participants were followed-up over 36 months.

Results of the primary intention-to-treat analysis showed that the primary endpoint occurred in 153 patients randomized to low-dose colchicine (9.8%) versus 185 in the placebo group (11.8%). This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.68-1.05; P = .12) — a nonsignificant result.

Reduced levels of C-reactive protein in the colchicine group showed the anti-inflammatory effect of treatment with colchicine, Dr. Kelly reported.

In a prespecified on-treatment analysis (excluding patients with major protocol violations), colchicine did show a significant benefit in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-0.99).
 

A Novel Target for Stroke Treatment

In addition, significantly reduced rates of recurrent stroke or cardiovascular events were observed in the subgroup of patients with a history of coronary artery disease.

In an updated meta-analysis of existing colchicine studies including CONVINCE, there was a significant reduction in the risk for ischemic stroke (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.90).

“The signals of benefit of colchicine in secondary analyses are in line with findings from previous trials and indicate the potential of colchicine in prevention after stroke,” Dr. Kelly said.

He pointed out that the COVID pandemic reduced the planned follow-up time in the CONVINCE trial, which led to the study being underpowered for the primary analysis.

“Further trials are needed in all stroke subtypes, but with particular focus on patients with objective evidence of atherosclerosis,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Mira Katan, MD, University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland, noted that inflammation represents a novel target for stroke treatment.

“We have never before looked at treating inflammation in stroke. Although the primary endpoint was not reached in the CONVINCE study, the on-treatment analysis and meta-analysis showed a risk reduction, and we know colchicine works in cardiology. I think this is a fantastic trial, giving us a new target for stroke therapy,” Dr. Katan said.

“I think we have a new tool, but of course we need further trials to confirm that,” she added.

The CONVINCE trial was supported by Health Research Board Ireland, Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft, Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO), and the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Kelly received funding from the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Katan reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — The anti-inflammatory agent colchicine failed to show significant benefit in the treatment of patients with non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke in the primary analysis of the CONVINCE trial. However, the results did reveal a significant reduction in recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events in the per-protocol analysis and in the subgroup of patients with coronary artery disease.

“Although the primary endpoint was neutral, the CONVINCE results support the hypothesis that long-term anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine may reduce recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events, specifically in stroke patients with atherosclerosis,” lead investigator Peter Kelly, MD, University College Dublin School of Medicine, Dublin, Ireland, concluded.

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) 2024.

Inflammation, Dr. Kelly said, plays an important role in the pathophysiology of atherosclerotic plaque, a major cause of cardiovascular events and ischemic strokes.

Colchicine, an established, widely available, low-cost drug that reduces inflammatory response, has been shown to reduce recurrent vascular events in patients with coronary artery disease.

The CONVINCE trial was conducted to see whether colchicine could show similar benefits in patients with non-severe, non-cardioembolic stroke or transient ischemic attack.

Conducted in 16 European countries and Canada, the CONVINCE trial included 3154 patients with a recent non-cardioembolic nondisabling ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack. They were randomly assigned to receive colchicine (0.5 mg/d) or placebo.

Key exclusion criteria included evidence of atrial fibrillation or other source of cardioembolism, a defined cause of stroke other than atherosclerosis or small vessel disease, a glomerular filtration rate below 50 mL/min, and the use of drugs that interact with colchicine.

The primary endpoint was a composite of first recurrent ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Study participants were followed-up over 36 months.

Results of the primary intention-to-treat analysis showed that the primary endpoint occurred in 153 patients randomized to low-dose colchicine (9.8%) versus 185 in the placebo group (11.8%). This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.68-1.05; P = .12) — a nonsignificant result.

Reduced levels of C-reactive protein in the colchicine group showed the anti-inflammatory effect of treatment with colchicine, Dr. Kelly reported.

In a prespecified on-treatment analysis (excluding patients with major protocol violations), colchicine did show a significant benefit in the primary endpoint (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-0.99).
 

A Novel Target for Stroke Treatment

In addition, significantly reduced rates of recurrent stroke or cardiovascular events were observed in the subgroup of patients with a history of coronary artery disease.

In an updated meta-analysis of existing colchicine studies including CONVINCE, there was a significant reduction in the risk for ischemic stroke (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.90).

