The Hospitalist

Case

A 60-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer using morphine extended release 30 mg twice daily and as-needed oxycodone for cancer-related pain presents with fever, dyspnea, and productive cough for 2 days. She also notes several weeks of fatigue, nausea, weight loss, and orthostatic lightheadedness. She is found to have pneumonia and is admitted for intravenous antibiotics. She remains borderline hypotensive after intravenous fluids and the hospitalist suspects opioid-induced adrenal insufficiency (OIAI).

How is OIAI diagnosed and managed?
 

Brief overview of issue

In the United States, 5.4% of the population is currently using long-term opioids.¹ Patients using high doses of opioids for greater than 3 months are 40%-50% more likely to be hospitalized than those on a lower dose or no opioids.² Hospitalists frequently encounter common opioid side effects such as constipation, nausea, and drowsiness, but may be less familiar with their effects on the endocrine system. Chronic, high-dose opioids can suppress the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and cause secondary, or central, adrenal insufficiency (AI).¹

Recognition of OIAI is critical given the current opioid epidemic and life-threatening consequences of AI in systemically ill patients. While high-dose opioids may acutely suppress the HPA axis,³ OIAI is more commonly associated with long-term opioid use.⁴ The prevalence of OIAI among patients receiving long-term opioids ranges from 8.3% to 29%. This range reflects variations in opioid dose, duration of use, and different methods of assessing the HPA axis.^1,4 When screening for HPA axis suppression in subjects taking chronic opioids, Lamprecht and colleagues found a prevalence of 22.5%.⁵ In comparison, Gibb and colleagues found the prevalence of secondary AI to be 8.3% in patients enrolled in a chronic pain clinic.⁶ Despite the high prevalence on biochemical screening, the clinical significance of OIAI is less clear. Clinical AI and adrenal crisis among patients on opioids are less frequent and mostly limited to case reports.^7,8 In one retrospective cohort, one in 40 patients with OIAI presented with adrenal crisis during a hospitalization for viral gastroenteritis.⁹

With this prevalence, one would expect to diagnose OIAI more commonly in hospitalized patients. A concerning possibility is that this diagnosis is underrecognized because of either a lack of knowledge of the disease or the clinical overlap between the nonspecific symptoms of AI and other diagnoses. In patients reporting symptoms suggestive of OIAI, the diagnosis was delayed by a median of 12 months.⁹ The challenge for the hospitalist is to consider OIAI, even among patients with common infections such as pneumonia, viral gastroenteritis, or endocarditis who present with these nonspecific symptoms, while also avoiding unnecessary testing and treatment with glucocorticoids.
 

Overview of the data

Opiates and opioids exert their physiologic effect through activation of the mu, kappa, and delta receptors. These receptors are located throughout the body, including the hypothalamus and pituitary gland.⁴ Activation of these receptors results in tonic inhibition of the HPA axis and results in central AI.⁴ Central AI is characterized by a low a.m. cortisol, low adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), and low dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS) levels.^1,4 The low ACTH is indicative of central etiology. This effect of opioids is likely dose dependent with patients using more than 60 morphine-equivalent daily dose at greater risk.^1,5

Unexplained or unresolved fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, vomiting, anorexia, abdominal pain, and orthostatic hypotension in a patient on chronic opioids should prompt consideration of OIAI.⁹ Once suspected, an 8 a.m. cortisol, ACTH level, and DHEAS level should be ordered. Because of the diurnal variation of cortisol levels, 8 a.m. values are best validated for diagnosis.¹⁰ While cutoffs differ, an 8 a.m. cortisol less than 5 mcg/dL combined with ACTH less than 10 pmol/L, and DHEAS less than 50 mcg/dL are highly suggestive of OIAI. Low or indeterminate baseline a.m. cortisol levels warrant confirmatory testing.^4,10 While the insulin tolerance test is considered the gold standard, the high dose (250 mcg) cosyntropin stimulation test (CST) is the more commonly used test to diagnose and confirm AI. A CST peak response greater than 18-20 mcg/dL suggests an intact HPA axis (see Figure 1).¹⁰ This testing will diagnose central AI, but is not specific for OIAI. Other causes of central AI such as exogenous steroid use, pituitary pathology, and head trauma should be considered before attributing AI to opioids (see Table 1).⁴

Dr. Cunningham, Dr. Munoa, and Dr. Indovina.

The abnormal CST in central AI is from chronic ACTH deficiency and lack of adrenal stimulation resulting in adrenal atrophy. Adrenal atrophy leaves the adrenal glands incapable of responding to exogenous ACTH. This process takes several weeks; therefore, those with ACTH suppression caused by recent high-dose opioid use or subacute pituitary injury may have an indeterminate or normal cortisol response to high-dose exogenous ACTH.⁴ Even in the setting of a normal CST, there may remain uncertainty in the diagnosis of OIAI. When evaluating for central AI, the sensitivity and negative likelihood ratio of the CST are only 0.64 and 0.39, respectively.⁴ In the same cohort of 40 patients with OIAI, 11 patients had a normal CST.⁹ The low-dose (1 mcg) CST may increase the sensitivity, but the use of this test is limited because of technical challenges.¹ Endocrinology consultation can assist when the initial diagnostic and clinical presentation is unclear.

Dr. Cunningham, Dr. Munoa, and Dr. Indovina.

To manage a patient on opioid therapy who has laboratory data consistent with central AI, the clinician must weigh the severity of symptoms, probability of opioid weaning, and risks associated with glucocorticoid treatment. Patients presenting with acute adrenal crisis, hypotension, or critical illness should be managed with intravenous steroid replacement per existing guideline recommendations.^10,11

Patients with mild symptoms of nausea, vomiting, or orthostatic symptoms that resolve with treatment of their admitting diagnosis but who have evidence of an abnormal HPA axis should be considered for weaning opioid therapy. Evidence suggests that OIAI is reversible with reduction and cessation of chronic opioid use.^4,9 These patients may not need chronic steroid replacement; however, they should receive education on the symptoms of AI and potentially rescue steroids for home use in the setting of severe illness. Patients with OIAI admitted for surgical procedures should be managed in accordance with existing guidelines for perioperative stress dosing of glucocorticoids for AI.

Those with persisting symptoms of OIAI and an abnormal HPA axis require endocrinology consultation and glucocorticoid replacement. There is limited evidence that suggests low dose steroid replacement in patients with OIAI can improve subjective perception of bodily pain, activity level, and mood in chronic opioid users.⁹ Li and colleagues found that 16 of 23 patients experienced improvement of symptoms on glucocorticoids, and 15 were able to discontinue opioids completely.⁹ The authors speculated that the improvement in fatigue and musculoskeletal pain after steroid replacement is what allowed for successful opioid weaning. Seven of 10 of these patients with available follow-up had recovery of the HPA axis during the follow-up period.⁹ In central AI, doses as low as 10-20 mg/day of hydrocortisone have been used.^10,11 Hospitalists should educate patients on recognizing symptoms of AI, as this low dose may not be sufficient to prevent adrenal crisis.

Dr. Cunningham, Dr. Munoa, and Dr. Indovina

All patients with evidence of abnormalities in the HPA axis should receive a Medic-Alert bracelet to inform other providers of the possibility of adrenal crisis should a major trauma or critical illness render them unconscious.^4,10 Since OIAI is a form of central AI, mineralocorticoid replacement is not generally necessary.¹¹ Endocrinology follow-up can help wean steroids as the HPA axis recovers after weaning opioid therapy. Recognizing and diagnosing OIAI can identify patients with untreated symptoms who are at risk for adrenal crisis, improve communication with patients on benefits of weaning opioids, and provide valuable patient education and safe transition of care.
 

Application of the data to the original case

To make the diagnosis of OIAI, 8 a.m. cortisol, ACTH, and DHEAS should be obtained. Her cortisol was less than 5 mcg/dL, ACTH was 6 pmol/L and DHEAS was 30 mcg/dL. A high dose CST was performed with 30-minute and 60-minute cortisol values of 6 mcg/dL and 9 mcg/dL, respectively. The abnormal CST and low ACTH indicate central AI. She should undergo testing for other etiologies of central AI, such as a brain MRI and pituitary hormone testing, before confirming the diagnosis of OIAI.

The insufficient adrenal response to ACTH in the setting of infection and hypotension should prompt glucocorticoid replacement. Tapering opioids could result in recovery of the HPA axis, though may not be realistic in this patient with chronic cancer-related pain. If the patient is at high risk for adverse effects of glucocorticoids, repeat testing of the HPA axis in the outpatient setting can assess if the patient truly needs steroid replacement daily rather than only during physiologic stress. The patient should be given a Medic-Alert bracelet and instructions on symptoms of AI and stress dosing upon discharge.
 

Bottom line

OIAI is underrecognized because of central adrenal insufficiency. Knowing its clinical characteristics, diagnostic pathways, and treatment options aids in recognition and management.

Dr. Cunningham, Dr. Munoa, and Dr. Indovina are based in the division of hospital medicine at Denver Health and Hospital Authority.

References

1. Donegan D. Opioid induced adrenal insufficiency: What is new? Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2019 Jun;26(3):133-8. doi: 10.1097/MED.0000000000000474.

2. Liang Y and Turner BJ. Opioid risk measure for hospitalization. J Hosp Med. 2015 July;10(7):425-31. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2350.

3. Policola C et al. Adrenal insufficiency in acute oral opiate therapy. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab Case Rep. 2014;2014:130071. doi: 10.1530/EDM-13-0071.

4. Donegan D and Bancos I. Opioid-induced adrenal insufficiency. Mayo Clin Proc. 2018 July;93(7):937-44. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.04.010.

5. Lamprecht A et al. Secondary adrenal insufficiency and pituitary dysfunction in oral/transdermal opioid users with non-cancer pain. Eur J Endocrinol. 2018 Dec 1;179(6):353-62. doi: 10.1530/EJE-18-0530.

6. Gibb FW et al. Adrenal insufficiency in patients on long-term opioid analgesia. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2016 June;85(6):831-5. doi:10.1111/cen.13125.

7. Abs R et al. Endocrine consequences of long-term intrathecal administration of opioids. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2000 June;85(6):2215-22. doi: 10.1210/jcem.85.6.6615.

8. Tabet EJ et al. Opioid-induced hypoadrenalism resulting in fasting hypoglycaemia. BMJ Case Rep. 2019 Dec 11;12(12):e230551. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2019-230551.

9. Li T et al. Clinical presentation and outcomes of opioid induced adrenal insufficiency. Endocr Pract. 2020 Nov;26(11):1291-1297. doi: 10.4158/EP-2020-0297.

10. Grossman AB. Clinical Review: The diagnosis and management of central hypoadrenalism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010 Nov;95(11):4855-63. doi: 10.1210/jc.2010-0982.

11. Charmandari E et al. Adrenal insufficiency. Lancet. 2014 June 21;383(9935):2152-67. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61684-0.

Key points

• Opioids can cause central adrenal insufficiency because of tonic suppression of the HPA axis. This effect is likely dose dependent, and reversible upon tapering or withdrawal of opioids.
• The prevalence of biochemical OIAI in chronic opioid users of 8%-29% clinical AI is less frequent but may be underrecognized in hospitalized patients leading to delayed diagnosis.
• Diagnosis of central adrenal insufficiency is based upon low 8 a.m. cortisol and ACTH levels and/or an abnormal CST. OIAI is the likely etiology in patients on chronic opioids for whom other causes of central adrenal insufficiency have been ruled out.
• Management with glucocorticoid replacement is variable depending on clinical presentation, severity of HPA axis suppression, and ability to wean opioid therapy. Patient education regarding symptoms of AI and stress dosing is essential.

Additional reading

Grossman AB. Clinical Review: The diagnosis and management of central hypoadrenalism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010 Nov;95(11):4855-63. doi: 10.1210/jc.2010-0982.

Donegan D and Bancos I. Opioid-induced adrenal insufficiency. Mayo Clin Proc. 2018 July;93(7):937-44. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.04.010.

Li T et al. Clinical presentation and outcomes of opioid induced adrenal insufficiency. Endocr Pract. 2020 Nov;26(11):1291-7. doi: 10.4158/EP-2020-0297.

Quiz

A 55-year-old man with chronic back pain, for which he takes a total of 90 mg of oral morphine daily, is admitted for pyelonephritis with fever, nausea, vomiting, dysuria, and abdominal pain. He is febrile and tachycardic on presentation, but his vitals quickly normalize after hydration and antibiotics. About 48 hours into his hospitalization his fevers, dysuria, and abdominal pain have resolved, but he has persistent nausea and headaches. On further questioning, he also reports weight loss and fatigue over the past 3 weeks. He is found to have a morning cortisol level less than 5 mcg/dL, as well as low levels of ACTH and DHEAS. OIAI is suspected.

Which of the following is true about management?

A. Glucocorticoid replacement therapy with oral hydrocortisone should be considered to improve his symptoms.

B. Tapering off opioids is unlikely to resolve his adrenal insufficiency.

C. Stress dose steroids should be started immediately with high-dose intravenous hydrocortisone.

D. Given high clinical suspicion for OIAI, further testing for other etiologies of central adrenal insufficiency is not recommended.

Explanation of correct answer

The correct answer is A. This patient’s ongoing nonspecific symptoms that have persisted despite treatment of his acute pyelonephritis are likely caused by adrenal insufficiency. In a symptomatic patient with OIAI, treatment with oral hydrocortisone should be considered to control symptoms and facilitate tapering opioids. Tapering and stopping opioids often leads to recovery of the HPA axis and resolution of the OIAI. Tapering opioids should be considered a mainstay of therapy for OIAI when clinically appropriate, as in this patient with chronic benign pain. Stress dose steroids are not indicated in the absence of critical illness, adrenal crisis, or major surgery. OIAI is a diagnosis of exclusion, and patients should undergo workup for other causes of secondary adrenal insufficiency.

Case

A 60-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer using morphine extended release 30 mg twice daily and as-needed oxycodone for cancer-related pain presents with fever, dyspnea, and productive cough for 2 days. She also notes several weeks of fatigue, nausea, weight loss, and orthostatic lightheadedness. She is found to have pneumonia and is admitted for intravenous antibiotics. She remains borderline hypotensive after intravenous fluids and the hospitalist suspects opioid-induced adrenal insufficiency (OIAI).

How is OIAI diagnosed and managed?
 

