Vidyard Video

• Are you treating pregnant patients with COVID-19? Take this brief survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CDZ7VFK
• Enroll your patients in PRIORITY: Pregnancy Coronavirus Outcomes Registry
• Second-Trimester Miscarriage in a Pregnant Woman With SARS-CoV-2 Infection JAMA. April 30, 2020  

Vidyard Video

• Are you treating pregnant patients with COVID-19? Take this brief survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CDZ7VFK
• Enroll your patients in PRIORITY: Pregnancy Coronavirus Outcomes Registry
• Second-Trimester Miscarriage in a Pregnant Woman With SARS-CoV-2 Infection JAMA. April 30, 2020  

Vidyard Video

• Are you treating pregnant patients with COVID-19? Take this brief survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CDZ7VFK
• Enroll your patients in PRIORITY: Pregnancy Coronavirus Outcomes Registry
• Second-Trimester Miscarriage in a Pregnant Woman With SARS-CoV-2 Infection JAMA. April 30, 2020  

Readily available and inexpensive noninvasive tests, when used in combination with liver markers obtained with the extra-large probe, can improve the ability to predict risk for decompensation and other adverse outcomes in obese and overweight patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD), according to study results reported in the upcoming issue of the journal Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

The retrospective study of 272 obese and overweight patients in Bern, Switzerland, and Montreal with cACLD is the first to fully assess the noninvasive marker of portal hypertension along with using the extra-large probe for controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) to determine risk, wrote Yuly Mendoza, MD, of the University of Bern and colleagues. Decompensation in cACLD carries a higher risk of death. The study noted that portal hypertension is a key driver of progression to decompensation, “and as such, it should be identified as soon as possible and treated as needed.”

“Prediction of prognosis in cACLD is challenging, and noninvasive tests are important tools for clinicians to avoid as much as possible the use of more invasive tests,” wrote Dr. Mendoza and colleagues. Based on the extra-large probe, 76% (n = 206) of study patients had metabolic syndrome, sometimes with other etiologies of liver disease, and 57% (n = 154) had cACLD because of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease/nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NAFLD/NASH).

Twelve patients had decompensation and five developed severe bacterial infections.

“Readily available noninvasive tests can be used to identify obese or overweight patients with cACLD who are at increased risk for decompensation and severe bacterial infections,” wrote the researchers.

The study noted that obesity is a challenge for noninvasive tests and is a major limitation to liver stiffness measurement on transient elastography using the standard M probe. The XL probe has been specifically designed to overcome this challenge in obese patients, but it hasn’t been evaluated for the prediction of clinical decompensation in obese patients with cACLD.

This study claimed to provide further evidence that liver stiffness measurement in combination with noninvasive tests for liver stiffness measurement, spleen size/platelet count (LSPS), portal hypertension and portal hypertension risk score can help identify patients at risk for clinical decompensation and severe bacterial infections.

The study used average area under the receiving operator curve (AUC) to calculate the ability of the markers to distinguish risk, all with 95% confidence interval: 0.803 for liver stiffness measurement, 0.829 for portal hypertension risk score, and 0.845 for LSPS (P < .001). The markers showed an even better ability to differentiate between patients at risk for developing classical clinical decompensation in follow-up from those not at risk (all 95% CI): 0.848 for liver stiffness measurement, 0.881 for portal hypertension risk score, and 0.890 for LSPS (P < .001).

“The results of the present study validate the use of [extra-large] probe for liver stiffness measurement and CAP to stratify the risk of clinical decompensation and clinically relevant events in overweight/obese patients with cACLD, particularly in case of NAFLD/NASH etiology,” wrote Dr. Mendoza and colleagues.

All study participants were followed for at least 6 months, with a median of 17 months. Patients who developed decompensation or severe bacterial infections had slightly worse liver function (higher international normalized ratio and lower albumin), lower mean platelet count (117 vs. 179 x 10⁹/L; P < .001) and lower mean CAP (297 vs. 318 dBm; P = .030) than did patients who stayed compensated.

CAP above 220 dB/m was marginally associated with a lower risk of decompensation or severe bacterial infections on univariate analysis, as were elevated Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, elevated Child Pugh score, low platelet count, low serum albumin, elevated serum bilirubin and increased liver stiffness measurement, LSPS, and portal hypertension risk scores.

Dr. Mendoza and colleagues have no relevant financial disclosures. The study received funding from the Swiss government.

SOURCE: Mendoza Y et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.04.018.

Readily available and inexpensive noninvasive tests, when used in combination with liver markers obtained with the extra-large probe, can improve the ability to predict risk for decompensation and other adverse outcomes in obese and overweight patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD), according to study results reported in the upcoming issue of the journal Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

The retrospective study of 272 obese and overweight patients in Bern, Switzerland, and Montreal with cACLD is the first to fully assess the noninvasive marker of portal hypertension along with using the extra-large probe for controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) to determine risk, wrote Yuly Mendoza, MD, of the University of Bern and colleagues. Decompensation in cACLD carries a higher risk of death. The study noted that portal hypertension is a key driver of progression to decompensation, “and as such, it should be identified as soon as possible and treated as needed.”

“Prediction of prognosis in cACLD is challenging, and noninvasive tests are important tools for clinicians to avoid as much as possible the use of more invasive tests,” wrote Dr. Mendoza and colleagues. Based on the extra-large probe, 76% (n = 206) of study patients had metabolic syndrome, sometimes with other etiologies of liver disease, and 57% (n = 154) had cACLD because of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease/nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NAFLD/NASH).

Twelve patients had decompensation and five developed severe bacterial infections.

“Readily available noninvasive tests can be used to identify obese or overweight patients with cACLD who are at increased risk for decompensation and severe bacterial infections,” wrote the researchers.

The study noted that obesity is a challenge for noninvasive tests and is a major limitation to liver stiffness measurement on transient elastography using the standard M probe. The XL probe has been specifically designed to overcome this challenge in obese patients, but it hasn’t been evaluated for the prediction of clinical decompensation in obese patients with cACLD.

This study claimed to provide further evidence that liver stiffness measurement in combination with noninvasive tests for liver stiffness measurement, spleen size/platelet count (LSPS), portal hypertension and portal hypertension risk score can help identify patients at risk for clinical decompensation and severe bacterial infections.

The study used average area under the receiving operator curve (AUC) to calculate the ability of the markers to distinguish risk, all with 95% confidence interval: 0.803 for liver stiffness measurement, 0.829 for portal hypertension risk score, and 0.845 for LSPS (P < .001). The markers showed an even better ability to differentiate between patients at risk for developing classical clinical decompensation in follow-up from those not at risk (all 95% CI): 0.848 for liver stiffness measurement, 0.881 for portal hypertension risk score, and 0.890 for LSPS (P < .001).

“The results of the present study validate the use of [extra-large] probe for liver stiffness measurement and CAP to stratify the risk of clinical decompensation and clinically relevant events in overweight/obese patients with cACLD, particularly in case of NAFLD/NASH etiology,” wrote Dr. Mendoza and colleagues.

All study participants were followed for at least 6 months, with a median of 17 months. Patients who developed decompensation or severe bacterial infections had slightly worse liver function (higher international normalized ratio and lower albumin), lower mean platelet count (117 vs. 179 x 10⁹/L; P < .001) and lower mean CAP (297 vs. 318 dBm; P = .030) than did patients who stayed compensated.

CAP above 220 dB/m was marginally associated with a lower risk of decompensation or severe bacterial infections on univariate analysis, as were elevated Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, elevated Child Pugh score, low platelet count, low serum albumin, elevated serum bilirubin and increased liver stiffness measurement, LSPS, and portal hypertension risk scores.

Dr. Mendoza and colleagues have no relevant financial disclosures. The study received funding from the Swiss government.

SOURCE: Mendoza Y et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.04.018.

Readily available and inexpensive noninvasive tests, when used in combination with liver markers obtained with the extra-large probe, can improve the ability to predict risk for decompensation and other adverse outcomes in obese and overweight patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD), according to study results reported in the upcoming issue of the journal Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

The retrospective study of 272 obese and overweight patients in Bern, Switzerland, and Montreal with cACLD is the first to fully assess the noninvasive marker of portal hypertension along with using the extra-large probe for controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) to determine risk, wrote Yuly Mendoza, MD, of the University of Bern and colleagues. Decompensation in cACLD carries a higher risk of death. The study noted that portal hypertension is a key driver of progression to decompensation, “and as such, it should be identified as soon as possible and treated as needed.”

“Prediction of prognosis in cACLD is challenging, and noninvasive tests are important tools for clinicians to avoid as much as possible the use of more invasive tests,” wrote Dr. Mendoza and colleagues. Based on the extra-large probe, 76% (n = 206) of study patients had metabolic syndrome, sometimes with other etiologies of liver disease, and 57% (n = 154) had cACLD because of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease/nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NAFLD/NASH).

Twelve patients had decompensation and five developed severe bacterial infections.

“Readily available noninvasive tests can be used to identify obese or overweight patients with cACLD who are at increased risk for decompensation and severe bacterial infections,” wrote the researchers.

The study noted that obesity is a challenge for noninvasive tests and is a major limitation to liver stiffness measurement on transient elastography using the standard M probe. The XL probe has been specifically designed to overcome this challenge in obese patients, but it hasn’t been evaluated for the prediction of clinical decompensation in obese patients with cACLD.

This study claimed to provide further evidence that liver stiffness measurement in combination with noninvasive tests for liver stiffness measurement, spleen size/platelet count (LSPS), portal hypertension and portal hypertension risk score can help identify patients at risk for clinical decompensation and severe bacterial infections.

The study used average area under the receiving operator curve (AUC) to calculate the ability of the markers to distinguish risk, all with 95% confidence interval: 0.803 for liver stiffness measurement, 0.829 for portal hypertension risk score, and 0.845 for LSPS (P < .001). The markers showed an even better ability to differentiate between patients at risk for developing classical clinical decompensation in follow-up from those not at risk (all 95% CI): 0.848 for liver stiffness measurement, 0.881 for portal hypertension risk score, and 0.890 for LSPS (P < .001).

“The results of the present study validate the use of [extra-large] probe for liver stiffness measurement and CAP to stratify the risk of clinical decompensation and clinically relevant events in overweight/obese patients with cACLD, particularly in case of NAFLD/NASH etiology,” wrote Dr. Mendoza and colleagues.

All study participants were followed for at least 6 months, with a median of 17 months. Patients who developed decompensation or severe bacterial infections had slightly worse liver function (higher international normalized ratio and lower albumin), lower mean platelet count (117 vs. 179 x 10⁹/L; P < .001) and lower mean CAP (297 vs. 318 dBm; P = .030) than did patients who stayed compensated.

CAP above 220 dB/m was marginally associated with a lower risk of decompensation or severe bacterial infections on univariate analysis, as were elevated Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, elevated Child Pugh score, low platelet count, low serum albumin, elevated serum bilirubin and increased liver stiffness measurement, LSPS, and portal hypertension risk scores.

Dr. Mendoza and colleagues have no relevant financial disclosures. The study received funding from the Swiss government.

SOURCE: Mendoza Y et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.04.018.

In the clinical opinion of Adam Friedman, MD, the emerging use of cannabinoids in dermatology is a trend that’s here to stay.

“There’s no question in my mind about that. Don’t play catch-up; be at the forefront, because at a minimum your patients are going to ask you about this,” he said in a video presentation during a virtual meeting held by the George Washington University department of dermatology.

In 2018, officials at Health Canada reviewed literature and international reviews concerning potential therapeutic uses and harmful effects of cannabis and cannabinoids and published a free downloadable guide for health care professionals. “In the book, dermatology doesn’t have its own section,” said Dr. Friedman, professor and interim chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “It falls under inflammation and makes up four paragraphs of the entire book, which is weird, given that if you survey the dispensaries in Canada, the majority of them led in with dermatologic indications, many of which are completely unsubstantiated.”

In the United States, a recent survey of 531 dermatologists led by Elizabeth S. Robinson, MD, of George Washington University, found that 55% reported at least one patient-initiated discussion about cannabinoids in the last year (J Drugs Dermatol. 2018;17[2]:1273-8). However, 48% were concerned about a negative stigma when proposing cannabinoid therapies to patients. While most respondents (86%) were willing to prescribe an FDA-approved cannabinoid as a topical treatment, fewer (71%) were willing to prescribe an oral form. In an unpublished study conducted 2 years later, 155 dermatologists were asked if they had ever recommended medical cannabis products for the treatment/management of a dermatologic condition. More than 80% said they had not.

“It’s important to recognize that if we have a strong fund of knowledge, we can guide these patients to use the right cannabinoids for the right indications, so long as we have some evidence supporting it,” said Dr. Friedman, residency program director and director of translational research in George Washington University’s department of dermatology.

According to existing medical literature, cannabinoids may ultimately play a role in the treatment of eczema (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.01.036 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03824405), psoriasis, acne, and certain collagen vascular diseases, including scleroderma, dermatomyositis, and cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE). Most of the evidence for its use in collagen vascular diseases comes from the investigation of a synthetic cannabinoid known as anabasum, which is derived from TCH, but it has no affinity for the CB1 receptor. “Rather, it goes after the CB2 receptor, which is heavily prevalent in the immune system,” he noted.

In the summer of 2018, the FDA granted Orphan Drug Designation to Corbus Pharmaceuticals for lenabasum, a derivative of anabasum, for the treatment of dermatomyositis. “Hopefully, we’ll see this in the next year,” said Dr. Friedman, who consults for Corbus. A more recent study showed that lenabasum could reduce the production of interleukin-31 (Br. J Dermatol 2018;179[3]:669-78), which “I think will have broader implications in dermatology beyond dermatomyositis,” he said.

Dr. Friedman also reviewed data on a topical endocannabinoid nanoparticle-based formulation his team developed and is studying for the treatment of CLE. “There is a huge unmet need as there are no topical therapies approved for CLE,” he said. “Our animal data are very promising and we plan to move forward to human studies shortly.”

Resources for clinicians to improve their understanding about the potential use of cannabinoids in dermatology include an online certificate program in cannabis medicine offered by Thomas Jefferson University, as well as their state departments of health. Other resources include the International Cannabinoid Research Society, the International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines, the University of California’s Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, and the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids.

Dr. Friedman noted that marijuana may exacerbate appetite, sleepiness, dizziness, low blood pressure, dry mouth/eyes, decreased urination, hallucinations, paranoia, anxiety, poor balance and posture in patients with dyskinetic disorders, and impaired attention, memory, and psychomotor performance. High concentrations can cause hyperemesis syndrome and exacerbate existing psychoses. With respect to cannabidiol (CBD), “unless you go with super high concentrations, over 50 mg/kg per day, you’re probably not going to run into so much trouble,” Dr. Friedman said. “Above that, you do get some liver function test abnormalities. The problem is, a lot of CBD-based products have impurities in them.”

Different state-based requirements exist for recommending cannabinoid products to your patients “so it’s important to know those requirements,” Dr. Friedman said. “I have patients sign a cannabis contrast. There are examples of these online. My mantra is start low and go slow, and stay low as much as possible.”

The virtual meeting at George Washington University included presentations that had been slated for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, which was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Friedman reported that he serves as a consultant and/or adviser to numerous pharmaceutical companies, including some that produce cannabinoids. He is a speaker for Regeneron/Sanofi, Abbvie, and Dermira, and has received grants from Pfizer and the Dermatology Foundation.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

In the clinical opinion of Adam Friedman, MD, the emerging use of cannabinoids in dermatology is a trend that’s here to stay.

“There’s no question in my mind about that. Don’t play catch-up; be at the forefront, because at a minimum your patients are going to ask you about this,” he said in a video presentation during a virtual meeting held by the George Washington University department of dermatology.

In 2018, officials at Health Canada reviewed literature and international reviews concerning potential therapeutic uses and harmful effects of cannabis and cannabinoids and published a free downloadable guide for health care professionals. “In the book, dermatology doesn’t have its own section,” said Dr. Friedman, professor and interim chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “It falls under inflammation and makes up four paragraphs of the entire book, which is weird, given that if you survey the dispensaries in Canada, the majority of them led in with dermatologic indications, many of which are completely unsubstantiated.”

In the United States, a recent survey of 531 dermatologists led by Elizabeth S. Robinson, MD, of George Washington University, found that 55% reported at least one patient-initiated discussion about cannabinoids in the last year (J Drugs Dermatol. 2018;17[2]:1273-8). However, 48% were concerned about a negative stigma when proposing cannabinoid therapies to patients. While most respondents (86%) were willing to prescribe an FDA-approved cannabinoid as a topical treatment, fewer (71%) were willing to prescribe an oral form. In an unpublished study conducted 2 years later, 155 dermatologists were asked if they had ever recommended medical cannabis products for the treatment/management of a dermatologic condition. More than 80% said they had not.

“It’s important to recognize that if we have a strong fund of knowledge, we can guide these patients to use the right cannabinoids for the right indications, so long as we have some evidence supporting it,” said Dr. Friedman, residency program director and director of translational research in George Washington University’s department of dermatology.

According to existing medical literature, cannabinoids may ultimately play a role in the treatment of eczema (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.01.036 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03824405), psoriasis, acne, and certain collagen vascular diseases, including scleroderma, dermatomyositis, and cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE). Most of the evidence for its use in collagen vascular diseases comes from the investigation of a synthetic cannabinoid known as anabasum, which is derived from TCH, but it has no affinity for the CB1 receptor. “Rather, it goes after the CB2 receptor, which is heavily prevalent in the immune system,” he noted.

In the summer of 2018, the FDA granted Orphan Drug Designation to Corbus Pharmaceuticals for lenabasum, a derivative of anabasum, for the treatment of dermatomyositis. “Hopefully, we’ll see this in the next year,” said Dr. Friedman, who consults for Corbus. A more recent study showed that lenabasum could reduce the production of interleukin-31 (Br. J Dermatol 2018;179[3]:669-78), which “I think will have broader implications in dermatology beyond dermatomyositis,” he said.

Dr. Friedman also reviewed data on a topical endocannabinoid nanoparticle-based formulation his team developed and is studying for the treatment of CLE. “There is a huge unmet need as there are no topical therapies approved for CLE,” he said. “Our animal data are very promising and we plan to move forward to human studies shortly.”

Resources for clinicians to improve their understanding about the potential use of cannabinoids in dermatology include an online certificate program in cannabis medicine offered by Thomas Jefferson University, as well as their state departments of health. Other resources include the International Cannabinoid Research Society, the International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines, the University of California’s Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, and the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids.

Dr. Friedman noted that marijuana may exacerbate appetite, sleepiness, dizziness, low blood pressure, dry mouth/eyes, decreased urination, hallucinations, paranoia, anxiety, poor balance and posture in patients with dyskinetic disorders, and impaired attention, memory, and psychomotor performance. High concentrations can cause hyperemesis syndrome and exacerbate existing psychoses. With respect to cannabidiol (CBD), “unless you go with super high concentrations, over 50 mg/kg per day, you’re probably not going to run into so much trouble,” Dr. Friedman said. “Above that, you do get some liver function test abnormalities. The problem is, a lot of CBD-based products have impurities in them.”

Different state-based requirements exist for recommending cannabinoid products to your patients “so it’s important to know those requirements,” Dr. Friedman said. “I have patients sign a cannabis contrast. There are examples of these online. My mantra is start low and go slow, and stay low as much as possible.”

The virtual meeting at George Washington University included presentations that had been slated for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, which was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Friedman reported that he serves as a consultant and/or adviser to numerous pharmaceutical companies, including some that produce cannabinoids. He is a speaker for Regeneron/Sanofi, Abbvie, and Dermira, and has received grants from Pfizer and the Dermatology Foundation.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

In the clinical opinion of Adam Friedman, MD, the emerging use of cannabinoids in dermatology is a trend that’s here to stay.

“There’s no question in my mind about that. Don’t play catch-up; be at the forefront, because at a minimum your patients are going to ask you about this,” he said in a video presentation during a virtual meeting held by the George Washington University department of dermatology.

In 2018, officials at Health Canada reviewed literature and international reviews concerning potential therapeutic uses and harmful effects of cannabis and cannabinoids and published a free downloadable guide for health care professionals. “In the book, dermatology doesn’t have its own section,” said Dr. Friedman, professor and interim chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “It falls under inflammation and makes up four paragraphs of the entire book, which is weird, given that if you survey the dispensaries in Canada, the majority of them led in with dermatologic indications, many of which are completely unsubstantiated.”

