Conference Coverage

After a 3-year, pandemic-induced hiatus, the American Gastroenterological Association’s Tech Summit returned to a live meeting in San Francisco. As usual, the highlight of the 2-day event, which is sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology, was the Shark Tank, where selected companies presented lightning-round overviews of their technology and business plans. A panel of sharks and the audience voted for their favorite.

The contestants presented technologies such as a cell phone app to improve gut health (Agora Health), a polypectomy suite (IzoMed), an implantable weight-loss device (Lean Medical), a device to alleviate gastric obstruction in pancreatic cancer (Myka Labs), a pill designed to map out the gastrointestinal system to aid in diagnosis (Rock West Medical Devices), and an endoscopic ultrasound device (EndoSound). 

Six finalists were selected from 20 submissions, and EndoSound was the winner. According to Raman Muthusamy, MD, medical director of endoscopy at UCLA Health and professor of clinical medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and past chair of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology, the quality of presentations and the sophistication of the companies have increased year after year. “This was really the very best,” said Dr. Muthusamy.

Both the judges and the audience chose EndoSound. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) focuses on diagnosis and treatment of chest and abdomen disorders, particularly the pancreas. The EndoSound device attaches to an upper endoscope and converts it to a fully therapeutic endoscope that can perform all standard EUS procedures. Moreover, it does not use an elevator, which has been linked to infection risk.

Most clinical facilities lack EUS capability: 97% of ambulatory surgical centers and 80% of hospitals. EUS systems have hardly changed since the late 20th century, and they cost about $450,000. The projected cost of the EndoSound device is closer to $50,000.

“Just like colonoscopies and upper endoscopies, most endoscopic ultrasounds ought to be done in surgical centers. The idea that they can do them efficiently, and at lower cost and greater convenience to their patients and themselves, seems to me the way everything is going, and the way this procedure ought to go as well. The only obstacle to that has been the cost of the equipment. If we can take away that obstacle, then people who are already doing procedures in hospitals where it’s not convenient and not efficient, will be able to do the procedures in surgical centers,” said Stephen Steinberg, MD, founder and President of EndoSound.

“It’s a radical redesign. You’ve cut cost and you’ve cut space. And it’s something that could be put on at a moment’s notice. Rather than referring the patient for [ultrasound], it could allow you to do it on the spot, and perhaps save a second trip for a patient. It allows flexibility in terms of site of service,” said Dr. Muthusamy.

Dr. Muthusamy called it a “godsend” for low-resource institutions in the United States or abroad who have the expertise, but not the equipment, to perform EUS. “There’s no question that more EUS procedures could be done than are currently being done because of issues of availability, and this device takes a significant step to alleviate that.”

The Food and Drug Administration has granted a breakthrough device designation to EndoSound, which allows the company to forgo human clinical trials to support the application. “We’re hoping and expecting to have our application in the beginning of the fourth quarter, and with a little bit of luck to be approved by the end of the year. That’s our goal,” said Dr. Steinberg.

The technology started out as a challenge that Dr. Steinberg set for himself. His career overlapped with some of the earliest innovators of therapeutic endoscopy. “They were the stars. I wasn’t, but I was there,” said Dr. Steinberg. In his practice, Dr. Steinberg was doing procedures that included endoscopic ultrasound.

By the new millennium, EUS had gained a lot of interest, but there was a problem. “It was expensive, and it could only be done in hospitals. I started wondering if we couldn’t get it into a different environment by having a simpler solution,” said Dr. Steinberg.

But success didn’t come quickly. “I started drawing on the back of napkins to see if there wasn’t some solution,” said Dr. Steinberg. It wasn’t until a serendipitous meeting occurred that the concept took shape. Dr. Steinberg’s wife was the CEO and provost of Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, as well as head of the technology transfer program. Dr. Steinberg’s practice, however, was in Florida so he commuted to Oregon every weekend.

One day, she told him about a presentation by Scott Corbett, MD. “My wife said: ‘Hey, they’re doing ultrasound. Why don’t you come and sit in [on the meeting] because I don’t know anything about it.’ [Dr.] Corbett was working with Sonivate, a point-of-care ultrasound company that was developing an ultrasound that could be placed over the end of the finger, to be used in battlefield triage. I thought, well, if you could put it on a finger, why couldn’t you put it on a scope? So, Scott and I got to talking, and went through a couple of iterations that didn’t work, and then finally came up with one that seemed like it was suitable.”

The device has been tested in five animal models with 20 EUS physicians who concluded that the images were equivalent to legacy devices and that they could be adopted quickly. The company also presented results from a human study that demonstrated noninferiority to the latest EUS system from Pentax.

Dr. Steinberg is an employee and stockholder of Sonivate. Dr. Muthusamy has no relevant financial disclosures. The 2022 AGA Tech Summit was supported by independent grants from Castle Biosciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Exact Sciences, Olympus, 3-D Matrix, Apollo Endosurgery, Motus GI Holdings, STERIS Endoscopy, Cook Medical, FUJIFILM Healthcare Americas, and Virgo.

This article was updated 5/10/22.

*Correction, 5/17/22: An earlier version of this article stated that Geneoscopy was a finalist in the competition. It was not. Also, EndoSound should have been listed as a finalist in this paragraph.

After a 3-year, pandemic-induced hiatus, the American Gastroenterological Association’s Tech Summit returned to a live meeting in San Francisco. As usual, the highlight of the 2-day event, which is sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology, was the Shark Tank, where selected companies presented lightning-round overviews of their technology and business plans. A panel of sharks and the audience voted for their favorite.

The contestants presented technologies such as a cell phone app to improve gut health (Agora Health), a polypectomy suite (IzoMed), an implantable weight-loss device (Lean Medical), a device to alleviate gastric obstruction in pancreatic cancer (Myka Labs), a pill designed to map out the gastrointestinal system to aid in diagnosis (Rock West Medical Devices), and an endoscopic ultrasound device (EndoSound). 

Six finalists were selected from 20 submissions, and EndoSound was the winner. According to Raman Muthusamy, MD, medical director of endoscopy at UCLA Health and professor of clinical medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and past chair of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology, the quality of presentations and the sophistication of the companies have increased year after year. “This was really the very best,” said Dr. Muthusamy.