Brief overview of issue

In the United States, 5.4% of the population is currently using long-term opioids.¹ Patients using high doses of opioids for greater than 3 months are 40%-50% more likely to be hospitalized than those on a lower dose or no opioids.² Hospitalists frequently encounter common opioid side effects such as constipation, nausea, and drowsiness, but may be less familiar with their effects on the endocrine system. Chronic, high-dose opioids can suppress the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and cause secondary, or central, adrenal insufficiency (AI).¹

Recognition of OIAI is critical given the current opioid epidemic and life-threatening consequences of AI in systemically ill patients. While high-dose opioids may acutely suppress the HPA axis,³ OIAI is more commonly associated with long-term opioid use.⁴ The prevalence of OIAI among patients receiving long-term opioids ranges from 8.3% to 29%. This range reflects variations in opioid dose, duration of use, and different methods of assessing the HPA axis.^1,4 When screening for HPA axis suppression in subjects taking chronic opioids, Lamprecht and colleagues found a prevalence of 22.5%.⁵ In comparison, Gibb and colleagues found the prevalence of secondary AI to be 8.3% in patients enrolled in a chronic pain clinic.⁶ Despite the high prevalence on biochemical screening, the clinical significance of OIAI is less clear. Clinical AI and adrenal crisis among patients on opioids are less frequent and mostly limited to case reports.^7,8 In one retrospective cohort, one in 40 patients with OIAI presented with adrenal crisis during a hospitalization for viral gastroenteritis.⁹

With this prevalence, one would expect to diagnose OIAI more commonly in hospitalized patients. A concerning possibility is that this diagnosis is underrecognized because of either a lack of knowledge of the disease or the clinical overlap between the nonspecific symptoms of AI and other diagnoses. In patients reporting symptoms suggestive of OIAI, the diagnosis was delayed by a median of 12 months.⁹ The challenge for the hospitalist is to consider OIAI, even among patients with common infections such as pneumonia, viral gastroenteritis, or endocarditis who present with these nonspecific symptoms, while also avoiding unnecessary testing and treatment with glucocorticoids.
 

Overview of the data

Opiates and opioids exert their physiologic effect through activation of the mu, kappa, and delta receptors. These receptors are located throughout the body, including the hypothalamus and pituitary gland.⁴ Activation of these receptors results in tonic inhibition of the HPA axis and results in central AI.⁴ Central AI is characterized by a low a.m. cortisol, low adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), and low dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS) levels.^1,4 The low ACTH is indicative of central etiology. This effect of opioids is likely dose dependent with patients using more than 60 morphine-equivalent daily dose at greater risk.^1,5

Unexplained or unresolved fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, vomiting, anorexia, abdominal pain, and orthostatic hypotension in a patient on chronic opioids should prompt consideration of OIAI.⁹ Once suspected, an 8 a.m. cortisol, ACTH level, and DHEAS level should be ordered. Because of the diurnal variation of cortisol levels, 8 a.m. values are best validated for diagnosis.¹⁰ While cutoffs differ, an 8 a.m. cortisol less than 5 mcg/dL combined with ACTH less than 10 pmol/L, and DHEAS less than 50 mcg/dL are highly suggestive of OIAI. Low or indeterminate baseline a.m. cortisol levels warrant confirmatory testing.^4,10 While the insulin tolerance test is considered the gold standard, the high dose (250 mcg) cosyntropin stimulation test (CST) is the more commonly used test to diagnose and confirm AI. A CST peak response greater than 18-20 mcg/dL suggests an intact HPA axis (see Figure 1).¹⁰ This testing will diagnose central AI, but is not specific for OIAI. Other causes of central AI such as exogenous steroid use, pituitary pathology, and head trauma should be considered before attributing AI to opioids (see Table 1).⁴

Dr. Cunningham, Dr. Munoa, and Dr. Indovina.

The abnormal CST in central AI is from chronic ACTH deficiency and lack of adrenal stimulation resulting in adrenal atrophy. Adrenal atrophy leaves the adrenal glands incapable of responding to exogenous ACTH. This process takes several weeks; therefore, those with ACTH suppression caused by recent high-dose opioid use or subacute pituitary injury may have an indeterminate or normal cortisol response to high-dose exogenous ACTH.⁴ Even in the setting of a normal CST, there may remain uncertainty in the diagnosis of OIAI. When evaluating for central AI, the sensitivity and negative likelihood ratio of the CST are only 0.64 and 0.39, respectively.⁴ In the same cohort of 40 patients with OIAI, 11 patients had a normal CST.⁹ The low-dose (1 mcg) CST may increase the sensitivity, but the use of this test is limited because of technical challenges.¹ Endocrinology consultation can assist when the initial diagnostic and clinical presentation is unclear.

Dr. Cunningham, Dr. Munoa, and Dr. Indovina.

To manage a patient on opioid therapy who has laboratory data consistent with central AI, the clinician must weigh the severity of symptoms, probability of opioid weaning, and risks associated with glucocorticoid treatment. Patients presenting with acute adrenal crisis, hypotension, or critical illness should be managed with intravenous steroid replacement per existing guideline recommendations.^10,11

Patients with mild symptoms of nausea, vomiting, or orthostatic symptoms that resolve with treatment of their admitting diagnosis but who have evidence of an abnormal HPA axis should be considered for weaning opioid therapy. Evidence suggests that OIAI is reversible with reduction and cessation of chronic opioid use.^4,9 These patients may not need chronic steroid replacement; however, they should receive education on the symptoms of AI and potentially rescue steroids for home use in the setting of severe illness. Patients with OIAI admitted for surgical procedures should be managed in accordance with existing guidelines for perioperative stress dosing of glucocorticoids for AI.

Those with persisting symptoms of OIAI and an abnormal HPA axis require endocrinology consultation and glucocorticoid replacement. There is limited evidence that suggests low dose steroid replacement in patients with OIAI can improve subjective perception of bodily pain, activity level, and mood in chronic opioid users.⁹ Li and colleagues found that 16 of 23 patients experienced improvement of symptoms on glucocorticoids, and 15 were able to discontinue opioids completely.⁹ The authors speculated that the improvement in fatigue and musculoskeletal pain after steroid replacement is what allowed for successful opioid weaning. Seven of 10 of these patients with available follow-up had recovery of the HPA axis during the follow-up period.⁹ In central AI, doses as low as 10-20 mg/day of hydrocortisone have been used.^10,11 Hospitalists should educate patients on recognizing symptoms of AI, as this low dose may not be sufficient to prevent adrenal crisis.

Dr. Cunningham, Dr. Munoa, and Dr. Indovina

All patients with evidence of abnormalities in the HPA axis should receive a Medic-Alert bracelet to inform other providers of the possibility of adrenal crisis should a major trauma or critical illness render them unconscious.^4,10 Since OIAI is a form of central AI, mineralocorticoid replacement is not generally necessary.¹¹ Endocrinology follow-up can help wean steroids as the HPA axis recovers after weaning opioid therapy. Recognizing and diagnosing OIAI can identify patients with untreated symptoms who are at risk for adrenal crisis, improve communication with patients on benefits of weaning opioids, and provide valuable patient education and safe transition of care.
 

Application of the data to the original case

To make the diagnosis of OIAI, 8 a.m. cortisol, ACTH, and DHEAS should be obtained. Her cortisol was less than 5 mcg/dL, ACTH was 6 pmol/L and DHEAS was 30 mcg/dL. A high dose CST was performed with 30-minute and 60-minute cortisol values of 6 mcg/dL and 9 mcg/dL, respectively. The abnormal CST and low ACTH indicate central AI. She should undergo testing for other etiologies of central AI, such as a brain MRI and pituitary hormone testing, before confirming the diagnosis of OIAI.

The insufficient adrenal response to ACTH in the setting of infection and hypotension should prompt glucocorticoid replacement. Tapering opioids could result in recovery of the HPA axis, though may not be realistic in this patient with chronic cancer-related pain. If the patient is at high risk for adverse effects of glucocorticoids, repeat testing of the HPA axis in the outpatient setting can assess if the patient truly needs steroid replacement daily rather than only during physiologic stress. The patient should be given a Medic-Alert bracelet and instructions on symptoms of AI and stress dosing upon discharge.
 

Bottom line

OIAI is underrecognized because of central adrenal insufficiency. Knowing its clinical characteristics, diagnostic pathways, and treatment options aids in recognition and management.

Dr. Cunningham, Dr. Munoa, and Dr. Indovina are based in the division of hospital medicine at Denver Health and Hospital Authority.

References

1. Donegan D. Opioid induced adrenal insufficiency: What is new? Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2019 Jun;26(3):133-8. doi: 10.1097/MED.0000000000000474.

2. Liang Y and Turner BJ. Opioid risk measure for hospitalization. J Hosp Med. 2015 July;10(7):425-31. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2350.

3. Policola C et al. Adrenal insufficiency in acute oral opiate therapy. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab Case Rep. 2014;2014:130071. doi: 10.1530/EDM-13-0071.

4. Donegan D and Bancos I. Opioid-induced adrenal insufficiency. Mayo Clin Proc. 2018 July;93(7):937-44. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.04.010.

5. Lamprecht A et al. Secondary adrenal insufficiency and pituitary dysfunction in oral/transdermal opioid users with non-cancer pain. Eur J Endocrinol. 2018 Dec 1;179(6):353-62. doi: 10.1530/EJE-18-0530.

6. Gibb FW et al. Adrenal insufficiency in patients on long-term opioid analgesia. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2016 June;85(6):831-5. doi:10.1111/cen.13125.

7. Abs R et al. Endocrine consequences of long-term intrathecal administration of opioids. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2000 June;85(6):2215-22. doi: 10.1210/jcem.85.6.6615.

8. Tabet EJ et al. Opioid-induced hypoadrenalism resulting in fasting hypoglycaemia. BMJ Case Rep. 2019 Dec 11;12(12):e230551. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2019-230551.

9. Li T et al. Clinical presentation and outcomes of opioid induced adrenal insufficiency. Endocr Pract. 2020 Nov;26(11):1291-1297. doi: 10.4158/EP-2020-0297.

10. Grossman AB. Clinical Review: The diagnosis and management of central hypoadrenalism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010 Nov;95(11):4855-63. doi: 10.1210/jc.2010-0982.

11. Charmandari E et al. Adrenal insufficiency. Lancet. 2014 June 21;383(9935):2152-67. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61684-0.

Key points

• Opioids can cause central adrenal insufficiency because of tonic suppression of the HPA axis. This effect is likely dose dependent, and reversible upon tapering or withdrawal of opioids.
• The prevalence of biochemical OIAI in chronic opioid users of 8%-29% clinical AI is less frequent but may be underrecognized in hospitalized patients leading to delayed diagnosis.
• Diagnosis of central adrenal insufficiency is based upon low 8 a.m. cortisol and ACTH levels and/or an abnormal CST. OIAI is the likely etiology in patients on chronic opioids for whom other causes of central adrenal insufficiency have been ruled out.
• Management with glucocorticoid replacement is variable depending on clinical presentation, severity of HPA axis suppression, and ability to wean opioid therapy. Patient education regarding symptoms of AI and stress dosing is essential.

Additional reading

Grossman AB. Clinical Review: The diagnosis and management of central hypoadrenalism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010 Nov;95(11):4855-63. doi: 10.1210/jc.2010-0982.

Donegan D and Bancos I. Opioid-induced adrenal insufficiency. Mayo Clin Proc. 2018 July;93(7):937-44. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.04.010.

Li T et al. Clinical presentation and outcomes of opioid induced adrenal insufficiency. Endocr Pract. 2020 Nov;26(11):1291-7. doi: 10.4158/EP-2020-0297.

Quiz

A 55-year-old man with chronic back pain, for which he takes a total of 90 mg of oral morphine daily, is admitted for pyelonephritis with fever, nausea, vomiting, dysuria, and abdominal pain. He is febrile and tachycardic on presentation, but his vitals quickly normalize after hydration and antibiotics. About 48 hours into his hospitalization his fevers, dysuria, and abdominal pain have resolved, but he has persistent nausea and headaches. On further questioning, he also reports weight loss and fatigue over the past 3 weeks. He is found to have a morning cortisol level less than 5 mcg/dL, as well as low levels of ACTH and DHEAS. OIAI is suspected.

Which of the following is true about management?

A. Glucocorticoid replacement therapy with oral hydrocortisone should be considered to improve his symptoms.

B. Tapering off opioids is unlikely to resolve his adrenal insufficiency.

C. Stress dose steroids should be started immediately with high-dose intravenous hydrocortisone.

D. Given high clinical suspicion for OIAI, further testing for other etiologies of central adrenal insufficiency is not recommended.

Explanation of correct answer

The correct answer is A. This patient’s ongoing nonspecific symptoms that have persisted despite treatment of his acute pyelonephritis are likely caused by adrenal insufficiency. In a symptomatic patient with OIAI, treatment with oral hydrocortisone should be considered to control symptoms and facilitate tapering opioids. Tapering and stopping opioids often leads to recovery of the HPA axis and resolution of the OIAI. Tapering opioids should be considered a mainstay of therapy for OIAI when clinically appropriate, as in this patient with chronic benign pain. Stress dose steroids are not indicated in the absence of critical illness, adrenal crisis, or major surgery. OIAI is a diagnosis of exclusion, and patients should undergo workup for other causes of secondary adrenal insufficiency.

Case

A 60-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer using morphine extended release 30 mg twice daily and as-needed oxycodone for cancer-related pain presents with fever, dyspnea, and productive cough for 2 days. She also notes several weeks of fatigue, nausea, weight loss, and orthostatic lightheadedness. She is found to have pneumonia and is admitted for intravenous antibiotics. She remains borderline hypotensive after intravenous fluids and the hospitalist suspects opioid-induced adrenal insufficiency (OIAI).

How is OIAI diagnosed and managed?
 