In the United States, a recent survey of 531 dermatologists led by Elizabeth S. Robinson, MD, of George Washington University, found that 55% reported at least one patient-initiated discussion about cannabinoids in the last year (J Drugs Dermatol. 2018;17[2]:1273-8). However, 48% were concerned about a negative stigma when proposing cannabinoid therapies to patients. While most respondents (86%) were willing to prescribe an FDA-approved cannabinoid as a topical treatment, fewer (71%) were willing to prescribe an oral form. In an unpublished study conducted 2 years later, 155 dermatologists were asked if they had ever recommended medical cannabis products for the treatment/management of a dermatologic condition. More than 80% said they had not.

“It’s important to recognize that if we have a strong fund of knowledge, we can guide these patients to use the right cannabinoids for the right indications, so long as we have some evidence supporting it,” said Dr. Friedman, residency program director and director of translational research in George Washington University’s department of dermatology.

According to existing medical literature, cannabinoids may ultimately play a role in the treatment of eczema (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.01.036 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03824405), psoriasis, acne, and certain collagen vascular diseases, including scleroderma, dermatomyositis, and cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE). Most of the evidence for its use in collagen vascular diseases comes from the investigation of a synthetic cannabinoid known as anabasum, which is derived from TCH, but it has no affinity for the CB1 receptor. “Rather, it goes after the CB2 receptor, which is heavily prevalent in the immune system,” he noted.

In the summer of 2018, the FDA granted Orphan Drug Designation to Corbus Pharmaceuticals for lenabasum, a derivative of anabasum, for the treatment of dermatomyositis. “Hopefully, we’ll see this in the next year,” said Dr. Friedman, who consults for Corbus. A more recent study showed that lenabasum could reduce the production of interleukin-31 (Br. J Dermatol 2018;179[3]:669-78), which “I think will have broader implications in dermatology beyond dermatomyositis,” he said.

Dr. Friedman also reviewed data on a topical endocannabinoid nanoparticle-based formulation his team developed and is studying for the treatment of CLE. “There is a huge unmet need as there are no topical therapies approved for CLE,” he said. “Our animal data are very promising and we plan to move forward to human studies shortly.”

Resources for clinicians to improve their understanding about the potential use of cannabinoids in dermatology include an online certificate program in cannabis medicine offered by Thomas Jefferson University, as well as their state departments of health. Other resources include the International Cannabinoid Research Society, the International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines, the University of California’s Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, and the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids.

Dr. Friedman noted that marijuana may exacerbate appetite, sleepiness, dizziness, low blood pressure, dry mouth/eyes, decreased urination, hallucinations, paranoia, anxiety, poor balance and posture in patients with dyskinetic disorders, and impaired attention, memory, and psychomotor performance. High concentrations can cause hyperemesis syndrome and exacerbate existing psychoses. With respect to cannabidiol (CBD), “unless you go with super high concentrations, over 50 mg/kg per day, you’re probably not going to run into so much trouble,” Dr. Friedman said. “Above that, you do get some liver function test abnormalities. The problem is, a lot of CBD-based products have impurities in them.”

Different state-based requirements exist for recommending cannabinoid products to your patients “so it’s important to know those requirements,” Dr. Friedman said. “I have patients sign a cannabis contrast. There are examples of these online. My mantra is start low and go slow, and stay low as much as possible.”

The virtual meeting at George Washington University included presentations that had been slated for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, which was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Friedman reported that he serves as a consultant and/or adviser to numerous pharmaceutical companies, including some that produce cannabinoids. He is a speaker for Regeneron/Sanofi, Abbvie, and Dermira, and has received grants from Pfizer and the Dermatology Foundation.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Cancer patients who received antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis had an increased risk of severe events, according to data from three hospitals in Wuhan.

Patients with patchy consolidation at hospital admission also had an increased risk of severe events, defined as ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or death.

However, these findings are limited by the small number of patients studied and the retrospective nature of the analysis, according to researchers.

Li Zhang, MD, PhD, of Tongji Hospital in Wuhan, China, presented this research at the AACR virtual meeting I. Some of the data were previously published in Annals of Oncology.

The researchers studied 28 patients with cancer among 1,276 patients with COVID-19 treated at three hospitals in Wuhan. The most common cancer types were lung (n = 7), esophageal (n = 4), and breast (n = 3). Patients had other gastrointestinal, gynecologic, genitourinary, and head and neck cancers as well.

The patients’ median age was 65 years (range, 56-70 years), 60.9% were men, 35.7% had stage IV cancer, and 28.6% had hospital-acquired COVID-19. Antitumor treatments included chemotherapy (n = 22), surgery (n = 21), radiotherapy (n = 21), targeted therapy (n = 5), and immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 2).
 

COVID-19 treatment

Most patients (n = 22) received oxygen as their only respiratory intervention, although 10 received mechanical ventilation.

For systemic therapy, patients received antibiotic treatment (n = 23), corticosteroids (n = 15), intravenous immunoglobulin (n = 10), and tocilizumab (n = 1).

Antiviral treatments included umifenovir (n = 14), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 10), ganciclovir (n = 9), ribavirin (n = 1), or a combination of antiviral drugs (n = 9).

“No cancer patients were enrolled in clinical trials, so no one received hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir,” Dr. Zhang noted.
 

Outcomes

In all, 15 patients (53.6%) had severe events. The median time from COVID-19 diagnosis to severe events was 7 days (range, 5-15 days).

A total of eight patients (28.6%) died – three with lung cancer, two with prostate cancer, one with liver cancer, one with rectal cancer, and one with testicular cancer.

Causes of death were acute respiratory distress syndrome (n = 5), septic shock (n = 1), suspected pulmonary embolism (n = 1), and acute myocardial infarction (n = 1).

By April 4, 14 patients had been discharged from the hospital, and 6 were still hospitalized. The median duration of hospitalization was 18.4 days for discharged patients and 29.4 days for patients still in hospital.

Follow-up CT scans showed improvement in 13 patients, no changes in 5 patients, and deterioration in 6 patients.
 

Factors associated with severe events

In a multivariable analysis, receiving antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with severe events (hazard ratio, 4.079; P = .037).

However, only seven patients received antitumor treatments within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis – three chemotherapy, two targeted therapy, one radiotherapy, and one immune checkpoint inhibitor. Five of these seven patients had severe events.

Another factor associated with severe events in multivariable analysis was patchy consolidation on CT scan at admission (HR, 5.438; P = .01). Age and gender were not significantly associated with severe events.
 

Immune checkpoint inhibitors

Dr. Zhang and colleagues also analyzed a second group of cancer patients and their family members to determine if patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors have an increased risk of COVID-19.

This group included 124 cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for at least 2 months. The patients had a median age of 59 years (range, 54-65 years), and 61.8% were men. Most patients (95.2%) had stage IV cancer, and the most common cancers were lung (54.0%), esophageal (18.6%), and head and neck (10.7%).

In this group, only one cancer patient developed COVID-19 (via nosocomial infection). In another case, a patient’s spouse developed COVID-19, but the patient did not.

Dr. Zhang said this “limited information did not suggest cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors were more vulnerable to COVID infection.”

Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest. This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Huazhong University of Science and Technology COVID-19 Rapid Response Call China.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zhang L et al. Ann Oncol. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.03.296.

Cancer patients who received antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis had an increased risk of severe events, according to data from three hospitals in Wuhan.

Patients with patchy consolidation at hospital admission also had an increased risk of severe events, defined as ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or death.

However, these findings are limited by the small number of patients studied and the retrospective nature of the analysis, according to researchers.

Li Zhang, MD, PhD, of Tongji Hospital in Wuhan, China, presented this research at the AACR virtual meeting I. Some of the data were previously published in Annals of Oncology.

The researchers studied 28 patients with cancer among 1,276 patients with COVID-19 treated at three hospitals in Wuhan. The most common cancer types were lung (n = 7), esophageal (n = 4), and breast (n = 3). Patients had other gastrointestinal, gynecologic, genitourinary, and head and neck cancers as well.

The patients’ median age was 65 years (range, 56-70 years), 60.9% were men, 35.7% had stage IV cancer, and 28.6% had hospital-acquired COVID-19. Antitumor treatments included chemotherapy (n = 22), surgery (n = 21), radiotherapy (n = 21), targeted therapy (n = 5), and immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 2).
 

COVID-19 treatment

Most patients (n = 22) received oxygen as their only respiratory intervention, although 10 received mechanical ventilation.

For systemic therapy, patients received antibiotic treatment (n = 23), corticosteroids (n = 15), intravenous immunoglobulin (n = 10), and tocilizumab (n = 1).

Antiviral treatments included umifenovir (n = 14), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 10), ganciclovir (n = 9), ribavirin (n = 1), or a combination of antiviral drugs (n = 9).

“No cancer patients were enrolled in clinical trials, so no one received hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir,” Dr. Zhang noted.
 

Outcomes

In all, 15 patients (53.6%) had severe events. The median time from COVID-19 diagnosis to severe events was 7 days (range, 5-15 days).

A total of eight patients (28.6%) died – three with lung cancer, two with prostate cancer, one with liver cancer, one with rectal cancer, and one with testicular cancer.

Causes of death were acute respiratory distress syndrome (n = 5), septic shock (n = 1), suspected pulmonary embolism (n = 1), and acute myocardial infarction (n = 1).

By April 4, 14 patients had been discharged from the hospital, and 6 were still hospitalized. The median duration of hospitalization was 18.4 days for discharged patients and 29.4 days for patients still in hospital.

Follow-up CT scans showed improvement in 13 patients, no changes in 5 patients, and deterioration in 6 patients.
 

Factors associated with severe events

In a multivariable analysis, receiving antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with severe events (hazard ratio, 4.079; P = .037).

However, only seven patients received antitumor treatments within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis – three chemotherapy, two targeted therapy, one radiotherapy, and one immune checkpoint inhibitor. Five of these seven patients had severe events.

Another factor associated with severe events in multivariable analysis was patchy consolidation on CT scan at admission (HR, 5.438; P = .01). Age and gender were not significantly associated with severe events.
 

Immune checkpoint inhibitors

Dr. Zhang and colleagues also analyzed a second group of cancer patients and their family members to determine if patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors have an increased risk of COVID-19.

This group included 124 cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for at least 2 months. The patients had a median age of 59 years (range, 54-65 years), and 61.8% were men. Most patients (95.2%) had stage IV cancer, and the most common cancers were lung (54.0%), esophageal (18.6%), and head and neck (10.7%).

In this group, only one cancer patient developed COVID-19 (via nosocomial infection). In another case, a patient’s spouse developed COVID-19, but the patient did not.

Dr. Zhang said this “limited information did not suggest cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors were more vulnerable to COVID infection.”

Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest. This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Huazhong University of Science and Technology COVID-19 Rapid Response Call China.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zhang L et al. Ann Oncol. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.03.296.

Cancer patients who received antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis had an increased risk of severe events, according to data from three hospitals in Wuhan.

Patients with patchy consolidation at hospital admission also had an increased risk of severe events, defined as ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or death.

However, these findings are limited by the small number of patients studied and the retrospective nature of the analysis, according to researchers.

Li Zhang, MD, PhD, of Tongji Hospital in Wuhan, China, presented this research at the AACR virtual meeting I. Some of the data were previously published in Annals of Oncology.

The researchers studied 28 patients with cancer among 1,276 patients with COVID-19 treated at three hospitals in Wuhan. The most common cancer types were lung (n = 7), esophageal (n = 4), and breast (n = 3). Patients had other gastrointestinal, gynecologic, genitourinary, and head and neck cancers as well.

The patients’ median age was 65 years (range, 56-70 years), 60.9% were men, 35.7% had stage IV cancer, and 28.6% had hospital-acquired COVID-19. Antitumor treatments included chemotherapy (n = 22), surgery (n = 21), radiotherapy (n = 21), targeted therapy (n = 5), and immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 2).
 

COVID-19 treatment

Most patients (n = 22) received oxygen as their only respiratory intervention, although 10 received mechanical ventilation.

For systemic therapy, patients received antibiotic treatment (n = 23), corticosteroids (n = 15), intravenous immunoglobulin (n = 10), and tocilizumab (n = 1).

Antiviral treatments included umifenovir (n = 14), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 10), ganciclovir (n = 9), ribavirin (n = 1), or a combination of antiviral drugs (n = 9).

“No cancer patients were enrolled in clinical trials, so no one received hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir,” Dr. Zhang noted.
 

Outcomes

In all, 15 patients (53.6%) had severe events. The median time from COVID-19 diagnosis to severe events was 7 days (range, 5-15 days).

A total of eight patients (28.6%) died – three with lung cancer, two with prostate cancer, one with liver cancer, one with rectal cancer, and one with testicular cancer.

Causes of death were acute respiratory distress syndrome (n = 5), septic shock (n = 1), suspected pulmonary embolism (n = 1), and acute myocardial infarction (n = 1).

By April 4, 14 patients had been discharged from the hospital, and 6 were still hospitalized. The median duration of hospitalization was 18.4 days for discharged patients and 29.4 days for patients still in hospital.

Follow-up CT scans showed improvement in 13 patients, no changes in 5 patients, and deterioration in 6 patients.
 

Factors associated with severe events

In a multivariable analysis, receiving antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with severe events (hazard ratio, 4.079; P = .037).

However, only seven patients received antitumor treatments within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis – three chemotherapy, two targeted therapy, one radiotherapy, and one immune checkpoint inhibitor. Five of these seven patients had severe events.

Another factor associated with severe events in multivariable analysis was patchy consolidation on CT scan at admission (HR, 5.438; P = .01). Age and gender were not significantly associated with severe events.
 

Immune checkpoint inhibitors

Dr. Zhang and colleagues also analyzed a second group of cancer patients and their family members to determine if patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors have an increased risk of COVID-19.

This group included 124 cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for at least 2 months. The patients had a median age of 59 years (range, 54-65 years), and 61.8% were men. Most patients (95.2%) had stage IV cancer, and the most common cancers were lung (54.0%), esophageal (18.6%), and head and neck (10.7%).

In this group, only one cancer patient developed COVID-19 (via nosocomial infection). In another case, a patient’s spouse developed COVID-19, but the patient did not.

Dr. Zhang said this “limited information did not suggest cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors were more vulnerable to COVID infection.”

Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest. This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Huazhong University of Science and Technology COVID-19 Rapid Response Call China.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zhang L et al. Ann Oncol. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.03.296.

Redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a reasonably safe and effective option for selected patients with valve dysfunction after TAVR, new registry data suggest.

“Redo TAVR is about to become a much more common procedure and it’s reassuring to see that the outcomes that can be achieved by these procedures are quite good,” said Uri Landes, MD, Vancouver General Hospital, British Columbia, Canada.

Landes and colleagues reported results from the Redo-TAVR Registry in the April 28 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The Redo-TAVR Registry is an investigator-initiated effort designed to collect information on patients who undergo a second TAVR within a dysfunctional transcatheter heart valve (THV).

From 63,876 TAVR procedures done at 37 participating centers, 212 (0.33%) were redo-TAVR procedures. Seventy-four of the redo procedures were done within 1 year of the initial TAVR and the remaining 138 were beyond 1 year. Median time from TAVR-to-redo-TAVR for these two groups was 68 (38 to 154) days and 5 (3 to 6) years, respectively.

“It’s important to understand that this is probably a highly selected group of patients and these numbers do no reliably reflect the ratio of patients who will need a redo TAVR,” said Landes in an interview with theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“We don’t know how many patients were excluded from redo TAVR because of prohibitive anatomical factors, such as an anticipated high risk for coronary occlusion, or a patient prosthesis mismatch. Also, some of these individuals received their THVs more recently, so if they will suffer THV valve dysfunction, it may not have happened yet,” he added.

In the early redo group, the indication for redo-TAVR was most often combined aortic THV stenosis and regurgitation (83.8%). Pure THV stenosis was seen in only 16.2% of patients.

For those with redo procedures after 1 year, THV stenosis was seen in 51 (37.0%) patients and regurgitation or combined stenosis-regurgitation in 86 (62.3%).

Device success using VARC-2 criteria was achieved in 85.1%, with no difference seen between those presenting within or beyond 1 year. Most failures were attributable to high residual gradients (14.1%) or regurgitation (8.9%).

No significant difference was seen in 30-day (94.6% and 98.5%) and 1-year survival (83.6% and 88.3%) in patients who presented within 1 year or later.

At 30-day and 1-year follow-up, residual gradients were 12.6 ± 7.5 mm Hg and 12.9 ± 9.0 mm Hg, respectively. High residual gradients (³20 mm Hg) were seen in about 14% of patients.

Aortic valve areas were 1.63 ± 0.61 cm2 at 30 days and 1.51 ± 0.57 cm2 at 1 year. Regurgitation was mild or less in 91% of patients at both time points.

Periprocedural complication rates were relatively low. There were three strokes (1.4%), one valve malposition (3.3%), two coronary obstructions (0.9%), and 20 new permanent pacemaker implants (9.6%). Importantly, no procedure-related mortality was seen, only one patient converted to open heart surgery, and symptomatic improvements were substantial.

“We are currently working on an analysis that compares TAVI-in-TAVI versus TAVI in surgical valves, and we are happy to see that it appears as if TAVI-in-TAVI outcomes don’t fall short,” said Landes. More analysis is also needed to see if perhaps some THVs work better or worse for redo procedures.

“We also want to understand which of the many combinations of heart valves available are better than others, thinking that supra-annular leaflets inside intra-annular leaflet devices may function differently than vice versa,” said Landes.

Vinod Thourani, MD, chief of cardiovascular surgery at Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, considers these new observational data “reassuring” and “robust,” albeit with some limitations. He was first author on an editorial comment on this paper and spoke to theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“This is unadjudicated registry data but you can’t lie about death and I feel good seeing that if you need a second TAVR inside of a TAVR, your mortality risk is pretty good,” said Thourani.

That said, he questions whether these data can really be extrapolated to lower-risk patients. “I think this is an early snapshot and it’s a relatively big sample, but it’s a selected sample and we don’t know how many patients needed redo TAVR and didn’t get it or didn’t want it,” he added.

On the comforting side, there has been ongoing concern that a redo procedure that involves “propping open” a degenerated TAVR prosthesis’s leaflets with a new TAVR valve may occlude the coronary ostium by closing the flow within the open cells.

“Luckily, the investigators show an extremely low risk of coronary obstruction of only 0.9% in an anatomically high-risk patient population,” he said. This incidence, however, may increase as the use of TAVR rises in younger and less risky patients, he added.

Thourani would also like to see a longer follow-up on these patients. Median follow-up post redo TAVR was 15 months in this analysis.

“What I think we need to concentrate on as we do these studies is the life-long management of aortic stenosis wherein we try to minimize the overall number of invasive procedures as much as we can,” said Thourani.

Landes reported no conflict of interest. Thourani reported he is an advisor and/or researcher for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a reasonably safe and effective option for selected patients with valve dysfunction after TAVR, new registry data suggest.

“Redo TAVR is about to become a much more common procedure and it’s reassuring to see that the outcomes that can be achieved by these procedures are quite good,” said Uri Landes, MD, Vancouver General Hospital, British Columbia, Canada.

Landes and colleagues reported results from the Redo-TAVR Registry in the April 28 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The Redo-TAVR Registry is an investigator-initiated effort designed to collect information on patients who undergo a second TAVR within a dysfunctional transcatheter heart valve (THV).

From 63,876 TAVR procedures done at 37 participating centers, 212 (0.33%) were redo-TAVR procedures. Seventy-four of the redo procedures were done within 1 year of the initial TAVR and the remaining 138 were beyond 1 year. Median time from TAVR-to-redo-TAVR for these two groups was 68 (38 to 154) days and 5 (3 to 6) years, respectively.

“It’s important to understand that this is probably a highly selected group of patients and these numbers do no reliably reflect the ratio of patients who will need a redo TAVR,” said Landes in an interview with theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“We don’t know how many patients were excluded from redo TAVR because of prohibitive anatomical factors, such as an anticipated high risk for coronary occlusion, or a patient prosthesis mismatch. Also, some of these individuals received their THVs more recently, so if they will suffer THV valve dysfunction, it may not have happened yet,” he added.

In the early redo group, the indication for redo-TAVR was most often combined aortic THV stenosis and regurgitation (83.8%). Pure THV stenosis was seen in only 16.2% of patients.

For those with redo procedures after 1 year, THV stenosis was seen in 51 (37.0%) patients and regurgitation or combined stenosis-regurgitation in 86 (62.3%).

Device success using VARC-2 criteria was achieved in 85.1%, with no difference seen between those presenting within or beyond 1 year. Most failures were attributable to high residual gradients (14.1%) or regurgitation (8.9%).