Both the judges and the audience chose EndoSound. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) focuses on diagnosis and treatment of chest and abdomen disorders, particularly the pancreas. The EndoSound device attaches to an upper endoscope and converts it to a fully therapeutic endoscope that can perform all standard EUS procedures. Moreover, it does not use an elevator, which has been linked to infection risk.

Most clinical facilities lack EUS capability: 97% of ambulatory surgical centers and 80% of hospitals. EUS systems have hardly changed since the late 20th century, and they cost about $450,000. The projected cost of the EndoSound device is closer to $50,000.

“Just like colonoscopies and upper endoscopies, most endoscopic ultrasounds ought to be done in surgical centers. The idea that they can do them efficiently, and at lower cost and greater convenience to their patients and themselves, seems to me the way everything is going, and the way this procedure ought to go as well. The only obstacle to that has been the cost of the equipment. If we can take away that obstacle, then people who are already doing procedures in hospitals where it’s not convenient and not efficient, will be able to do the procedures in surgical centers,” said Stephen Steinberg, MD, founder and President of EndoSound.

“It’s a radical redesign. You’ve cut cost and you’ve cut space. And it’s something that could be put on at a moment’s notice. Rather than referring the patient for [ultrasound], it could allow you to do it on the spot, and perhaps save a second trip for a patient. It allows flexibility in terms of site of service,” said Dr. Muthusamy.

Dr. Muthusamy called it a “godsend” for low-resource institutions in the United States or abroad who have the expertise, but not the equipment, to perform EUS. “There’s no question that more EUS procedures could be done than are currently being done because of issues of availability, and this device takes a significant step to alleviate that.”

The Food and Drug Administration has granted a breakthrough device designation to EndoSound, which allows the company to forgo human clinical trials to support the application. “We’re hoping and expecting to have our application in the beginning of the fourth quarter, and with a little bit of luck to be approved by the end of the year. That’s our goal,” said Dr. Steinberg.

The technology started out as a challenge that Dr. Steinberg set for himself. His career overlapped with some of the earliest innovators of therapeutic endoscopy. “They were the stars. I wasn’t, but I was there,” said Dr. Steinberg. In his practice, Dr. Steinberg was doing procedures that included endoscopic ultrasound.

By the new millennium, EUS had gained a lot of interest, but there was a problem. “It was expensive, and it could only be done in hospitals. I started wondering if we couldn’t get it into a different environment by having a simpler solution,” said Dr. Steinberg.

But success didn’t come quickly. “I started drawing on the back of napkins to see if there wasn’t some solution,” said Dr. Steinberg. It wasn’t until a serendipitous meeting occurred that the concept took shape. Dr. Steinberg’s wife was the CEO and provost of Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, as well as head of the technology transfer program. Dr. Steinberg’s practice, however, was in Florida so he commuted to Oregon every weekend.

One day, she told him about a presentation by Scott Corbett, MD. “My wife said: ‘Hey, they’re doing ultrasound. Why don’t you come and sit in [on the meeting] because I don’t know anything about it.’ [Dr.] Corbett was working with Sonivate, a point-of-care ultrasound company that was developing an ultrasound that could be placed over the end of the finger, to be used in battlefield triage. I thought, well, if you could put it on a finger, why couldn’t you put it on a scope? So, Scott and I got to talking, and went through a couple of iterations that didn’t work, and then finally came up with one that seemed like it was suitable.”

The device has been tested in five animal models with 20 EUS physicians who concluded that the images were equivalent to legacy devices and that they could be adopted quickly. The company also presented results from a human study that demonstrated noninferiority to the latest EUS system from Pentax.

Dr. Steinberg is an employee and stockholder of Sonivate. Dr. Muthusamy has no relevant financial disclosures. The 2022 AGA Tech Summit was supported by independent grants from Castle Biosciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Exact Sciences, Olympus, 3-D Matrix, Apollo Endosurgery, Motus GI Holdings, STERIS Endoscopy, Cook Medical, FUJIFILM Healthcare Americas, and Virgo.

This article was updated 5/10/22.

*Correction, 5/17/22: An earlier version of this article stated that Geneoscopy was a finalist in the competition. It was not. Also, EndoSound should have been listed as a finalist in this paragraph.

After a 3-year, pandemic-induced hiatus, the American Gastroenterological Association’s Tech Summit returned to a live meeting in San Francisco. As usual, the highlight of the 2-day event, which is sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology, was the Shark Tank, where selected companies presented lightning-round overviews of their technology and business plans. A panel of sharks and the audience voted for their favorite.

The contestants presented technologies such as a cell phone app to improve gut health (Agora Health), a polypectomy suite (IzoMed), an implantable weight-loss device (Lean Medical), a device to alleviate gastric obstruction in pancreatic cancer (Myka Labs), a pill designed to map out the gastrointestinal system to aid in diagnosis (Rock West Medical Devices), and an endoscopic ultrasound device (EndoSound). 

Six finalists were selected from 20 submissions, and EndoSound was the winner. According to Raman Muthusamy, MD, medical director of endoscopy at UCLA Health and professor of clinical medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and past chair of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology, the quality of presentations and the sophistication of the companies have increased year after year. “This was really the very best,” said Dr. Muthusamy.

Both the judges and the audience chose EndoSound. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) focuses on diagnosis and treatment of chest and abdomen disorders, particularly the pancreas. The EndoSound device attaches to an upper endoscope and converts it to a fully therapeutic endoscope that can perform all standard EUS procedures. Moreover, it does not use an elevator, which has been linked to infection risk.

Most clinical facilities lack EUS capability: 97% of ambulatory surgical centers and 80% of hospitals. EUS systems have hardly changed since the late 20th century, and they cost about $450,000. The projected cost of the EndoSound device is closer to $50,000.