“The signals of benefit of colchicine in secondary analyses are in line with findings from previous trials and indicate the potential of colchicine in prevention after stroke,” Dr. Kelly said.

He pointed out that the COVID pandemic reduced the planned follow-up time in the CONVINCE trial, which led to the study being underpowered for the primary analysis.

“Further trials are needed in all stroke subtypes, but with particular focus on patients with objective evidence of atherosclerosis,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Mira Katan, MD, University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland, noted that inflammation represents a novel target for stroke treatment.

“We have never before looked at treating inflammation in stroke. Although the primary endpoint was not reached in the CONVINCE study, the on-treatment analysis and meta-analysis showed a risk reduction, and we know colchicine works in cardiology. I think this is a fantastic trial, giving us a new target for stroke therapy,” Dr. Katan said.

“I think we have a new tool, but of course we need further trials to confirm that,” she added.

The CONVINCE trial was supported by Health Research Board Ireland, Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft, Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO), and the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Kelly received funding from the Irish Heart Foundation. Dr. Katan reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — While anaphylaxis requires immediate adrenaline administration through autoinjection, the use of this treatment is not optimal. Therefore, the development of new adrenaline formulations (such as for intranasal, sublingual, and transcutaneous routes) aims to facilitate the drug’s use and reduce persistent delays in administration by patients and caregivers. An overview of the research was presented at the 19th French-speaking Congress of Allergology.

Anaphylaxis is a severe and potentially fatal immediate hypersensitivity reaction with highly variable and dynamic clinical presentations. It requires prompt recognition for immediate treatment with intramuscular (IM) adrenaline (at the anterolateral aspect of the mid-thigh).

One might think that this reflex is acquired, but in France, while the number of prescribed adrenaline autoinjection (AAI) devices has been increasing for a decade, reaching 965,944 units in 2022, this first-line treatment is underused. Anapen (150, 300, and 500 µg), EpiPen (150 and 300 µg), Jext (150 µg and 300 µg), and Emerade (150, 300, and 500 µg) are the four products marketed in France in 2024.

“Only 17.3% of individuals presenting to the emergency department in the Lorraine region used it in 2015,” said Catherine Neukirch, MD, a pneumologist at Hôpital Bichat–Claude Bernard in Paris, France, with rates of 11.3% for children and 20.3% for adults.
 

Anaphylaxis Incidence Increasing

Approximately 0.3% (95% CI, 0.1-0.5) of the population will experience an anaphylaxis episode in their lifetime. Incidence in Europe, across all causes, is estimated between 1.5 and 7.9 cases per 100,000 inhabitants per year. Although anaphylaxis is on the rise, its associated mortality remains low, ranging between 0.05 and 0.51 per million per year for drugs, between 0.03 and 0.32 per million per year for foods, and between 0.09 and 0.13 per million per year for hymenopteran venoms.

Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry indicate that anaphylaxis manifests rapidly after allergen exposure: 55% of cases occur within 10 minutes and 80% within 30 minutes. In addition, a biphasic reaction, which can occur up to 72 hours after exposure, is observed in < 5% of cases.

While a delay in adrenaline use is associated with risk for increased morbidity and mortality, AAI significantly reduces error rates compared with manual treatments involving ampoules, needles, and syringes. It also reduces the associated panic risks. However, there are multiple barriers to adrenaline use. The clinical symptoms of anaphylaxis may be misleading, especially if it occurs without cutaneous and urticarial manifestations but with only acute bronchospasm. It may present as isolated laryngeal edema without digestive involvement, hypotension, or other respiratory problems.

Other limitations to adrenaline use include technical difficulties and the possibility of incorrect administration, the need for appropriate needle sizes for patients with obesity, needle phobia, potential adverse effects of adrenaline injections, failure to carry two autoinjectors, constraints related to storage and bulky transport, as well as the need for training and practice.

“These factors contribute to underuse of adrenaline by patients and caregivers,” said Dr. Neukirch, which results in delays in necessary administration.
 

Adrenaline Treatment Criteria?