No significant difference was seen in 30-day (94.6% and 98.5%) and 1-year survival (83.6% and 88.3%) in patients who presented within 1 year or later.

At 30-day and 1-year follow-up, residual gradients were 12.6 ± 7.5 mm Hg and 12.9 ± 9.0 mm Hg, respectively. High residual gradients (³20 mm Hg) were seen in about 14% of patients.

Aortic valve areas were 1.63 ± 0.61 cm2 at 30 days and 1.51 ± 0.57 cm2 at 1 year. Regurgitation was mild or less in 91% of patients at both time points.

Periprocedural complication rates were relatively low. There were three strokes (1.4%), one valve malposition (3.3%), two coronary obstructions (0.9%), and 20 new permanent pacemaker implants (9.6%). Importantly, no procedure-related mortality was seen, only one patient converted to open heart surgery, and symptomatic improvements were substantial.

“We are currently working on an analysis that compares TAVI-in-TAVI versus TAVI in surgical valves, and we are happy to see that it appears as if TAVI-in-TAVI outcomes don’t fall short,” said Landes. More analysis is also needed to see if perhaps some THVs work better or worse for redo procedures.

“We also want to understand which of the many combinations of heart valves available are better than others, thinking that supra-annular leaflets inside intra-annular leaflet devices may function differently than vice versa,” said Landes.

Vinod Thourani, MD, chief of cardiovascular surgery at Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, considers these new observational data “reassuring” and “robust,” albeit with some limitations. He was first author on an editorial comment on this paper and spoke to theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“This is unadjudicated registry data but you can’t lie about death and I feel good seeing that if you need a second TAVR inside of a TAVR, your mortality risk is pretty good,” said Thourani.

That said, he questions whether these data can really be extrapolated to lower-risk patients. “I think this is an early snapshot and it’s a relatively big sample, but it’s a selected sample and we don’t know how many patients needed redo TAVR and didn’t get it or didn’t want it,” he added.

On the comforting side, there has been ongoing concern that a redo procedure that involves “propping open” a degenerated TAVR prosthesis’s leaflets with a new TAVR valve may occlude the coronary ostium by closing the flow within the open cells.

“Luckily, the investigators show an extremely low risk of coronary obstruction of only 0.9% in an anatomically high-risk patient population,” he said. This incidence, however, may increase as the use of TAVR rises in younger and less risky patients, he added.

Thourani would also like to see a longer follow-up on these patients. Median follow-up post redo TAVR was 15 months in this analysis.

“What I think we need to concentrate on as we do these studies is the life-long management of aortic stenosis wherein we try to minimize the overall number of invasive procedures as much as we can,” said Thourani.

Landes reported no conflict of interest. Thourani reported he is an advisor and/or researcher for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a reasonably safe and effective option for selected patients with valve dysfunction after TAVR, new registry data suggest.

“Redo TAVR is about to become a much more common procedure and it’s reassuring to see that the outcomes that can be achieved by these procedures are quite good,” said Uri Landes, MD, Vancouver General Hospital, British Columbia, Canada.

Landes and colleagues reported results from the Redo-TAVR Registry in the April 28 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The Redo-TAVR Registry is an investigator-initiated effort designed to collect information on patients who undergo a second TAVR within a dysfunctional transcatheter heart valve (THV).

From 63,876 TAVR procedures done at 37 participating centers, 212 (0.33%) were redo-TAVR procedures. Seventy-four of the redo procedures were done within 1 year of the initial TAVR and the remaining 138 were beyond 1 year. Median time from TAVR-to-redo-TAVR for these two groups was 68 (38 to 154) days and 5 (3 to 6) years, respectively.

“It’s important to understand that this is probably a highly selected group of patients and these numbers do no reliably reflect the ratio of patients who will need a redo TAVR,” said Landes in an interview with theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“We don’t know how many patients were excluded from redo TAVR because of prohibitive anatomical factors, such as an anticipated high risk for coronary occlusion, or a patient prosthesis mismatch. Also, some of these individuals received their THVs more recently, so if they will suffer THV valve dysfunction, it may not have happened yet,” he added.

In the early redo group, the indication for redo-TAVR was most often combined aortic THV stenosis and regurgitation (83.8%). Pure THV stenosis was seen in only 16.2% of patients.

For those with redo procedures after 1 year, THV stenosis was seen in 51 (37.0%) patients and regurgitation or combined stenosis-regurgitation in 86 (62.3%).

Device success using VARC-2 criteria was achieved in 85.1%, with no difference seen between those presenting within or beyond 1 year. Most failures were attributable to high residual gradients (14.1%) or regurgitation (8.9%).

No significant difference was seen in 30-day (94.6% and 98.5%) and 1-year survival (83.6% and 88.3%) in patients who presented within 1 year or later.

At 30-day and 1-year follow-up, residual gradients were 12.6 ± 7.5 mm Hg and 12.9 ± 9.0 mm Hg, respectively. High residual gradients (³20 mm Hg) were seen in about 14% of patients.

Aortic valve areas were 1.63 ± 0.61 cm2 at 30 days and 1.51 ± 0.57 cm2 at 1 year. Regurgitation was mild or less in 91% of patients at both time points.

Periprocedural complication rates were relatively low. There were three strokes (1.4%), one valve malposition (3.3%), two coronary obstructions (0.9%), and 20 new permanent pacemaker implants (9.6%). Importantly, no procedure-related mortality was seen, only one patient converted to open heart surgery, and symptomatic improvements were substantial.

“We are currently working on an analysis that compares TAVI-in-TAVI versus TAVI in surgical valves, and we are happy to see that it appears as if TAVI-in-TAVI outcomes don’t fall short,” said Landes. More analysis is also needed to see if perhaps some THVs work better or worse for redo procedures.

“We also want to understand which of the many combinations of heart valves available are better than others, thinking that supra-annular leaflets inside intra-annular leaflet devices may function differently than vice versa,” said Landes.

Vinod Thourani, MD, chief of cardiovascular surgery at Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, considers these new observational data “reassuring” and “robust,” albeit with some limitations. He was first author on an editorial comment on this paper and spoke to theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“This is unadjudicated registry data but you can’t lie about death and I feel good seeing that if you need a second TAVR inside of a TAVR, your mortality risk is pretty good,” said Thourani.

That said, he questions whether these data can really be extrapolated to lower-risk patients. “I think this is an early snapshot and it’s a relatively big sample, but it’s a selected sample and we don’t know how many patients needed redo TAVR and didn’t get it or didn’t want it,” he added.

On the comforting side, there has been ongoing concern that a redo procedure that involves “propping open” a degenerated TAVR prosthesis’s leaflets with a new TAVR valve may occlude the coronary ostium by closing the flow within the open cells.

“Luckily, the investigators show an extremely low risk of coronary obstruction of only 0.9% in an anatomically high-risk patient population,” he said. This incidence, however, may increase as the use of TAVR rises in younger and less risky patients, he added.

Thourani would also like to see a longer follow-up on these patients. Median follow-up post redo TAVR was 15 months in this analysis.

“What I think we need to concentrate on as we do these studies is the life-long management of aortic stenosis wherein we try to minimize the overall number of invasive procedures as much as we can,” said Thourani.

Landes reported no conflict of interest. Thourani reported he is an advisor and/or researcher for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Risk models that incorporate genetic and circulating biomarker data in addition to established risk factors may improve risk modeling for pancreatic cancer in the general population, according to investigators.

Identifying high-risk individuals could facilitate earlier disease detection, which is essential for curing pancreatic cancer, reported lead author Jihye Kim, PhD, of Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues.

“Given the late stage at presentation for most patients with pancreatic cancer, earlier detection approaches are worthy of significant investment as a critical means to reduce mortality from pancreatic cancer, soon to be the second-leading cause of cancer death in the United States,” the investigators wrote in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

According to the investigators, a variety of risk factors for pancreatic cancer are well established and include clinical, demographic, and lifestyle factors, while recent studies have reported associations with genetic and circulating biomarkers.

“Although risk factors have been investigated individually, their joint contribution to risk discrimination remains largely unknown,” the investigators wrote.

To learn more, Dr. Kim and colleagues performed a nested case-control study in which 500 patients with primary pancreatic adenocarcinoma were matched with 1,091 healthy controls. Data were drawn from four prospective studies: the Nurses’ Health Study, the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study, and the Physicians’ Health Study I. Via these studies, cases provided blood samples prior to diagnosis with pancreatic cancer.

“Importantly, because all our subjects were enrolled in prospective cohorts, all risk factor data and circulating markers were measured before the cases’ diagnosis of pancreatic cancer,” the investigators wrote. “This design faithfully recapitulates the situation faced by primary care physicians, where decisions related to disease screening are made in the prediagnostic setting using data collected in the several years prior to cancer diagnosis.”

In the present study, the investigators collected patient data for a variety of risk factors, including clinical and lifestyle characteristics, circulating biomarkers such as interleukin-6 and proinsulin, and 22 single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Frequencies and distributions of these factors were used to develop three multivariate risk models: a clinical model, a clinical/genetic model, and a clinical/genetic/biomarker model. To determine absolute risk of pancreatic cancer, these three models were combined with U.S. epidemiologic data, including incidence and mortality rates.

Cross-validation showed that the risk models became increasingly accurate with each added dataset; the area under the curve increased from 0.55 for the clinical model to 0.61 for the clinical/genetic model and ultimately to 0.62 for the clinical/genetic/biomarker model. Consequently, each model identified a greater number of individuals with at least a threefold risk of pancreatic cancer over a 10-year period. For example, the clinical model identified 1.5% of women and 0.2% of men with at least threefold risk, whereas the model that also included genetic and biomarker data identified 2.6% of women and 3.7% of men.

Absolute risk modeling allowed for generation of risk stratification percentiles by age. Women in the 99th risk percentile had a 1.7% risk of developing pancreatic cancer by age 70 years, and a 3.6% risk by age 80. For men, the highest-risk group had a 2.0% risk of pancreatic cancer by age 70 years and a 3.8% risk by age 80. Conversely, both men and women in the 10th risk percentile had a 0.2% risk by age 70 years and a 0.4% risk by age 80.

“[T]he addition of genetic variants and circulating markers added discriminatory ability beyond clinical factors that could be solicited in a physician’s office,” the investigators wrote.

“Further refinement and validation in independent samples will be necessary to make these models clinically actionable and impact survival of patients with pancreatic cancer,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators reported additional relationships with Bayer, Celgene, Eli Lilly, and others.

SOURCE: Kim J et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020 Apr 22. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-1389.

Risk models that incorporate genetic and circulating biomarker data in addition to established risk factors may improve risk modeling for pancreatic cancer in the general population, according to investigators.

Identifying high-risk individuals could facilitate earlier disease detection, which is essential for curing pancreatic cancer, reported lead author Jihye Kim, PhD, of Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues.

“Given the late stage at presentation for most patients with pancreatic cancer, earlier detection approaches are worthy of significant investment as a critical means to reduce mortality from pancreatic cancer, soon to be the second-leading cause of cancer death in the United States,” the investigators wrote in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

According to the investigators, a variety of risk factors for pancreatic cancer are well established and include clinical, demographic, and lifestyle factors, while recent studies have reported associations with genetic and circulating biomarkers.

“Although risk factors have been investigated individually, their joint contribution to risk discrimination remains largely unknown,” the investigators wrote.

To learn more, Dr. Kim and colleagues performed a nested case-control study in which 500 patients with primary pancreatic adenocarcinoma were matched with 1,091 healthy controls. Data were drawn from four prospective studies: the Nurses’ Health Study, the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study, and the Physicians’ Health Study I. Via these studies, cases provided blood samples prior to diagnosis with pancreatic cancer.

“Importantly, because all our subjects were enrolled in prospective cohorts, all risk factor data and circulating markers were measured before the cases’ diagnosis of pancreatic cancer,” the investigators wrote. “This design faithfully recapitulates the situation faced by primary care physicians, where decisions related to disease screening are made in the prediagnostic setting using data collected in the several years prior to cancer diagnosis.”

In the present study, the investigators collected patient data for a variety of risk factors, including clinical and lifestyle characteristics, circulating biomarkers such as interleukin-6 and proinsulin, and 22 single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Frequencies and distributions of these factors were used to develop three multivariate risk models: a clinical model, a clinical/genetic model, and a clinical/genetic/biomarker model. To determine absolute risk of pancreatic cancer, these three models were combined with U.S. epidemiologic data, including incidence and mortality rates.

Cross-validation showed that the risk models became increasingly accurate with each added dataset; the area under the curve increased from 0.55 for the clinical model to 0.61 for the clinical/genetic model and ultimately to 0.62 for the clinical/genetic/biomarker model. Consequently, each model identified a greater number of individuals with at least a threefold risk of pancreatic cancer over a 10-year period. For example, the clinical model identified 1.5% of women and 0.2% of men with at least threefold risk, whereas the model that also included genetic and biomarker data identified 2.6% of women and 3.7% of men.

Absolute risk modeling allowed for generation of risk stratification percentiles by age. Women in the 99th risk percentile had a 1.7% risk of developing pancreatic cancer by age 70 years, and a 3.6% risk by age 80. For men, the highest-risk group had a 2.0% risk of pancreatic cancer by age 70 years and a 3.8% risk by age 80. Conversely, both men and women in the 10th risk percentile had a 0.2% risk by age 70 years and a 0.4% risk by age 80.

“[T]he addition of genetic variants and circulating markers added discriminatory ability beyond clinical factors that could be solicited in a physician’s office,” the investigators wrote.

“Further refinement and validation in independent samples will be necessary to make these models clinically actionable and impact survival of patients with pancreatic cancer,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators reported additional relationships with Bayer, Celgene, Eli Lilly, and others.

SOURCE: Kim J et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020 Apr 22. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-1389.

Risk models that incorporate genetic and circulating biomarker data in addition to established risk factors may improve risk modeling for pancreatic cancer in the general population, according to investigators.

Identifying high-risk individuals could facilitate earlier disease detection, which is essential for curing pancreatic cancer, reported lead author Jihye Kim, PhD, of Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues.

“Given the late stage at presentation for most patients with pancreatic cancer, earlier detection approaches are worthy of significant investment as a critical means to reduce mortality from pancreatic cancer, soon to be the second-leading cause of cancer death in the United States,” the investigators wrote in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

According to the investigators, a variety of risk factors for pancreatic cancer are well established and include clinical, demographic, and lifestyle factors, while recent studies have reported associations with genetic and circulating biomarkers.

“Although risk factors have been investigated individually, their joint contribution to risk discrimination remains largely unknown,” the investigators wrote.

To learn more, Dr. Kim and colleagues performed a nested case-control study in which 500 patients with primary pancreatic adenocarcinoma were matched with 1,091 healthy controls. Data were drawn from four prospective studies: the Nurses’ Health Study, the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study, and the Physicians’ Health Study I. Via these studies, cases provided blood samples prior to diagnosis with pancreatic cancer.

“Importantly, because all our subjects were enrolled in prospective cohorts, all risk factor data and circulating markers were measured before the cases’ diagnosis of pancreatic cancer,” the investigators wrote. “This design faithfully recapitulates the situation faced by primary care physicians, where decisions related to disease screening are made in the prediagnostic setting using data collected in the several years prior to cancer diagnosis.”

In the present study, the investigators collected patient data for a variety of risk factors, including clinical and lifestyle characteristics, circulating biomarkers such as interleukin-6 and proinsulin, and 22 single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Frequencies and distributions of these factors were used to develop three multivariate risk models: a clinical model, a clinical/genetic model, and a clinical/genetic/biomarker model. To determine absolute risk of pancreatic cancer, these three models were combined with U.S. epidemiologic data, including incidence and mortality rates.

Cross-validation showed that the risk models became increasingly accurate with each added dataset; the area under the curve increased from 0.55 for the clinical model to 0.61 for the clinical/genetic model and ultimately to 0.62 for the clinical/genetic/biomarker model. Consequently, each model identified a greater number of individuals with at least a threefold risk of pancreatic cancer over a 10-year period. For example, the clinical model identified 1.5% of women and 0.2% of men with at least threefold risk, whereas the model that also included genetic and biomarker data identified 2.6% of women and 3.7% of men.

Absolute risk modeling allowed for generation of risk stratification percentiles by age. Women in the 99th risk percentile had a 1.7% risk of developing pancreatic cancer by age 70 years, and a 3.6% risk by age 80. For men, the highest-risk group had a 2.0% risk of pancreatic cancer by age 70 years and a 3.8% risk by age 80. Conversely, both men and women in the 10th risk percentile had a 0.2% risk by age 70 years and a 0.4% risk by age 80.

“[T]he addition of genetic variants and circulating markers added discriminatory ability beyond clinical factors that could be solicited in a physician’s office,” the investigators wrote.

“Further refinement and validation in independent samples will be necessary to make these models clinically actionable and impact survival of patients with pancreatic cancer,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators reported additional relationships with Bayer, Celgene, Eli Lilly, and others.

SOURCE: Kim J et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020 Apr 22. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-1389.

Patients with eosinophilic esophagitis should receive topical steroids instead of oral steroids or no treatment, according to new recommendations from the American Gastroenterological Association and the Joint Task Force on Allergy-Immunology Practice Parameters.

In a pooled analysis of eight double-blind clinical trials, monotherapy with topical budesonide or topical fluticasone was about 61% more likely than placebo to produce histologic remissions in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (relative risk of failure to achieve remission, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.58), wrote Ikuo Hirano, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago. Although these trials differed methodologically, the results were robust enough to warrant a strong recommendation for topical steroids, wrote Dr. Hirano and coauthors of the guidelines, published in Gastroenterology (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.02.038). “[T]he same inhaled steroid agents are considered very safe for use in children and adults with asthma and are routinely used in [its] primary management,” they noted.

All other recommendations in the guidelines are graded as conditional, reflecting a lack of high-quality supporting evidence. For example, one only study to date has compared topical and oral steroids for patients with eosinophilic esophagitis. In this pediatric trial, children benefited similarly from fluticasone (two puffs four times daily) and oral prednisone (1 mg/kg twice daily), but prednisone caused side effects (weight gain and cushingoid appearance) in 40% of patients, while topical steroids caused oral candidiasis (thrush) in only 15% of patients. Similarities between pediatric and adult eosinophilic esophagitis support the use of topical versus oral steroids in both groups, the guidelines conclude.

Eosinophilic esophagitis tends to be chronic and can progress to recurrent dysphagia, esophageal impactions, and stricture if left untreated. For this reason, the guidelines call for remitted patients to stay on topical steroids as maintenance therapy despite “very low confidence in the estimated benefits of [any type of] long-term therapy.” In a very small trial, 1 year of low-dose budesonide maintenance therapy (0.25 mg twice daily) outperformed placebo, but only 36% of patients maintained less than 5 eosinophils per high power field. Other studies have produced mixed results. Pending more data, the guidelines call maintenance treatment with topical steroids, proton pump inhibitors, and elimination diets “reasonable options” that comprise “a preference-sensitive area of management.”

Dietary interventions for eosinophilic esophagitis include the elemental diet (amino acid–based formulas), the empiric six-food elimination diet, and eliminating foods based on allergy testing. The guidelines cite moderate-quality evidence for the elemental diet, which induced histologic remissions (less than than 15 eosinophils per high power field) in nearly 94% of patients in six single-arm observational studies (in contrast, the rate of histologic failure with placebo is nearly 87%). However, patients may struggle to adhere to both the elemental diet and the six-food elimination diet, which has less supporting evidence. Hence, patients “may reasonably decline” these treatment options and “may prefer alternative medical or dietary therapies” to a diet exclusively based on food allergens, tests for which are potentially inaccurate, the guidelines state.

Esophageal dilation is recommended for patients with stricture based on a systematic review in which 87% of patients improved with this therapy. However, dilation “does not address the esophageal inflammation associated with eosinophilic esophagitis,” and the “assumption that no clinical improvement would occur if dilation was not performed likely overestimates [its] treatment benefit, given the reported symptom-placebo response noted in controlled trials,” according to the guidelines. Moreover, the evidence for dilation “was considered low quality due to the retrospective, single-arm design of all but one of the reports, and the lack of a standard definition for what constitutes clinical improvement.”

Anti-IgE therapy is not recommended – it failed to improve symptoms or esophageal eosinophilia in the only trial conducted to date. Because of a lack of evidence, the guidelines state that patients should receive only montelukast, cromolyn sodium, immunomodulators, anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies, or therapies targeting interleukin (IL)-5, IL-13, or IL-4 in the context of a clinical trial.