“Just like colonoscopies and upper endoscopies, most endoscopic ultrasounds ought to be done in surgical centers. The idea that they can do them efficiently, and at lower cost and greater convenience to their patients and themselves, seems to me the way everything is going, and the way this procedure ought to go as well. The only obstacle to that has been the cost of the equipment. If we can take away that obstacle, then people who are already doing procedures in hospitals where it’s not convenient and not efficient, will be able to do the procedures in surgical centers,” said Stephen Steinberg, MD, founder and President of EndoSound.

“It’s a radical redesign. You’ve cut cost and you’ve cut space. And it’s something that could be put on at a moment’s notice. Rather than referring the patient for [ultrasound], it could allow you to do it on the spot, and perhaps save a second trip for a patient. It allows flexibility in terms of site of service,” said Dr. Muthusamy.

Dr. Muthusamy called it a “godsend” for low-resource institutions in the United States or abroad who have the expertise, but not the equipment, to perform EUS. “There’s no question that more EUS procedures could be done than are currently being done because of issues of availability, and this device takes a significant step to alleviate that.”

The Food and Drug Administration has granted a breakthrough device designation to EndoSound, which allows the company to forgo human clinical trials to support the application. “We’re hoping and expecting to have our application in the beginning of the fourth quarter, and with a little bit of luck to be approved by the end of the year. That’s our goal,” said Dr. Steinberg.

The technology started out as a challenge that Dr. Steinberg set for himself. His career overlapped with some of the earliest innovators of therapeutic endoscopy. “They were the stars. I wasn’t, but I was there,” said Dr. Steinberg. In his practice, Dr. Steinberg was doing procedures that included endoscopic ultrasound.

By the new millennium, EUS had gained a lot of interest, but there was a problem. “It was expensive, and it could only be done in hospitals. I started wondering if we couldn’t get it into a different environment by having a simpler solution,” said Dr. Steinberg.

But success didn’t come quickly. “I started drawing on the back of napkins to see if there wasn’t some solution,” said Dr. Steinberg. It wasn’t until a serendipitous meeting occurred that the concept took shape. Dr. Steinberg’s wife was the CEO and provost of Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, as well as head of the technology transfer program. Dr. Steinberg’s practice, however, was in Florida so he commuted to Oregon every weekend.

One day, she told him about a presentation by Scott Corbett, MD. “My wife said: ‘Hey, they’re doing ultrasound. Why don’t you come and sit in [on the meeting] because I don’t know anything about it.’ [Dr.] Corbett was working with Sonivate, a point-of-care ultrasound company that was developing an ultrasound that could be placed over the end of the finger, to be used in battlefield triage. I thought, well, if you could put it on a finger, why couldn’t you put it on a scope? So, Scott and I got to talking, and went through a couple of iterations that didn’t work, and then finally came up with one that seemed like it was suitable.”

The device has been tested in five animal models with 20 EUS physicians who concluded that the images were equivalent to legacy devices and that they could be adopted quickly. The company also presented results from a human study that demonstrated noninferiority to the latest EUS system from Pentax.

Dr. Steinberg is an employee and stockholder of Sonivate. Dr. Muthusamy has no relevant financial disclosures. The 2022 AGA Tech Summit was supported by independent grants from Castle Biosciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Exact Sciences, Olympus, 3-D Matrix, Apollo Endosurgery, Motus GI Holdings, STERIS Endoscopy, Cook Medical, FUJIFILM Healthcare Americas, and Virgo.

This article was updated 5/10/22.

*Correction, 5/17/22: An earlier version of this article stated that Geneoscopy was a finalist in the competition. It was not. Also, EndoSound should have been listed as a finalist in this paragraph.

CHICAGO – Geno Merli, MD, associate chief medical officer at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, and long-time hospital medicine expert, recalled a recent situation at his center, during a panel discussion.

It involved a 70-year-old man who had a history of prostate cancer, obstructive sleep apnea, and hernias. In January, he had a surgery for hernia repair. On the 3rd day after the procedure, he was transferred to the hospital medicine service at about 9 p.m. and was on a patient-controlled pump for pain and had abdominal drains. Because of the extensive surgery and because he had begun to walk shortly after the procedure, he wasn’t on thrombosis prevention medication, Dr. Merli explained at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

The day after his transfer he was walking with a physical therapist when he became short of breath, his oxygen saturation dropped, and his heart rate soared. Bilateral pulmonary emboli were found, along with thrombosis in the right leg.

What was remarkable, Dr. Merli noted, was what the patient’s medical record was lacking.

He added, “I think if we start looking at this at our sites, we may find out that communication needs to be improved, and I believe standardized.”

This situation underscores the continuing need to refine handoffs between surgery and hospital medicine, a point in care that is primed for potential errors, the other panelists noted during the session.

Most important information is often not communicated

A 2010 study in pediatrics that looked at intern-to-intern handoffs found that the most important piece of information wasn’t communicated successfully 60% of the time – in other words, more often than not, the person on the receiving end didn’t really understand that crucial part of the scenario. Since then, the literature has been regularly populated with studies attempting to refine handoff procedures.

 Lily Ackermann, MD, hospitalist and clinical associate professor of medicine at Jefferson, said in the session that hospitalists need to be sure to reach out to surgery at important junctures in care.

 “I would say the No. 1 biggest mistake we make is not calling the surgery attending directly when clinical questions arise,” she said. “I think this is very important – attending [physician in hospital medicine] to attending [physician in surgery].”

 Murray Cohen, MD, director of acute care surgery at Jefferson, said he shared that concern.

“We want to be called, we want to be called for our patients,” he said in the session. “And we’re upset when you don’t call for our patients.”

Hospitalists should discuss blood loss, pain management, management of drains, deep vein thrombosis prevention, nutrition, infectious disease concerns, and timing of vaccines post procedure, Dr. Ackermann said during the presentation,

The panelists also emphasized that understanding the follow-up care that surgery was planning after a procedure is important, and to not just expect surgeons to actively follow a patient. They also reminded hospitalists to look at the wounds and make sure they understand how to handle the wounds going forward. Plus, when transferring a patient to surgery, hospitalists should understand when getting someone to surgery is urgent and not to order unnecessary tests as a formality when time is of the essence, they said.

IPASS: a formalized handoff process

The panelists all spoke highly of a formalized handoff process known as IPASS. This acronym reminds physicians to ask specific questions.