An analysis published in 2023 based on pharmacovigilance data from 30 regional French centers from 1984 to 2022 included 42 reported cases (average age, 33 years; 26% children) of reactions to AAI, which probably is an underestimate. About 40% of AAI uses occurred during anaphylaxis. The remaining 60% were triggered outside of reactions. The main reasons were accidental injections, mainly in the fingers, and cases of not triggering the autoinjector, underlining the importance of patient education.

In 2015, the European Medicines Agency required pharmacological studies for injectable adrenaline on healthy volunteers. These studies include ultrasound measurements of bolus injection, pharmacokinetics (ie, absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion), and pharmacodynamics (ie, the effect of the drug and the mechanism of action in the body), with precise evaluation of cardiovascular effects (eg, systolic and diastolic blood pressures and heart rate).

Among the information collected with the different products, ultrasound studies have shown a different localization of the adrenaline bolus (ie, in muscle in patients with normal BMI and mostly in adipose tissue in patients with BMI indicating overweight and obesity). The consequences of this finding are still unknown.

In a study with 500 µg Anapen, women with overweight or obesity showed different pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic profiles from those in men with normal weight, with an increase in the area under the curve (0-240 min) and marked changes in the heart rate time curve.

IM administration of 0.5 mg produces rapid pharmacokinetic effects in patients with normal weight, overweight, or obesity, with a delay for the second peak in the latter case. This delay perhaps results from initial local vasoconstriction due to adrenaline.

The early peak plasma concentration occurs at 5-10 minutes for AAI, with a faster speed for Anapen and EpiPen.

Moreover, needle size is not the most important factor. Rather, it is the strength and speed of injection, which can vary depending on the AAI.

Also, the optimal plasma concentration of adrenaline to treat anaphylaxis is not known; studies cannot be conducted during anaphylaxis. In terms of pharmacokinetics, a small series discovered that increased skin or muscle thickness delays the absorption of EpiPen AAI.
 

Intranasal Adrenaline

To facilitate rapid adrenaline use and convince reluctant patients to carry and use adrenaline, intranasal, sublingual, or transcutaneous forms are under development.

Three intranasal forms of adrenaline are already well advanced, including Neffy from ARS Pharma, epinephrine sprays from Bryn Pharma and Hikma, and Oxero from Oragoo, which contains dry powder.

A comparison of intranasal adrenaline Neffy and AAI shows that the former has satisfactory pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects.

In a phase 1 randomized crossover study of 42 healthy adults comparing the pharmacokinetic effects of Neffy adrenaline (2 mg) and EpiPen (0.3 mg), as well as IM epinephrine 0.3 mg, several observations were made. For a single dose, the maximum concentration (Cmax) of Neffy was lower than that of EpiPen.

However, with repeated doses administered 10 minutes apart, the Cmax of Neffy was higher than that of EpiPen. At this stage, pharmacodynamic responses to intranasal products are at least comparable with those of approved injectable products.

A comparison of the pharmacodynamic effects, such as systolic and diastolic blood pressures and heart rate, of Neffy adrenaline and AAI concluded that the profile of Neffy is comparable with that of EpiPen and superior to that of IM epinephrine.

In patients with a history of allergic rhinitis, adrenaline Cmax appears to be increased, while time to peak plasma concentration (Tmax) is reduced. Low blood pressure does not prevent Neffy absorption. Neffy is currently under review by the American and European health authorities.

Intranasal absorption of dry powder adrenaline appears to be faster than that of EpiPen, thus offering a clinical advantage in the short therapeutic window for anaphylaxis treatment.

In an open-label trial conducted on 12 adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis without asthma, the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of adrenaline were compared between FMXIN002 (1.6 and 3.2 mg), which was administered intranasally with or without nasal allergen challenge, and IM EpiPen 0.3 mg. Pharmacokinetics varied by patient. Nevertheless, nasal FMXIN002 had a shorter Tmax, a doubled Cmax after the allergen challenge peak, and a higher area under the curve in the 8 hours following administration compared with EpiPen. Pharmacodynamic effects comparable with those of EpiPen were noted at 15 minutes to 4 hours after administration. The tolerance was good, with mild and local side effects. The powder seems to deposit slightly better in the nasal cavity. It remains stable for 6 months at a temperature of 40 °C and relative humidity of 75% and for 2 years at a temperature of 25 °C and relative humidity of 60%.
 