Brief overview of issue

In the United States, 5.4% of the population is currently using long-term opioids.¹ Patients using high doses of opioids for greater than 3 months are 40%-50% more likely to be hospitalized than those on a lower dose or no opioids.² Hospitalists frequently encounter common opioid side effects such as constipation, nausea, and drowsiness, but may be less familiar with their effects on the endocrine system. Chronic, high-dose opioids can suppress the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and cause secondary, or central, adrenal insufficiency (AI).¹

Recognition of OIAI is critical given the current opioid epidemic and life-threatening consequences of AI in systemically ill patients. While high-dose opioids may acutely suppress the HPA axis,³ OIAI is more commonly associated with long-term opioid use.⁴ The prevalence of OIAI among patients receiving long-term opioids ranges from 8.3% to 29%. This range reflects variations in opioid dose, duration of use, and different methods of assessing the HPA axis.^1,4 When screening for HPA axis suppression in subjects taking chronic opioids, Lamprecht and colleagues found a prevalence of 22.5%.⁵ In comparison, Gibb and colleagues found the prevalence of secondary AI to be 8.3% in patients enrolled in a chronic pain clinic.⁶ Despite the high prevalence on biochemical screening, the clinical significance of OIAI is less clear. Clinical AI and adrenal crisis among patients on opioids are less frequent and mostly limited to case reports.^7,8 In one retrospective cohort, one in 40 patients with OIAI presented with adrenal crisis during a hospitalization for viral gastroenteritis.⁹

With this prevalence, one would expect to diagnose OIAI more commonly in hospitalized patients. A concerning possibility is that this diagnosis is underrecognized because of either a lack of knowledge of the disease or the clinical overlap between the nonspecific symptoms of AI and other diagnoses. In patients reporting symptoms suggestive of OIAI, the diagnosis was delayed by a median of 12 months.⁹ The challenge for the hospitalist is to consider OIAI, even among patients with common infections such as pneumonia, viral gastroenteritis, or endocarditis who present with these nonspecific symptoms, while also avoiding unnecessary testing and treatment with glucocorticoids.
 

Overview of the data

Opiates and opioids exert their physiologic effect through activation of the mu, kappa, and delta receptors. These receptors are located throughout the body, including the hypothalamus and pituitary gland.⁴ Activation of these receptors results in tonic inhibition of the HPA axis and results in central AI.⁴ Central AI is characterized by a low a.m. cortisol, low adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), and low dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS) levels.^1,4 The low ACTH is indicative of central etiology. This effect of opioids is likely dose dependent with patients using more than 60 morphine-equivalent daily dose at greater risk.^1,5

Unexplained or unresolved fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, vomiting, anorexia, abdominal pain, and orthostatic hypotension in a patient on chronic opioids should prompt consideration of OIAI.⁹ Once suspected, an 8 a.m. cortisol, ACTH level, and DHEAS level should be ordered. Because of the diurnal variation of cortisol levels, 8 a.m. values are best validated for diagnosis.¹⁰ While cutoffs differ, an 8 a.m. cortisol less than 5 mcg/dL combined with ACTH less than 10 pmol/L, and DHEAS less than 50 mcg/dL are highly suggestive of OIAI. Low or indeterminate baseline a.m. cortisol levels warrant confirmatory testing.^4,10 While the insulin tolerance test is considered the gold standard, the high dose (250 mcg) cosyntropin stimulation test (CST) is the more commonly used test to diagnose and confirm AI. A CST peak response greater than 18-20 mcg/dL suggests an intact HPA axis (see Figure 1).¹⁰ This testing will diagnose central AI, but is not specific for OIAI. Other causes of central AI such as exogenous steroid use, pituitary pathology, and head trauma should be considered before attributing AI to opioids (see Table 1).⁴

Dr. Cunningham, Dr. Munoa, and Dr. Indovina.

The abnormal CST in central AI is from chronic ACTH deficiency and lack of adrenal stimulation resulting in adrenal atrophy. Adrenal atrophy leaves the adrenal glands incapable of responding to exogenous ACTH. This process takes several weeks; therefore, those with ACTH suppression caused by recent high-dose opioid use or subacute pituitary injury may have an indeterminate or normal cortisol response to high-dose exogenous ACTH.⁴ Even in the setting of a normal CST, there may remain uncertainty in the diagnosis of OIAI. When evaluating for central AI, the sensitivity and negative likelihood ratio of the CST are only 0.64 and 0.39, respectively.⁴ In the same cohort of 40 patients with OIAI, 11 patients had a normal CST.⁹ The low-dose (1 mcg) CST may increase the sensitivity, but the use of this test is limited because of technical challenges.¹ Endocrinology consultation can assist when the initial diagnostic and clinical presentation is unclear.

Dr. Cunningham, Dr. Munoa, and Dr. Indovina.

To manage a patient on opioid therapy who has laboratory data consistent with central AI, the clinician must weigh the severity of symptoms, probability of opioid weaning, and risks associated with glucocorticoid treatment. Patients presenting with acute adrenal crisis, hypotension, or critical illness should be managed with intravenous steroid replacement per existing guideline recommendations.^10,11

Patients with mild symptoms of nausea, vomiting, or orthostatic symptoms that resolve with treatment of their admitting diagnosis but who have evidence of an abnormal HPA axis should be considered for weaning opioid therapy. Evidence suggests that OIAI is reversible with reduction and cessation of chronic opioid use.^4,9 These patients may not need chronic steroid replacement; however, they should receive education on the symptoms of AI and potentially rescue steroids for home use in the setting of severe illness. Patients with OIAI admitted for surgical procedures should be managed in accordance with existing guidelines for perioperative stress dosing of glucocorticoids for AI.

Those with persisting symptoms of OIAI and an abnormal HPA axis require endocrinology consultation and glucocorticoid replacement. There is limited evidence that suggests low dose steroid replacement in patients with OIAI can improve subjective perception of bodily pain, activity level, and mood in chronic opioid users.⁹ Li and colleagues found that 16 of 23 patients experienced improvement of symptoms on glucocorticoids, and 15 were able to discontinue opioids completely.⁹ The authors speculated that the improvement in fatigue and musculoskeletal pain after steroid replacement is what allowed for successful opioid weaning. Seven of 10 of these patients with available follow-up had recovery of the HPA axis during the follow-up period.⁹ In central AI, doses as low as 10-20 mg/day of hydrocortisone have been used.^10,11 Hospitalists should educate patients on recognizing symptoms of AI, as this low dose may not be sufficient to prevent adrenal crisis.

Dr. Cunningham, Dr. Munoa, and Dr. Indovina

All patients with evidence of abnormalities in the HPA axis should receive a Medic-Alert bracelet to inform other providers of the possibility of adrenal crisis should a major trauma or critical illness render them unconscious.^4,10 Since OIAI is a form of central AI, mineralocorticoid replacement is not generally necessary.¹¹ Endocrinology follow-up can help wean steroids as the HPA axis recovers after weaning opioid therapy. Recognizing and diagnosing OIAI can identify patients with untreated symptoms who are at risk for adrenal crisis, improve communication with patients on benefits of weaning opioids, and provide valuable patient education and safe transition of care.
 

Application of the data to the original case

To make the diagnosis of OIAI, 8 a.m. cortisol, ACTH, and DHEAS should be obtained. Her cortisol was less than 5 mcg/dL, ACTH was 6 pmol/L and DHEAS was 30 mcg/dL. A high dose CST was performed with 30-minute and 60-minute cortisol values of 6 mcg/dL and 9 mcg/dL, respectively. The abnormal CST and low ACTH indicate central AI. She should undergo testing for other etiologies of central AI, such as a brain MRI and pituitary hormone testing, before confirming the diagnosis of OIAI.

The insufficient adrenal response to ACTH in the setting of infection and hypotension should prompt glucocorticoid replacement. Tapering opioids could result in recovery of the HPA axis, though may not be realistic in this patient with chronic cancer-related pain. If the patient is at high risk for adverse effects of glucocorticoids, repeat testing of the HPA axis in the outpatient setting can assess if the patient truly needs steroid replacement daily rather than only during physiologic stress. The patient should be given a Medic-Alert bracelet and instructions on symptoms of AI and stress dosing upon discharge.
 

Bottom line

OIAI is underrecognized because of central adrenal insufficiency. Knowing its clinical characteristics, diagnostic pathways, and treatment options aids in recognition and management.

Dr. Cunningham, Dr. Munoa, and Dr. Indovina are based in the division of hospital medicine at Denver Health and Hospital Authority.

References

1. Donegan D. Opioid induced adrenal insufficiency: What is new? Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2019 Jun;26(3):133-8. doi: 10.1097/MED.0000000000000474.

2. Liang Y and Turner BJ. Opioid risk measure for hospitalization. J Hosp Med. 2015 July;10(7):425-31. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2350.

3. Policola C et al. Adrenal insufficiency in acute oral opiate therapy. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab Case Rep. 2014;2014:130071. doi: 10.1530/EDM-13-0071.

4. Donegan D and Bancos I. Opioid-induced adrenal insufficiency. Mayo Clin Proc. 2018 July;93(7):937-44. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.04.010.

5. Lamprecht A et al. Secondary adrenal insufficiency and pituitary dysfunction in oral/transdermal opioid users with non-cancer pain. Eur J Endocrinol. 2018 Dec 1;179(6):353-62. doi: 10.1530/EJE-18-0530.

6. Gibb FW et al. Adrenal insufficiency in patients on long-term opioid analgesia. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2016 June;85(6):831-5. doi:10.1111/cen.13125.

7. Abs R et al. Endocrine consequences of long-term intrathecal administration of opioids. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2000 June;85(6):2215-22. doi: 10.1210/jcem.85.6.6615.

8. Tabet EJ et al. Opioid-induced hypoadrenalism resulting in fasting hypoglycaemia. BMJ Case Rep. 2019 Dec 11;12(12):e230551. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2019-230551.

9. Li T et al. Clinical presentation and outcomes of opioid induced adrenal insufficiency. Endocr Pract. 2020 Nov;26(11):1291-1297. doi: 10.4158/EP-2020-0297.

10. Grossman AB. Clinical Review: The diagnosis and management of central hypoadrenalism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010 Nov;95(11):4855-63. doi: 10.1210/jc.2010-0982.

11. Charmandari E et al. Adrenal insufficiency. Lancet. 2014 June 21;383(9935):2152-67. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61684-0.

Key points

• Opioids can cause central adrenal insufficiency because of tonic suppression of the HPA axis. This effect is likely dose dependent, and reversible upon tapering or withdrawal of opioids.
• The prevalence of biochemical OIAI in chronic opioid users of 8%-29% clinical AI is less frequent but may be underrecognized in hospitalized patients leading to delayed diagnosis.
• Diagnosis of central adrenal insufficiency is based upon low 8 a.m. cortisol and ACTH levels and/or an abnormal CST. OIAI is the likely etiology in patients on chronic opioids for whom other causes of central adrenal insufficiency have been ruled out.
• Management with glucocorticoid replacement is variable depending on clinical presentation, severity of HPA axis suppression, and ability to wean opioid therapy. Patient education regarding symptoms of AI and stress dosing is essential.

Additional reading

Grossman AB. Clinical Review: The diagnosis and management of central hypoadrenalism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010 Nov;95(11):4855-63. doi: 10.1210/jc.2010-0982.

Donegan D and Bancos I. Opioid-induced adrenal insufficiency. Mayo Clin Proc. 2018 July;93(7):937-44. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.04.010.

Li T et al. Clinical presentation and outcomes of opioid induced adrenal insufficiency. Endocr Pract. 2020 Nov;26(11):1291-7. doi: 10.4158/EP-2020-0297.

Quiz

A 55-year-old man with chronic back pain, for which he takes a total of 90 mg of oral morphine daily, is admitted for pyelonephritis with fever, nausea, vomiting, dysuria, and abdominal pain. He is febrile and tachycardic on presentation, but his vitals quickly normalize after hydration and antibiotics. About 48 hours into his hospitalization his fevers, dysuria, and abdominal pain have resolved, but he has persistent nausea and headaches. On further questioning, he also reports weight loss and fatigue over the past 3 weeks. He is found to have a morning cortisol level less than 5 mcg/dL, as well as low levels of ACTH and DHEAS. OIAI is suspected.

Which of the following is true about management?

A. Glucocorticoid replacement therapy with oral hydrocortisone should be considered to improve his symptoms.

B. Tapering off opioids is unlikely to resolve his adrenal insufficiency.

C. Stress dose steroids should be started immediately with high-dose intravenous hydrocortisone.

D. Given high clinical suspicion for OIAI, further testing for other etiologies of central adrenal insufficiency is not recommended.

Explanation of correct answer

The correct answer is A. This patient’s ongoing nonspecific symptoms that have persisted despite treatment of his acute pyelonephritis are likely caused by adrenal insufficiency. In a symptomatic patient with OIAI, treatment with oral hydrocortisone should be considered to control symptoms and facilitate tapering opioids. Tapering and stopping opioids often leads to recovery of the HPA axis and resolution of the OIAI. Tapering opioids should be considered a mainstay of therapy for OIAI when clinically appropriate, as in this patient with chronic benign pain. Stress dose steroids are not indicated in the absence of critical illness, adrenal crisis, or major surgery. OIAI is a diagnosis of exclusion, and patients should undergo workup for other causes of secondary adrenal insufficiency.

People who don’t get vaccinated against COVID-19 should expect to be reinfected with the coronavirus every 16 to 17 months on average, according to a recent study published in The Lancet Microbe.

Since COVID-19 hasn’t existed for long enough to perform a long-term study, researchers at Yale University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte looked at reinfection data for six other human-infecting coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS.

“Reinfection can reasonably happen in three months or less,” Jeffrey Townsend, PhD, lead study author and a biostatistics professor at the Yale School of Public Health, said in a statement.

“Therefore, those who have been naturally infected should get vaccinated,” he said. “Previous infection alone can offer very little long-term protection against subsequent infections.”

The research team looked at post-infection data for six coronaviruses between 1984-2020 and found reinfection ranged from 128 days to 28 years. They calculated that reinfection with COVID-19 would likely occur between 3 months to 5 years after peak antibody response, with an average of 16 months. This is less than half the duration seen for other coronaviruses that circulate among humans.

The risk of COVID-19 reinfection is about 5% at three months, which jumps to 50% after 17 months, the research team found. Reinfection could become increasingly common as immunity wanes and new variants develop, they said.

“We tend to think about immunity as being immune or not immune. Our study cautions that we instead should be more focused on the risk of reinfection through time,” Alex Dornburg, PhD, senior study author and assistant professor of bioinformatics and genomics at UNC, said in the statement.

“As new variants arise, previous immune responses become less effective at combating the virus,” he said. “Those who were naturally infected early in the pandemic are increasingly likely to become reinfected in the near future.”

Study estimates are based on average times of declining immunity across different coronaviruses, the researchers told the Yale Daily News. At the individual level, people have different levels of immunity, which can provide shorter or longer duration of protection based on immune status, immunity within a community, age, underlying health conditions, environmental exposure, and other factors.

The research team said that preventive health measures and global distribution of vaccines will be “critical” in minimizing reinfection and COVID-19 deaths. In areas with low vaccination rates, for instance, unvaccinated people should continue safety practices such as social distancing, wearing masks, and proper indoor ventilation to avoid reinfection.