The I represents illness severity and calls for asking: “Is the patient stable or unstable?

The P stands for patient summary and is meant to prompt physicians to seek details about the procedure.

The A is for action list, which is meant to remind the physician to get the post-op plan for neurological, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and other areas.

The first S is for situational awareness, and calls for asking: What is the biggest concern over the next 24 hours?

The final S represents synthesis by the receiver, prompting a physician to summarize the information he or she has received about the patient.

Natalie Margules, MD, a clinical instructor and hospitalist at Jefferson who did not present in the session, reiterated the value of the IPASS system. Before it was used for handoffs, she said, “I was never taught anything formalized – basically, just ‘Tell them what’s important.’

Dr. Margules noted that she considers the framework’s call for the synthesis to be one of it most useful parts.

 Dr. Merli, Dr. Ackermann, and Dr. Cohen reported no relevant financial disclosures.

CHICAGO – Geno Merli, MD, associate chief medical officer at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, and long-time hospital medicine expert, recalled a recent situation at his center, during a panel discussion.

It involved a 70-year-old man who had a history of prostate cancer, obstructive sleep apnea, and hernias. In January, he had a surgery for hernia repair. On the 3rd day after the procedure, he was transferred to the hospital medicine service at about 9 p.m. and was on a patient-controlled pump for pain and had abdominal drains. Because of the extensive surgery and because he had begun to walk shortly after the procedure, he wasn’t on thrombosis prevention medication, Dr. Merli explained at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

The day after his transfer he was walking with a physical therapist when he became short of breath, his oxygen saturation dropped, and his heart rate soared. Bilateral pulmonary emboli were found, along with thrombosis in the right leg.

What was remarkable, Dr. Merli noted, was what the patient’s medical record was lacking.

He added, “I think if we start looking at this at our sites, we may find out that communication needs to be improved, and I believe standardized.”

This situation underscores the continuing need to refine handoffs between surgery and hospital medicine, a point in care that is primed for potential errors, the other panelists noted during the session.

Most important information is often not communicated

A 2010 study in pediatrics that looked at intern-to-intern handoffs found that the most important piece of information wasn’t communicated successfully 60% of the time – in other words, more often than not, the person on the receiving end didn’t really understand that crucial part of the scenario. Since then, the literature has been regularly populated with studies attempting to refine handoff procedures.

 Lily Ackermann, MD, hospitalist and clinical associate professor of medicine at Jefferson, said in the session that hospitalists need to be sure to reach out to surgery at important junctures in care.

 “I would say the No. 1 biggest mistake we make is not calling the surgery attending directly when clinical questions arise,” she said. “I think this is very important – attending [physician in hospital medicine] to attending [physician in surgery].”

 Murray Cohen, MD, director of acute care surgery at Jefferson, said he shared that concern.

“We want to be called, we want to be called for our patients,” he said in the session. “And we’re upset when you don’t call for our patients.”

Hospitalists should discuss blood loss, pain management, management of drains, deep vein thrombosis prevention, nutrition, infectious disease concerns, and timing of vaccines post procedure, Dr. Ackermann said during the presentation,

The panelists also emphasized that understanding the follow-up care that surgery was planning after a procedure is important, and to not just expect surgeons to actively follow a patient. They also reminded hospitalists to look at the wounds and make sure they understand how to handle the wounds going forward. Plus, when transferring a patient to surgery, hospitalists should understand when getting someone to surgery is urgent and not to order unnecessary tests as a formality when time is of the essence, they said.

IPASS: a formalized handoff process

The panelists all spoke highly of a formalized handoff process known as IPASS. This acronym reminds physicians to ask specific questions.

The I represents illness severity and calls for asking: “Is the patient stable or unstable?

The P stands for patient summary and is meant to prompt physicians to seek details about the procedure.

The A is for action list, which is meant to remind the physician to get the post-op plan for neurological, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and other areas.

The first S is for situational awareness, and calls for asking: What is the biggest concern over the next 24 hours?

The final S represents synthesis by the receiver, prompting a physician to summarize the information he or she has received about the patient.

Natalie Margules, MD, a clinical instructor and hospitalist at Jefferson who did not present in the session, reiterated the value of the IPASS system. Before it was used for handoffs, she said, “I was never taught anything formalized – basically, just ‘Tell them what’s important.’

Dr. Margules noted that she considers the framework’s call for the synthesis to be one of it most useful parts.

 Dr. Merli, Dr. Ackermann, and Dr. Cohen reported no relevant financial disclosures.

CHICAGO – Geno Merli, MD, associate chief medical officer at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, and long-time hospital medicine expert, recalled a recent situation at his center, during a panel discussion.

It involved a 70-year-old man who had a history of prostate cancer, obstructive sleep apnea, and hernias. In January, he had a surgery for hernia repair. On the 3rd day after the procedure, he was transferred to the hospital medicine service at about 9 p.m. and was on a patient-controlled pump for pain and had abdominal drains. Because of the extensive surgery and because he had begun to walk shortly after the procedure, he wasn’t on thrombosis prevention medication, Dr. Merli explained at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

The day after his transfer he was walking with a physical therapist when he became short of breath, his oxygen saturation dropped, and his heart rate soared. Bilateral pulmonary emboli were found, along with thrombosis in the right leg.

What was remarkable, Dr. Merli noted, was what the patient’s medical record was lacking.

He added, “I think if we start looking at this at our sites, we may find out that communication needs to be improved, and I believe standardized.”

This situation underscores the continuing need to refine handoffs between surgery and hospital medicine, a point in care that is primed for potential errors, the other panelists noted during the session.

Most important information is often not communicated

A 2010 study in pediatrics that looked at intern-to-intern handoffs found that the most important piece of information wasn’t communicated successfully 60% of the time – in other words, more often than not, the person on the receiving end didn’t really understand that crucial part of the scenario. Since then, the literature has been regularly populated with studies attempting to refine handoff procedures.

 Lily Ackermann, MD, hospitalist and clinical associate professor of medicine at Jefferson, said in the session that hospitalists need to be sure to reach out to surgery at important junctures in care.