Sublingual Adrenaline Film

AQST-109 is a sublingual film that is intended to allow rapid administration of epinephrine 1, which is a prodrug of adrenaline. The product is the size of a postage stamp, weighs < 30 g, and dissolves on contact with the tongue.

The EPIPHAST II study was a phase 1, multiperiod, crossover study conducted on 24 healthy adults (age, 24-49 years) who were randomly assigned to receive either 12 or 0.3 mg of AQST-109  of manual IM adrenaline in the first two periods. All participants received 0.3 mg of EpiPen in the last period.

EpiPen 0.3 mg resulted in a higher Cmax than AQST-109 12 mg. AQST-109 12 mg had the fastest median Tmax of 12 minutes. The areas under the curve of AQST-109 12 mg fell between those of EpiPen 0.3 mg and manual IM adrenaline 0.3 mg.

Early increases in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate were observed with AQST-109 12 mg. Changes were more pronounced with AQST-109 12 mg despite a higher Cmax with EpiPen 0.3 mg.

Part 3 of the EPIPHAST study evaluated the impact of food exposure (ie, a peanut butter sandwich) on the pharmacokinetics of AQST-109 12 mg in 24 healthy adults. Oral food residues did not significantly affect pharmacodynamic parameters, and no treatment-related adverse events were reported.

Researchers concluded that AQST-109 12 mg absorption would not be altered by “real” situations if used during meals. “These results suggest that the sublingual adrenaline film could be promising in real situations,” said Dr. Neukirch, especially in cases of food allergy with recent ingestion of the allergenic food.
 

Transcutaneous Adrenaline

A transcutaneous form of adrenaline that uses the Zeneo device developed by Crossject, a company based in Dijon, France, comes in the form of an AAI that requires no needle. This project, funded by the European Union, uses a gas generator to propel the drug at very high speed through the skin in 50 milliseconds. This method allows for extended drug storage.

Dr. Neukirch reported financial relationships with Viatris, Stallergènes, ALK, Astrazeneca, Sanofi, GSK, and Novartis.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — While anaphylaxis requires immediate adrenaline administration through autoinjection, the use of this treatment is not optimal. Therefore, the development of new adrenaline formulations (such as for intranasal, sublingual, and transcutaneous routes) aims to facilitate the drug’s use and reduce persistent delays in administration by patients and caregivers. An overview of the research was presented at the 19th French-speaking Congress of Allergology.

Anaphylaxis is a severe and potentially fatal immediate hypersensitivity reaction with highly variable and dynamic clinical presentations. It requires prompt recognition for immediate treatment with intramuscular (IM) adrenaline (at the anterolateral aspect of the mid-thigh).

One might think that this reflex is acquired, but in France, while the number of prescribed adrenaline autoinjection (AAI) devices has been increasing for a decade, reaching 965,944 units in 2022, this first-line treatment is underused. Anapen (150, 300, and 500 µg), EpiPen (150 and 300 µg), Jext (150 µg and 300 µg), and Emerade (150, 300, and 500 µg) are the four products marketed in France in 2024.

“Only 17.3% of individuals presenting to the emergency department in the Lorraine region used it in 2015,” said Catherine Neukirch, MD, a pneumologist at Hôpital Bichat–Claude Bernard in Paris, France, with rates of 11.3% for children and 20.3% for adults.
 

Anaphylaxis Incidence Increasing

Approximately 0.3% (95% CI, 0.1-0.5) of the population will experience an anaphylaxis episode in their lifetime. Incidence in Europe, across all causes, is estimated between 1.5 and 7.9 cases per 100,000 inhabitants per year. Although anaphylaxis is on the rise, its associated mortality remains low, ranging between 0.05 and 0.51 per million per year for drugs, between 0.03 and 0.32 per million per year for foods, and between 0.09 and 0.13 per million per year for hymenopteran venoms.

Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry indicate that anaphylaxis manifests rapidly after allergen exposure: 55% of cases occur within 10 minutes and 80% within 30 minutes. In addition, a biphasic reaction, which can occur up to 72 hours after exposure, is observed in < 5% of cases.