“We need to be very aware of the fact that this disease is likely to be circulating over the long term and that we don’t have this long-term immunity that many people seem to be hoping to rely on in order to protect them from disease,” Dr. Townsend told the newspaper.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

People who don’t get vaccinated against COVID-19 should expect to be reinfected with the coronavirus every 16 to 17 months on average, according to a recent study published in The Lancet Microbe.

Since COVID-19 hasn’t existed for long enough to perform a long-term study, researchers at Yale University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte looked at reinfection data for six other human-infecting coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS.

“Reinfection can reasonably happen in three months or less,” Jeffrey Townsend, PhD, lead study author and a biostatistics professor at the Yale School of Public Health, said in a statement.

“Therefore, those who have been naturally infected should get vaccinated,” he said. “Previous infection alone can offer very little long-term protection against subsequent infections.”

The research team looked at post-infection data for six coronaviruses between 1984-2020 and found reinfection ranged from 128 days to 28 years. They calculated that reinfection with COVID-19 would likely occur between 3 months to 5 years after peak antibody response, with an average of 16 months. This is less than half the duration seen for other coronaviruses that circulate among humans.

The risk of COVID-19 reinfection is about 5% at three months, which jumps to 50% after 17 months, the research team found. Reinfection could become increasingly common as immunity wanes and new variants develop, they said.

“We tend to think about immunity as being immune or not immune. Our study cautions that we instead should be more focused on the risk of reinfection through time,” Alex Dornburg, PhD, senior study author and assistant professor of bioinformatics and genomics at UNC, said in the statement.

“As new variants arise, previous immune responses become less effective at combating the virus,” he said. “Those who were naturally infected early in the pandemic are increasingly likely to become reinfected in the near future.”

Study estimates are based on average times of declining immunity across different coronaviruses, the researchers told the Yale Daily News. At the individual level, people have different levels of immunity, which can provide shorter or longer duration of protection based on immune status, immunity within a community, age, underlying health conditions, environmental exposure, and other factors.

The research team said that preventive health measures and global distribution of vaccines will be “critical” in minimizing reinfection and COVID-19 deaths. In areas with low vaccination rates, for instance, unvaccinated people should continue safety practices such as social distancing, wearing masks, and proper indoor ventilation to avoid reinfection.

“We need to be very aware of the fact that this disease is likely to be circulating over the long term and that we don’t have this long-term immunity that many people seem to be hoping to rely on in order to protect them from disease,” Dr. Townsend told the newspaper.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

People who don’t get vaccinated against COVID-19 should expect to be reinfected with the coronavirus every 16 to 17 months on average, according to a recent study published in The Lancet Microbe.

Since COVID-19 hasn’t existed for long enough to perform a long-term study, researchers at Yale University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte looked at reinfection data for six other human-infecting coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS.

“Reinfection can reasonably happen in three months or less,” Jeffrey Townsend, PhD, lead study author and a biostatistics professor at the Yale School of Public Health, said in a statement.

“Therefore, those who have been naturally infected should get vaccinated,” he said. “Previous infection alone can offer very little long-term protection against subsequent infections.”

The research team looked at post-infection data for six coronaviruses between 1984-2020 and found reinfection ranged from 128 days to 28 years. They calculated that reinfection with COVID-19 would likely occur between 3 months to 5 years after peak antibody response, with an average of 16 months. This is less than half the duration seen for other coronaviruses that circulate among humans.

The risk of COVID-19 reinfection is about 5% at three months, which jumps to 50% after 17 months, the research team found. Reinfection could become increasingly common as immunity wanes and new variants develop, they said.

“We tend to think about immunity as being immune or not immune. Our study cautions that we instead should be more focused on the risk of reinfection through time,” Alex Dornburg, PhD, senior study author and assistant professor of bioinformatics and genomics at UNC, said in the statement.

“As new variants arise, previous immune responses become less effective at combating the virus,” he said. “Those who were naturally infected early in the pandemic are increasingly likely to become reinfected in the near future.”

Study estimates are based on average times of declining immunity across different coronaviruses, the researchers told the Yale Daily News. At the individual level, people have different levels of immunity, which can provide shorter or longer duration of protection based on immune status, immunity within a community, age, underlying health conditions, environmental exposure, and other factors.

The research team said that preventive health measures and global distribution of vaccines will be “critical” in minimizing reinfection and COVID-19 deaths. In areas with low vaccination rates, for instance, unvaccinated people should continue safety practices such as social distancing, wearing masks, and proper indoor ventilation to avoid reinfection.

“We need to be very aware of the fact that this disease is likely to be circulating over the long term and that we don’t have this long-term immunity that many people seem to be hoping to rely on in order to protect them from disease,” Dr. Townsend told the newspaper.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Oral fluoroquinolone therapy to treat a respiratory infection is associated with an increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients on hemodialysis, particularly those taking other QT-prolonging medications, a large observational study suggests.

However, in many cases, the absolute risk is relatively small, and the antimicrobial benefits of a fluoroquinolone may outweigh the potential cardiac risks, the researchers say.

“Pathogen-directed treatment of respiratory infections is of the utmost importance. Respiratory fluoroquinolones should be prescribed whenever an amoxicillin-based antibiotic offers suboptimal antimicrobial coverage and clinicians should consider electrocardiographic monitoring,” first author Magdalene M. Assimon, PharmD, PhD, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, told this news organization.

The study was published online Oct. 20 in JAMA Cardiology (doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2021.4234).
 

Nearly twofold increased risk 

The QT interval-prolonging potential of fluoroquinolone antibiotics are well known. However, evidence linking respiratory fluoroquinolones to adverse cardiac outcomes in the hemodialysis population is limited.

These new observational findings are based on a total of 626,322 antibiotic treatment episodes among 264,968 adults (mean age, 61 years; 51% men) receiving in-center hemodialysis – with respiratory fluoroquinolone making up 40.2% of treatment episodes and amoxicillin-based antibiotic treatment episodes making up 59.8%.

The rate of SCD within 5 days of outpatient initiation of a study antibiotic was 105.7 per 100,000 people prescribed a respiratory fluoroquinolone (levofloxacin or moxifloxacin) versus with 40.0 per 100,000 prescribed amoxicillin or amoxicillin with clavulanic acid (weighted hazard ratio: 1.95; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-2.41).

The authors estimate that one additional SCD would occur during a 5-day follow-up period for every 2,273 respiratory fluoroquinolone treatment episodes. Consistent associations were seen when follow-up was extended to 7, 10, and 14 days.

“Our data suggest that curtailing respiratory fluoroquinolone prescribing may be one actionable strategy to mitigate SCD risk in the hemodialysis population. However, the associated absolute risk reduction would be relatively small,” wrote the authors.

They noted that the rate of SCD in the hemodialysis population exceeds that of the general population by more than 20-fold. Most patients undergoing hemodialysis have a least one risk factor for drug-induced QT interval prolongation.

In the current study, nearly 20% of hemodialysis patients prescribed a respiratory fluoroquinolone were taking other medications with known risk for torsades de pointes.

“Our results emphasize the importance of performing a thorough medication review and considering pharmacodynamic drug interactions before prescribing new drug therapies for any condition,” Dr. Assimon and colleagues advised.

They suggest that clinicians consider electrocardiographic monitoring before and during fluoroquinolone therapy in hemodialysis patients, especially in high-risk individuals.
 

Valuable study

Reached for comment, Ankur Shah, MD, of the division of kidney diseases and hypertension, Brown University, Providence, R.I., called the analysis “valuable” and said the results are “consistent with the known association of cardiac arrhythmias with respiratory fluoroquinolone use in the general population, postulated to be due to increased risk of torsades de pointes from QTc prolongation. This abnormal heart rhythm can lead to sudden cardiac death.

“Notably, the population receiving respiratory fluoroquinolones had a higher incidence of cardiac disease at baseline, but the risk persisted after adjustment for this increased burden of comorbidity,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. He was not involved in the current research.

Dr. Shah cautioned that observational data such as these should be considered more “hypothesis-generating than practice-changing, as there may be unrecognized confounders or differences in the population that received the respiratory fluoroquinolones.

“A prospective randomized trial would provide a definitive answer, but in the interim, caution should be taken in using respiratory fluoroquinolones when local bacterial resistance patterns or patient-specific data offer another option,” Dr. Shah concluded.  

Dr. Assimon reported receiving grants from the Renal Research Institute (a subsidiary of Fresenius Medical Care), honoraria from the International Society of Nephrology for serving as a statistical reviewer for Kidney International Reports, and honoraria from the American Society of Nephrology for serving as an editorial fellow for the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. Dr. Shah has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oral fluoroquinolone therapy to treat a respiratory infection is associated with an increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients on hemodialysis, particularly those taking other QT-prolonging medications, a large observational study suggests.

However, in many cases, the absolute risk is relatively small, and the antimicrobial benefits of a fluoroquinolone may outweigh the potential cardiac risks, the researchers say.

“Pathogen-directed treatment of respiratory infections is of the utmost importance. Respiratory fluoroquinolones should be prescribed whenever an amoxicillin-based antibiotic offers suboptimal antimicrobial coverage and clinicians should consider electrocardiographic monitoring,” first author Magdalene M. Assimon, PharmD, PhD, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, told this news organization.

The study was published online Oct. 20 in JAMA Cardiology (doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2021.4234).
 

Nearly twofold increased risk 

The QT interval-prolonging potential of fluoroquinolone antibiotics are well known. However, evidence linking respiratory fluoroquinolones to adverse cardiac outcomes in the hemodialysis population is limited.

These new observational findings are based on a total of 626,322 antibiotic treatment episodes among 264,968 adults (mean age, 61 years; 51% men) receiving in-center hemodialysis – with respiratory fluoroquinolone making up 40.2% of treatment episodes and amoxicillin-based antibiotic treatment episodes making up 59.8%.

The rate of SCD within 5 days of outpatient initiation of a study antibiotic was 105.7 per 100,000 people prescribed a respiratory fluoroquinolone (levofloxacin or moxifloxacin) versus with 40.0 per 100,000 prescribed amoxicillin or amoxicillin with clavulanic acid (weighted hazard ratio: 1.95; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-2.41).

The authors estimate that one additional SCD would occur during a 5-day follow-up period for every 2,273 respiratory fluoroquinolone treatment episodes. Consistent associations were seen when follow-up was extended to 7, 10, and 14 days.

“Our data suggest that curtailing respiratory fluoroquinolone prescribing may be one actionable strategy to mitigate SCD risk in the hemodialysis population. However, the associated absolute risk reduction would be relatively small,” wrote the authors.

They noted that the rate of SCD in the hemodialysis population exceeds that of the general population by more than 20-fold. Most patients undergoing hemodialysis have a least one risk factor for drug-induced QT interval prolongation.

In the current study, nearly 20% of hemodialysis patients prescribed a respiratory fluoroquinolone were taking other medications with known risk for torsades de pointes.

“Our results emphasize the importance of performing a thorough medication review and considering pharmacodynamic drug interactions before prescribing new drug therapies for any condition,” Dr. Assimon and colleagues advised.

They suggest that clinicians consider electrocardiographic monitoring before and during fluoroquinolone therapy in hemodialysis patients, especially in high-risk individuals.
 

Valuable study

Reached for comment, Ankur Shah, MD, of the division of kidney diseases and hypertension, Brown University, Providence, R.I., called the analysis “valuable” and said the results are “consistent with the known association of cardiac arrhythmias with respiratory fluoroquinolone use in the general population, postulated to be due to increased risk of torsades de pointes from QTc prolongation. This abnormal heart rhythm can lead to sudden cardiac death.

“Notably, the population receiving respiratory fluoroquinolones had a higher incidence of cardiac disease at baseline, but the risk persisted after adjustment for this increased burden of comorbidity,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. He was not involved in the current research.

Dr. Shah cautioned that observational data such as these should be considered more “hypothesis-generating than practice-changing, as there may be unrecognized confounders or differences in the population that received the respiratory fluoroquinolones.

“A prospective randomized trial would provide a definitive answer, but in the interim, caution should be taken in using respiratory fluoroquinolones when local bacterial resistance patterns or patient-specific data offer another option,” Dr. Shah concluded.  

Dr. Assimon reported receiving grants from the Renal Research Institute (a subsidiary of Fresenius Medical Care), honoraria from the International Society of Nephrology for serving as a statistical reviewer for Kidney International Reports, and honoraria from the American Society of Nephrology for serving as an editorial fellow for the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. Dr. Shah has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oral fluoroquinolone therapy to treat a respiratory infection is associated with an increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients on hemodialysis, particularly those taking other QT-prolonging medications, a large observational study suggests.

However, in many cases, the absolute risk is relatively small, and the antimicrobial benefits of a fluoroquinolone may outweigh the potential cardiac risks, the researchers say.

“Pathogen-directed treatment of respiratory infections is of the utmost importance. Respiratory fluoroquinolones should be prescribed whenever an amoxicillin-based antibiotic offers suboptimal antimicrobial coverage and clinicians should consider electrocardiographic monitoring,” first author Magdalene M. Assimon, PharmD, PhD, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, told this news organization.

The study was published online Oct. 20 in JAMA Cardiology (doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2021.4234).
 

Nearly twofold increased risk 

The QT interval-prolonging potential of fluoroquinolone antibiotics are well known. However, evidence linking respiratory fluoroquinolones to adverse cardiac outcomes in the hemodialysis population is limited.

These new observational findings are based on a total of 626,322 antibiotic treatment episodes among 264,968 adults (mean age, 61 years; 51% men) receiving in-center hemodialysis – with respiratory fluoroquinolone making up 40.2% of treatment episodes and amoxicillin-based antibiotic treatment episodes making up 59.8%.

The rate of SCD within 5 days of outpatient initiation of a study antibiotic was 105.7 per 100,000 people prescribed a respiratory fluoroquinolone (levofloxacin or moxifloxacin) versus with 40.0 per 100,000 prescribed amoxicillin or amoxicillin with clavulanic acid (weighted hazard ratio: 1.95; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-2.41).

The authors estimate that one additional SCD would occur during a 5-day follow-up period for every 2,273 respiratory fluoroquinolone treatment episodes. Consistent associations were seen when follow-up was extended to 7, 10, and 14 days.

“Our data suggest that curtailing respiratory fluoroquinolone prescribing may be one actionable strategy to mitigate SCD risk in the hemodialysis population. However, the associated absolute risk reduction would be relatively small,” wrote the authors.

They noted that the rate of SCD in the hemodialysis population exceeds that of the general population by more than 20-fold. Most patients undergoing hemodialysis have a least one risk factor for drug-induced QT interval prolongation.