 “I would say the No. 1 biggest mistake we make is not calling the surgery attending directly when clinical questions arise,” she said. “I think this is very important – attending [physician in hospital medicine] to attending [physician in surgery].”

 Murray Cohen, MD, director of acute care surgery at Jefferson, said he shared that concern.

“We want to be called, we want to be called for our patients,” he said in the session. “And we’re upset when you don’t call for our patients.”

Hospitalists should discuss blood loss, pain management, management of drains, deep vein thrombosis prevention, nutrition, infectious disease concerns, and timing of vaccines post procedure, Dr. Ackermann said during the presentation,

The panelists also emphasized that understanding the follow-up care that surgery was planning after a procedure is important, and to not just expect surgeons to actively follow a patient. They also reminded hospitalists to look at the wounds and make sure they understand how to handle the wounds going forward. Plus, when transferring a patient to surgery, hospitalists should understand when getting someone to surgery is urgent and not to order unnecessary tests as a formality when time is of the essence, they said.

IPASS: a formalized handoff process

The panelists all spoke highly of a formalized handoff process known as IPASS. This acronym reminds physicians to ask specific questions.

The I represents illness severity and calls for asking: “Is the patient stable or unstable?

The P stands for patient summary and is meant to prompt physicians to seek details about the procedure.

The A is for action list, which is meant to remind the physician to get the post-op plan for neurological, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and other areas.

The first S is for situational awareness, and calls for asking: What is the biggest concern over the next 24 hours?

The final S represents synthesis by the receiver, prompting a physician to summarize the information he or she has received about the patient.

Natalie Margules, MD, a clinical instructor and hospitalist at Jefferson who did not present in the session, reiterated the value of the IPASS system. Before it was used for handoffs, she said, “I was never taught anything formalized – basically, just ‘Tell them what’s important.’

Dr. Margules noted that she considers the framework’s call for the synthesis to be one of it most useful parts.

 Dr. Merli, Dr. Ackermann, and Dr. Cohen reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Is fear of missing an infection – call it “FOMI” – leading you to overprescribe antibiotics to your patients?   

Inappropriate use of antibiotics can result in adverse events and toxicity, superinfections such as Clostridioides difficile and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, excess mortality and costs, and resistance to the drugs.   

All that has been well-known for years, and antibiotic resistance has become a leading public health concern. So why are physicians continuing to overprescribe the drugs?

Speaking at the 2022 annual Internal Medicine Meeting of the American College of Physicians, James “Brad” Cutrell, MD, medical director of antimicrobial stewardship, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said clinicians in the United States and elsewhere appear to be falling into a three-part fallacy when it comes to using the drugs: fear of “missing an infection,” coupled with patient expectations that they will leave the office with a prescription and combined with an overemphasis on the potential benefit to the individual at the expense of the risk to society of antibiotic resistance.

Antibiotics are the only drugs that lose their efficacy for all patients over time the more they are used. “For example, if I give a beta blocker to a patient, it’s not going to affect other patients down the road,” Dr. Cutrell said. “It’s not going to lose its efficacy.”

“What we need in medicine is a new culture around antibiotic use,” Dr. Cutrell added. “We need more respect for the dangers of antibiotic misuse and to have confidence in [their] benefits and when they can be used wisely.”
 

Rampant misuse

Outpatient prescriptions account for at least 60% of antibiotic use in the United States. The rate is even higher in other countries, Dr. Cutrell said during a presentation at the 2022 annual Internal Medicine Meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“About 10% of adult visits and 20% of pediatric visits will result in an antibiotic prescription,” said Dr. Cutrell, noting that prescribing patterns vary widely across the country, with as much as a three-fold difference in some locations. But at least 30% of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions are inappropriately ordered, he said.

“When we look at acute respiratory infections, upwards of 50% are not indicated at all,” he said. Imagine, he added, if the same error rate applied to other medical practices: “What if surgeons were only right 50% of the time, or if the oncologist was only giving the right treatment 50% of the time?”

The most recent Antibiotic Threats Report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi cause more than 2.8 million infections and about 36,000 deaths annually in the United States alone.
 

How to be a better steward

The core elements for antimicrobial stewardship in the outpatient setting, according to Dr. Cutrell, include making a commitment to optimize prescribing, implementing at least one policy or practice to improve prescribing, monitoring prescribing practices and offering feedback to clinicians, and educating both patients and clinicians.

All that is similar to in-patient stewardship, he said, but outpatient clinicians face a few unique challenges. “Patients are lower acuity, and there is less diagnostic data, and program resources and time are more limited,” he said. Patient satisfaction is also a major driver, and it is also more difficult to measure and track ambulatory antibiotic use.

Interventions have been identified, however, that can help improve stewardship. One is auditing and feedback with peers. “Another [is] commitment posters, which can be placed around the clinic, and that helps set the culture,” he said. “Clinical education and practice guidelines are also important.”

Clinicians should also:

• Observe antibiotic best practices
• Optimize antibiotic selection and dosing
• Practice effective diagnostic stewardship
• Use the shortest duration of therapy necessary
• Avoid antibiotics for inappropriate indications
• Educate patients on when antibiotics are needed
• Follow and become good antibiotic stewardship mentors

“Multiple antibiotic stewardship interventions are effective, particularly those focused on behavioral interventions,” Dr. Cutrell said. “Every provider should follow antibiotic ‘best practices’ and other simple steps to prescribe antibiotics more wisely and to improve patient care.”

Dr. Cutrell reported financial relationships with Gilead Sciences and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

Is fear of missing an infection – call it “FOMI” – leading you to overprescribe antibiotics to your patients?   

Inappropriate use of antibiotics can result in adverse events and toxicity, superinfections such as Clostridioides difficile and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, excess mortality and costs, and resistance to the drugs.   

All that has been well-known for years, and antibiotic resistance has become a leading public health concern. So why are physicians continuing to overprescribe the drugs?

Speaking at the 2022 annual Internal Medicine Meeting of the American College of Physicians, James “Brad” Cutrell, MD, medical director of antimicrobial stewardship, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said clinicians in the United States and elsewhere appear to be falling into a three-part fallacy when it comes to using the drugs: fear of “missing an infection,” coupled with patient expectations that they will leave the office with a prescription and combined with an overemphasis on the potential benefit to the individual at the expense of the risk to society of antibiotic resistance.