While a delay in adrenaline use is associated with risk for increased morbidity and mortality, AAI significantly reduces error rates compared with manual treatments involving ampoules, needles, and syringes. It also reduces the associated panic risks. However, there are multiple barriers to adrenaline use. The clinical symptoms of anaphylaxis may be misleading, especially if it occurs without cutaneous and urticarial manifestations but with only acute bronchospasm. It may present as isolated laryngeal edema without digestive involvement, hypotension, or other respiratory problems.

Other limitations to adrenaline use include technical difficulties and the possibility of incorrect administration, the need for appropriate needle sizes for patients with obesity, needle phobia, potential adverse effects of adrenaline injections, failure to carry two autoinjectors, constraints related to storage and bulky transport, as well as the need for training and practice.

“These factors contribute to underuse of adrenaline by patients and caregivers,” said Dr. Neukirch, which results in delays in necessary administration.
 

Adrenaline Treatment Criteria?

An analysis published in 2023 based on pharmacovigilance data from 30 regional French centers from 1984 to 2022 included 42 reported cases (average age, 33 years; 26% children) of reactions to AAI, which probably is an underestimate. About 40% of AAI uses occurred during anaphylaxis. The remaining 60% were triggered outside of reactions. The main reasons were accidental injections, mainly in the fingers, and cases of not triggering the autoinjector, underlining the importance of patient education.

In 2015, the European Medicines Agency required pharmacological studies for injectable adrenaline on healthy volunteers. These studies include ultrasound measurements of bolus injection, pharmacokinetics (ie, absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion), and pharmacodynamics (ie, the effect of the drug and the mechanism of action in the body), with precise evaluation of cardiovascular effects (eg, systolic and diastolic blood pressures and heart rate).

Among the information collected with the different products, ultrasound studies have shown a different localization of the adrenaline bolus (ie, in muscle in patients with normal BMI and mostly in adipose tissue in patients with BMI indicating overweight and obesity). The consequences of this finding are still unknown.

In a study with 500 µg Anapen, women with overweight or obesity showed different pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic profiles from those in men with normal weight, with an increase in the area under the curve (0-240 min) and marked changes in the heart rate time curve.

IM administration of 0.5 mg produces rapid pharmacokinetic effects in patients with normal weight, overweight, or obesity, with a delay for the second peak in the latter case. This delay perhaps results from initial local vasoconstriction due to adrenaline.

The early peak plasma concentration occurs at 5-10 minutes for AAI, with a faster speed for Anapen and EpiPen.

Moreover, needle size is not the most important factor. Rather, it is the strength and speed of injection, which can vary depending on the AAI.

Also, the optimal plasma concentration of adrenaline to treat anaphylaxis is not known; studies cannot be conducted during anaphylaxis. In terms of pharmacokinetics, a small series discovered that increased skin or muscle thickness delays the absorption of EpiPen AAI.
 

Intranasal Adrenaline

To facilitate rapid adrenaline use and convince reluctant patients to carry and use adrenaline, intranasal, sublingual, or transcutaneous forms are under development.

Three intranasal forms of adrenaline are already well advanced, including Neffy from ARS Pharma, epinephrine sprays from Bryn Pharma and Hikma, and Oxero from Oragoo, which contains dry powder.

A comparison of intranasal adrenaline Neffy and AAI shows that the former has satisfactory pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects.

In a phase 1 randomized crossover study of 42 healthy adults comparing the pharmacokinetic effects of Neffy adrenaline (2 mg) and EpiPen (0.3 mg), as well as IM epinephrine 0.3 mg, several observations were made. For a single dose, the maximum concentration (Cmax) of Neffy was lower than that of EpiPen.

However, with repeated doses administered 10 minutes apart, the Cmax of Neffy was higher than that of EpiPen. At this stage, pharmacodynamic responses to intranasal products are at least comparable with those of approved injectable products.

A comparison of the pharmacodynamic effects, such as systolic and diastolic blood pressures and heart rate, of Neffy adrenaline and AAI concluded that the profile of Neffy is comparable with that of EpiPen and superior to that of IM epinephrine.