Eosinophilic esophagitis is triggered by exposure to food antigens and often overlaps with other atopic conditions, such as asthma, eczema, and allergic rhinitis. It has no approved treatments in the United States, although in 2018, the European Medicines Agency approved a budesonide tablet formulation.

The guideline authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Hirano I et al. Gastroenterology. 2020. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.02.038.

Patients with eosinophilic esophagitis should receive topical steroids instead of oral steroids or no treatment, according to new recommendations from the American Gastroenterological Association and the Joint Task Force on Allergy-Immunology Practice Parameters.

In a pooled analysis of eight double-blind clinical trials, monotherapy with topical budesonide or topical fluticasone was about 61% more likely than placebo to produce histologic remissions in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (relative risk of failure to achieve remission, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.58), wrote Ikuo Hirano, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago. Although these trials differed methodologically, the results were robust enough to warrant a strong recommendation for topical steroids, wrote Dr. Hirano and coauthors of the guidelines, published in Gastroenterology (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.02.038). “[T]he same inhaled steroid agents are considered very safe for use in children and adults with asthma and are routinely used in [its] primary management,” they noted.

All other recommendations in the guidelines are graded as conditional, reflecting a lack of high-quality supporting evidence. For example, one only study to date has compared topical and oral steroids for patients with eosinophilic esophagitis. In this pediatric trial, children benefited similarly from fluticasone (two puffs four times daily) and oral prednisone (1 mg/kg twice daily), but prednisone caused side effects (weight gain and cushingoid appearance) in 40% of patients, while topical steroids caused oral candidiasis (thrush) in only 15% of patients. Similarities between pediatric and adult eosinophilic esophagitis support the use of topical versus oral steroids in both groups, the guidelines conclude.

Eosinophilic esophagitis tends to be chronic and can progress to recurrent dysphagia, esophageal impactions, and stricture if left untreated. For this reason, the guidelines call for remitted patients to stay on topical steroids as maintenance therapy despite “very low confidence in the estimated benefits of [any type of] long-term therapy.” In a very small trial, 1 year of low-dose budesonide maintenance therapy (0.25 mg twice daily) outperformed placebo, but only 36% of patients maintained less than 5 eosinophils per high power field. Other studies have produced mixed results. Pending more data, the guidelines call maintenance treatment with topical steroids, proton pump inhibitors, and elimination diets “reasonable options” that comprise “a preference-sensitive area of management.”

Dietary interventions for eosinophilic esophagitis include the elemental diet (amino acid–based formulas), the empiric six-food elimination diet, and eliminating foods based on allergy testing. The guidelines cite moderate-quality evidence for the elemental diet, which induced histologic remissions (less than than 15 eosinophils per high power field) in nearly 94% of patients in six single-arm observational studies (in contrast, the rate of histologic failure with placebo is nearly 87%). However, patients may struggle to adhere to both the elemental diet and the six-food elimination diet, which has less supporting evidence. Hence, patients “may reasonably decline” these treatment options and “may prefer alternative medical or dietary therapies” to a diet exclusively based on food allergens, tests for which are potentially inaccurate, the guidelines state.

Esophageal dilation is recommended for patients with stricture based on a systematic review in which 87% of patients improved with this therapy. However, dilation “does not address the esophageal inflammation associated with eosinophilic esophagitis,” and the “assumption that no clinical improvement would occur if dilation was not performed likely overestimates [its] treatment benefit, given the reported symptom-placebo response noted in controlled trials,” according to the guidelines. Moreover, the evidence for dilation “was considered low quality due to the retrospective, single-arm design of all but one of the reports, and the lack of a standard definition for what constitutes clinical improvement.”

Anti-IgE therapy is not recommended – it failed to improve symptoms or esophageal eosinophilia in the only trial conducted to date. Because of a lack of evidence, the guidelines state that patients should receive only montelukast, cromolyn sodium, immunomodulators, anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies, or therapies targeting interleukin (IL)-5, IL-13, or IL-4 in the context of a clinical trial.

Eosinophilic esophagitis is triggered by exposure to food antigens and often overlaps with other atopic conditions, such as asthma, eczema, and allergic rhinitis. It has no approved treatments in the United States, although in 2018, the European Medicines Agency approved a budesonide tablet formulation.

The guideline authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Hirano I et al. Gastroenterology. 2020. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.02.038.

Patients with eosinophilic esophagitis should receive topical steroids instead of oral steroids or no treatment, according to new recommendations from the American Gastroenterological Association and the Joint Task Force on Allergy-Immunology Practice Parameters.

In a pooled analysis of eight double-blind clinical trials, monotherapy with topical budesonide or topical fluticasone was about 61% more likely than placebo to produce histologic remissions in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (relative risk of failure to achieve remission, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.58), wrote Ikuo Hirano, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago. Although these trials differed methodologically, the results were robust enough to warrant a strong recommendation for topical steroids, wrote Dr. Hirano and coauthors of the guidelines, published in Gastroenterology (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.02.038). “[T]he same inhaled steroid agents are considered very safe for use in children and adults with asthma and are routinely used in [its] primary management,” they noted.

All other recommendations in the guidelines are graded as conditional, reflecting a lack of high-quality supporting evidence. For example, one only study to date has compared topical and oral steroids for patients with eosinophilic esophagitis. In this pediatric trial, children benefited similarly from fluticasone (two puffs four times daily) and oral prednisone (1 mg/kg twice daily), but prednisone caused side effects (weight gain and cushingoid appearance) in 40% of patients, while topical steroids caused oral candidiasis (thrush) in only 15% of patients. Similarities between pediatric and adult eosinophilic esophagitis support the use of topical versus oral steroids in both groups, the guidelines conclude.

Eosinophilic esophagitis tends to be chronic and can progress to recurrent dysphagia, esophageal impactions, and stricture if left untreated. For this reason, the guidelines call for remitted patients to stay on topical steroids as maintenance therapy despite “very low confidence in the estimated benefits of [any type of] long-term therapy.” In a very small trial, 1 year of low-dose budesonide maintenance therapy (0.25 mg twice daily) outperformed placebo, but only 36% of patients maintained less than 5 eosinophils per high power field. Other studies have produced mixed results. Pending more data, the guidelines call maintenance treatment with topical steroids, proton pump inhibitors, and elimination diets “reasonable options” that comprise “a preference-sensitive area of management.”

Dietary interventions for eosinophilic esophagitis include the elemental diet (amino acid–based formulas), the empiric six-food elimination diet, and eliminating foods based on allergy testing. The guidelines cite moderate-quality evidence for the elemental diet, which induced histologic remissions (less than than 15 eosinophils per high power field) in nearly 94% of patients in six single-arm observational studies (in contrast, the rate of histologic failure with placebo is nearly 87%). However, patients may struggle to adhere to both the elemental diet and the six-food elimination diet, which has less supporting evidence. Hence, patients “may reasonably decline” these treatment options and “may prefer alternative medical or dietary therapies” to a diet exclusively based on food allergens, tests for which are potentially inaccurate, the guidelines state.

Esophageal dilation is recommended for patients with stricture based on a systematic review in which 87% of patients improved with this therapy. However, dilation “does not address the esophageal inflammation associated with eosinophilic esophagitis,” and the “assumption that no clinical improvement would occur if dilation was not performed likely overestimates [its] treatment benefit, given the reported symptom-placebo response noted in controlled trials,” according to the guidelines. Moreover, the evidence for dilation “was considered low quality due to the retrospective, single-arm design of all but one of the reports, and the lack of a standard definition for what constitutes clinical improvement.”

Anti-IgE therapy is not recommended – it failed to improve symptoms or esophageal eosinophilia in the only trial conducted to date. Because of a lack of evidence, the guidelines state that patients should receive only montelukast, cromolyn sodium, immunomodulators, anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies, or therapies targeting interleukin (IL)-5, IL-13, or IL-4 in the context of a clinical trial.

Eosinophilic esophagitis is triggered by exposure to food antigens and often overlaps with other atopic conditions, such as asthma, eczema, and allergic rhinitis. It has no approved treatments in the United States, although in 2018, the European Medicines Agency approved a budesonide tablet formulation.

The guideline authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Hirano I et al. Gastroenterology. 2020. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.02.038.

For more than half a century, haloperidol has been used as a first-line medication for psychiatric agitation constituting a “behavioral emergency” when a patient cannot or will not take oral medication. Today, haloperidol is most commonly administered as an IM injection along with an anticholinergic medication to minimize extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) and a benzodiazepine for additional sedation. The multiple-medication “cocktail” is often referred to by double-entendre nicknames, such as “B-52” or “5250” (ie, haloperidol, 5 mg; lorazepam, 2 mg; and diphenhydramine, 50 mg). In this article, I discuss whether haloperidol, a first-generation antipsychotic (FGA) medication developed in 1958, still deserves to be the IM “gold standard” for managing emergency psychiatric agitation.

Earlier evidence of haloperidol’s efficacy

The initial “discovery” of antipsychotic medications was made in 1951 based on the inadvertent observation that chlorpromazine had the potential to calm surgical patients with autonomic activation. This calming effect, described as “désintéressment” (meaning a kind of “indifference to the world”),¹ resulted in a new class of medications replacing barbiturates and bromides as go-to options to achieve “rapid tranquilization” of psychiatric agitation.² Although the ability of antipsychotic medications to gradually reduce positive symptoms, such as delusions and hallucinations, has been attributed to dopamine (D2) antagonism, their more immediate sedating and anti-agitation effects are the result of broader effects as histamine (H1) and alpha-1 adrenergic antagonists.

In the 1970s, haloperidol emerged as a first-line option to manage agitation due to its IM and IV availability, as well as its relative lack of sedation and orthostasis compared with low-potency D2 antagonists such as chlorpromazine. However, haloperidol was observed to have a significant risk of acute EPS, including dystonic reactions.² From the 1970s to the 1990s, numerous prospective clinical trials of haloperidol for the treatment of acute psychotic agitation, including several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing haloperidol to lorazepam, were conducted.³ The design and outcomes of the haloperidol vs lorazepam RCTs were fairly consistent^4-7:

• adult participants with acute agitation and a variety of psychiatric diagnoses, for whom informed consent often was waived due to agitation severity
• randomization to either IM haloperidol, 5 mg, or IM lorazepam, 2 mg, administered every 30 minutes until agitation resolved
• behavioral outcomes measured over several hours using various rating scales, without consistent assessment of EPS
• equivalent efficacy of haloperidol and lorazepam, with symptom resolution usually achieved after 1 to 2 doses (in 30 to 60 minutes), but sometimes longer
• anticholinergic “rescue” allowed for EPS, but not administered prophylactically
• EPS, including dystonia and akathisia, were significantly more frequent with haloperidol compared with lorazepam.⁸

In recognition of the greater risk of EPS with haloperidol compared with lorazepam, and the fact that most study participants were already taking standing doses of antipsychotic medications, some researchers have recommended using benzodiazepines alone as the optimal treatment for agitation.^4,9 A 2012 Cochrane review concluded that the involuntary use of haloperidol alone “could be considered unethical.”^10,11 However, other studies that examined the combination of haloperidol and lorazepam compared with either medication alone found that the combination of the 2 medications was associated with a more rapid resolution of symptoms, which suggests a superior synergistic effect.^6,7,12 By the late 1990s, combined haloperidol and lorazepam, often mixed within a single injection, became the most common strategy to achieve rapid tranquilization in the psychiatric emergency setting.¹³ However, while the combination has been justified as a way to reduce the antipsychotic medication dose and EPS risk,² few studies have compared combinations containing <5 mg of haloperidol. As a result, the apparent superiority of combined haloperidol and lorazepam compared with either medication alone may be a simple cumulative dose effect rather than true synergism. It is also important to note that adding lorazepam to haloperidol does not mitigate the risk of EPS such as dystonia in the absence of anticholinergic medication.⁸ To date, however, there have been no clinical trials investigating the efficacy of IM haloperidol, lorazepam, and benztropine or diphenhydramine given together.

Newer RCTs tell a different story

With the availability of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) in IM formulations, clinical trials over the past 2 decades have focused on comparing SGAs with haloperidol alone as the “gold standard” control for acute agitation. Compared with previous trials of haloperidol vs lorazepam, these clinical trials of SGAs vs haloperidol included^8,14-22:

• Study participants who signed informed consent (and were likely less agitated)
• IM haloperidol doses typically >5 mg (eg, 6.5 to 10 mg).

As with studies comparing lorazepam with haloperidol, the results of these RCTs revealed that IM aripiprazole, olanzapine, and ziprasidone were at least as effective as IM haloperidol, with haloperidol having a significantly increased risk of akathisia, dystonia, and other EPS.^8,14-22 The greater EPS risk of haloperidol is not surprising given the use of comparison doses up to 10 mg.

An updated 2017 Cochrane review of haloperidol for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation concluded that⁹:

• haloperidol is an effective intervention, although the evidence is “weak”
• significant treatment effects may take as long as 1 to 2 hours following multiple IM injections
• in contrast to SGAs, treatment with haloperidol carries a significant risk of EPS
• adding a benzodiazepine “does not have strong evidence of benefit and carries risk of additional harm.”

Continue to: Haloperidol's well-known toxicity

 

 

Haloperidol’s well-known toxicity

Haloperidol has been associated with numerous adverse effects:

Akathisia and other acute EPS. Treatment with even a single dose of IM haloperidol can result in acute EPS, including dystonia and akathisia. At best, such adverse effects are subjectively troubling and unpleasant; at worst, akathisia can exacerbate and be mistaken for agitation, leading to administration of more medication²³ and the possible development of suicidal or violent behavior.^24-25 In the studies reviewed above, the overall rate of EPS was as high as 21% after treatment with haloperidol,¹⁶ with parkinsonism occurring in up to 17% of patients,¹⁹ dystonia in up to 11%,⁷ and akathisia in up to 10%.¹⁵ However, because specific EPS were assessed inconsistently, and sometimes not at all, the rate of akathisia—arguably the most relevant and counter-therapeutic adverse effect related to agitation—remains unclear.

In another study that specifically assessed for akathisia in patients treated with haloperidol, up to 40% experienced akathisia 6 hours after a single oral dose of 5 mg.²⁶ Even a single dose of IV prochlorperazine, another dopamine-antagonist routinely used to treat nausea in the emergency department (ED), has been reported to cause akathisia in up to 44% of patients.²⁷ Such results suggest that when akathisia is carefully assessed, the rate with even brief FGA exposure may approach nearly half of treated patients. Because akathisia is typically dose-related, and considering that many patients receiving IM haloperidol may receive multiple injections in addition to standing doses of oral medications, akathisia may be underrecognized in patients who are agitated, with a much greater risk than is generally presumed.

Although anticholinergic medications or benzodiazepinesare often administered as part of a haloperidol “cocktail,” these medications often do not adequately resolve emergent akathisia.^26,28 No clinical trials of IM haloperidol combined with benztropine or diphenhydramine have been published, but several studies suggest that combining haloperidol with promethazine—a phenothiazine with strong antihistaminergic and anticholinergic activity, but only weak antidopaminergic activity—can decrease the risk of dystonia relative to haloperidol alone.^8,22,29,30 However, there have also been reports of promethazine causing dystonia.^31,32 In addition, 1 trial of IM haloperidol, 2.5 mg, combined with promethazine reported that 74% of patients still had at least 1 form of EPS.³⁰ Because the clinical trials of haloperidol with promethazine did not specifically assess for akathisia, promethazine’s ability to decrease the risk of akathisia remains unknown.

Cardiotoxicity. Although low-potency antipsychotic medications such as chlorpromazine are more sedating than haloperidol, the latter is preferred as an IM antipsychotic medication for agitation because of its lower risk of hypotension.² In terms of cardiac effects, all antipsychotic medications carry a risk of QTc prolongation, with possible progression to the potentially lethal arrhythmia torsades de pointes as a result of interference with cardiac potassium channels.³³ In 2007, the FDA added a “black-box” warning about this risk for haloperidol, in the wake of a disproportionately high number of reported cases associated with IV administration, sometimes even after a single dose.³⁴

Continue to: Although there is no direct evidence...

Although there is no direct evidence that the cardiac risks associated with IV haloperidol apply to IM administration, epidemiologic studies indicate that oral haloperidol carries an elevated risk of ventricular arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death,^35,36 with 1 study reporting greater risk compared with other SGAs.³⁷ Haloperidol, whether administered orally or IM, may therefore be an especially poor choice for patients with agitation who are at risk for arrhythmia, including those with relevant medical comorbidities or delirium.³⁴

Neuronal cell death. Several lines of research evidence have demonstrated that haloperidol can cause cellular injury or death in neuronal tissue in a dose-dependent fashion through a variety of mechanisms.³⁸ By contrast, SGAs have been shown to have neuroprotective effects.³⁹ While these findings have mostly come from studies conducted in animals or in vitro human tumor cell lines, some researchers have nonetheless called for haloperidol to be banned, noting that if its neurotoxic effects were more widely known, “we would realize what a travesty it is to use [such] a brain-unfriendly drug.”⁴⁰

Several reasonable alternatives

Echoing the earlier Cochrane review of haloperidol for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation,¹⁰ a 2017 update concluded, “If no other alternative exists, sole use of intramuscular haloperidol could be life-saving. Where additional drugs are available, sole use of haloperidol for extreme emergency could be considered unethical.”⁹

What then are reasonable alternatives to replace IM haloperidol for agitation? Clinicians should consider the following nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions:

Nonpharmacologic interventions. Several behavioral interventions have been demonstrated to be effective for managing acute agitation, including verbal de-escalation, enhanced “programming” on the inpatient units, and the judicious use of seclusion.^41-43 While such interventions may demand additional staff or resources, they have the potential to lower long-term costs, reduce injuries to patients and staff, and improve the quality of care.⁴³ The use of IM haloperidol as a form of “chemical restraint” does not represent standard-of-care treatment,³ and from an ethical perspective, should never be implemented punitively or to compensate for substandard care in the form of inadequate staffing or staff training.

Continue to: Benzodiazepines

Benzodiazepines. Lorazepam offers an attractive alternative to haloperidol without the risk of EPS.^2,4,8 However, lorazepam alone may be perceived as less efficacious than a haloperidol “cocktail” because it represents less overall medication. Some evidence has suggested that lorazepam, 4 mg, might be the most appropriate dose, although it has only rarely been studied in clinical trials of acute agitation.³ Midazolam is another IM benzodiazepine alternative to IM haloperidol that has been shown to achieve more rapid sedation than either haloperidol or lorazepam,^44,45 although it can cause substantial anterograde amnesia and also has an FDA black-box warning for respiratory depression associated with IV administration.

Respiratory depression is frequently cited as an argument against using lorazepam for agitation, as if the therapeutic window is extremely narrow with ineffectiveness at 2 mg, but potential lethality beyond that dose. In fact, serious respiratory depression with lorazepam is unlikely in the absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), obstructive sleep apnea, or concomitant alcohol or other sedative use.⁴⁶ Case reports have documented therapeutic lorazepam dosing of 2 to 4 mg every 2 hours up to 20 to 30 mg/d in patients with manic agitation.⁴⁷ Even in patients with COPD, significant respiratory depression tends not to occur at doses <8 mg.⁴⁸ A more evidence-based concern about lorazepam dosing is that 2 mg might be ineffective in patients with established tolerance. For example, 1 report described a patient in acute alcohol withdrawal who required dosing lorazepam to 1,600 mg within 24 hours.⁴⁹ Collectively, these reports suggest that lorazepam has a much wider therapeutic window than is typically perceived, and that dosing with 3 to 4 mg IM is a reasonable option for agitation when 2 mg is likely to be inadequate.

Paradoxical disinhibition is another concern that might prevent benzodiazepines from being used alone as a first-line intervention for emergency treatment of agitation. However, similar to respiratory depression, this adverse event is relatively rare and tends to occur in children and geriatric patients, individuals intoxicated with alcohol or other sedatives, and patients with brain injury, developmental delay, or dementia.^23,46 Although exacerbation of aggression has not been demonstrated in the RCTs examining benzodiazepines for agitation reviewed above, based on other research, some clinicians have expressed concerns about the potential for benzodiazepines to exacerbate aggression in patients with impulse control disorders and a history of violent behavior.⁵⁰

The 2005 Expert Consensus Panel for Behavioral Emergencies⁵¹ recommended the use of lorazepam alone over haloperidol for agitation for patients for whom the diagnosis is unknown or includes the following:

• stimulant intoxication
• personality disorder
• comorbid obesity
• comorbid cardiac arrhythmia
• a history of akathisia and other EPS
• a history of amenorrhea/galactorrhea
• a history of seizures.