Antibiotics are the only drugs that lose their efficacy for all patients over time the more they are used. “For example, if I give a beta blocker to a patient, it’s not going to affect other patients down the road,” Dr. Cutrell said. “It’s not going to lose its efficacy.”

“What we need in medicine is a new culture around antibiotic use,” Dr. Cutrell added. “We need more respect for the dangers of antibiotic misuse and to have confidence in [their] benefits and when they can be used wisely.”
 

Rampant misuse

Outpatient prescriptions account for at least 60% of antibiotic use in the United States. The rate is even higher in other countries, Dr. Cutrell said during a presentation at the 2022 annual Internal Medicine Meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“About 10% of adult visits and 20% of pediatric visits will result in an antibiotic prescription,” said Dr. Cutrell, noting that prescribing patterns vary widely across the country, with as much as a three-fold difference in some locations. But at least 30% of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions are inappropriately ordered, he said.

“When we look at acute respiratory infections, upwards of 50% are not indicated at all,” he said. Imagine, he added, if the same error rate applied to other medical practices: “What if surgeons were only right 50% of the time, or if the oncologist was only giving the right treatment 50% of the time?”

The most recent Antibiotic Threats Report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi cause more than 2.8 million infections and about 36,000 deaths annually in the United States alone.
 

How to be a better steward

The core elements for antimicrobial stewardship in the outpatient setting, according to Dr. Cutrell, include making a commitment to optimize prescribing, implementing at least one policy or practice to improve prescribing, monitoring prescribing practices and offering feedback to clinicians, and educating both patients and clinicians.

All that is similar to in-patient stewardship, he said, but outpatient clinicians face a few unique challenges. “Patients are lower acuity, and there is less diagnostic data, and program resources and time are more limited,” he said. Patient satisfaction is also a major driver, and it is also more difficult to measure and track ambulatory antibiotic use.

Interventions have been identified, however, that can help improve stewardship. One is auditing and feedback with peers. “Another [is] commitment posters, which can be placed around the clinic, and that helps set the culture,” he said. “Clinical education and practice guidelines are also important.”

Clinicians should also:

• Observe antibiotic best practices
• Optimize antibiotic selection and dosing
• Practice effective diagnostic stewardship
• Use the shortest duration of therapy necessary
• Avoid antibiotics for inappropriate indications
• Educate patients on when antibiotics are needed
• Follow and become good antibiotic stewardship mentors

“Multiple antibiotic stewardship interventions are effective, particularly those focused on behavioral interventions,” Dr. Cutrell said. “Every provider should follow antibiotic ‘best practices’ and other simple steps to prescribe antibiotics more wisely and to improve patient care.”

Dr. Cutrell reported financial relationships with Gilead Sciences and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

Is fear of missing an infection – call it “FOMI” – leading you to overprescribe antibiotics to your patients?   

Inappropriate use of antibiotics can result in adverse events and toxicity, superinfections such as Clostridioides difficile and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, excess mortality and costs, and resistance to the drugs.   

All that has been well-known for years, and antibiotic resistance has become a leading public health concern. So why are physicians continuing to overprescribe the drugs?

Speaking at the 2022 annual Internal Medicine Meeting of the American College of Physicians, James “Brad” Cutrell, MD, medical director of antimicrobial stewardship, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said clinicians in the United States and elsewhere appear to be falling into a three-part fallacy when it comes to using the drugs: fear of “missing an infection,” coupled with patient expectations that they will leave the office with a prescription and combined with an overemphasis on the potential benefit to the individual at the expense of the risk to society of antibiotic resistance.

Antibiotics are the only drugs that lose their efficacy for all patients over time the more they are used. “For example, if I give a beta blocker to a patient, it’s not going to affect other patients down the road,” Dr. Cutrell said. “It’s not going to lose its efficacy.”

“What we need in medicine is a new culture around antibiotic use,” Dr. Cutrell added. “We need more respect for the dangers of antibiotic misuse and to have confidence in [their] benefits and when they can be used wisely.”
 

Rampant misuse

Outpatient prescriptions account for at least 60% of antibiotic use in the United States. The rate is even higher in other countries, Dr. Cutrell said during a presentation at the 2022 annual Internal Medicine Meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“About 10% of adult visits and 20% of pediatric visits will result in an antibiotic prescription,” said Dr. Cutrell, noting that prescribing patterns vary widely across the country, with as much as a three-fold difference in some locations. But at least 30% of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions are inappropriately ordered, he said.

“When we look at acute respiratory infections, upwards of 50% are not indicated at all,” he said. Imagine, he added, if the same error rate applied to other medical practices: “What if surgeons were only right 50% of the time, or if the oncologist was only giving the right treatment 50% of the time?”

The most recent Antibiotic Threats Report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi cause more than 2.8 million infections and about 36,000 deaths annually in the United States alone.
 

How to be a better steward

The core elements for antimicrobial stewardship in the outpatient setting, according to Dr. Cutrell, include making a commitment to optimize prescribing, implementing at least one policy or practice to improve prescribing, monitoring prescribing practices and offering feedback to clinicians, and educating both patients and clinicians.

All that is similar to in-patient stewardship, he said, but outpatient clinicians face a few unique challenges. “Patients are lower acuity, and there is less diagnostic data, and program resources and time are more limited,” he said. Patient satisfaction is also a major driver, and it is also more difficult to measure and track ambulatory antibiotic use.

Interventions have been identified, however, that can help improve stewardship. One is auditing and feedback with peers. “Another [is] commitment posters, which can be placed around the clinic, and that helps set the culture,” he said. “Clinical education and practice guidelines are also important.”

Clinicians should also:

• Observe antibiotic best practices
• Optimize antibiotic selection and dosing
• Practice effective diagnostic stewardship
• Use the shortest duration of therapy necessary
• Avoid antibiotics for inappropriate indications
• Educate patients on when antibiotics are needed
• Follow and become good antibiotic stewardship mentors

“Multiple antibiotic stewardship interventions are effective, particularly those focused on behavioral interventions,” Dr. Cutrell said. “Every provider should follow antibiotic ‘best practices’ and other simple steps to prescribe antibiotics more wisely and to improve patient care.”