In patients with a history of allergic rhinitis, adrenaline Cmax appears to be increased, while time to peak plasma concentration (Tmax) is reduced. Low blood pressure does not prevent Neffy absorption. Neffy is currently under review by the American and European health authorities.

Intranasal absorption of dry powder adrenaline appears to be faster than that of EpiPen, thus offering a clinical advantage in the short therapeutic window for anaphylaxis treatment.

In an open-label trial conducted on 12 adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis without asthma, the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of adrenaline were compared between FMXIN002 (1.6 and 3.2 mg), which was administered intranasally with or without nasal allergen challenge, and IM EpiPen 0.3 mg. Pharmacokinetics varied by patient. Nevertheless, nasal FMXIN002 had a shorter Tmax, a doubled Cmax after the allergen challenge peak, and a higher area under the curve in the 8 hours following administration compared with EpiPen. Pharmacodynamic effects comparable with those of EpiPen were noted at 15 minutes to 4 hours after administration. The tolerance was good, with mild and local side effects. The powder seems to deposit slightly better in the nasal cavity. It remains stable for 6 months at a temperature of 40 °C and relative humidity of 75% and for 2 years at a temperature of 25 °C and relative humidity of 60%.
 

Sublingual Adrenaline Film

AQST-109 is a sublingual film that is intended to allow rapid administration of epinephrine 1, which is a prodrug of adrenaline. The product is the size of a postage stamp, weighs < 30 g, and dissolves on contact with the tongue.

The EPIPHAST II study was a phase 1, multiperiod, crossover study conducted on 24 healthy adults (age, 24-49 years) who were randomly assigned to receive either 12 or 0.3 mg of AQST-109  of manual IM adrenaline in the first two periods. All participants received 0.3 mg of EpiPen in the last period.

EpiPen 0.3 mg resulted in a higher Cmax than AQST-109 12 mg. AQST-109 12 mg had the fastest median Tmax of 12 minutes. The areas under the curve of AQST-109 12 mg fell between those of EpiPen 0.3 mg and manual IM adrenaline 0.3 mg.

Early increases in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate were observed with AQST-109 12 mg. Changes were more pronounced with AQST-109 12 mg despite a higher Cmax with EpiPen 0.3 mg.

Part 3 of the EPIPHAST study evaluated the impact of food exposure (ie, a peanut butter sandwich) on the pharmacokinetics of AQST-109 12 mg in 24 healthy adults. Oral food residues did not significantly affect pharmacodynamic parameters, and no treatment-related adverse events were reported.

Researchers concluded that AQST-109 12 mg absorption would not be altered by “real” situations if used during meals. “These results suggest that the sublingual adrenaline film could be promising in real situations,” said Dr. Neukirch, especially in cases of food allergy with recent ingestion of the allergenic food.
 

Transcutaneous Adrenaline

A transcutaneous form of adrenaline that uses the Zeneo device developed by Crossject, a company based in Dijon, France, comes in the form of an AAI that requires no needle. This project, funded by the European Union, uses a gas generator to propel the drug at very high speed through the skin in 50 milliseconds. This method allows for extended drug storage.

Dr. Neukirch reported financial relationships with Viatris, Stallergènes, ALK, Astrazeneca, Sanofi, GSK, and Novartis.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — While anaphylaxis requires immediate adrenaline administration through autoinjection, the use of this treatment is not optimal. Therefore, the development of new adrenaline formulations (such as for intranasal, sublingual, and transcutaneous routes) aims to facilitate the drug’s use and reduce persistent delays in administration by patients and caregivers. An overview of the research was presented at the 19th French-speaking Congress of Allergology.

Anaphylaxis is a severe and potentially fatal immediate hypersensitivity reaction with highly variable and dynamic clinical presentations. It requires prompt recognition for immediate treatment with intramuscular (IM) adrenaline (at the anterolateral aspect of the mid-thigh).

One might think that this reflex is acquired, but in France, while the number of prescribed adrenaline autoinjection (AAI) devices has been increasing for a decade, reaching 965,944 units in 2022, this first-line treatment is underused. Anapen (150, 300, and 500 µg), EpiPen (150 and 300 µg), Jext (150 µg and 300 µg), and Emerade (150, 300, and 500 µg) are the four products marketed in France in 2024.