In the current study, nearly 20% of hemodialysis patients prescribed a respiratory fluoroquinolone were taking other medications with known risk for torsades de pointes.

“Our results emphasize the importance of performing a thorough medication review and considering pharmacodynamic drug interactions before prescribing new drug therapies for any condition,” Dr. Assimon and colleagues advised.

They suggest that clinicians consider electrocardiographic monitoring before and during fluoroquinolone therapy in hemodialysis patients, especially in high-risk individuals.
 

Valuable study

Reached for comment, Ankur Shah, MD, of the division of kidney diseases and hypertension, Brown University, Providence, R.I., called the analysis “valuable” and said the results are “consistent with the known association of cardiac arrhythmias with respiratory fluoroquinolone use in the general population, postulated to be due to increased risk of torsades de pointes from QTc prolongation. This abnormal heart rhythm can lead to sudden cardiac death.

“Notably, the population receiving respiratory fluoroquinolones had a higher incidence of cardiac disease at baseline, but the risk persisted after adjustment for this increased burden of comorbidity,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. He was not involved in the current research.

Dr. Shah cautioned that observational data such as these should be considered more “hypothesis-generating than practice-changing, as there may be unrecognized confounders or differences in the population that received the respiratory fluoroquinolones.

“A prospective randomized trial would provide a definitive answer, but in the interim, caution should be taken in using respiratory fluoroquinolones when local bacterial resistance patterns or patient-specific data offer another option,” Dr. Shah concluded.  

Dr. Assimon reported receiving grants from the Renal Research Institute (a subsidiary of Fresenius Medical Care), honoraria from the International Society of Nephrology for serving as a statistical reviewer for Kidney International Reports, and honoraria from the American Society of Nephrology for serving as an editorial fellow for the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. Dr. Shah has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LAS VEGAS – An oral treatment with freeze-dried human stool can successfully treat Clostridioides difficile infections by increasing the diversity of microorganisms in the colon, researchers say.

CP101, under development by Finch Therapeutics, proved more effective than a placebo in preventing recurrent infections for up to 24 weeks.

The CP101 capsules contain a powder of freeze-dried human stools from screened donors. They restore natural diversity that has been disrupted by antibiotics, said Jessica Allegretti, MD, MPH a gastroenterologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

The treatment offers an alternative to fecal microbiota transplant, which can effectively treat antibiotic-resistant C. difficile infections but is difficult to standardize and administer – and doesn’t have full approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, she added.

“I think this marks a moment in this space where we’re going to have better, safer, and more available options for patients,” she said in an interview. “It’s exciting.”

Dr. Allegretti is an author on three presentations of results from PRISM3, a phase 2 trial of CP101. They will be presented this week at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology. These results extend out to 24 weeks, whereas the 8-week results of this trial were presented a year ago at the same meeting.
 

Study details

The study enrolled 198 people who received antibiotics for recurrent C. difficile infections. Some patients had two or more recurrences, while others had only one recurrence but were 65 years of age or older.

“That was a unique aspect of this study, to see the effect of bringing a therapy like CP101 earlier in the treatment paradigm,” said Dr. Allegretti. “You can imagine for an older, frail, or more fragile patient that you would want to get rid of this [infection] earlier.”

After waiting 2-6 days for the antibiotics to wash out, the researchers randomly assigned 102 of these patients to take the CP101 pills orally and 96 to take placebo pills, both without bowel preparation.

The two groups were not significantly different in age, gender, comorbidities, the number of C. difficile recurrences, or the type of test used to diagnose the infection (PCR-based vs. toxin EIA-based).

After 8 weeks, 74.5% of those given the CP101 pills had not had a recurrence, compared with 61.5% of those given the placebo. The difference was just barely statistically significant (P = .0488).

Sixteen weeks later, the effect endured, with 73.5% of the CP101 group and 59.4% of the placebo group still free of recurrence. The statistical significance of the difference improved slightly (P = .0347).

Drug-related emergent adverse events were similar between the two groups: 16.3% for the CP101 group vs. 19.2% for the placebo group. These were mostly gastrointestinal symptoms, and none were serious.

Some of the patients received vancomycin as a first-line treatment for C. difficile infections, and the researchers wondered if the washout period was not sufficient to purge that antibiotic, leaving enough to interfere with the effectiveness of CP101.

Therefore, they separately analyzed 40 patients treated with fidaxomicin, which they expected to wash out more quickly. Among these patients, 81% who received CP101 were free of recurrences, at 8 weeks and 24 weeks. This compared with 42.1% of those who received the placebo, at both time points. This difference was more statistically significant (P = .0211).
 

Understanding how it works

To understand better how CP101 achieves its effects, the researchers collected stool samples from the patients and counted the number of different kinds organisms in each sample.

At baseline, the patients had about the same number, but after a week the diversity was greater in the patients treated with CP101, and that difference had increased at week 8. The researchers also found much less diversity of organisms in the stools of those patients who had recurrences of C. difficile infection.

The diversity of microbes in the successfully treated patients appeared to have been introduced by CP101. Dr. Allegretti and colleagues measured the number of organisms in the stool samples that came from CP101. They found that 96% of patients colonized by the CP101 organisms had avoided recurrence of the C. difficile infections, compared with 54.2% of those patients not colonized by these microbes.

“We now have some microbiome-based markers that show us as early as week 1 that the patient is going to be cured or not,” Dr. Allegretti said.

Based on these results, Finch plans to launch a phase 3 trial soon, she said.

The data on colonization is interesting because it has not been found with fecal microbiota transplants, said Purna Kashyap, MBBS, codirector of the Microbiome Program at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine in Rochester, Minn., who was not involved in the study.

But to better interpret the data, it would be helpful to know more about how the placebo and CP101 groups compared at baseline with regard to medications, immunosuppression, and antibiotics used to treat the C. difficile infections, Dr. Kashyap said. He was struck by the lower cure rate in the portion of the placebo group treated with fidaxomicin.

“Overall, I think these are exciting observations based on the data but require careful review of the entire data to make sense of [them], which will happen when it goes through peer review,” he told this news organization in an email.

Several other standardized microbiota restoration products are under development, including at least two other capsules. In contrast to CP101, which is made up of whole stool, VE303 (Vedanta Biosciences) is a “rationally defined bacterial consortium,” and SER-109 (Seres Therapeutics) is a “consortium of highly purified Firmicutes spores.” VE303 has completed a phase 2 trial, and SER-109 has completed a phase 3 trial.

Dr. Allegretti is a consultant for Finch Therapeutics, which funded the trial. Dr. Kashyap has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LAS VEGAS – An oral treatment with freeze-dried human stool can successfully treat Clostridioides difficile infections by increasing the diversity of microorganisms in the colon, researchers say.

CP101, under development by Finch Therapeutics, proved more effective than a placebo in preventing recurrent infections for up to 24 weeks.

The CP101 capsules contain a powder of freeze-dried human stools from screened donors. They restore natural diversity that has been disrupted by antibiotics, said Jessica Allegretti, MD, MPH a gastroenterologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

The treatment offers an alternative to fecal microbiota transplant, which can effectively treat antibiotic-resistant C. difficile infections but is difficult to standardize and administer – and doesn’t have full approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, she added.

“I think this marks a moment in this space where we’re going to have better, safer, and more available options for patients,” she said in an interview. “It’s exciting.”

Dr. Allegretti is an author on three presentations of results from PRISM3, a phase 2 trial of CP101. They will be presented this week at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology. These results extend out to 24 weeks, whereas the 8-week results of this trial were presented a year ago at the same meeting.
 

Study details

The study enrolled 198 people who received antibiotics for recurrent C. difficile infections. Some patients had two or more recurrences, while others had only one recurrence but were 65 years of age or older.

“That was a unique aspect of this study, to see the effect of bringing a therapy like CP101 earlier in the treatment paradigm,” said Dr. Allegretti. “You can imagine for an older, frail, or more fragile patient that you would want to get rid of this [infection] earlier.”

After waiting 2-6 days for the antibiotics to wash out, the researchers randomly assigned 102 of these patients to take the CP101 pills orally and 96 to take placebo pills, both without bowel preparation.

The two groups were not significantly different in age, gender, comorbidities, the number of C. difficile recurrences, or the type of test used to diagnose the infection (PCR-based vs. toxin EIA-based).

After 8 weeks, 74.5% of those given the CP101 pills had not had a recurrence, compared with 61.5% of those given the placebo. The difference was just barely statistically significant (P = .0488).

Sixteen weeks later, the effect endured, with 73.5% of the CP101 group and 59.4% of the placebo group still free of recurrence. The statistical significance of the difference improved slightly (P = .0347).

Drug-related emergent adverse events were similar between the two groups: 16.3% for the CP101 group vs. 19.2% for the placebo group. These were mostly gastrointestinal symptoms, and none were serious.

Some of the patients received vancomycin as a first-line treatment for C. difficile infections, and the researchers wondered if the washout period was not sufficient to purge that antibiotic, leaving enough to interfere with the effectiveness of CP101.

Therefore, they separately analyzed 40 patients treated with fidaxomicin, which they expected to wash out more quickly. Among these patients, 81% who received CP101 were free of recurrences, at 8 weeks and 24 weeks. This compared with 42.1% of those who received the placebo, at both time points. This difference was more statistically significant (P = .0211).
 

Understanding how it works

To understand better how CP101 achieves its effects, the researchers collected stool samples from the patients and counted the number of different kinds organisms in each sample.

At baseline, the patients had about the same number, but after a week the diversity was greater in the patients treated with CP101, and that difference had increased at week 8. The researchers also found much less diversity of organisms in the stools of those patients who had recurrences of C. difficile infection.

The diversity of microbes in the successfully treated patients appeared to have been introduced by CP101. Dr. Allegretti and colleagues measured the number of organisms in the stool samples that came from CP101. They found that 96% of patients colonized by the CP101 organisms had avoided recurrence of the C. difficile infections, compared with 54.2% of those patients not colonized by these microbes.

“We now have some microbiome-based markers that show us as early as week 1 that the patient is going to be cured or not,” Dr. Allegretti said.

Based on these results, Finch plans to launch a phase 3 trial soon, she said.

The data on colonization is interesting because it has not been found with fecal microbiota transplants, said Purna Kashyap, MBBS, codirector of the Microbiome Program at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine in Rochester, Minn., who was not involved in the study.

But to better interpret the data, it would be helpful to know more about how the placebo and CP101 groups compared at baseline with regard to medications, immunosuppression, and antibiotics used to treat the C. difficile infections, Dr. Kashyap said. He was struck by the lower cure rate in the portion of the placebo group treated with fidaxomicin.

“Overall, I think these are exciting observations based on the data but require careful review of the entire data to make sense of [them], which will happen when it goes through peer review,” he told this news organization in an email.

Several other standardized microbiota restoration products are under development, including at least two other capsules. In contrast to CP101, which is made up of whole stool, VE303 (Vedanta Biosciences) is a “rationally defined bacterial consortium,” and SER-109 (Seres Therapeutics) is a “consortium of highly purified Firmicutes spores.” VE303 has completed a phase 2 trial, and SER-109 has completed a phase 3 trial.

Dr. Allegretti is a consultant for Finch Therapeutics, which funded the trial. Dr. Kashyap has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LAS VEGAS – An oral treatment with freeze-dried human stool can successfully treat Clostridioides difficile infections by increasing the diversity of microorganisms in the colon, researchers say.

CP101, under development by Finch Therapeutics, proved more effective than a placebo in preventing recurrent infections for up to 24 weeks.

The CP101 capsules contain a powder of freeze-dried human stools from screened donors. They restore natural diversity that has been disrupted by antibiotics, said Jessica Allegretti, MD, MPH a gastroenterologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

The treatment offers an alternative to fecal microbiota transplant, which can effectively treat antibiotic-resistant C. difficile infections but is difficult to standardize and administer – and doesn’t have full approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, she added.

“I think this marks a moment in this space where we’re going to have better, safer, and more available options for patients,” she said in an interview. “It’s exciting.”

Dr. Allegretti is an author on three presentations of results from PRISM3, a phase 2 trial of CP101. They will be presented this week at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology. These results extend out to 24 weeks, whereas the 8-week results of this trial were presented a year ago at the same meeting.
 

Study details

The study enrolled 198 people who received antibiotics for recurrent C. difficile infections. Some patients had two or more recurrences, while others had only one recurrence but were 65 years of age or older.

“That was a unique aspect of this study, to see the effect of bringing a therapy like CP101 earlier in the treatment paradigm,” said Dr. Allegretti. “You can imagine for an older, frail, or more fragile patient that you would want to get rid of this [infection] earlier.”

After waiting 2-6 days for the antibiotics to wash out, the researchers randomly assigned 102 of these patients to take the CP101 pills orally and 96 to take placebo pills, both without bowel preparation.

The two groups were not significantly different in age, gender, comorbidities, the number of C. difficile recurrences, or the type of test used to diagnose the infection (PCR-based vs. toxin EIA-based).

After 8 weeks, 74.5% of those given the CP101 pills had not had a recurrence, compared with 61.5% of those given the placebo. The difference was just barely statistically significant (P = .0488).

Sixteen weeks later, the effect endured, with 73.5% of the CP101 group and 59.4% of the placebo group still free of recurrence. The statistical significance of the difference improved slightly (P = .0347).

Drug-related emergent adverse events were similar between the two groups: 16.3% for the CP101 group vs. 19.2% for the placebo group. These were mostly gastrointestinal symptoms, and none were serious.

Some of the patients received vancomycin as a first-line treatment for C. difficile infections, and the researchers wondered if the washout period was not sufficient to purge that antibiotic, leaving enough to interfere with the effectiveness of CP101.

Therefore, they separately analyzed 40 patients treated with fidaxomicin, which they expected to wash out more quickly. Among these patients, 81% who received CP101 were free of recurrences, at 8 weeks and 24 weeks. This compared with 42.1% of those who received the placebo, at both time points. This difference was more statistically significant (P = .0211).
 

Understanding how it works

To understand better how CP101 achieves its effects, the researchers collected stool samples from the patients and counted the number of different kinds organisms in each sample.

At baseline, the patients had about the same number, but after a week the diversity was greater in the patients treated with CP101, and that difference had increased at week 8. The researchers also found much less diversity of organisms in the stools of those patients who had recurrences of C. difficile infection.

The diversity of microbes in the successfully treated patients appeared to have been introduced by CP101. Dr. Allegretti and colleagues measured the number of organisms in the stool samples that came from CP101. They found that 96% of patients colonized by the CP101 organisms had avoided recurrence of the C. difficile infections, compared with 54.2% of those patients not colonized by these microbes.