In surveys, patients have ranked lorazepam as the preferred medication for emergency agitation, whereas haloperidol was ranked as one of the least-preferred options.^51,52

Continue to: Second-generation antipsychotics

Second-generation antipsychotics. The SGAs available in IM formulations, such as aripiprazole, olanzapine, and ziprasidone, have been shown to be at least as effective as haloperidol for the treatment of acute agitation (in 2015, the short-acting injectable formulation of aripiprazole was discontinued in the United States independent of safety or efficacy issues⁵³). A review of RCTs examining IM SGAs for the treatment of agitation concluded that the number needed to treat for response compared with placebo was 5 for aripiprazole, 3 for olanzapine, and 3 for ziprasidone.⁵⁴ In terms of safety, a meta-analysis of studies examining IM medications for agitation confirmed that the risk of acute EPS, including dystonia, akathisia, and parkinsonism, is significantly lower with SGAs compared with haloperidol.⁵⁵ An RCT comparing IM ziprasidone with haloperidol found equivalently modest effects on QTc prolongation.⁵⁶ Therefore, SGAs are an obvious and evidence-based option for replacing haloperidol as a treatment for acute agitation.

Unfortunately, for clinicians hoping to replace haloperidol within a multiple-medication IM “cocktail,” there have been no published controlled trials of SGAs combined with benzodiazepines. Although a short report indicated that aripiprazole and lorazepam are chemically compatible to be combined within a single injection,⁵⁷ the package insert for aripiprazole warns that “If parenteral benzodiazepine therapy is deemed necessary in addition to ABILIFY injection treatment, patients should be monitored for excessive sedation and for orthostatic hypotension.”⁵⁸ The package insert for olanzapine likewise lists the combination of lorazepam and olanzapine as a drug interaction that can potentiate sedation, and the manufacturer issued specific warnings about parenteral combination.^59,60 A single published case of significant hypotension with combined IM olanzapine and lorazepam,⁶⁰ together with the fact that IM olanzapine can cause hypotension by itself,⁶¹ has discouraged the coadministration of these medications. Nonetheless, the combination is used in some emergency settings, with several retro­spective studies failing to provide evidence of hypotension or respiratory depression as adverse effects.^62-64

Droperidol. Droperidol was formerly a popular choice for managing acute agitation, with evidence from RCTs that droperidol, 5 mg, can improve symptoms significantly faster than either haloperidol, 5 mg, or lorazepam, 2 mg, and is absorbed just as rapidly whether administered IV or IM.^65-67 However, a 2001 FDA black-box warning about QTc prolongation included recommendations that a screening electrocardiogram should be obtained before administering droperidol. This action greatly curtailed the use of droperidol, and for some time, it was not marketed or available in the United States.

Over the past decade, however, droperidol has returned to the US market⁶⁸ and its IV and IM usage has been revitalized for managing patients with agitation within or en route to the ED. Studies have demonstrated droperidol efficacy comparable to midazolam, ziprasidone, or olanzapine, as well as effectiveness as an IV adjunct to midazolam.^69-71 In contrast to the FDA black-box warning, retrospective studies and RCTs of both IV and IM droperidol suggest that QTc prolongation and torsades de pointes are rare events that do not occur any more frequently than they do with haloperidol, even at doses >10 mg.^72,73 However, in studies involving patients with drug intoxication and treatment with multiple medications, oversedation to the point of needing rescue intervention was reported. In an emergency setting where these issues are relatively easily managed, such risks may be better tolerated than in psychiatric settings.

With earlier studies examining the use of droperidol in an acute psychiatric setting that reported a more rapid onset of action than haloperidol,^65-67 a 2016 Cochrane review concluded that there was high-quality evidence to support droperidol’s use for psychosis-induced agitation.⁷⁴ However, a 2015 RCT comparing IM droperidol, 10 mg, to haloperidol, 10 mg, found equivalent efficacy and response times (with maximal response occurring within 2 hours) and concluded that droperidol had no advantage over haloperidol.⁷⁵ Because none of the clinical trials that evaluated droperidol have included assessments for EPS, its risk of akathisia remains uncertain.

Continue to: Ketamine

Ketamine. In recent years, ketamine has been used to treat acute agitation within or en route to the ED. Preliminary observational studies support ketamine’s efficacy when administered via IV or IM routes,⁷⁶ with more rapid symptomatic improvement compared with haloperidol, lorazepam, or midazolam alone.⁷⁷ Reported adverse effects of ketamine include dissociation, psychotic exacerbation, and respiratory depression,⁷⁶ although 1 small naturalistic study found no evidence of exacerbation of psychotic or other psychiatric symptoms.⁷⁸ An ongoing RCT is comparing IM ketamine, 5 mg/kg, to combined IM haloperidol, 5 mg, and midazolam, 5 mg.⁷⁹ Although various ketamine formulations are increasingly being used in psychiatry, active psychosis is generally regarded as a contraindication. It is premature to recommend parenteral ketamine administration for agitation within most psychiatric settings until more research on safety has been completed.

Haloperidol, or something else? Practical considerations

Consider the following factors when deciding whether to use haloperidol or one of its alternatives:

Limitations of the evidence. Modern clinical trials requiring informed consent often do not include the kind of severe agitation that clinicians encounter in acute psychiatric, emergency, or forensic settings. In addition, standard interventions, such as 3-medication haloperidol “cocktails,” have not been evaluated in clinical trials. Clinicians are therefore often in the dark about optimal evidence-based practices.

Treatment goals. Psychiatric agitation has many causes, with a range of severity that warrants a commensurate range of responses. Protocols for managing acute agitation should include graded interventions that begin with nonpharmacologic interventions and voluntary oral medications, and move to involuntary IM medications when necessary.

While treatment guidelines clearly recommend against IM medications as “chemical restraint” with a goal of sedating a patient until he/she is unconscious,^3,51 such outcomes are nonetheless often sought by staff who are concerned about the risk of injuries during a behavioral emergency. In such instances, the risks of violence towards patients and staff may outweigh concerns about adverse effects in a risk-benefit analysis. Consequently, clinicians may be prone to “skip over” graded interventions because they assume they “won’t work” in favor of administering involuntary multiple-medication haloperidol “cocktails” despite risks of excess sedation, EPS, and cardiotoxicity. Treatment settings should critically evaluate such biased preferences, with a goal of developing tailored, evidence-based strategies that maximize benefits while minimizing excess sedation and other untoward adverse effects, with an eye towards promoting better overall patient care and reducing length of stay.^42,43,80

Continue to: Limitations of available medications

Limitations of available medications. There is no perfect medication for the management of acute agitation. Evidence indicates that pharmacologic options take 15 minutes to several hours to resolve acute agitation, even potentially more rapid-acting medications such as midazolam and droperidol. This is well beyond most clinicians’ desired window for response time in a behavioral emergency. Multiple-medication “cocktails” may be used with the hope of hastening response time, but may not achieve this goal at the expense of increasing the risk of adverse effects and the likelihood that a patient will remain sedated for a prolonged time. In the real world, this often means that by the time a psychiatrist comes to evaluate a patient who has been given emergency medications, the patient cannot be aroused for an interview. Ideally, medications would calm an agitated patient rapidly, without excess or prolonged sedation.⁸⁰ Less-sedating SGAs, such as ziprasidone, might have this potential, but can sometimes be perceived as ineffective.

Avoiding akathisia. Akathisia’s potential to worsen and be mistaken for agitation makes it an especially concerning, if underappreciated, adverse effect of haloperidol that is often not adequately assessed in clinical trials or practice. In light of evidence that akathisia can occur in nearly half of patients receiving a single 5 mg-dose of haloperidol, it is difficult to justify the use of this medication for agitation when equally effective options exist with a lower risk of EPS.

While haloperidol-induced akathisia could in theory be mitigated by adding anticholinergic medications or benzodiazepines, previous studies have found that such strategies have limited effectiveness compared to “gold standard” treatment with propranolol.^28,81,82 Furthermore, the half-lives of anticholinergic medications, such as benztropine or diphenhydramine, are significantly shorter than that of a single dose of haloperidol, which can be as long as 37 hours.⁸³ Therefore, akathisia and other EPS could emerge or worsen several hours or even days after receiving an IM haloperidol “cocktail” as the shorter-acting medications wear off. Akathisia is best minimized by avoiding FGAs, such as haloperidol, when treating acute agitation.

Promoting adherence. Although haloperidol is often recommended for acute agitation in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder on the basis that it would treat the underlying condition, many patients who receive IM medications for acute agitation are already prescribed standing doses of oral medication, which increases the risk of cumulative toxicity. In addition, receiving a medication likely to cause acute EPS that is ranked near the bottom of patient preferences may erode the potential for a therapeutic alliance and hamper longer-term antipsychotic medication adherence.

Time for a change

For nearly half a century, haloperidol has been a “gold standard” intervention for IM control in patients with agitation. However, given its potential to produce adverse effects, including a significant risk of akathisia that can worsen agitation, along with the availability of newer pharmacologic options that are at least as effective (Table 1, and Table 2), haloperidol should be retired as a first-line medication for the treatment of agitation. Clinicians would benefit from RCTs investigating the safety and efficacy of novel interventions including frequently-used, but untested medication combinations, as well as nonpharmacologic interventions.

Continue to: Bottom Line

 

 

Bottom Line

Although there is no perfect IM medication to treat acute agitation, haloperidol’s higher risk of adverse effects relative to newer alternatives suggest that it should no longer be considered a first-line intervention.

Related Resources

• Zun LS. Evidence-based review of pharmacotherapy for acute agitation. Part 1: onset of efficacy. J Emerg Med. 2018;54(3):364-374.
• Zun LS. Evidence-based review of pharmacotherapy for acute agitation. Part 2: safety. J Emerg Med. 2018;54(4): 522-532.

Drug Brand Names

Aripiprazole • Abilify
Benztropine • Cogentin
Chlorpromazine • Thorazine
Diphenhydramine • Benadryl
Droperidol • Inapsine
Haloperidol • Haldol
Ketamine • Ketalar
Lorazepam • Ativan
Midazolam • Versed
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Prochlorperazine • Compazine
Promethazine • Phenergan
Propranolol • Inderal, Pronol
Ziprasidone • Geodon

For more than half a century, haloperidol has been used as a first-line medication for psychiatric agitation constituting a “behavioral emergency” when a patient cannot or will not take oral medication. Today, haloperidol is most commonly administered as an IM injection along with an anticholinergic medication to minimize extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) and a benzodiazepine for additional sedation. The multiple-medication “cocktail” is often referred to by double-entendre nicknames, such as “B-52” or “5250” (ie, haloperidol, 5 mg; lorazepam, 2 mg; and diphenhydramine, 50 mg). In this article, I discuss whether haloperidol, a first-generation antipsychotic (FGA) medication developed in 1958, still deserves to be the IM “gold standard” for managing emergency psychiatric agitation.

Earlier evidence of haloperidol’s efficacy

The initial “discovery” of antipsychotic medications was made in 1951 based on the inadvertent observation that chlorpromazine had the potential to calm surgical patients with autonomic activation. This calming effect, described as “désintéressment” (meaning a kind of “indifference to the world”),¹ resulted in a new class of medications replacing barbiturates and bromides as go-to options to achieve “rapid tranquilization” of psychiatric agitation.² Although the ability of antipsychotic medications to gradually reduce positive symptoms, such as delusions and hallucinations, has been attributed to dopamine (D2) antagonism, their more immediate sedating and anti-agitation effects are the result of broader effects as histamine (H1) and alpha-1 adrenergic antagonists.

In the 1970s, haloperidol emerged as a first-line option to manage agitation due to its IM and IV availability, as well as its relative lack of sedation and orthostasis compared with low-potency D2 antagonists such as chlorpromazine. However, haloperidol was observed to have a significant risk of acute EPS, including dystonic reactions.² From the 1970s to the 1990s, numerous prospective clinical trials of haloperidol for the treatment of acute psychotic agitation, including several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing haloperidol to lorazepam, were conducted.³ The design and outcomes of the haloperidol vs lorazepam RCTs were fairly consistent^4-7:

• adult participants with acute agitation and a variety of psychiatric diagnoses, for whom informed consent often was waived due to agitation severity
• randomization to either IM haloperidol, 5 mg, or IM lorazepam, 2 mg, administered every 30 minutes until agitation resolved
• behavioral outcomes measured over several hours using various rating scales, without consistent assessment of EPS
• equivalent efficacy of haloperidol and lorazepam, with symptom resolution usually achieved after 1 to 2 doses (in 30 to 60 minutes), but sometimes longer
• anticholinergic “rescue” allowed for EPS, but not administered prophylactically
• EPS, including dystonia and akathisia, were significantly more frequent with haloperidol compared with lorazepam.⁸

In recognition of the greater risk of EPS with haloperidol compared with lorazepam, and the fact that most study participants were already taking standing doses of antipsychotic medications, some researchers have recommended using benzodiazepines alone as the optimal treatment for agitation.^4,9 A 2012 Cochrane review concluded that the involuntary use of haloperidol alone “could be considered unethical.”^10,11 However, other studies that examined the combination of haloperidol and lorazepam compared with either medication alone found that the combination of the 2 medications was associated with a more rapid resolution of symptoms, which suggests a superior synergistic effect.^6,7,12 By the late 1990s, combined haloperidol and lorazepam, often mixed within a single injection, became the most common strategy to achieve rapid tranquilization in the psychiatric emergency setting.¹³ However, while the combination has been justified as a way to reduce the antipsychotic medication dose and EPS risk,² few studies have compared combinations containing <5 mg of haloperidol. As a result, the apparent superiority of combined haloperidol and lorazepam compared with either medication alone may be a simple cumulative dose effect rather than true synergism. It is also important to note that adding lorazepam to haloperidol does not mitigate the risk of EPS such as dystonia in the absence of anticholinergic medication.⁸ To date, however, there have been no clinical trials investigating the efficacy of IM haloperidol, lorazepam, and benztropine or diphenhydramine given together.

Newer RCTs tell a different story

With the availability of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) in IM formulations, clinical trials over the past 2 decades have focused on comparing SGAs with haloperidol alone as the “gold standard” control for acute agitation. Compared with previous trials of haloperidol vs lorazepam, these clinical trials of SGAs vs haloperidol included^8,14-22:

• Study participants who signed informed consent (and were likely less agitated)
• IM haloperidol doses typically >5 mg (eg, 6.5 to 10 mg).

As with studies comparing lorazepam with haloperidol, the results of these RCTs revealed that IM aripiprazole, olanzapine, and ziprasidone were at least as effective as IM haloperidol, with haloperidol having a significantly increased risk of akathisia, dystonia, and other EPS.^8,14-22 The greater EPS risk of haloperidol is not surprising given the use of comparison doses up to 10 mg.

An updated 2017 Cochrane review of haloperidol for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation concluded that⁹:

• haloperidol is an effective intervention, although the evidence is “weak”
• significant treatment effects may take as long as 1 to 2 hours following multiple IM injections
• in contrast to SGAs, treatment with haloperidol carries a significant risk of EPS
• adding a benzodiazepine “does not have strong evidence of benefit and carries risk of additional harm.”

Continue to: Haloperidol's well-known toxicity

 

 

Haloperidol’s well-known toxicity

Haloperidol has been associated with numerous adverse effects:

Akathisia and other acute EPS. Treatment with even a single dose of IM haloperidol can result in acute EPS, including dystonia and akathisia. At best, such adverse effects are subjectively troubling and unpleasant; at worst, akathisia can exacerbate and be mistaken for agitation, leading to administration of more medication²³ and the possible development of suicidal or violent behavior.^24-25 In the studies reviewed above, the overall rate of EPS was as high as 21% after treatment with haloperidol,¹⁶ with parkinsonism occurring in up to 17% of patients,¹⁹ dystonia in up to 11%,⁷ and akathisia in up to 10%.¹⁵ However, because specific EPS were assessed inconsistently, and sometimes not at all, the rate of akathisia—arguably the most relevant and counter-therapeutic adverse effect related to agitation—remains unclear.

In another study that specifically assessed for akathisia in patients treated with haloperidol, up to 40% experienced akathisia 6 hours after a single oral dose of 5 mg.²⁶ Even a single dose of IV prochlorperazine, another dopamine-antagonist routinely used to treat nausea in the emergency department (ED), has been reported to cause akathisia in up to 44% of patients.²⁷ Such results suggest that when akathisia is carefully assessed, the rate with even brief FGA exposure may approach nearly half of treated patients. Because akathisia is typically dose-related, and considering that many patients receiving IM haloperidol may receive multiple injections in addition to standing doses of oral medications, akathisia may be underrecognized in patients who are agitated, with a much greater risk than is generally presumed.

Although anticholinergic medications or benzodiazepinesare often administered as part of a haloperidol “cocktail,” these medications often do not adequately resolve emergent akathisia.^26,28 No clinical trials of IM haloperidol combined with benztropine or diphenhydramine have been published, but several studies suggest that combining haloperidol with promethazine—a phenothiazine with strong antihistaminergic and anticholinergic activity, but only weak antidopaminergic activity—can decrease the risk of dystonia relative to haloperidol alone.^8,22,29,30 However, there have also been reports of promethazine causing dystonia.^31,32 In addition, 1 trial of IM haloperidol, 2.5 mg, combined with promethazine reported that 74% of patients still had at least 1 form of EPS.³⁰ Because the clinical trials of haloperidol with promethazine did not specifically assess for akathisia, promethazine’s ability to decrease the risk of akathisia remains unknown.

Cardiotoxicity. Although low-potency antipsychotic medications such as chlorpromazine are more sedating than haloperidol, the latter is preferred as an IM antipsychotic medication for agitation because of its lower risk of hypotension.² In terms of cardiac effects, all antipsychotic medications carry a risk of QTc prolongation, with possible progression to the potentially lethal arrhythmia torsades de pointes as a result of interference with cardiac potassium channels.³³ In 2007, the FDA added a “black-box” warning about this risk for haloperidol, in the wake of a disproportionately high number of reported cases associated with IV administration, sometimes even after a single dose.³⁴

Continue to: Although there is no direct evidence...

Although there is no direct evidence that the cardiac risks associated with IV haloperidol apply to IM administration, epidemiologic studies indicate that oral haloperidol carries an elevated risk of ventricular arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death,^35,36 with 1 study reporting greater risk compared with other SGAs.³⁷ Haloperidol, whether administered orally or IM, may therefore be an especially poor choice for patients with agitation who are at risk for arrhythmia, including those with relevant medical comorbidities or delirium.³⁴

Neuronal cell death. Several lines of research evidence have demonstrated that haloperidol can cause cellular injury or death in neuronal tissue in a dose-dependent fashion through a variety of mechanisms.³⁸ By contrast, SGAs have been shown to have neuroprotective effects.³⁹ While these findings have mostly come from studies conducted in animals or in vitro human tumor cell lines, some researchers have nonetheless called for haloperidol to be banned, noting that if its neurotoxic effects were more widely known, “we would realize what a travesty it is to use [such] a brain-unfriendly drug.”⁴⁰

Several reasonable alternatives

Echoing the earlier Cochrane review of haloperidol for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation,¹⁰ a 2017 update concluded, “If no other alternative exists, sole use of intramuscular haloperidol could be life-saving. Where additional drugs are available, sole use of haloperidol for extreme emergency could be considered unethical.”⁹

What then are reasonable alternatives to replace IM haloperidol for agitation? Clinicians should consider the following nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions:

Nonpharmacologic interventions. Several behavioral interventions have been demonstrated to be effective for managing acute agitation, including verbal de-escalation, enhanced “programming” on the inpatient units, and the judicious use of seclusion.^41-43 While such interventions may demand additional staff or resources, they have the potential to lower long-term costs, reduce injuries to patients and staff, and improve the quality of care.⁴³ The use of IM haloperidol as a form of “chemical restraint” does not represent standard-of-care treatment,³ and from an ethical perspective, should never be implemented punitively or to compensate for substandard care in the form of inadequate staffing or staff training.

Continue to: Benzodiazepines

Benzodiazepines. Lorazepam offers an attractive alternative to haloperidol without the risk of EPS.^2,4,8 However, lorazepam alone may be perceived as less efficacious than a haloperidol “cocktail” because it represents less overall medication. Some evidence has suggested that lorazepam, 4 mg, might be the most appropriate dose, although it has only rarely been studied in clinical trials of acute agitation.³ Midazolam is another IM benzodiazepine alternative to IM haloperidol that has been shown to achieve more rapid sedation than either haloperidol or lorazepam,^44,45 although it can cause substantial anterograde amnesia and also has an FDA black-box warning for respiratory depression associated with IV administration.