“Only 17.3% of individuals presenting to the emergency department in the Lorraine region used it in 2015,” said Catherine Neukirch, MD, a pneumologist at Hôpital Bichat–Claude Bernard in Paris, France, with rates of 11.3% for children and 20.3% for adults.
 

Anaphylaxis Incidence Increasing

Approximately 0.3% (95% CI, 0.1-0.5) of the population will experience an anaphylaxis episode in their lifetime. Incidence in Europe, across all causes, is estimated between 1.5 and 7.9 cases per 100,000 inhabitants per year. Although anaphylaxis is on the rise, its associated mortality remains low, ranging between 0.05 and 0.51 per million per year for drugs, between 0.03 and 0.32 per million per year for foods, and between 0.09 and 0.13 per million per year for hymenopteran venoms.

Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry indicate that anaphylaxis manifests rapidly after allergen exposure: 55% of cases occur within 10 minutes and 80% within 30 minutes. In addition, a biphasic reaction, which can occur up to 72 hours after exposure, is observed in < 5% of cases.

While a delay in adrenaline use is associated with risk for increased morbidity and mortality, AAI significantly reduces error rates compared with manual treatments involving ampoules, needles, and syringes. It also reduces the associated panic risks. However, there are multiple barriers to adrenaline use. The clinical symptoms of anaphylaxis may be misleading, especially if it occurs without cutaneous and urticarial manifestations but with only acute bronchospasm. It may present as isolated laryngeal edema without digestive involvement, hypotension, or other respiratory problems.

Other limitations to adrenaline use include technical difficulties and the possibility of incorrect administration, the need for appropriate needle sizes for patients with obesity, needle phobia, potential adverse effects of adrenaline injections, failure to carry two autoinjectors, constraints related to storage and bulky transport, as well as the need for training and practice.

“These factors contribute to underuse of adrenaline by patients and caregivers,” said Dr. Neukirch, which results in delays in necessary administration.
 

Adrenaline Treatment Criteria?

An analysis published in 2023 based on pharmacovigilance data from 30 regional French centers from 1984 to 2022 included 42 reported cases (average age, 33 years; 26% children) of reactions to AAI, which probably is an underestimate. About 40% of AAI uses occurred during anaphylaxis. The remaining 60% were triggered outside of reactions. The main reasons were accidental injections, mainly in the fingers, and cases of not triggering the autoinjector, underlining the importance of patient education.

In 2015, the European Medicines Agency required pharmacological studies for injectable adrenaline on healthy volunteers. These studies include ultrasound measurements of bolus injection, pharmacokinetics (ie, absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion), and pharmacodynamics (ie, the effect of the drug and the mechanism of action in the body), with precise evaluation of cardiovascular effects (eg, systolic and diastolic blood pressures and heart rate).

Among the information collected with the different products, ultrasound studies have shown a different localization of the adrenaline bolus (ie, in muscle in patients with normal BMI and mostly in adipose tissue in patients with BMI indicating overweight and obesity). The consequences of this finding are still unknown.

In a study with 500 µg Anapen, women with overweight or obesity showed different pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic profiles from those in men with normal weight, with an increase in the area under the curve (0-240 min) and marked changes in the heart rate time curve.

IM administration of 0.5 mg produces rapid pharmacokinetic effects in patients with normal weight, overweight, or obesity, with a delay for the second peak in the latter case. This delay perhaps results from initial local vasoconstriction due to adrenaline.

The early peak plasma concentration occurs at 5-10 minutes for AAI, with a faster speed for Anapen and EpiPen.

Moreover, needle size is not the most important factor. Rather, it is the strength and speed of injection, which can vary depending on the AAI.

Also, the optimal plasma concentration of adrenaline to treat anaphylaxis is not known; studies cannot be conducted during anaphylaxis. In terms of pharmacokinetics, a small series discovered that increased skin or muscle thickness delays the absorption of EpiPen AAI.
 

Intranasal Adrenaline

To facilitate rapid adrenaline use and convince reluctant patients to carry and use adrenaline, intranasal, sublingual, or transcutaneous forms are under development.

Three intranasal forms of adrenaline are already well advanced, including Neffy from ARS Pharma, epinephrine sprays from Bryn Pharma and Hikma, and Oxero from Oragoo, which contains dry powder.