“We now have some microbiome-based markers that show us as early as week 1 that the patient is going to be cured or not,” Dr. Allegretti said.

Based on these results, Finch plans to launch a phase 3 trial soon, she said.

The data on colonization is interesting because it has not been found with fecal microbiota transplants, said Purna Kashyap, MBBS, codirector of the Microbiome Program at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine in Rochester, Minn., who was not involved in the study.

But to better interpret the data, it would be helpful to know more about how the placebo and CP101 groups compared at baseline with regard to medications, immunosuppression, and antibiotics used to treat the C. difficile infections, Dr. Kashyap said. He was struck by the lower cure rate in the portion of the placebo group treated with fidaxomicin.

“Overall, I think these are exciting observations based on the data but require careful review of the entire data to make sense of [them], which will happen when it goes through peer review,” he told this news organization in an email.

Several other standardized microbiota restoration products are under development, including at least two other capsules. In contrast to CP101, which is made up of whole stool, VE303 (Vedanta Biosciences) is a “rationally defined bacterial consortium,” and SER-109 (Seres Therapeutics) is a “consortium of highly purified Firmicutes spores.” VE303 has completed a phase 2 trial, and SER-109 has completed a phase 3 trial.

Dr. Allegretti is a consultant for Finch Therapeutics, which funded the trial. Dr. Kashyap has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Background: Sepsis is a common reason for hospitalization, and studies of the combination of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine have had conflicting results.

Study design: Double-blind randomized controlled trial.

Setting: 14 hospitals in the United States.

Synopsis: A total of 205 patients were randomly assigned to receive parenteral ascorbic acid, hydrocortisone, and thiamine every 6 hours for 4 days or placebo in matching volumes and time points. The primary outcome was change in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score between enrollment and 72 hours. There was no statistically significant difference in SOFA scores (adjusted mean difference, –0.8; 95% CI, –1.7 to 0.2; P = .12), kidney failure (adjusted risk difference, 0.03; 95% CI, –0.1 to 0.2; P = .58), or 30-day mortality (HR, 1.3; 95% CI 0.8-2.2; P = .26) between the two groups. Adverse effects included hyperglycemia, hypernatremia, and new hospital-acquired infection.

Bottom line: The combination of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine in patients with septic shock does not improve SOFA score.

Citation: Moskowitz A et al. Effect of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine on organ injury in septic shock: The ACTS randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;324(7):642-50.

Dr. Wallenhorst is a hospitalist and palliative medicine physician at the Lexington (Ky) VA Health Care System.

Background: Sepsis is a common reason for hospitalization, and studies of the combination of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine have had conflicting results.

Study design: Double-blind randomized controlled trial.

Setting: 14 hospitals in the United States.

Synopsis: A total of 205 patients were randomly assigned to receive parenteral ascorbic acid, hydrocortisone, and thiamine every 6 hours for 4 days or placebo in matching volumes and time points. The primary outcome was change in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score between enrollment and 72 hours. There was no statistically significant difference in SOFA scores (adjusted mean difference, –0.8; 95% CI, –1.7 to 0.2; P = .12), kidney failure (adjusted risk difference, 0.03; 95% CI, –0.1 to 0.2; P = .58), or 30-day mortality (HR, 1.3; 95% CI 0.8-2.2; P = .26) between the two groups. Adverse effects included hyperglycemia, hypernatremia, and new hospital-acquired infection.

Bottom line: The combination of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine in patients with septic shock does not improve SOFA score.

Citation: Moskowitz A et al. Effect of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine on organ injury in septic shock: The ACTS randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;324(7):642-50.

Dr. Wallenhorst is a hospitalist and palliative medicine physician at the Lexington (Ky) VA Health Care System.

Background: Sepsis is a common reason for hospitalization, and studies of the combination of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine have had conflicting results.

Study design: Double-blind randomized controlled trial.

Setting: 14 hospitals in the United States.

Synopsis: A total of 205 patients were randomly assigned to receive parenteral ascorbic acid, hydrocortisone, and thiamine every 6 hours for 4 days or placebo in matching volumes and time points. The primary outcome was change in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score between enrollment and 72 hours. There was no statistically significant difference in SOFA scores (adjusted mean difference, –0.8; 95% CI, –1.7 to 0.2; P = .12), kidney failure (adjusted risk difference, 0.03; 95% CI, –0.1 to 0.2; P = .58), or 30-day mortality (HR, 1.3; 95% CI 0.8-2.2; P = .26) between the two groups. Adverse effects included hyperglycemia, hypernatremia, and new hospital-acquired infection.

Bottom line: The combination of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine in patients with septic shock does not improve SOFA score.

Citation: Moskowitz A et al. Effect of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine on organ injury in septic shock: The ACTS randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;324(7):642-50.

Dr. Wallenhorst is a hospitalist and palliative medicine physician at the Lexington (Ky) VA Health Care System.

Background: In patients with heart failure, loop diuretics are used to manage symptoms. However, the effect of loop diuretics on morbidity and mortality is not well studied.

Neither of these associations was statistically significant during a 60-day follow-up, and the authors acknowledge that significant 30-day associations may be sensitive to an unmeasured confounder.

Bottom line: Starting an outpatient loop diuretic on discharge for patients hospitalized for heart failure improves 30-day all-cause mortality and lowers the risk of 30-day heart failure readmission.

Citation: Faselis C et al. Loop diuretic prescription and 30-day outcomes in older patients with heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:669-79.

Dr. Wallenhorst is a hospitalist and palliative medicine physician at the Lexington (Ky) VA Health Care System.

Background: In patients with heart failure, loop diuretics are used to manage symptoms. However, the effect of loop diuretics on morbidity and mortality is not well studied.

Neither of these associations was statistically significant during a 60-day follow-up, and the authors acknowledge that significant 30-day associations may be sensitive to an unmeasured confounder.

Bottom line: Starting an outpatient loop diuretic on discharge for patients hospitalized for heart failure improves 30-day all-cause mortality and lowers the risk of 30-day heart failure readmission.

Citation: Faselis C et al. Loop diuretic prescription and 30-day outcomes in older patients with heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:669-79.

Dr. Wallenhorst is a hospitalist and palliative medicine physician at the Lexington (Ky) VA Health Care System.

Background: In patients with heart failure, loop diuretics are used to manage symptoms. However, the effect of loop diuretics on morbidity and mortality is not well studied.

Neither of these associations was statistically significant during a 60-day follow-up, and the authors acknowledge that significant 30-day associations may be sensitive to an unmeasured confounder.

Bottom line: Starting an outpatient loop diuretic on discharge for patients hospitalized for heart failure improves 30-day all-cause mortality and lowers the risk of 30-day heart failure readmission.

Citation: Faselis C et al. Loop diuretic prescription and 30-day outcomes in older patients with heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:669-79.

Dr. Wallenhorst is a hospitalist and palliative medicine physician at the Lexington (Ky) VA Health Care System.

Editor’s note: This story was updated with the CDC director’s endorsement.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has signed off on an advisory panel’s earlier unanimous vote to recommend boosters for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccines.

The decision now means that millions of Americans are eligible to get a booster shot for either the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J COVID vaccines.

“The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe – as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given. And, they are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a CDC news release.

She also signed off on the panel’s suggestion that individuals can mix or match the booster from any one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended in a late afternoon 15-0 vote that everyone over age 18 who are at least 2 months past their Johnson & Johnson vaccine should get a booster, an endorsement that affects an estimated 13 million Americans.

Those eligible for a booster at least 6 months after their last Moderna shot are the same groups who can get a Pfizer booster.

They are:

• Anyone over age 65.
• Those over age 18 with an underlying health condition that puts them at risk of severe COVID-19.
• Those over age 18 who may be at higher risk of a COVID-19 infection because they live or work in a risky setting.

These recommendations are in line with the Food and Drug Administration’s Oct. 20 authorization of the boosters, along with the ability to mix-and-match vaccines.

There are an estimated 47 million Pfizer recipients and 39 million people vaccinated with Moderna who are now eligible for a booster dose, according to data presented by the CDC.
 

Questions, concerns

Before voting, some committee members expressed discomfort in broadly recommending boosters, stressing that there is very little evidence supporting the need for boosters in people younger than age 50.

“I can’t say that I am comfortable that anybody under 50 – an otherwise healthy individual – needs a booster vaccine at this time with either Moderna or Pfizer,” said ACIP member Sarah Long, MD, professor of pediatrics at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

She said she would try to mitigate any potential harm by having some kind of age restriction on the otherwise worried well.

“We don’t usually have the vaccines [for] the worried well. We give it because we have a need that’s worth the risk, and there’s a burden of severity of disease,” Dr. Long said.

The evidence to date shows that all the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. continue to protect people well against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death.

But breakthrough infections are on the rise, especially for people who initially received the Johnson and Johnson one-dose vaccine.

On Oct. 21, Pfizer released data from a study of more than 10,000 fully vaccinated people. Half were randomly assigned to get a booster of their Comirnaty vaccine, the other half were given a placebo.

Over the ensuing 2.5 months, there were 5 COVID-19 cases in the boosted group, and 109 in the group that got a placebo.

The data were posted in a press release and have not yet been peer reviewed, but are the first to show clinical effectiveness of boosters at preventing COVID-19 infections.

Data recently considered by the FDA and CDC for booster doses come from studies that were mostly shorter and smaller. These studies looked at biomarkers of immunity like the concentration of antibodies in a person’s blood and the percentage of study participants who saw a boost to those antibodies.

The studies demonstrated that boosters indeed restore high levels of antibodies, but unlike the newest Pfizer data they were not able to show that these antibodies prevented COVID-19.

These studies also weren’t powered to pick up on any less common safety problems that might arise after another dose of the shots.
 

“Real world” recommendations

In the end, however, the panel felt it was more important to be permissive in allowing boosters so that individuals and their doctors could be free to make their own decisions.

“The decision made by the FDA and the ACIP recommendations, I think, reflects the real world. The public is going to do what they feel driven to do. This at least adds a scientific review of the currently available data,” said Jay Varkey, MD, an infectious disease physician and associate professor at Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved in the ACIP’s deliberations.

Dr. Varkey said he would recommend that anyone who is younger than 65, and who has no underlying medical conditions such as diabetes or obesity, speak with their doctor about their individual benefits and risks before getting a booster.

The CDC is planning to release a detailed suite of clinical considerations to help people weigh the risks and benefits of getting a booster.

Safety updates presented at the meeting show that serious adverse events after vaccination are extremely rare, but in some cases, they may rise above the risk for those problems generally seen in the population.

Those rare events include the disabling autoimmune condition Guillain-Barré syndrome and the platelet disorder thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS), which causes blood clots along with the risk of excess bleeding because of a low platelet count.

Both can occur after the J&J vaccine. Out of 15.3 million doses of the vaccine given to date, there have been 47 cases of TTS and five deaths. These events are more common in younger women.

The mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, can cause heart inflammation called myocarditis or pericarditis. This side effect is more common in men 18-24 years old. The reported rate of myocarditis after vaccination is 39 cases for every 1 million doses.

In voting to permit boosters, committee member Wilbur Chen, MD, professor at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development, said he hoped boosters wouldn’t give Americans false confidence.

Dr. Chen stressed that ending the pandemic would depend on “a multilayered approach” that includes masking, social distancing, avoiding large crowds indoors, and convincing more Americans to take their first doses of the vaccines.

“We’re not just going to vaccinate ourselves out of this situation,” Dr. Chen said.
 

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Editor’s note: This story was updated with the CDC director’s endorsement.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has signed off on an advisory panel’s earlier unanimous vote to recommend boosters for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccines.

The decision now means that millions of Americans are eligible to get a booster shot for either the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J COVID vaccines.

“The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe – as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given. And, they are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a CDC news release.

She also signed off on the panel’s suggestion that individuals can mix or match the booster from any one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended in a late afternoon 15-0 vote that everyone over age 18 who are at least 2 months past their Johnson & Johnson vaccine should get a booster, an endorsement that affects an estimated 13 million Americans.

Those eligible for a booster at least 6 months after their last Moderna shot are the same groups who can get a Pfizer booster.

They are:

• Anyone over age 65.
• Those over age 18 with an underlying health condition that puts them at risk of severe COVID-19.
• Those over age 18 who may be at higher risk of a COVID-19 infection because they live or work in a risky setting.

These recommendations are in line with the Food and Drug Administration’s Oct. 20 authorization of the boosters, along with the ability to mix-and-match vaccines.

There are an estimated 47 million Pfizer recipients and 39 million people vaccinated with Moderna who are now eligible for a booster dose, according to data presented by the CDC.
 

Questions, concerns

Before voting, some committee members expressed discomfort in broadly recommending boosters, stressing that there is very little evidence supporting the need for boosters in people younger than age 50.

“I can’t say that I am comfortable that anybody under 50 – an otherwise healthy individual – needs a booster vaccine at this time with either Moderna or Pfizer,” said ACIP member Sarah Long, MD, professor of pediatrics at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

She said she would try to mitigate any potential harm by having some kind of age restriction on the otherwise worried well.

“We don’t usually have the vaccines [for] the worried well. We give it because we have a need that’s worth the risk, and there’s a burden of severity of disease,” Dr. Long said.

The evidence to date shows that all the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. continue to protect people well against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death.

But breakthrough infections are on the rise, especially for people who initially received the Johnson and Johnson one-dose vaccine.

On Oct. 21, Pfizer released data from a study of more than 10,000 fully vaccinated people. Half were randomly assigned to get a booster of their Comirnaty vaccine, the other half were given a placebo.

Over the ensuing 2.5 months, there were 5 COVID-19 cases in the boosted group, and 109 in the group that got a placebo.

The data were posted in a press release and have not yet been peer reviewed, but are the first to show clinical effectiveness of boosters at preventing COVID-19 infections.

Data recently considered by the FDA and CDC for booster doses come from studies that were mostly shorter and smaller. These studies looked at biomarkers of immunity like the concentration of antibodies in a person’s blood and the percentage of study participants who saw a boost to those antibodies.

The studies demonstrated that boosters indeed restore high levels of antibodies, but unlike the newest Pfizer data they were not able to show that these antibodies prevented COVID-19.

These studies also weren’t powered to pick up on any less common safety problems that might arise after another dose of the shots.
 

“Real world” recommendations

In the end, however, the panel felt it was more important to be permissive in allowing boosters so that individuals and their doctors could be free to make their own decisions.