Dr. Cutrell reported financial relationships with Gilead Sciences and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

SAN DIEGO – Combining topical tyrosinase inhibitors with either a nonablative fractional laser or a fractional picosecond laser was safe and effective for treating postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) in patients with Fitzpatrick skin phototypes V and VI, results from a small retrospective case series suggest.

“Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation is a leading chief of complaint of many skin of color persons seeking a dermatologist,” Elizabeth J. Kream, MD, told this news organization in advance of the annual conference of American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “I describe PIH to patients as the ‘ashes after a fire is extinguished.’ It’s the stubborn brown to gray/black spots that persist after conditions like acne and folliculitis, but it can be caused by any insult to the skin including external injury. In fact, there’s a risk of inciting PIH with lasers and energy-based devices and this risk is greater in skin of color given the greater melanin content. Unfortunately, we see patients present after visiting a med spa who were treated with the wrong devices and/or the wrong settings and they have disfiguring scarring and/or dyspigmentation.”

During an abstract session at the meeting, Dr. Kream, a dermatology resident at the University of Illinois at Chicago, discussed three patients with recalcitrant PIH and Fitzpatrick skin phototype V and VI who were treated in San Diego with a combination of topical and laser therapies. She presented the case series on behalf of coauthors Monica Boen, MD and Douglas C. Wu, MD, dermatologists who practice in San Diego.

The first patient was a 37-year-old Black female who presented for evaluation of longstanding hyperpigmentation on the face and neck determined to be PIH secondary to folliculitis on the chin and neck. She was started on 8% hydroquinone with kojic acid daily and received four treatments spaced 4-8 weeks apart with the 1,927-nm fractional nonablative diode laser. Laser settings were 5 mJ pulse energy and 5% coverage after eight passes. Triamcinolone 0.1% ointment was applied immediately after treatment and for 3 days following treatment, and the “patient experienced near complete resolution of PIH with no unexpected adverse events,” Dr. Kream said.

The second patient was a 20-year-old Black male who presented with a 3-month history of facial hyperpigmentation after suffering a laser-induced injury. He was started on a non-hydroquinone topical lightening agent and received five treatments spaced 2 weeks apart with a 1,927-nm fractional nonablative diode laser. The laser settings were 5 mJ pulse energy and 5% coverage after eight passes. The patient experienced 80%-90% resolution of his PIH with no unexpected adverse reactions.

The third patient in the series was a 39-year-old Black male who presented with a 6-month history of hyperpigmentation on his right shin and calf, secondary to minor occupational-related trauma. Treatment was initiated with a fractional 1,064-nm picosecond laser. The laser settings were 2.1 mJ per microbeam microwave pulse energy and a 450 picosecond pulse duration delivered at 2 Hz through a holographic beam splitter with a 6 x 6–mm spot size containing 101 microbeams, for an estimated coverage of 4% per pulse. Four passes were performed for each area. The endpoint was a mild erythema to several treated areas a few minutes following laser treatment. Postoperative care consisted of applying a non-hydroquinone topical lightening agent twice daily to the affected area for 1 month. Near-complete resolution of the PIH was achieved, with no unexpected adverse reactions.

“In our clinical experience, PIH can be treated with the combination of topical skin lighteners and low density, low fluence laser therapy in almost all skin types,” Dr. Kream said. “The rationale behind this combination is to treat and remove existing pigment with the laser therapy while minimizing and preventing any pigmentary recurrence with diligent topical therapy and photoprotection.”

It is important to identify the cause of PIH “because some cases are trickier than others,” such as a lichenoid process that deposits pigment “a little bit deeper into the dermis,” she said. “When selecting an appropriate laser modality for the treatment of PIH in skin types V and VI, it’s especially important to consider the mechanism of action, depth of penetration, degree of tissue damage, and the extent of disruption to the dermal-epidermal junction.”

Following the presentation, one of the session moderators, Albert Wolkerstorfer, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Amsterdam University Medical Center, the Netherlands, emphasized the importance of proper patient selection for laser treatment of PIH. “Not every patient with PIH is adapted to treatment with the laser,” Dr. Wolkerstorfer said. “I think it’s also important to choose stable PIH, meaning you often see patients with an underlying disorder who want to get rid of the pigment. They often believe that the laser is the solution, but it often isn’t.”

During a question-and-answer session, a meeting attendee pointed out that the study lacked a control area to compare the treatment results to. “This was a retrospective case series,” Dr. Kream replied. “I’d like to see more elegant studies in the future, with a control [area],” she said.

Dr. Kream reported having no financial disclosures, Dr. Boen has no disclosures, and Dr. Wu has conducted research for many pharmaceutical and device companies. Dr. Wolkerstorfer disclosed that he has received grant or research funding from Lumenis, Novartis, and Avita Medical, and is an advisory board member for Incyte.

SAN DIEGO – Combining topical tyrosinase inhibitors with either a nonablative fractional laser or a fractional picosecond laser was safe and effective for treating postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) in patients with Fitzpatrick skin phototypes V and VI, results from a small retrospective case series suggest.

“Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation is a leading chief of complaint of many skin of color persons seeking a dermatologist,” Elizabeth J. Kream, MD, told this news organization in advance of the annual conference of American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “I describe PIH to patients as the ‘ashes after a fire is extinguished.’ It’s the stubborn brown to gray/black spots that persist after conditions like acne and folliculitis, but it can be caused by any insult to the skin including external injury. In fact, there’s a risk of inciting PIH with lasers and energy-based devices and this risk is greater in skin of color given the greater melanin content. Unfortunately, we see patients present after visiting a med spa who were treated with the wrong devices and/or the wrong settings and they have disfiguring scarring and/or dyspigmentation.”

During an abstract session at the meeting, Dr. Kream, a dermatology resident at the University of Illinois at Chicago, discussed three patients with recalcitrant PIH and Fitzpatrick skin phototype V and VI who were treated in San Diego with a combination of topical and laser therapies. She presented the case series on behalf of coauthors Monica Boen, MD and Douglas C. Wu, MD, dermatologists who practice in San Diego.