A comparison of intranasal adrenaline Neffy and AAI shows that the former has satisfactory pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects.

In a phase 1 randomized crossover study of 42 healthy adults comparing the pharmacokinetic effects of Neffy adrenaline (2 mg) and EpiPen (0.3 mg), as well as IM epinephrine 0.3 mg, several observations were made. For a single dose, the maximum concentration (Cmax) of Neffy was lower than that of EpiPen.

However, with repeated doses administered 10 minutes apart, the Cmax of Neffy was higher than that of EpiPen. At this stage, pharmacodynamic responses to intranasal products are at least comparable with those of approved injectable products.

A comparison of the pharmacodynamic effects, such as systolic and diastolic blood pressures and heart rate, of Neffy adrenaline and AAI concluded that the profile of Neffy is comparable with that of EpiPen and superior to that of IM epinephrine.

In patients with a history of allergic rhinitis, adrenaline Cmax appears to be increased, while time to peak plasma concentration (Tmax) is reduced. Low blood pressure does not prevent Neffy absorption. Neffy is currently under review by the American and European health authorities.

Intranasal absorption of dry powder adrenaline appears to be faster than that of EpiPen, thus offering a clinical advantage in the short therapeutic window for anaphylaxis treatment.

In an open-label trial conducted on 12 adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis without asthma, the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of adrenaline were compared between FMXIN002 (1.6 and 3.2 mg), which was administered intranasally with or without nasal allergen challenge, and IM EpiPen 0.3 mg. Pharmacokinetics varied by patient. Nevertheless, nasal FMXIN002 had a shorter Tmax, a doubled Cmax after the allergen challenge peak, and a higher area under the curve in the 8 hours following administration compared with EpiPen. Pharmacodynamic effects comparable with those of EpiPen were noted at 15 minutes to 4 hours after administration. The tolerance was good, with mild and local side effects. The powder seems to deposit slightly better in the nasal cavity. It remains stable for 6 months at a temperature of 40 °C and relative humidity of 75% and for 2 years at a temperature of 25 °C and relative humidity of 60%.
 

Sublingual Adrenaline Film

AQST-109 is a sublingual film that is intended to allow rapid administration of epinephrine 1, which is a prodrug of adrenaline. The product is the size of a postage stamp, weighs < 30 g, and dissolves on contact with the tongue.

The EPIPHAST II study was a phase 1, multiperiod, crossover study conducted on 24 healthy adults (age, 24-49 years) who were randomly assigned to receive either 12 or 0.3 mg of AQST-109  of manual IM adrenaline in the first two periods. All participants received 0.3 mg of EpiPen in the last period.

EpiPen 0.3 mg resulted in a higher Cmax than AQST-109 12 mg. AQST-109 12 mg had the fastest median Tmax of 12 minutes. The areas under the curve of AQST-109 12 mg fell between those of EpiPen 0.3 mg and manual IM adrenaline 0.3 mg.

Early increases in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate were observed with AQST-109 12 mg. Changes were more pronounced with AQST-109 12 mg despite a higher Cmax with EpiPen 0.3 mg.

Part 3 of the EPIPHAST study evaluated the impact of food exposure (ie, a peanut butter sandwich) on the pharmacokinetics of AQST-109 12 mg in 24 healthy adults. Oral food residues did not significantly affect pharmacodynamic parameters, and no treatment-related adverse events were reported.

Researchers concluded that AQST-109 12 mg absorption would not be altered by “real” situations if used during meals. “These results suggest that the sublingual adrenaline film could be promising in real situations,” said Dr. Neukirch, especially in cases of food allergy with recent ingestion of the allergenic food.
 

Transcutaneous Adrenaline

A transcutaneous form of adrenaline that uses the Zeneo device developed by Crossject, a company based in Dijon, France, comes in the form of an AAI that requires no needle. This project, funded by the European Union, uses a gas generator to propel the drug at very high speed through the skin in 50 milliseconds. This method allows for extended drug storage.

Dr. Neukirch reported financial relationships with Viatris, Stallergènes, ALK, Astrazeneca, Sanofi, GSK, and Novartis.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.