Respiratory depression is frequently cited as an argument against using lorazepam for agitation, as if the therapeutic window is extremely narrow with ineffectiveness at 2 mg, but potential lethality beyond that dose. In fact, serious respiratory depression with lorazepam is unlikely in the absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), obstructive sleep apnea, or concomitant alcohol or other sedative use.⁴⁶ Case reports have documented therapeutic lorazepam dosing of 2 to 4 mg every 2 hours up to 20 to 30 mg/d in patients with manic agitation.⁴⁷ Even in patients with COPD, significant respiratory depression tends not to occur at doses <8 mg.⁴⁸ A more evidence-based concern about lorazepam dosing is that 2 mg might be ineffective in patients with established tolerance. For example, 1 report described a patient in acute alcohol withdrawal who required dosing lorazepam to 1,600 mg within 24 hours.⁴⁹ Collectively, these reports suggest that lorazepam has a much wider therapeutic window than is typically perceived, and that dosing with 3 to 4 mg IM is a reasonable option for agitation when 2 mg is likely to be inadequate.

Paradoxical disinhibition is another concern that might prevent benzodiazepines from being used alone as a first-line intervention for emergency treatment of agitation. However, similar to respiratory depression, this adverse event is relatively rare and tends to occur in children and geriatric patients, individuals intoxicated with alcohol or other sedatives, and patients with brain injury, developmental delay, or dementia.^23,46 Although exacerbation of aggression has not been demonstrated in the RCTs examining benzodiazepines for agitation reviewed above, based on other research, some clinicians have expressed concerns about the potential for benzodiazepines to exacerbate aggression in patients with impulse control disorders and a history of violent behavior.⁵⁰

The 2005 Expert Consensus Panel for Behavioral Emergencies⁵¹ recommended the use of lorazepam alone over haloperidol for agitation for patients for whom the diagnosis is unknown or includes the following:

• stimulant intoxication
• personality disorder
• comorbid obesity
• comorbid cardiac arrhythmia
• a history of akathisia and other EPS
• a history of amenorrhea/galactorrhea
• a history of seizures.

In surveys, patients have ranked lorazepam as the preferred medication for emergency agitation, whereas haloperidol was ranked as one of the least-preferred options.^51,52

Continue to: Second-generation antipsychotics

Second-generation antipsychotics. The SGAs available in IM formulations, such as aripiprazole, olanzapine, and ziprasidone, have been shown to be at least as effective as haloperidol for the treatment of acute agitation (in 2015, the short-acting injectable formulation of aripiprazole was discontinued in the United States independent of safety or efficacy issues⁵³). A review of RCTs examining IM SGAs for the treatment of agitation concluded that the number needed to treat for response compared with placebo was 5 for aripiprazole, 3 for olanzapine, and 3 for ziprasidone.⁵⁴ In terms of safety, a meta-analysis of studies examining IM medications for agitation confirmed that the risk of acute EPS, including dystonia, akathisia, and parkinsonism, is significantly lower with SGAs compared with haloperidol.⁵⁵ An RCT comparing IM ziprasidone with haloperidol found equivalently modest effects on QTc prolongation.⁵⁶ Therefore, SGAs are an obvious and evidence-based option for replacing haloperidol as a treatment for acute agitation.

Unfortunately, for clinicians hoping to replace haloperidol within a multiple-medication IM “cocktail,” there have been no published controlled trials of SGAs combined with benzodiazepines. Although a short report indicated that aripiprazole and lorazepam are chemically compatible to be combined within a single injection,⁵⁷ the package insert for aripiprazole warns that “If parenteral benzodiazepine therapy is deemed necessary in addition to ABILIFY injection treatment, patients should be monitored for excessive sedation and for orthostatic hypotension.”⁵⁸ The package insert for olanzapine likewise lists the combination of lorazepam and olanzapine as a drug interaction that can potentiate sedation, and the manufacturer issued specific warnings about parenteral combination.^59,60 A single published case of significant hypotension with combined IM olanzapine and lorazepam,⁶⁰ together with the fact that IM olanzapine can cause hypotension by itself,⁶¹ has discouraged the coadministration of these medications. Nonetheless, the combination is used in some emergency settings, with several retro­spective studies failing to provide evidence of hypotension or respiratory depression as adverse effects.^62-64

Droperidol. Droperidol was formerly a popular choice for managing acute agitation, with evidence from RCTs that droperidol, 5 mg, can improve symptoms significantly faster than either haloperidol, 5 mg, or lorazepam, 2 mg, and is absorbed just as rapidly whether administered IV or IM.^65-67 However, a 2001 FDA black-box warning about QTc prolongation included recommendations that a screening electrocardiogram should be obtained before administering droperidol. This action greatly curtailed the use of droperidol, and for some time, it was not marketed or available in the United States.

Over the past decade, however, droperidol has returned to the US market⁶⁸ and its IV and IM usage has been revitalized for managing patients with agitation within or en route to the ED. Studies have demonstrated droperidol efficacy comparable to midazolam, ziprasidone, or olanzapine, as well as effectiveness as an IV adjunct to midazolam.^69-71 In contrast to the FDA black-box warning, retrospective studies and RCTs of both IV and IM droperidol suggest that QTc prolongation and torsades de pointes are rare events that do not occur any more frequently than they do with haloperidol, even at doses >10 mg.^72,73 However, in studies involving patients with drug intoxication and treatment with multiple medications, oversedation to the point of needing rescue intervention was reported. In an emergency setting where these issues are relatively easily managed, such risks may be better tolerated than in psychiatric settings.

With earlier studies examining the use of droperidol in an acute psychiatric setting that reported a more rapid onset of action than haloperidol,^65-67 a 2016 Cochrane review concluded that there was high-quality evidence to support droperidol’s use for psychosis-induced agitation.⁷⁴ However, a 2015 RCT comparing IM droperidol, 10 mg, to haloperidol, 10 mg, found equivalent efficacy and response times (with maximal response occurring within 2 hours) and concluded that droperidol had no advantage over haloperidol.⁷⁵ Because none of the clinical trials that evaluated droperidol have included assessments for EPS, its risk of akathisia remains uncertain.

Continue to: Ketamine

Ketamine. In recent years, ketamine has been used to treat acute agitation within or en route to the ED. Preliminary observational studies support ketamine’s efficacy when administered via IV or IM routes,⁷⁶ with more rapid symptomatic improvement compared with haloperidol, lorazepam, or midazolam alone.⁷⁷ Reported adverse effects of ketamine include dissociation, psychotic exacerbation, and respiratory depression,⁷⁶ although 1 small naturalistic study found no evidence of exacerbation of psychotic or other psychiatric symptoms.⁷⁸ An ongoing RCT is comparing IM ketamine, 5 mg/kg, to combined IM haloperidol, 5 mg, and midazolam, 5 mg.⁷⁹ Although various ketamine formulations are increasingly being used in psychiatry, active psychosis is generally regarded as a contraindication. It is premature to recommend parenteral ketamine administration for agitation within most psychiatric settings until more research on safety has been completed.

Haloperidol, or something else? Practical considerations

Consider the following factors when deciding whether to use haloperidol or one of its alternatives:

Limitations of the evidence. Modern clinical trials requiring informed consent often do not include the kind of severe agitation that clinicians encounter in acute psychiatric, emergency, or forensic settings. In addition, standard interventions, such as 3-medication haloperidol “cocktails,” have not been evaluated in clinical trials. Clinicians are therefore often in the dark about optimal evidence-based practices.

Treatment goals. Psychiatric agitation has many causes, with a range of severity that warrants a commensurate range of responses. Protocols for managing acute agitation should include graded interventions that begin with nonpharmacologic interventions and voluntary oral medications, and move to involuntary IM medications when necessary.

While treatment guidelines clearly recommend against IM medications as “chemical restraint” with a goal of sedating a patient until he/she is unconscious,^3,51 such outcomes are nonetheless often sought by staff who are concerned about the risk of injuries during a behavioral emergency. In such instances, the risks of violence towards patients and staff may outweigh concerns about adverse effects in a risk-benefit analysis. Consequently, clinicians may be prone to “skip over” graded interventions because they assume they “won’t work” in favor of administering involuntary multiple-medication haloperidol “cocktails” despite risks of excess sedation, EPS, and cardiotoxicity. Treatment settings should critically evaluate such biased preferences, with a goal of developing tailored, evidence-based strategies that maximize benefits while minimizing excess sedation and other untoward adverse effects, with an eye towards promoting better overall patient care and reducing length of stay.^42,43,80

Continue to: Limitations of available medications

Limitations of available medications. There is no perfect medication for the management of acute agitation. Evidence indicates that pharmacologic options take 15 minutes to several hours to resolve acute agitation, even potentially more rapid-acting medications such as midazolam and droperidol. This is well beyond most clinicians’ desired window for response time in a behavioral emergency. Multiple-medication “cocktails” may be used with the hope of hastening response time, but may not achieve this goal at the expense of increasing the risk of adverse effects and the likelihood that a patient will remain sedated for a prolonged time. In the real world, this often means that by the time a psychiatrist comes to evaluate a patient who has been given emergency medications, the patient cannot be aroused for an interview. Ideally, medications would calm an agitated patient rapidly, without excess or prolonged sedation.⁸⁰ Less-sedating SGAs, such as ziprasidone, might have this potential, but can sometimes be perceived as ineffective.

Avoiding akathisia. Akathisia’s potential to worsen and be mistaken for agitation makes it an especially concerning, if underappreciated, adverse effect of haloperidol that is often not adequately assessed in clinical trials or practice. In light of evidence that akathisia can occur in nearly half of patients receiving a single 5 mg-dose of haloperidol, it is difficult to justify the use of this medication for agitation when equally effective options exist with a lower risk of EPS.

While haloperidol-induced akathisia could in theory be mitigated by adding anticholinergic medications or benzodiazepines, previous studies have found that such strategies have limited effectiveness compared to “gold standard” treatment with propranolol.^28,81,82 Furthermore, the half-lives of anticholinergic medications, such as benztropine or diphenhydramine, are significantly shorter than that of a single dose of haloperidol, which can be as long as 37 hours.⁸³ Therefore, akathisia and other EPS could emerge or worsen several hours or even days after receiving an IM haloperidol “cocktail” as the shorter-acting medications wear off. Akathisia is best minimized by avoiding FGAs, such as haloperidol, when treating acute agitation.

Promoting adherence. Although haloperidol is often recommended for acute agitation in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder on the basis that it would treat the underlying condition, many patients who receive IM medications for acute agitation are already prescribed standing doses of oral medication, which increases the risk of cumulative toxicity. In addition, receiving a medication likely to cause acute EPS that is ranked near the bottom of patient preferences may erode the potential for a therapeutic alliance and hamper longer-term antipsychotic medication adherence.

Time for a change

For nearly half a century, haloperidol has been a “gold standard” intervention for IM control in patients with agitation. However, given its potential to produce adverse effects, including a significant risk of akathisia that can worsen agitation, along with the availability of newer pharmacologic options that are at least as effective (Table 1, and Table 2), haloperidol should be retired as a first-line medication for the treatment of agitation. Clinicians would benefit from RCTs investigating the safety and efficacy of novel interventions including frequently-used, but untested medication combinations, as well as nonpharmacologic interventions.

Continue to: Bottom Line

 

 

Bottom Line

Although there is no perfect IM medication to treat acute agitation, haloperidol’s higher risk of adverse effects relative to newer alternatives suggest that it should no longer be considered a first-line intervention.

Related Resources

• Zun LS. Evidence-based review of pharmacotherapy for acute agitation. Part 1: onset of efficacy. J Emerg Med. 2018;54(3):364-374.
• Zun LS. Evidence-based review of pharmacotherapy for acute agitation. Part 2: safety. J Emerg Med. 2018;54(4): 522-532.

Drug Brand Names

Aripiprazole • Abilify
Benztropine • Cogentin
Chlorpromazine • Thorazine
Diphenhydramine • Benadryl
Droperidol • Inapsine
Haloperidol • Haldol
Ketamine • Ketalar
Lorazepam • Ativan
Midazolam • Versed
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Prochlorperazine • Compazine
Promethazine • Phenergan
Propranolol • Inderal, Pronol
Ziprasidone • Geodon

For more than half a century, haloperidol has been used as a first-line medication for psychiatric agitation constituting a “behavioral emergency” when a patient cannot or will not take oral medication. Today, haloperidol is most commonly administered as an IM injection along with an anticholinergic medication to minimize extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) and a benzodiazepine for additional sedation. The multiple-medication “cocktail” is often referred to by double-entendre nicknames, such as “B-52” or “5250” (ie, haloperidol, 5 mg; lorazepam, 2 mg; and diphenhydramine, 50 mg). In this article, I discuss whether haloperidol, a first-generation antipsychotic (FGA) medication developed in 1958, still deserves to be the IM “gold standard” for managing emergency psychiatric agitation.

Earlier evidence of haloperidol’s efficacy

The initial “discovery” of antipsychotic medications was made in 1951 based on the inadvertent observation that chlorpromazine had the potential to calm surgical patients with autonomic activation. This calming effect, described as “désintéressment” (meaning a kind of “indifference to the world”),¹ resulted in a new class of medications replacing barbiturates and bromides as go-to options to achieve “rapid tranquilization” of psychiatric agitation.² Although the ability of antipsychotic medications to gradually reduce positive symptoms, such as delusions and hallucinations, has been attributed to dopamine (D2) antagonism, their more immediate sedating and anti-agitation effects are the result of broader effects as histamine (H1) and alpha-1 adrenergic antagonists.

In the 1970s, haloperidol emerged as a first-line option to manage agitation due to its IM and IV availability, as well as its relative lack of sedation and orthostasis compared with low-potency D2 antagonists such as chlorpromazine. However, haloperidol was observed to have a significant risk of acute EPS, including dystonic reactions.² From the 1970s to the 1990s, numerous prospective clinical trials of haloperidol for the treatment of acute psychotic agitation, including several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing haloperidol to lorazepam, were conducted.³ The design and outcomes of the haloperidol vs lorazepam RCTs were fairly consistent^4-7:

• adult participants with acute agitation and a variety of psychiatric diagnoses, for whom informed consent often was waived due to agitation severity
• randomization to either IM haloperidol, 5 mg, or IM lorazepam, 2 mg, administered every 30 minutes until agitation resolved
• behavioral outcomes measured over several hours using various rating scales, without consistent assessment of EPS
• equivalent efficacy of haloperidol and lorazepam, with symptom resolution usually achieved after 1 to 2 doses (in 30 to 60 minutes), but sometimes longer
• anticholinergic “rescue” allowed for EPS, but not administered prophylactically
• EPS, including dystonia and akathisia, were significantly more frequent with haloperidol compared with lorazepam.⁸

In recognition of the greater risk of EPS with haloperidol compared with lorazepam, and the fact that most study participants were already taking standing doses of antipsychotic medications, some researchers have recommended using benzodiazepines alone as the optimal treatment for agitation.^4,9 A 2012 Cochrane review concluded that the involuntary use of haloperidol alone “could be considered unethical.”^10,11 However, other studies that examined the combination of haloperidol and lorazepam compared with either medication alone found that the combination of the 2 medications was associated with a more rapid resolution of symptoms, which suggests a superior synergistic effect.^6,7,12 By the late 1990s, combined haloperidol and lorazepam, often mixed within a single injection, became the most common strategy to achieve rapid tranquilization in the psychiatric emergency setting.¹³ However, while the combination has been justified as a way to reduce the antipsychotic medication dose and EPS risk,² few studies have compared combinations containing <5 mg of haloperidol. As a result, the apparent superiority of combined haloperidol and lorazepam compared with either medication alone may be a simple cumulative dose effect rather than true synergism. It is also important to note that adding lorazepam to haloperidol does not mitigate the risk of EPS such as dystonia in the absence of anticholinergic medication.⁸ To date, however, there have been no clinical trials investigating the efficacy of IM haloperidol, lorazepam, and benztropine or diphenhydramine given together.

Newer RCTs tell a different story

With the availability of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) in IM formulations, clinical trials over the past 2 decades have focused on comparing SGAs with haloperidol alone as the “gold standard” control for acute agitation. Compared with previous trials of haloperidol vs lorazepam, these clinical trials of SGAs vs haloperidol included^8,14-22:

• Study participants who signed informed consent (and were likely less agitated)
• IM haloperidol doses typically >5 mg (eg, 6.5 to 10 mg).

As with studies comparing lorazepam with haloperidol, the results of these RCTs revealed that IM aripiprazole, olanzapine, and ziprasidone were at least as effective as IM haloperidol, with haloperidol having a significantly increased risk of akathisia, dystonia, and other EPS.^8,14-22 The greater EPS risk of haloperidol is not surprising given the use of comparison doses up to 10 mg.

An updated 2017 Cochrane review of haloperidol for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation concluded that⁹:

• haloperidol is an effective intervention, although the evidence is “weak”
• significant treatment effects may take as long as 1 to 2 hours following multiple IM injections
• in contrast to SGAs, treatment with haloperidol carries a significant risk of EPS
• adding a benzodiazepine “does not have strong evidence of benefit and carries risk of additional harm.”

Continue to: Haloperidol's well-known toxicity

 

 

Haloperidol’s well-known toxicity

Haloperidol has been associated with numerous adverse effects:

Akathisia and other acute EPS. Treatment with even a single dose of IM haloperidol can result in acute EPS, including dystonia and akathisia. At best, such adverse effects are subjectively troubling and unpleasant; at worst, akathisia can exacerbate and be mistaken for agitation, leading to administration of more medication²³ and the possible development of suicidal or violent behavior.^24-25 In the studies reviewed above, the overall rate of EPS was as high as 21% after treatment with haloperidol,¹⁶ with parkinsonism occurring in up to 17% of patients,¹⁹ dystonia in up to 11%,⁷ and akathisia in up to 10%.¹⁵ However, because specific EPS were assessed inconsistently, and sometimes not at all, the rate of akathisia—arguably the most relevant and counter-therapeutic adverse effect related to agitation—remains unclear.

In another study that specifically assessed for akathisia in patients treated with haloperidol, up to 40% experienced akathisia 6 hours after a single oral dose of 5 mg.²⁶ Even a single dose of IV prochlorperazine, another dopamine-antagonist routinely used to treat nausea in the emergency department (ED), has been reported to cause akathisia in up to 44% of patients.²⁷ Such results suggest that when akathisia is carefully assessed, the rate with even brief FGA exposure may approach nearly half of treated patients. Because akathisia is typically dose-related, and considering that many patients receiving IM haloperidol may receive multiple injections in addition to standing doses of oral medications, akathisia may be underrecognized in patients who are agitated, with a much greater risk than is generally presumed.

Although anticholinergic medications or benzodiazepinesare often administered as part of a haloperidol “cocktail,” these medications often do not adequately resolve emergent akathisia.^26,28 No clinical trials of IM haloperidol combined with benztropine or diphenhydramine have been published, but several studies suggest that combining haloperidol with promethazine—a phenothiazine with strong antihistaminergic and anticholinergic activity, but only weak antidopaminergic activity—can decrease the risk of dystonia relative to haloperidol alone.^8,22,29,30 However, there have also been reports of promethazine causing dystonia.^31,32 In addition, 1 trial of IM haloperidol, 2.5 mg, combined with promethazine reported that 74% of patients still had at least 1 form of EPS.³⁰ Because the clinical trials of haloperidol with promethazine did not specifically assess for akathisia, promethazine’s ability to decrease the risk of akathisia remains unknown.

Cardiotoxicity. Although low-potency antipsychotic medications such as chlorpromazine are more sedating than haloperidol, the latter is preferred as an IM antipsychotic medication for agitation because of its lower risk of hypotension.² In terms of cardiac effects, all antipsychotic medications carry a risk of QTc prolongation, with possible progression to the potentially lethal arrhythmia torsades de pointes as a result of interference with cardiac potassium channels.³³ In 2007, the FDA added a “black-box” warning about this risk for haloperidol, in the wake of a disproportionately high number of reported cases associated with IV administration, sometimes even after a single dose.³⁴

Continue to: Although there is no direct evidence...