“The decision made by the FDA and the ACIP recommendations, I think, reflects the real world. The public is going to do what they feel driven to do. This at least adds a scientific review of the currently available data,” said Jay Varkey, MD, an infectious disease physician and associate professor at Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved in the ACIP’s deliberations.

Dr. Varkey said he would recommend that anyone who is younger than 65, and who has no underlying medical conditions such as diabetes or obesity, speak with their doctor about their individual benefits and risks before getting a booster.

The CDC is planning to release a detailed suite of clinical considerations to help people weigh the risks and benefits of getting a booster.

Safety updates presented at the meeting show that serious adverse events after vaccination are extremely rare, but in some cases, they may rise above the risk for those problems generally seen in the population.

Those rare events include the disabling autoimmune condition Guillain-Barré syndrome and the platelet disorder thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS), which causes blood clots along with the risk of excess bleeding because of a low platelet count.

Both can occur after the J&J vaccine. Out of 15.3 million doses of the vaccine given to date, there have been 47 cases of TTS and five deaths. These events are more common in younger women.

The mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, can cause heart inflammation called myocarditis or pericarditis. This side effect is more common in men 18-24 years old. The reported rate of myocarditis after vaccination is 39 cases for every 1 million doses.

In voting to permit boosters, committee member Wilbur Chen, MD, professor at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development, said he hoped boosters wouldn’t give Americans false confidence.

Dr. Chen stressed that ending the pandemic would depend on “a multilayered approach” that includes masking, social distancing, avoiding large crowds indoors, and convincing more Americans to take their first doses of the vaccines.

“We’re not just going to vaccinate ourselves out of this situation,” Dr. Chen said.
 

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Editor’s note: This story was updated with the CDC director’s endorsement.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has signed off on an advisory panel’s earlier unanimous vote to recommend boosters for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccines.

The decision now means that millions of Americans are eligible to get a booster shot for either the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J COVID vaccines.

“The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe – as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given. And, they are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a CDC news release.

She also signed off on the panel’s suggestion that individuals can mix or match the booster from any one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended in a late afternoon 15-0 vote that everyone over age 18 who are at least 2 months past their Johnson & Johnson vaccine should get a booster, an endorsement that affects an estimated 13 million Americans.

Those eligible for a booster at least 6 months after their last Moderna shot are the same groups who can get a Pfizer booster.

They are:

• Anyone over age 65.
• Those over age 18 with an underlying health condition that puts them at risk of severe COVID-19.
• Those over age 18 who may be at higher risk of a COVID-19 infection because they live or work in a risky setting.

These recommendations are in line with the Food and Drug Administration’s Oct. 20 authorization of the boosters, along with the ability to mix-and-match vaccines.

There are an estimated 47 million Pfizer recipients and 39 million people vaccinated with Moderna who are now eligible for a booster dose, according to data presented by the CDC.
 

Questions, concerns

Before voting, some committee members expressed discomfort in broadly recommending boosters, stressing that there is very little evidence supporting the need for boosters in people younger than age 50.

“I can’t say that I am comfortable that anybody under 50 – an otherwise healthy individual – needs a booster vaccine at this time with either Moderna or Pfizer,” said ACIP member Sarah Long, MD, professor of pediatrics at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

She said she would try to mitigate any potential harm by having some kind of age restriction on the otherwise worried well.

“We don’t usually have the vaccines [for] the worried well. We give it because we have a need that’s worth the risk, and there’s a burden of severity of disease,” Dr. Long said.

The evidence to date shows that all the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. continue to protect people well against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death.

But breakthrough infections are on the rise, especially for people who initially received the Johnson and Johnson one-dose vaccine.

On Oct. 21, Pfizer released data from a study of more than 10,000 fully vaccinated people. Half were randomly assigned to get a booster of their Comirnaty vaccine, the other half were given a placebo.

Over the ensuing 2.5 months, there were 5 COVID-19 cases in the boosted group, and 109 in the group that got a placebo.

The data were posted in a press release and have not yet been peer reviewed, but are the first to show clinical effectiveness of boosters at preventing COVID-19 infections.

Data recently considered by the FDA and CDC for booster doses come from studies that were mostly shorter and smaller. These studies looked at biomarkers of immunity like the concentration of antibodies in a person’s blood and the percentage of study participants who saw a boost to those antibodies.

The studies demonstrated that boosters indeed restore high levels of antibodies, but unlike the newest Pfizer data they were not able to show that these antibodies prevented COVID-19.

These studies also weren’t powered to pick up on any less common safety problems that might arise after another dose of the shots.
 

“Real world” recommendations

In the end, however, the panel felt it was more important to be permissive in allowing boosters so that individuals and their doctors could be free to make their own decisions.

“The decision made by the FDA and the ACIP recommendations, I think, reflects the real world. The public is going to do what they feel driven to do. This at least adds a scientific review of the currently available data,” said Jay Varkey, MD, an infectious disease physician and associate professor at Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved in the ACIP’s deliberations.

Dr. Varkey said he would recommend that anyone who is younger than 65, and who has no underlying medical conditions such as diabetes or obesity, speak with their doctor about their individual benefits and risks before getting a booster.

The CDC is planning to release a detailed suite of clinical considerations to help people weigh the risks and benefits of getting a booster.

Safety updates presented at the meeting show that serious adverse events after vaccination are extremely rare, but in some cases, they may rise above the risk for those problems generally seen in the population.

Those rare events include the disabling autoimmune condition Guillain-Barré syndrome and the platelet disorder thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS), which causes blood clots along with the risk of excess bleeding because of a low platelet count.

Both can occur after the J&J vaccine. Out of 15.3 million doses of the vaccine given to date, there have been 47 cases of TTS and five deaths. These events are more common in younger women.

The mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, can cause heart inflammation called myocarditis or pericarditis. This side effect is more common in men 18-24 years old. The reported rate of myocarditis after vaccination is 39 cases for every 1 million doses.

In voting to permit boosters, committee member Wilbur Chen, MD, professor at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development, said he hoped boosters wouldn’t give Americans false confidence.

Dr. Chen stressed that ending the pandemic would depend on “a multilayered approach” that includes masking, social distancing, avoiding large crowds indoors, and convincing more Americans to take their first doses of the vaccines.

“We’re not just going to vaccinate ourselves out of this situation,” Dr. Chen said.
 

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, visitation in intensive care units has been restricted for obvious safety reasons, but such restrictions have contributed to the already serious strains on staff, results of a survey indicate.

Among 91 residents, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants who work in ICUs in the Emory Healthcare system, in Atlanta, two-thirds agreed that visitation restrictions were necessary, but nearly three-fourths said that the restrictions had a negative effect on their job satisfaction, and slightly more than half reported experiencing symptoms of burnout, wrote Nicole Herbst, MD, and Joanne Kuntz, MD, from Emory University School of Medicine.

“Because families are not present at bedside, restrictive visitation policies have necessitated that communication with families be more intentional and planned than before the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the ways these restrictions impact providers and patients can help guide future interventions to improve communication with families and reduce provider burnout,” the authors wrote in a poster presentation at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2021 Annual Meeting.
 

Valid concerns, negative effects

“During the COVID pandemic, we fell back into old ways of doing things, where parents were restricted from the bedsides of patients in the intensive care unit. And I think we have shown over the last decade that family presence at the bedside significantly improves outcomes for patients and also helps clinicians caring for those patients,” commented Christopher Carroll, MD, FCCP, from Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, Hartford, in an interview.

“We had good reason to exclude visitors because we were worried about their own safety and their own health, but now 18 months into this pandemic, we know how to prevent COVID. We know now how to safely walk into the room of a patient who has COVID and walk out of it and not get infected. There’s no reason why we can’t relax these restrictions and allow families to be there with their loved ones,” continued Dr. Carroll, who was not involved in the study.

With visitation limited or banned outright, ICU staff have had to replace face-to-face discussion with more intentional, planned, and time-consuming methods, such as telephone calls and online video.

At the time of the survey, only two visitors were allowed to see patients in end-of-life situations in Emory ICUs. Exceptions to this rule were rare.
 

Study details

ICU staff members were asked about their communication practices, their attitudes about the effect of the restrictions on communication with families and job satisfaction, and about symptoms of burnout, using a validated single-item measure.

A total of 91 practitioners completed most of the survey questions. The results showed that more than half of all respondents (57.9%) reported spending more time communicating with families than they had the previous year.

A large majority (90.5%) also said that video communication (for example, with a tablet, personal device, or computer) was as effective or more effective than telephone communication.

In all, 64.3% of practitioners agreed that visitation restrictions were appropriate, but 71.4% said that the restrictions had a negative effect on their job satisfaction, and 51.8% reported experiencing symptoms of burnout, such as stress, low energy, exhaustion, or lack of motivation.

Casey Cable, MD, a pulmonary disease and critical care specialist at Virginia Commonwealth Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia, who was not involved in the study, did her fellowship at Emory. She told this news organization that the study findings might be skewed a bit by subjective impressions.

“I work in a level I trauma unit providing tertiary medical care, and we’re using more video to communicate with family members, more iPads,” she said. “Their finding is interesting that people felt that they were communicating more with family members, and I wonder if that’s a type of recall bias, because at the bedside, you can have a conversation, as opposed to actively talking to family members by calling them, videoing them, or whatnot, and I think that sticks in our head more, about putting in more effort. I don’t know if we are spending more time communicating with family or if that’s what we just recall.”

She agreed with the authors that visitation restrictions have a definite negative effect on job satisfaction and that they cause feelings of burnout.

“It’s tough not having families at bedside and offering them support. When visitors are not able to see how sick their family members are, it complicates discussions about end-of-life care, transitioning to comfort care, or maybe not doing everything,” she said.

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Herbst, Dr. Kuntz, Dr. Carroll, and Dr. Cable have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, visitation in intensive care units has been restricted for obvious safety reasons, but such restrictions have contributed to the already serious strains on staff, results of a survey indicate.

Among 91 residents, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants who work in ICUs in the Emory Healthcare system, in Atlanta, two-thirds agreed that visitation restrictions were necessary, but nearly three-fourths said that the restrictions had a negative effect on their job satisfaction, and slightly more than half reported experiencing symptoms of burnout, wrote Nicole Herbst, MD, and Joanne Kuntz, MD, from Emory University School of Medicine.

“Because families are not present at bedside, restrictive visitation policies have necessitated that communication with families be more intentional and planned than before the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the ways these restrictions impact providers and patients can help guide future interventions to improve communication with families and reduce provider burnout,” the authors wrote in a poster presentation at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2021 Annual Meeting.
 

Valid concerns, negative effects

“During the COVID pandemic, we fell back into old ways of doing things, where parents were restricted from the bedsides of patients in the intensive care unit. And I think we have shown over the last decade that family presence at the bedside significantly improves outcomes for patients and also helps clinicians caring for those patients,” commented Christopher Carroll, MD, FCCP, from Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, Hartford, in an interview.

“We had good reason to exclude visitors because we were worried about their own safety and their own health, but now 18 months into this pandemic, we know how to prevent COVID. We know now how to safely walk into the room of a patient who has COVID and walk out of it and not get infected. There’s no reason why we can’t relax these restrictions and allow families to be there with their loved ones,” continued Dr. Carroll, who was not involved in the study.

With visitation limited or banned outright, ICU staff have had to replace face-to-face discussion with more intentional, planned, and time-consuming methods, such as telephone calls and online video.

At the time of the survey, only two visitors were allowed to see patients in end-of-life situations in Emory ICUs. Exceptions to this rule were rare.
 

Study details

ICU staff members were asked about their communication practices, their attitudes about the effect of the restrictions on communication with families and job satisfaction, and about symptoms of burnout, using a validated single-item measure.

A total of 91 practitioners completed most of the survey questions. The results showed that more than half of all respondents (57.9%) reported spending more time communicating with families than they had the previous year.

A large majority (90.5%) also said that video communication (for example, with a tablet, personal device, or computer) was as effective or more effective than telephone communication.

In all, 64.3% of practitioners agreed that visitation restrictions were appropriate, but 71.4% said that the restrictions had a negative effect on their job satisfaction, and 51.8% reported experiencing symptoms of burnout, such as stress, low energy, exhaustion, or lack of motivation.

Casey Cable, MD, a pulmonary disease and critical care specialist at Virginia Commonwealth Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia, who was not involved in the study, did her fellowship at Emory. She told this news organization that the study findings might be skewed a bit by subjective impressions.

“I work in a level I trauma unit providing tertiary medical care, and we’re using more video to communicate with family members, more iPads,” she said. “Their finding is interesting that people felt that they were communicating more with family members, and I wonder if that’s a type of recall bias, because at the bedside, you can have a conversation, as opposed to actively talking to family members by calling them, videoing them, or whatnot, and I think that sticks in our head more, about putting in more effort. I don’t know if we are spending more time communicating with family or if that’s what we just recall.”

She agreed with the authors that visitation restrictions have a definite negative effect on job satisfaction and that they cause feelings of burnout.

“It’s tough not having families at bedside and offering them support. When visitors are not able to see how sick their family members are, it complicates discussions about end-of-life care, transitioning to comfort care, or maybe not doing everything,” she said.

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Herbst, Dr. Kuntz, Dr. Carroll, and Dr. Cable have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, visitation in intensive care units has been restricted for obvious safety reasons, but such restrictions have contributed to the already serious strains on staff, results of a survey indicate.

Among 91 residents, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants who work in ICUs in the Emory Healthcare system, in Atlanta, two-thirds agreed that visitation restrictions were necessary, but nearly three-fourths said that the restrictions had a negative effect on their job satisfaction, and slightly more than half reported experiencing symptoms of burnout, wrote Nicole Herbst, MD, and Joanne Kuntz, MD, from Emory University School of Medicine.

“Because families are not present at bedside, restrictive visitation policies have necessitated that communication with families be more intentional and planned than before the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the ways these restrictions impact providers and patients can help guide future interventions to improve communication with families and reduce provider burnout,” the authors wrote in a poster presentation at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2021 Annual Meeting.
 

Valid concerns, negative effects

“During the COVID pandemic, we fell back into old ways of doing things, where parents were restricted from the bedsides of patients in the intensive care unit. And I think we have shown over the last decade that family presence at the bedside significantly improves outcomes for patients and also helps clinicians caring for those patients,” commented Christopher Carroll, MD, FCCP, from Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, Hartford, in an interview.

“We had good reason to exclude visitors because we were worried about their own safety and their own health, but now 18 months into this pandemic, we know how to prevent COVID. We know now how to safely walk into the room of a patient who has COVID and walk out of it and not get infected. There’s no reason why we can’t relax these restrictions and allow families to be there with their loved ones,” continued Dr. Carroll, who was not involved in the study.