Although there is no direct evidence that the cardiac risks associated with IV haloperidol apply to IM administration, epidemiologic studies indicate that oral haloperidol carries an elevated risk of ventricular arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death,^35,36 with 1 study reporting greater risk compared with other SGAs.³⁷ Haloperidol, whether administered orally or IM, may therefore be an especially poor choice for patients with agitation who are at risk for arrhythmia, including those with relevant medical comorbidities or delirium.³⁴

Neuronal cell death. Several lines of research evidence have demonstrated that haloperidol can cause cellular injury or death in neuronal tissue in a dose-dependent fashion through a variety of mechanisms.³⁸ By contrast, SGAs have been shown to have neuroprotective effects.³⁹ While these findings have mostly come from studies conducted in animals or in vitro human tumor cell lines, some researchers have nonetheless called for haloperidol to be banned, noting that if its neurotoxic effects were more widely known, “we would realize what a travesty it is to use [such] a brain-unfriendly drug.”⁴⁰

Several reasonable alternatives

Echoing the earlier Cochrane review of haloperidol for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation,¹⁰ a 2017 update concluded, “If no other alternative exists, sole use of intramuscular haloperidol could be life-saving. Where additional drugs are available, sole use of haloperidol for extreme emergency could be considered unethical.”⁹

What then are reasonable alternatives to replace IM haloperidol for agitation? Clinicians should consider the following nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions:

Nonpharmacologic interventions. Several behavioral interventions have been demonstrated to be effective for managing acute agitation, including verbal de-escalation, enhanced “programming” on the inpatient units, and the judicious use of seclusion.^41-43 While such interventions may demand additional staff or resources, they have the potential to lower long-term costs, reduce injuries to patients and staff, and improve the quality of care.⁴³ The use of IM haloperidol as a form of “chemical restraint” does not represent standard-of-care treatment,³ and from an ethical perspective, should never be implemented punitively or to compensate for substandard care in the form of inadequate staffing or staff training.

Continue to: Benzodiazepines

Benzodiazepines. Lorazepam offers an attractive alternative to haloperidol without the risk of EPS.^2,4,8 However, lorazepam alone may be perceived as less efficacious than a haloperidol “cocktail” because it represents less overall medication. Some evidence has suggested that lorazepam, 4 mg, might be the most appropriate dose, although it has only rarely been studied in clinical trials of acute agitation.³ Midazolam is another IM benzodiazepine alternative to IM haloperidol that has been shown to achieve more rapid sedation than either haloperidol or lorazepam,^44,45 although it can cause substantial anterograde amnesia and also has an FDA black-box warning for respiratory depression associated with IV administration.

Respiratory depression is frequently cited as an argument against using lorazepam for agitation, as if the therapeutic window is extremely narrow with ineffectiveness at 2 mg, but potential lethality beyond that dose. In fact, serious respiratory depression with lorazepam is unlikely in the absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), obstructive sleep apnea, or concomitant alcohol or other sedative use.⁴⁶ Case reports have documented therapeutic lorazepam dosing of 2 to 4 mg every 2 hours up to 20 to 30 mg/d in patients with manic agitation.⁴⁷ Even in patients with COPD, significant respiratory depression tends not to occur at doses <8 mg.⁴⁸ A more evidence-based concern about lorazepam dosing is that 2 mg might be ineffective in patients with established tolerance. For example, 1 report described a patient in acute alcohol withdrawal who required dosing lorazepam to 1,600 mg within 24 hours.⁴⁹ Collectively, these reports suggest that lorazepam has a much wider therapeutic window than is typically perceived, and that dosing with 3 to 4 mg IM is a reasonable option for agitation when 2 mg is likely to be inadequate.

Paradoxical disinhibition is another concern that might prevent benzodiazepines from being used alone as a first-line intervention for emergency treatment of agitation. However, similar to respiratory depression, this adverse event is relatively rare and tends to occur in children and geriatric patients, individuals intoxicated with alcohol or other sedatives, and patients with brain injury, developmental delay, or dementia.^23,46 Although exacerbation of aggression has not been demonstrated in the RCTs examining benzodiazepines for agitation reviewed above, based on other research, some clinicians have expressed concerns about the potential for benzodiazepines to exacerbate aggression in patients with impulse control disorders and a history of violent behavior.⁵⁰

The 2005 Expert Consensus Panel for Behavioral Emergencies⁵¹ recommended the use of lorazepam alone over haloperidol for agitation for patients for whom the diagnosis is unknown or includes the following:

• stimulant intoxication
• personality disorder
• comorbid obesity
• comorbid cardiac arrhythmia
• a history of akathisia and other EPS
• a history of amenorrhea/galactorrhea
• a history of seizures.

In surveys, patients have ranked lorazepam as the preferred medication for emergency agitation, whereas haloperidol was ranked as one of the least-preferred options.^51,52

Continue to: Second-generation antipsychotics

Second-generation antipsychotics. The SGAs available in IM formulations, such as aripiprazole, olanzapine, and ziprasidone, have been shown to be at least as effective as haloperidol for the treatment of acute agitation (in 2015, the short-acting injectable formulation of aripiprazole was discontinued in the United States independent of safety or efficacy issues⁵³). A review of RCTs examining IM SGAs for the treatment of agitation concluded that the number needed to treat for response compared with placebo was 5 for aripiprazole, 3 for olanzapine, and 3 for ziprasidone.⁵⁴ In terms of safety, a meta-analysis of studies examining IM medications for agitation confirmed that the risk of acute EPS, including dystonia, akathisia, and parkinsonism, is significantly lower with SGAs compared with haloperidol.⁵⁵ An RCT comparing IM ziprasidone with haloperidol found equivalently modest effects on QTc prolongation.⁵⁶ Therefore, SGAs are an obvious and evidence-based option for replacing haloperidol as a treatment for acute agitation.

Unfortunately, for clinicians hoping to replace haloperidol within a multiple-medication IM “cocktail,” there have been no published controlled trials of SGAs combined with benzodiazepines. Although a short report indicated that aripiprazole and lorazepam are chemically compatible to be combined within a single injection,⁵⁷ the package insert for aripiprazole warns that “If parenteral benzodiazepine therapy is deemed necessary in addition to ABILIFY injection treatment, patients should be monitored for excessive sedation and for orthostatic hypotension.”⁵⁸ The package insert for olanzapine likewise lists the combination of lorazepam and olanzapine as a drug interaction that can potentiate sedation, and the manufacturer issued specific warnings about parenteral combination.^59,60 A single published case of significant hypotension with combined IM olanzapine and lorazepam,⁶⁰ together with the fact that IM olanzapine can cause hypotension by itself,⁶¹ has discouraged the coadministration of these medications. Nonetheless, the combination is used in some emergency settings, with several retro­spective studies failing to provide evidence of hypotension or respiratory depression as adverse effects.^62-64

Droperidol. Droperidol was formerly a popular choice for managing acute agitation, with evidence from RCTs that droperidol, 5 mg, can improve symptoms significantly faster than either haloperidol, 5 mg, or lorazepam, 2 mg, and is absorbed just as rapidly whether administered IV or IM.^65-67 However, a 2001 FDA black-box warning about QTc prolongation included recommendations that a screening electrocardiogram should be obtained before administering droperidol. This action greatly curtailed the use of droperidol, and for some time, it was not marketed or available in the United States.

Over the past decade, however, droperidol has returned to the US market⁶⁸ and its IV and IM usage has been revitalized for managing patients with agitation within or en route to the ED. Studies have demonstrated droperidol efficacy comparable to midazolam, ziprasidone, or olanzapine, as well as effectiveness as an IV adjunct to midazolam.^69-71 In contrast to the FDA black-box warning, retrospective studies and RCTs of both IV and IM droperidol suggest that QTc prolongation and torsades de pointes are rare events that do not occur any more frequently than they do with haloperidol, even at doses >10 mg.^72,73 However, in studies involving patients with drug intoxication and treatment with multiple medications, oversedation to the point of needing rescue intervention was reported. In an emergency setting where these issues are relatively easily managed, such risks may be better tolerated than in psychiatric settings.

With earlier studies examining the use of droperidol in an acute psychiatric setting that reported a more rapid onset of action than haloperidol,^65-67 a 2016 Cochrane review concluded that there was high-quality evidence to support droperidol’s use for psychosis-induced agitation.⁷⁴ However, a 2015 RCT comparing IM droperidol, 10 mg, to haloperidol, 10 mg, found equivalent efficacy and response times (with maximal response occurring within 2 hours) and concluded that droperidol had no advantage over haloperidol.⁷⁵ Because none of the clinical trials that evaluated droperidol have included assessments for EPS, its risk of akathisia remains uncertain.

Continue to: Ketamine

Ketamine. In recent years, ketamine has been used to treat acute agitation within or en route to the ED. Preliminary observational studies support ketamine’s efficacy when administered via IV or IM routes,⁷⁶ with more rapid symptomatic improvement compared with haloperidol, lorazepam, or midazolam alone.⁷⁷ Reported adverse effects of ketamine include dissociation, psychotic exacerbation, and respiratory depression,⁷⁶ although 1 small naturalistic study found no evidence of exacerbation of psychotic or other psychiatric symptoms.⁷⁸ An ongoing RCT is comparing IM ketamine, 5 mg/kg, to combined IM haloperidol, 5 mg, and midazolam, 5 mg.⁷⁹ Although various ketamine formulations are increasingly being used in psychiatry, active psychosis is generally regarded as a contraindication. It is premature to recommend parenteral ketamine administration for agitation within most psychiatric settings until more research on safety has been completed.

Haloperidol, or something else? Practical considerations

Consider the following factors when deciding whether to use haloperidol or one of its alternatives:

Limitations of the evidence. Modern clinical trials requiring informed consent often do not include the kind of severe agitation that clinicians encounter in acute psychiatric, emergency, or forensic settings. In addition, standard interventions, such as 3-medication haloperidol “cocktails,” have not been evaluated in clinical trials. Clinicians are therefore often in the dark about optimal evidence-based practices.

Treatment goals. Psychiatric agitation has many causes, with a range of severity that warrants a commensurate range of responses. Protocols for managing acute agitation should include graded interventions that begin with nonpharmacologic interventions and voluntary oral medications, and move to involuntary IM medications when necessary.

While treatment guidelines clearly recommend against IM medications as “chemical restraint” with a goal of sedating a patient until he/she is unconscious,^3,51 such outcomes are nonetheless often sought by staff who are concerned about the risk of injuries during a behavioral emergency. In such instances, the risks of violence towards patients and staff may outweigh concerns about adverse effects in a risk-benefit analysis. Consequently, clinicians may be prone to “skip over” graded interventions because they assume they “won’t work” in favor of administering involuntary multiple-medication haloperidol “cocktails” despite risks of excess sedation, EPS, and cardiotoxicity. Treatment settings should critically evaluate such biased preferences, with a goal of developing tailored, evidence-based strategies that maximize benefits while minimizing excess sedation and other untoward adverse effects, with an eye towards promoting better overall patient care and reducing length of stay.^42,43,80

Continue to: Limitations of available medications

Limitations of available medications. There is no perfect medication for the management of acute agitation. Evidence indicates that pharmacologic options take 15 minutes to several hours to resolve acute agitation, even potentially more rapid-acting medications such as midazolam and droperidol. This is well beyond most clinicians’ desired window for response time in a behavioral emergency. Multiple-medication “cocktails” may be used with the hope of hastening response time, but may not achieve this goal at the expense of increasing the risk of adverse effects and the likelihood that a patient will remain sedated for a prolonged time. In the real world, this often means that by the time a psychiatrist comes to evaluate a patient who has been given emergency medications, the patient cannot be aroused for an interview. Ideally, medications would calm an agitated patient rapidly, without excess or prolonged sedation.⁸⁰ Less-sedating SGAs, such as ziprasidone, might have this potential, but can sometimes be perceived as ineffective.

Avoiding akathisia. Akathisia’s potential to worsen and be mistaken for agitation makes it an especially concerning, if underappreciated, adverse effect of haloperidol that is often not adequately assessed in clinical trials or practice. In light of evidence that akathisia can occur in nearly half of patients receiving a single 5 mg-dose of haloperidol, it is difficult to justify the use of this medication for agitation when equally effective options exist with a lower risk of EPS.

While haloperidol-induced akathisia could in theory be mitigated by adding anticholinergic medications or benzodiazepines, previous studies have found that such strategies have limited effectiveness compared to “gold standard” treatment with propranolol.^28,81,82 Furthermore, the half-lives of anticholinergic medications, such as benztropine or diphenhydramine, are significantly shorter than that of a single dose of haloperidol, which can be as long as 37 hours.⁸³ Therefore, akathisia and other EPS could emerge or worsen several hours or even days after receiving an IM haloperidol “cocktail” as the shorter-acting medications wear off. Akathisia is best minimized by avoiding FGAs, such as haloperidol, when treating acute agitation.

Promoting adherence. Although haloperidol is often recommended for acute agitation in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder on the basis that it would treat the underlying condition, many patients who receive IM medications for acute agitation are already prescribed standing doses of oral medication, which increases the risk of cumulative toxicity. In addition, receiving a medication likely to cause acute EPS that is ranked near the bottom of patient preferences may erode the potential for a therapeutic alliance and hamper longer-term antipsychotic medication adherence.

Time for a change

For nearly half a century, haloperidol has been a “gold standard” intervention for IM control in patients with agitation. However, given its potential to produce adverse effects, including a significant risk of akathisia that can worsen agitation, along with the availability of newer pharmacologic options that are at least as effective (Table 1, and Table 2), haloperidol should be retired as a first-line medication for the treatment of agitation. Clinicians would benefit from RCTs investigating the safety and efficacy of novel interventions including frequently-used, but untested medication combinations, as well as nonpharmacologic interventions.

Continue to: Bottom Line

 

 

Bottom Line

Although there is no perfect IM medication to treat acute agitation, haloperidol’s higher risk of adverse effects relative to newer alternatives suggest that it should no longer be considered a first-line intervention.

Related Resources

• Zun LS. Evidence-based review of pharmacotherapy for acute agitation. Part 1: onset of efficacy. J Emerg Med. 2018;54(3):364-374.
• Zun LS. Evidence-based review of pharmacotherapy for acute agitation. Part 2: safety. J Emerg Med. 2018;54(4): 522-532.

Drug Brand Names

Aripiprazole • Abilify
Benztropine • Cogentin
Chlorpromazine • Thorazine
Diphenhydramine • Benadryl
Droperidol • Inapsine
Haloperidol • Haldol
Ketamine • Ketalar
Lorazepam • Ativan
Midazolam • Versed
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Prochlorperazine • Compazine
Promethazine • Phenergan
Propranolol • Inderal, Pronol
Ziprasidone • Geodon

The natural state of human beings is to live together and function as organized groups. The beginnings of communities have primeval origins; evolutionarily, societies that worked together were more productive, efficient and—probably most important—safer. Thousands of years of evolution have ingrained these behaviors as part of our genetic constitution and developmental process. Social integration and acceptance thus are an integral part of basic human behavior and provide a sense of protection, pleasure, and purpose in life.

Unfortunately, the social isolation necessary to address the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is preventing this integration, and is likely to worsen what some have called an epidemic of loneliness. As mental health clinicians, we need to use technology to strengthen our patients’ social support systems.

Loneliness: A growing problem

Changes in society over the last few decades have led to increased isolation. In the last 50 years, there has been a rise in single-person households in the United States. This is most common in large cities, where the prevalence is approximately 40%.¹ The average number of confidants or the size of an American’s social network reduced by more than one-third from 1985 to 2009.² In a study published in 2018, the health service company Cigna used the UCLA Loneliness Scale to survey >20,000 American adults.³ Nearly half of respondents reported always feeling alone (46%) or left out (47%), and individuals age 18 to 22 were the loneliest age group and claimed to be in worse health than older age groups. Furthermore, the results suggested that people who felt lonelier were more likely to have poor sleep and be less physically active. Americans who lived with others were less likely to report feeling lonely, except for single parents living only with their children. The results also showed that people who engage in meaningful interactions with others had lower loneliness scores and perceived that they were in better overall health.³

Studies have consistently demonstrated a link between loneliness and health problems such as cardiovascular disease, substance use disorders (SUDs), and mood disorders. A 2010 meta-analysis of 148 prospective studies with 308,849 participants found that the influence of social relationships on the risk of mortality is comparable to well-established risk factors for mortality such as smoking and alcohol consumption.⁴ These findings were confirmed in a 2015 meta-analysis that included 70 studies with 3.4 million participants followed for an average of 7 years. ⁵

Loneliness has been identified as a social determinant of health and is considered by many to be epidemic in proportion in developed countries. According to a 2019 Business Insider survey, almost 20% of US health care leaders planned to address social isolation in the next 12 months.⁶

Increased vulnerability during COVID-19 isolation

The forced quarantines and social distancing imposed by the COVID-19 crisis are likely to further exacerbate the loneliness epidemic. Hopefully, this increased isolation will not last more than several months, and its effect on chronic medical illnesses will be minor. However, for patients with mental illness, this further isolation, in conjunction with rising societal anxiety and fear of the potentially devastating financial consequences, could worsen their illness, and might even lead to suicidal ideation or behavior.

Individuals with SUDs are particularly vulnerable to the social limitations required by COVID-19. While social isolation is essential to limit the spread of COVID-19, this restriction poses unique challenges for these patients because connection and social support are important aspects of achieving and maintaining sobriety.⁷

Continue to: A call to action

 

 

A call to action

As mental health clinicians, we need to proactively engage with our patients to develop a plan to strengthen their social support systems. This may mean suggesting that they stay in contact with their network of people via video conferencing or by using the phone. We need to identify high-risk patients and continue to provide treatment via telepsychiatry. This is especially necessary to prevent relapse among patients with SUDs or mood disorders, and to minimize the risk of suicide.

We are ethically required to provide an atmosphere of trust, safety, and social inclusion by using resources, such as telehealth, video conferencing, and other online tools, to ameliorate the short- and long-term impact of COVID-19 isolation. Providing avenues that are easily accessible, are supportive, and maintain standards of care are essential. These resources should be implemented as early as possible to avoid negative outcomes regarding both COVID-19 and mental health.

There is also a significant risk that once circumstances improve, there will be a surge in the number of patients seeking a higher level of mental health care. Our actions and preparedness today will define the trajectory of our patients’ mental health in the future, potentially for years to come. While presently we are forced to be reactive, hopefully what is borne out of this crisis will translate into proactive measures for future crises.

Let this brief commentary serve as a call to action. As society finds ways to work from home, mental health clinicians need to lead the charge to use these same technologies to increase our patients’ social interactions. If we do not find ways to address the mental health burden of the COVID-19 pandemic, who will? We are all part of the mental health community, and we need to continue to function as an organized group, as has been the natural state of human beings for thousands of years.

Bottom Line

The social isolation required to limit the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is likely to increase loneliness, particularly among vulnerable patients with mood disorders and/or substance use disorders. As mental health clinicians, we need to work to strengthen our patients’ social support systems using resources such as video conferencing and other technologies.

Related Resources

• Cacioppo S, Grippo AJ, London S, et al. Loneliness: clinical import and interventions. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015;10(2):238-249.
• Geriatric loneliness with Dr. Steven Wengel. Psychcast (podcast). https://www.mdedge.com/podcasts/psychcast/geriatricloneliness-dr-steven-wengel. Published April 1, 2020.

The natural state of human beings is to live together and function as organized groups. The beginnings of communities have primeval origins; evolutionarily, societies that worked together were more productive, efficient and—probably most important—safer. Thousands of years of evolution have ingrained these behaviors as part of our genetic constitution and developmental process. Social integration and acceptance thus are an integral part of basic human behavior and provide a sense of protection, pleasure, and purpose in life.

Unfortunately, the social isolation necessary to address the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is preventing this integration, and is likely to worsen what some have called an epidemic of loneliness. As mental health clinicians, we need to use technology to strengthen our patients’ social support systems.

Loneliness: A growing problem

Changes in society over the last few decades have led to increased isolation. In the last 50 years, there has been a rise in single-person households in the United States. This is most common in large cities, where the prevalence is approximately 40%.¹ The average number of confidants or the size of an American’s social network reduced by more than one-third from 1985 to 2009.² In a study published in 2018, the health service company Cigna used the UCLA Loneliness Scale to survey >20,000 American adults.³ Nearly half of respondents reported always feeling alone (46%) or left out (47%), and individuals age 18 to 22 were the loneliest age group and claimed to be in worse health than older age groups. Furthermore, the results suggested that people who felt lonelier were more likely to have poor sleep and be less physically active. Americans who lived with others were less likely to report feeling lonely, except for single parents living only with their children. The results also showed that people who engage in meaningful interactions with others had lower loneliness scores and perceived that they were in better overall health.³

Studies have consistently demonstrated a link between loneliness and health problems such as cardiovascular disease, substance use disorders (SUDs), and mood disorders. A 2010 meta-analysis of 148 prospective studies with 308,849 participants found that the influence of social relationships on the risk of mortality is comparable to well-established risk factors for mortality such as smoking and alcohol consumption.⁴ These findings were confirmed in a 2015 meta-analysis that included 70 studies with 3.4 million participants followed for an average of 7 years. ⁵

Loneliness has been identified as a social determinant of health and is considered by many to be epidemic in proportion in developed countries. According to a 2019 Business Insider survey, almost 20% of US health care leaders planned to address social isolation in the next 12 months.⁶

Increased vulnerability during COVID-19 isolation

The forced quarantines and social distancing imposed by the COVID-19 crisis are likely to further exacerbate the loneliness epidemic. Hopefully, this increased isolation will not last more than several months, and its effect on chronic medical illnesses will be minor. However, for patients with mental illness, this further isolation, in conjunction with rising societal anxiety and fear of the potentially devastating financial consequences, could worsen their illness, and might even lead to suicidal ideation or behavior.

Individuals with SUDs are particularly vulnerable to the social limitations required by COVID-19. While social isolation is essential to limit the spread of COVID-19, this restriction poses unique challenges for these patients because connection and social support are important aspects of achieving and maintaining sobriety.⁷

Continue to: A call to action

 

 

A call to action

As mental health clinicians, we need to proactively engage with our patients to develop a plan to strengthen their social support systems. This may mean suggesting that they stay in contact with their network of people via video conferencing or by using the phone. We need to identify high-risk patients and continue to provide treatment via telepsychiatry. This is especially necessary to prevent relapse among patients with SUDs or mood disorders, and to minimize the risk of suicide.

We are ethically required to provide an atmosphere of trust, safety, and social inclusion by using resources, such as telehealth, video conferencing, and other online tools, to ameliorate the short- and long-term impact of COVID-19 isolation. Providing avenues that are easily accessible, are supportive, and maintain standards of care are essential. These resources should be implemented as early as possible to avoid negative outcomes regarding both COVID-19 and mental health.

There is also a significant risk that once circumstances improve, there will be a surge in the number of patients seeking a higher level of mental health care. Our actions and preparedness today will define the trajectory of our patients’ mental health in the future, potentially for years to come. While presently we are forced to be reactive, hopefully what is borne out of this crisis will translate into proactive measures for future crises.

Let this brief commentary serve as a call to action. As society finds ways to work from home, mental health clinicians need to lead the charge to use these same technologies to increase our patients’ social interactions. If we do not find ways to address the mental health burden of the COVID-19 pandemic, who will? We are all part of the mental health community, and we need to continue to function as an organized group, as has been the natural state of human beings for thousands of years.

Bottom Line

The social isolation required to limit the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is likely to increase loneliness, particularly among vulnerable patients with mood disorders and/or substance use disorders. As mental health clinicians, we need to work to strengthen our patients’ social support systems using resources such as video conferencing and other technologies.

Related Resources

• Cacioppo S, Grippo AJ, London S, et al. Loneliness: clinical import and interventions. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015;10(2):238-249.
• Geriatric loneliness with Dr. Steven Wengel. Psychcast (podcast). https://www.mdedge.com/podcasts/psychcast/geriatricloneliness-dr-steven-wengel. Published April 1, 2020.

The natural state of human beings is to live together and function as organized groups. The beginnings of communities have primeval origins; evolutionarily, societies that worked together were more productive, efficient and—probably most important—safer. Thousands of years of evolution have ingrained these behaviors as part of our genetic constitution and developmental process. Social integration and acceptance thus are an integral part of basic human behavior and provide a sense of protection, pleasure, and purpose in life.

Unfortunately, the social isolation necessary to address the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is preventing this integration, and is likely to worsen what some have called an epidemic of loneliness. As mental health clinicians, we need to use technology to strengthen our patients’ social support systems.

Loneliness: A growing problem

Changes in society over the last few decades have led to increased isolation. In the last 50 years, there has been a rise in single-person households in the United States. This is most common in large cities, where the prevalence is approximately 40%.¹ The average number of confidants or the size of an American’s social network reduced by more than one-third from 1985 to 2009.² In a study published in 2018, the health service company Cigna used the UCLA Loneliness Scale to survey >20,000 American adults.³ Nearly half of respondents reported always feeling alone (46%) or left out (47%), and individuals age 18 to 22 were the loneliest age group and claimed to be in worse health than older age groups. Furthermore, the results suggested that people who felt lonelier were more likely to have poor sleep and be less physically active. Americans who lived with others were less likely to report feeling lonely, except for single parents living only with their children. The results also showed that people who engage in meaningful interactions with others had lower loneliness scores and perceived that they were in better overall health.³

Studies have consistently demonstrated a link between loneliness and health problems such as cardiovascular disease, substance use disorders (SUDs), and mood disorders. A 2010 meta-analysis of 148 prospective studies with 308,849 participants found that the influence of social relationships on the risk of mortality is comparable to well-established risk factors for mortality such as smoking and alcohol consumption.⁴ These findings were confirmed in a 2015 meta-analysis that included 70 studies with 3.4 million participants followed for an average of 7 years. ⁵

Loneliness has been identified as a social determinant of health and is considered by many to be epidemic in proportion in developed countries. According to a 2019 Business Insider survey, almost 20% of US health care leaders planned to address social isolation in the next 12 months.⁶

Increased vulnerability during COVID-19 isolation

The forced quarantines and social distancing imposed by the COVID-19 crisis are likely to further exacerbate the loneliness epidemic. Hopefully, this increased isolation will not last more than several months, and its effect on chronic medical illnesses will be minor. However, for patients with mental illness, this further isolation, in conjunction with rising societal anxiety and fear of the potentially devastating financial consequences, could worsen their illness, and might even lead to suicidal ideation or behavior.

Individuals with SUDs are particularly vulnerable to the social limitations required by COVID-19. While social isolation is essential to limit the spread of COVID-19, this restriction poses unique challenges for these patients because connection and social support are important aspects of achieving and maintaining sobriety.⁷

Continue to: A call to action

 

 

A call to action

As mental health clinicians, we need to proactively engage with our patients to develop a plan to strengthen their social support systems. This may mean suggesting that they stay in contact with their network of people via video conferencing or by using the phone. We need to identify high-risk patients and continue to provide treatment via telepsychiatry. This is especially necessary to prevent relapse among patients with SUDs or mood disorders, and to minimize the risk of suicide.

We are ethically required to provide an atmosphere of trust, safety, and social inclusion by using resources, such as telehealth, video conferencing, and other online tools, to ameliorate the short- and long-term impact of COVID-19 isolation. Providing avenues that are easily accessible, are supportive, and maintain standards of care are essential. These resources should be implemented as early as possible to avoid negative outcomes regarding both COVID-19 and mental health.

There is also a significant risk that once circumstances improve, there will be a surge in the number of patients seeking a higher level of mental health care. Our actions and preparedness today will define the trajectory of our patients’ mental health in the future, potentially for years to come. While presently we are forced to be reactive, hopefully what is borne out of this crisis will translate into proactive measures for future crises.

Let this brief commentary serve as a call to action. As society finds ways to work from home, mental health clinicians need to lead the charge to use these same technologies to increase our patients’ social interactions. If we do not find ways to address the mental health burden of the COVID-19 pandemic, who will? We are all part of the mental health community, and we need to continue to function as an organized group, as has been the natural state of human beings for thousands of years.

Bottom Line

The social isolation required to limit the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is likely to increase loneliness, particularly among vulnerable patients with mood disorders and/or substance use disorders. As mental health clinicians, we need to work to strengthen our patients’ social support systems using resources such as video conferencing and other technologies.

Related Resources

• Cacioppo S, Grippo AJ, London S, et al. Loneliness: clinical import and interventions. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015;10(2):238-249.
• Geriatric loneliness with Dr. Steven Wengel. Psychcast (podcast). https://www.mdedge.com/podcasts/psychcast/geriatricloneliness-dr-steven-wengel. Published April 1, 2020.

During these unprecedented times, venturing into the unknown of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a feeling of impending doom prevails. Almost all of us have been restricted to our homes. Although the physical dimensions of what we call home may vary, the meaning of this restriction is fairly universal. No matter how our sociodemographics differ, with no guidance for this situation from anything even remotely comparable in the past, our lives have been transformed into a work in progress.

During this pandemic, I have observed a wide range of human emotions and behavior—many of them familiar and predictable, some abysmal, and some inspiring.

’Why should I care?’

On December 31, 2019, health officials in China informed the World Health Organization about a pneumonia-like presentation in a group of people in Wuhan. On January 7, 2020, a novel coronavirus was identified as the cause, and the first death was reported a few days later. In the following days and weeks the disease rapidly spread, as did the growing sense that this was not a typical virus.

While these events occurred, the rest of the world was in what I call a ”Why should I care?” mode. Most humans tend to suffer from this indifference. This has been observed repeatedly through the years, such as when the Ebola outbreak occurred in Africa in 2014-2016. It was only when cases started to develop in Europe and the United States that other countries started to pay attention. A similar phenomenon has been observed every time we’ve faced a global outbreak (avian influenza, Middle East respiratory syndrome, etc.).

When are we going to learn? It is time to realize that global borders are more porous than we think, and human interactions cannot be blocked by any wall. When a catastrophic event, outbreak, or disaster starts in any part of the world, it is naive to assume that we will not be affected. We will eventually be affected—the only question is how, when, and to what extent? We are always all in this together.

An abundance of ignorance and stupidity

Within a few weeks of the first reports from China, cases of COVID-19 were reported in South Korea, Italy, Spain, Germany, and many other countries. Slowly, COVID-19 reached the United States, which as of mid-April had the highest number of cases worldwide. When COVID-19 hit the United States, the response was that of shock and anger. How could this happen to us? Why is the government not doing anything?

Amidst this pandemonium, ignorance and stupidity of the highest degree were commonplace. This was not restricted to any particular country or region. Almost 2 months into the pandemic, the Ministry of Tourism in my home country of Nepal declared Nepal a ”coronavirus-free zone” and took measures to bring in tourists, focusing specifically on China, where COVID-19 had already killed hundreds. In India, some people were drinking cow urine in hopes of warding off the virus. In the United Sates, thousands of young people flocked to beaches for Spring Break, disregarding measures for social distancing. ”If I get corona, I get corona,” one young man said in an interview that went viral. Personally, I have encountered people who responded to this pandemic by saying the disease was ”cooties” or ”just a flu,” and dismissing it with ”If I die from this, I die.”

Continue to: Rising panic and fear

Rising panic and fear

For most people, seeing COVID-19 at their doorstep triggered a panic, and sent many into a frenzy of buying and hoarding. Once again, we proved that people everywhere are equally stupid, as toilet paper began to vanish from stores across the globe. And yet, this again was a moment when some people began to experience a false sense of immunity: ”I have enough food, money, and toilet paper to last me for 2 years. Why should I be worried?”

When the numbers of COVID-19 deaths in Europe were first reported, the fear became palpable. In Italy and Spain, towns were locked down, and tens of thousands of people (mostly older adults) have died. It was truly heartbreaking to see people alone and at their weakest with no family members allowed to be by their side.

A glimmer of hope

Despite all of this, there were superheroes—the nurses, physicians, allied health professionals, first responders, store workers, restaurant workers, delivery personnel, and others who didn’t have the option of staying home, or who volunteered to help people in need. In moments like this, the actions of these individuals give us hope, reminding us that the human spirit is resilient, and that we will get through this.

A rotation in the emergency department during COVID-19

As a psychiatry resident, it is unlikely that my peers and I face the same risks as our colleagues in other medical specialities. But those of us who happened to be in medical rotations during this time have had the chance to experience this very closely. My personal experience, albeit a brief one, of working in an emergency department with suspected COVID-19 patients has been sobering. Watching nurses and physicians walk into a room wearing personal protective equipment, fearful inside but with a reassuring smile for a scared patient, definitely was one of the most compelling moments of my life. Living in a distant land, with my daughter, wife, parents, and extended family back home in Nepal, has made this even more challenging.

We will overcome this as we have overcome previous challenges in the past. There will be death and chaos, but we will prevail. The only thing is to ask ourselves: How do we want to continue living when this is over?

During these unprecedented times, venturing into the unknown of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a feeling of impending doom prevails. Almost all of us have been restricted to our homes. Although the physical dimensions of what we call home may vary, the meaning of this restriction is fairly universal. No matter how our sociodemographics differ, with no guidance for this situation from anything even remotely comparable in the past, our lives have been transformed into a work in progress.

During this pandemic, I have observed a wide range of human emotions and behavior—many of them familiar and predictable, some abysmal, and some inspiring.

’Why should I care?’

On December 31, 2019, health officials in China informed the World Health Organization about a pneumonia-like presentation in a group of people in Wuhan. On January 7, 2020, a novel coronavirus was identified as the cause, and the first death was reported a few days later. In the following days and weeks the disease rapidly spread, as did the growing sense that this was not a typical virus.

While these events occurred, the rest of the world was in what I call a ”Why should I care?” mode. Most humans tend to suffer from this indifference. This has been observed repeatedly through the years, such as when the Ebola outbreak occurred in Africa in 2014-2016. It was only when cases started to develop in Europe and the United States that other countries started to pay attention. A similar phenomenon has been observed every time we’ve faced a global outbreak (avian influenza, Middle East respiratory syndrome, etc.).

When are we going to learn? It is time to realize that global borders are more porous than we think, and human interactions cannot be blocked by any wall. When a catastrophic event, outbreak, or disaster starts in any part of the world, it is naive to assume that we will not be affected. We will eventually be affected—the only question is how, when, and to what extent? We are always all in this together.

An abundance of ignorance and stupidity

Within a few weeks of the first reports from China, cases of COVID-19 were reported in South Korea, Italy, Spain, Germany, and many other countries. Slowly, COVID-19 reached the United States, which as of mid-April had the highest number of cases worldwide. When COVID-19 hit the United States, the response was that of shock and anger. How could this happen to us? Why is the government not doing anything?

Amidst this pandemonium, ignorance and stupidity of the highest degree were commonplace. This was not restricted to any particular country or region. Almost 2 months into the pandemic, the Ministry of Tourism in my home country of Nepal declared Nepal a ”coronavirus-free zone” and took measures to bring in tourists, focusing specifically on China, where COVID-19 had already killed hundreds. In India, some people were drinking cow urine in hopes of warding off the virus. In the United Sates, thousands of young people flocked to beaches for Spring Break, disregarding measures for social distancing. ”If I get corona, I get corona,” one young man said in an interview that went viral. Personally, I have encountered people who responded to this pandemic by saying the disease was ”cooties” or ”just a flu,” and dismissing it with ”If I die from this, I die.”

Continue to: Rising panic and fear

Rising panic and fear

For most people, seeing COVID-19 at their doorstep triggered a panic, and sent many into a frenzy of buying and hoarding. Once again, we proved that people everywhere are equally stupid, as toilet paper began to vanish from stores across the globe. And yet, this again was a moment when some people began to experience a false sense of immunity: ”I have enough food, money, and toilet paper to last me for 2 years. Why should I be worried?”

When the numbers of COVID-19 deaths in Europe were first reported, the fear became palpable. In Italy and Spain, towns were locked down, and tens of thousands of people (mostly older adults) have died. It was truly heartbreaking to see people alone and at their weakest with no family members allowed to be by their side.

A glimmer of hope

Despite all of this, there were superheroes—the nurses, physicians, allied health professionals, first responders, store workers, restaurant workers, delivery personnel, and others who didn’t have the option of staying home, or who volunteered to help people in need. In moments like this, the actions of these individuals give us hope, reminding us that the human spirit is resilient, and that we will get through this.

A rotation in the emergency department during COVID-19

As a psychiatry resident, it is unlikely that my peers and I face the same risks as our colleagues in other medical specialities. But those of us who happened to be in medical rotations during this time have had the chance to experience this very closely. My personal experience, albeit a brief one, of working in an emergency department with suspected COVID-19 patients has been sobering. Watching nurses and physicians walk into a room wearing personal protective equipment, fearful inside but with a reassuring smile for a scared patient, definitely was one of the most compelling moments of my life. Living in a distant land, with my daughter, wife, parents, and extended family back home in Nepal, has made this even more challenging.

We will overcome this as we have overcome previous challenges in the past. There will be death and chaos, but we will prevail. The only thing is to ask ourselves: How do we want to continue living when this is over?

During these unprecedented times, venturing into the unknown of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a feeling of impending doom prevails. Almost all of us have been restricted to our homes. Although the physical dimensions of what we call home may vary, the meaning of this restriction is fairly universal. No matter how our sociodemographics differ, with no guidance for this situation from anything even remotely comparable in the past, our lives have been transformed into a work in progress.

During this pandemic, I have observed a wide range of human emotions and behavior—many of them familiar and predictable, some abysmal, and some inspiring.

’Why should I care?’

On December 31, 2019, health officials in China informed the World Health Organization about a pneumonia-like presentation in a group of people in Wuhan. On January 7, 2020, a novel coronavirus was identified as the cause, and the first death was reported a few days later. In the following days and weeks the disease rapidly spread, as did the growing sense that this was not a typical virus.

While these events occurred, the rest of the world was in what I call a ”Why should I care?” mode. Most humans tend to suffer from this indifference. This has been observed repeatedly through the years, such as when the Ebola outbreak occurred in Africa in 2014-2016. It was only when cases started to develop in Europe and the United States that other countries started to pay attention. A similar phenomenon has been observed every time we’ve faced a global outbreak (avian influenza, Middle East respiratory syndrome, etc.).

When are we going to learn? It is time to realize that global borders are more porous than we think, and human interactions cannot be blocked by any wall. When a catastrophic event, outbreak, or disaster starts in any part of the world, it is naive to assume that we will not be affected. We will eventually be affected—the only question is how, when, and to what extent? We are always all in this together.

An abundance of ignorance and stupidity

Within a few weeks of the first reports from China, cases of COVID-19 were reported in South Korea, Italy, Spain, Germany, and many other countries. Slowly, COVID-19 reached the United States, which as of mid-April had the highest number of cases worldwide. When COVID-19 hit the United States, the response was that of shock and anger. How could this happen to us? Why is the government not doing anything?

Amidst this pandemonium, ignorance and stupidity of the highest degree were commonplace. This was not restricted to any particular country or region. Almost 2 months into the pandemic, the Ministry of Tourism in my home country of Nepal declared Nepal a ”coronavirus-free zone” and took measures to bring in tourists, focusing specifically on China, where COVID-19 had already killed hundreds. In India, some people were drinking cow urine in hopes of warding off the virus. In the United Sates, thousands of young people flocked to beaches for Spring Break, disregarding measures for social distancing. ”If I get corona, I get corona,” one young man said in an interview that went viral. Personally, I have encountered people who responded to this pandemic by saying the disease was ”cooties” or ”just a flu,” and dismissing it with ”If I die from this, I die.”

Continue to: Rising panic and fear

Rising panic and fear

For most people, seeing COVID-19 at their doorstep triggered a panic, and sent many into a frenzy of buying and hoarding. Once again, we proved that people everywhere are equally stupid, as toilet paper began to vanish from stores across the globe. And yet, this again was a moment when some people began to experience a false sense of immunity: ”I have enough food, money, and toilet paper to last me for 2 years. Why should I be worried?”

When the numbers of COVID-19 deaths in Europe were first reported, the fear became palpable. In Italy and Spain, towns were locked down, and tens of thousands of people (mostly older adults) have died. It was truly heartbreaking to see people alone and at their weakest with no family members allowed to be by their side.

A glimmer of hope

Despite all of this, there were superheroes—the nurses, physicians, allied health professionals, first responders, store workers, restaurant workers, delivery personnel, and others who didn’t have the option of staying home, or who volunteered to help people in need. In moments like this, the actions of these individuals give us hope, reminding us that the human spirit is resilient, and that we will get through this.

A rotation in the emergency department during COVID-19

As a psychiatry resident, it is unlikely that my peers and I face the same risks as our colleagues in other medical specialities. But those of us who happened to be in medical rotations during this time have had the chance to experience this very closely. My personal experience, albeit a brief one, of working in an emergency department with suspected COVID-19 patients has been sobering. Watching nurses and physicians walk into a room wearing personal protective equipment, fearful inside but with a reassuring smile for a scared patient, definitely was one of the most compelling moments of my life. Living in a distant land, with my daughter, wife, parents, and extended family back home in Nepal, has made this even more challenging.

We will overcome this as we have overcome previous challenges in the past. There will be death and chaos, but we will prevail. The only thing is to ask ourselves: How do we want to continue living when this is over?