With visitation limited or banned outright, ICU staff have had to replace face-to-face discussion with more intentional, planned, and time-consuming methods, such as telephone calls and online video.

At the time of the survey, only two visitors were allowed to see patients in end-of-life situations in Emory ICUs. Exceptions to this rule were rare.
 

Study details

ICU staff members were asked about their communication practices, their attitudes about the effect of the restrictions on communication with families and job satisfaction, and about symptoms of burnout, using a validated single-item measure.

A total of 91 practitioners completed most of the survey questions. The results showed that more than half of all respondents (57.9%) reported spending more time communicating with families than they had the previous year.

A large majority (90.5%) also said that video communication (for example, with a tablet, personal device, or computer) was as effective or more effective than telephone communication.

In all, 64.3% of practitioners agreed that visitation restrictions were appropriate, but 71.4% said that the restrictions had a negative effect on their job satisfaction, and 51.8% reported experiencing symptoms of burnout, such as stress, low energy, exhaustion, or lack of motivation.

Casey Cable, MD, a pulmonary disease and critical care specialist at Virginia Commonwealth Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia, who was not involved in the study, did her fellowship at Emory. She told this news organization that the study findings might be skewed a bit by subjective impressions.

“I work in a level I trauma unit providing tertiary medical care, and we’re using more video to communicate with family members, more iPads,” she said. “Their finding is interesting that people felt that they were communicating more with family members, and I wonder if that’s a type of recall bias, because at the bedside, you can have a conversation, as opposed to actively talking to family members by calling them, videoing them, or whatnot, and I think that sticks in our head more, about putting in more effort. I don’t know if we are spending more time communicating with family or if that’s what we just recall.”

She agreed with the authors that visitation restrictions have a definite negative effect on job satisfaction and that they cause feelings of burnout.

“It’s tough not having families at bedside and offering them support. When visitors are not able to see how sick their family members are, it complicates discussions about end-of-life care, transitioning to comfort care, or maybe not doing everything,” she said.

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Herbst, Dr. Kuntz, Dr. Carroll, and Dr. Cable have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although slightly fewer than 1% of hospitalizations for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are complicated by sepsis, this complication increases the risk for in-hospital mortality fivefold, investigators who studied a representative national sample found.

Among nearly 7 million hospitalizations in which the primary diagnosis was COPD, nearly 65,000 (0.93%) patients experienced sepsis as a complication. In all, 31% of patients with COPD and sepsis were discharged from the hospital to another care facility, and 19% of patients died in hospital, report Harshil Shah, MD, from Guthrie Corning (N.Y.) Hospital and colleagues.

“Our study highlights the need for better risk stratification in patients with COPD developing sepsis to improve the outcomes. Further studies are warranted to consider factoring some of the modifiable factors into account and to ameliorate the outcomes of sepsis during COPD hospitalizations,” Dr. Shah and colleagues write in a poster presented during the at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

COPD has been associated with increased risk for sepsis because of the use of corticosteroids, underlying comorbidities, and, potentially, because of impaired barrier function, the authors note.
 

Nationwide sample

To determine the effects of sepsis and predictors of poor outcomes among patients hospitalized for COPD, the investigators used standard diagnostic codes to identify patients with a primary diagnosis of COPD from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample for the period 2007 through 2018 and sepsis from codes in secondary fields in the International Classification of Diseases (9th/10th Editions) Clinical Modification.

They identified a total of 6,940,615 hospitalizations in which the primary diagnosis was COPD; in 64,748 of those cases, sepsis was a complication.

As noted, the in-hospital death rate, one of two primary outcomes, was 19% for patients with COPD and sepsis, and the rate of discharge to other facilities was 31%.

In analysis adjusted for confounding factors, sepsis was associated with an odds ratio for mortality of 4.9 (P < .01) and an OR for discharge to a facility of 2.2 (P < .01).

With regard to trends, the investigators saw that, although the adjusted odds for in-hospital mortality remained stable over time, discharge to facilities increased significantly. In 2007, the adjusted OR was 2.2, whereas in 2018, it was 2.6 (P for trend = .02).

Predictors of in-hospital mortality among patients with sepsis included increasing age (OR, not shown), White ethnicity (OR, 1.2), treatment in the Northeast region (OR, 1.4), disseminated intravascular coagulation (OR, 3.7), pneumococcal infection (OR, 1.2), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.2), and renal failure (OR, 1.4; P < .01 for all comparisons).
 

Mortality risk for many patients

A COPD specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization that sepsis is an uncommon but serious complication, not just for patients with COPD but also for those with other severe illnesses.

“Sepsis has a high risk for mortality whether a person has COPD or not,” commented David M. Mannino III MD, FCCP, FERS, professor of medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, and a cofounder and co–medical director of the COPD Foundation.

“It’s not surprising that sepsis is lethal in this population; the question is, if you have COPD, are you more likely to have sepsis? And I think the answer is probably yes. The connection there is that people with COPD have a higher risk for pneumonia, and pneumonia itself is probably one of the biggest risk factors, or certainly an important risk factor, for the development of sepsis,” he said in an interview.

It would be interesting to see the relationship between sepsis and in-hospital mortality for patients with other chronic diseases or people without COPD, he said, and he would have liked to have seen more detailed information about trends over time than Dr. Shah and colleagues provided.

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Shah and colleagues and Dr. Mannino have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although slightly fewer than 1% of hospitalizations for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are complicated by sepsis, this complication increases the risk for in-hospital mortality fivefold, investigators who studied a representative national sample found.

Among nearly 7 million hospitalizations in which the primary diagnosis was COPD, nearly 65,000 (0.93%) patients experienced sepsis as a complication. In all, 31% of patients with COPD and sepsis were discharged from the hospital to another care facility, and 19% of patients died in hospital, report Harshil Shah, MD, from Guthrie Corning (N.Y.) Hospital and colleagues.

“Our study highlights the need for better risk stratification in patients with COPD developing sepsis to improve the outcomes. Further studies are warranted to consider factoring some of the modifiable factors into account and to ameliorate the outcomes of sepsis during COPD hospitalizations,” Dr. Shah and colleagues write in a poster presented during the at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

COPD has been associated with increased risk for sepsis because of the use of corticosteroids, underlying comorbidities, and, potentially, because of impaired barrier function, the authors note.
 

Nationwide sample

To determine the effects of sepsis and predictors of poor outcomes among patients hospitalized for COPD, the investigators used standard diagnostic codes to identify patients with a primary diagnosis of COPD from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample for the period 2007 through 2018 and sepsis from codes in secondary fields in the International Classification of Diseases (9th/10th Editions) Clinical Modification.

They identified a total of 6,940,615 hospitalizations in which the primary diagnosis was COPD; in 64,748 of those cases, sepsis was a complication.

As noted, the in-hospital death rate, one of two primary outcomes, was 19% for patients with COPD and sepsis, and the rate of discharge to other facilities was 31%.

In analysis adjusted for confounding factors, sepsis was associated with an odds ratio for mortality of 4.9 (P < .01) and an OR for discharge to a facility of 2.2 (P < .01).

With regard to trends, the investigators saw that, although the adjusted odds for in-hospital mortality remained stable over time, discharge to facilities increased significantly. In 2007, the adjusted OR was 2.2, whereas in 2018, it was 2.6 (P for trend = .02).

Predictors of in-hospital mortality among patients with sepsis included increasing age (OR, not shown), White ethnicity (OR, 1.2), treatment in the Northeast region (OR, 1.4), disseminated intravascular coagulation (OR, 3.7), pneumococcal infection (OR, 1.2), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.2), and renal failure (OR, 1.4; P < .01 for all comparisons).
 

Mortality risk for many patients

A COPD specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization that sepsis is an uncommon but serious complication, not just for patients with COPD but also for those with other severe illnesses.

“Sepsis has a high risk for mortality whether a person has COPD or not,” commented David M. Mannino III MD, FCCP, FERS, professor of medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, and a cofounder and co–medical director of the COPD Foundation.

“It’s not surprising that sepsis is lethal in this population; the question is, if you have COPD, are you more likely to have sepsis? And I think the answer is probably yes. The connection there is that people with COPD have a higher risk for pneumonia, and pneumonia itself is probably one of the biggest risk factors, or certainly an important risk factor, for the development of sepsis,” he said in an interview.

It would be interesting to see the relationship between sepsis and in-hospital mortality for patients with other chronic diseases or people without COPD, he said, and he would have liked to have seen more detailed information about trends over time than Dr. Shah and colleagues provided.

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Shah and colleagues and Dr. Mannino have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although slightly fewer than 1% of hospitalizations for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are complicated by sepsis, this complication increases the risk for in-hospital mortality fivefold, investigators who studied a representative national sample found.

Among nearly 7 million hospitalizations in which the primary diagnosis was COPD, nearly 65,000 (0.93%) patients experienced sepsis as a complication. In all, 31% of patients with COPD and sepsis were discharged from the hospital to another care facility, and 19% of patients died in hospital, report Harshil Shah, MD, from Guthrie Corning (N.Y.) Hospital and colleagues.

“Our study highlights the need for better risk stratification in patients with COPD developing sepsis to improve the outcomes. Further studies are warranted to consider factoring some of the modifiable factors into account and to ameliorate the outcomes of sepsis during COPD hospitalizations,” Dr. Shah and colleagues write in a poster presented during the at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

COPD has been associated with increased risk for sepsis because of the use of corticosteroids, underlying comorbidities, and, potentially, because of impaired barrier function, the authors note.
 

Nationwide sample

To determine the effects of sepsis and predictors of poor outcomes among patients hospitalized for COPD, the investigators used standard diagnostic codes to identify patients with a primary diagnosis of COPD from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample for the period 2007 through 2018 and sepsis from codes in secondary fields in the International Classification of Diseases (9th/10th Editions) Clinical Modification.

They identified a total of 6,940,615 hospitalizations in which the primary diagnosis was COPD; in 64,748 of those cases, sepsis was a complication.

As noted, the in-hospital death rate, one of two primary outcomes, was 19% for patients with COPD and sepsis, and the rate of discharge to other facilities was 31%.

In analysis adjusted for confounding factors, sepsis was associated with an odds ratio for mortality of 4.9 (P < .01) and an OR for discharge to a facility of 2.2 (P < .01).

With regard to trends, the investigators saw that, although the adjusted odds for in-hospital mortality remained stable over time, discharge to facilities increased significantly. In 2007, the adjusted OR was 2.2, whereas in 2018, it was 2.6 (P for trend = .02).

Predictors of in-hospital mortality among patients with sepsis included increasing age (OR, not shown), White ethnicity (OR, 1.2), treatment in the Northeast region (OR, 1.4), disseminated intravascular coagulation (OR, 3.7), pneumococcal infection (OR, 1.2), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.2), and renal failure (OR, 1.4; P < .01 for all comparisons).
 

Mortality risk for many patients

A COPD specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization that sepsis is an uncommon but serious complication, not just for patients with COPD but also for those with other severe illnesses.

“Sepsis has a high risk for mortality whether a person has COPD or not,” commented David M. Mannino III MD, FCCP, FERS, professor of medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, and a cofounder and co–medical director of the COPD Foundation.

“It’s not surprising that sepsis is lethal in this population; the question is, if you have COPD, are you more likely to have sepsis? And I think the answer is probably yes. The connection there is that people with COPD have a higher risk for pneumonia, and pneumonia itself is probably one of the biggest risk factors, or certainly an important risk factor, for the development of sepsis,” he said in an interview.

It would be interesting to see the relationship between sepsis and in-hospital mortality for patients with other chronic diseases or people without COPD, he said, and he would have liked to have seen more detailed information about trends over time than Dr. Shah and colleagues provided.

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Shah and colleagues and Dr. Mannino have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Background: A large proportion of Italian patients with COVID-19 presented with symptoms, most commonly cough, fever, dyspnea, myalgias, anosmia, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Information is lacking on persistent symptoms after recovery.

From April 21 to May 29, 2020, 179 patients were potentially eligible; 143 ultimately were included. During hospitalization, 72.7% of participants had evidence of interstitial pneumonia. Patients were assessed a mean of 60.3 days after onset of the first COVID-19 symptom. Only 18 (12.6%) were completely free of any COVID-19–related symptoms, 32% had one or two symptoms, and 55% had three or more. Worsened quality of life was observed among 44.1% of patients.

Bottom line: 87.4% of patients who had recovered from COVID-19 reported persistence of at least one symptom, particularly fatigue and dyspnea.

Citation: Carfi A et al. Persistent symptoms in patients after acute COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;324(6):603-5.

Dr. Walker is a hospitalist at the Lexington (Ky.) VA Health Care System.

Background: A large proportion of Italian patients with COVID-19 presented with symptoms, most commonly cough, fever, dyspnea, myalgias, anosmia, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Information is lacking on persistent symptoms after recovery.

From April 21 to May 29, 2020, 179 patients were potentially eligible; 143 ultimately were included. During hospitalization, 72.7% of participants had evidence of interstitial pneumonia. Patients were assessed a mean of 60.3 days after onset of the first COVID-19 symptom. Only 18 (12.6%) were completely free of any COVID-19–related symptoms, 32% had one or two symptoms, and 55% had three or more. Worsened quality of life was observed among 44.1% of patients.

Bottom line: 87.4% of patients who had recovered from COVID-19 reported persistence of at least one symptom, particularly fatigue and dyspnea.

Citation: Carfi A et al. Persistent symptoms in patients after acute COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;324(6):603-5.

Dr. Walker is a hospitalist at the Lexington (Ky.) VA Health Care System.

Background: A large proportion of Italian patients with COVID-19 presented with symptoms, most commonly cough, fever, dyspnea, myalgias, anosmia, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Information is lacking on persistent symptoms after recovery.

From April 21 to May 29, 2020, 179 patients were potentially eligible; 143 ultimately were included. During hospitalization, 72.7% of participants had evidence of interstitial pneumonia. Patients were assessed a mean of 60.3 days after onset of the first COVID-19 symptom. Only 18 (12.6%) were completely free of any COVID-19–related symptoms, 32% had one or two symptoms, and 55% had three or more. Worsened quality of life was observed among 44.1% of patients.

Bottom line: 87.4% of patients who had recovered from COVID-19 reported persistence of at least one symptom, particularly fatigue and dyspnea.

Citation: Carfi A et al. Persistent symptoms in patients after acute COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;324(6):603-5.

Dr. Walker is a hospitalist at the Lexington (Ky.) VA Health Care System.