The first patient was a 37-year-old Black female who presented for evaluation of longstanding hyperpigmentation on the face and neck determined to be PIH secondary to folliculitis on the chin and neck. She was started on 8% hydroquinone with kojic acid daily and received four treatments spaced 4-8 weeks apart with the 1,927-nm fractional nonablative diode laser. Laser settings were 5 mJ pulse energy and 5% coverage after eight passes. Triamcinolone 0.1% ointment was applied immediately after treatment and for 3 days following treatment, and the “patient experienced near complete resolution of PIH with no unexpected adverse events,” Dr. Kream said.

The second patient was a 20-year-old Black male who presented with a 3-month history of facial hyperpigmentation after suffering a laser-induced injury. He was started on a non-hydroquinone topical lightening agent and received five treatments spaced 2 weeks apart with a 1,927-nm fractional nonablative diode laser. The laser settings were 5 mJ pulse energy and 5% coverage after eight passes. The patient experienced 80%-90% resolution of his PIH with no unexpected adverse reactions.

The third patient in the series was a 39-year-old Black male who presented with a 6-month history of hyperpigmentation on his right shin and calf, secondary to minor occupational-related trauma. Treatment was initiated with a fractional 1,064-nm picosecond laser. The laser settings were 2.1 mJ per microbeam microwave pulse energy and a 450 picosecond pulse duration delivered at 2 Hz through a holographic beam splitter with a 6 x 6–mm spot size containing 101 microbeams, for an estimated coverage of 4% per pulse. Four passes were performed for each area. The endpoint was a mild erythema to several treated areas a few minutes following laser treatment. Postoperative care consisted of applying a non-hydroquinone topical lightening agent twice daily to the affected area for 1 month. Near-complete resolution of the PIH was achieved, with no unexpected adverse reactions.

“In our clinical experience, PIH can be treated with the combination of topical skin lighteners and low density, low fluence laser therapy in almost all skin types,” Dr. Kream said. “The rationale behind this combination is to treat and remove existing pigment with the laser therapy while minimizing and preventing any pigmentary recurrence with diligent topical therapy and photoprotection.”

It is important to identify the cause of PIH “because some cases are trickier than others,” such as a lichenoid process that deposits pigment “a little bit deeper into the dermis,” she said. “When selecting an appropriate laser modality for the treatment of PIH in skin types V and VI, it’s especially important to consider the mechanism of action, depth of penetration, degree of tissue damage, and the extent of disruption to the dermal-epidermal junction.”

Following the presentation, one of the session moderators, Albert Wolkerstorfer, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Amsterdam University Medical Center, the Netherlands, emphasized the importance of proper patient selection for laser treatment of PIH. “Not every patient with PIH is adapted to treatment with the laser,” Dr. Wolkerstorfer said. “I think it’s also important to choose stable PIH, meaning you often see patients with an underlying disorder who want to get rid of the pigment. They often believe that the laser is the solution, but it often isn’t.”

During a question-and-answer session, a meeting attendee pointed out that the study lacked a control area to compare the treatment results to. “This was a retrospective case series,” Dr. Kream replied. “I’d like to see more elegant studies in the future, with a control [area],” she said.

Dr. Kream reported having no financial disclosures, Dr. Boen has no disclosures, and Dr. Wu has conducted research for many pharmaceutical and device companies. Dr. Wolkerstorfer disclosed that he has received grant or research funding from Lumenis, Novartis, and Avita Medical, and is an advisory board member for Incyte.

SAN DIEGO – Combining topical tyrosinase inhibitors with either a nonablative fractional laser or a fractional picosecond laser was safe and effective for treating postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) in patients with Fitzpatrick skin phototypes V and VI, results from a small retrospective case series suggest.

“Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation is a leading chief of complaint of many skin of color persons seeking a dermatologist,” Elizabeth J. Kream, MD, told this news organization in advance of the annual conference of American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “I describe PIH to patients as the ‘ashes after a fire is extinguished.’ It’s the stubborn brown to gray/black spots that persist after conditions like acne and folliculitis, but it can be caused by any insult to the skin including external injury. In fact, there’s a risk of inciting PIH with lasers and energy-based devices and this risk is greater in skin of color given the greater melanin content. Unfortunately, we see patients present after visiting a med spa who were treated with the wrong devices and/or the wrong settings and they have disfiguring scarring and/or dyspigmentation.”

During an abstract session at the meeting, Dr. Kream, a dermatology resident at the University of Illinois at Chicago, discussed three patients with recalcitrant PIH and Fitzpatrick skin phototype V and VI who were treated in San Diego with a combination of topical and laser therapies. She presented the case series on behalf of coauthors Monica Boen, MD and Douglas C. Wu, MD, dermatologists who practice in San Diego.

The first patient was a 37-year-old Black female who presented for evaluation of longstanding hyperpigmentation on the face and neck determined to be PIH secondary to folliculitis on the chin and neck. She was started on 8% hydroquinone with kojic acid daily and received four treatments spaced 4-8 weeks apart with the 1,927-nm fractional nonablative diode laser. Laser settings were 5 mJ pulse energy and 5% coverage after eight passes. Triamcinolone 0.1% ointment was applied immediately after treatment and for 3 days following treatment, and the “patient experienced near complete resolution of PIH with no unexpected adverse events,” Dr. Kream said.

The second patient was a 20-year-old Black male who presented with a 3-month history of facial hyperpigmentation after suffering a laser-induced injury. He was started on a non-hydroquinone topical lightening agent and received five treatments spaced 2 weeks apart with a 1,927-nm fractional nonablative diode laser. The laser settings were 5 mJ pulse energy and 5% coverage after eight passes. The patient experienced 80%-90% resolution of his PIH with no unexpected adverse reactions.

The third patient in the series was a 39-year-old Black male who presented with a 6-month history of hyperpigmentation on his right shin and calf, secondary to minor occupational-related trauma. Treatment was initiated with a fractional 1,064-nm picosecond laser. The laser settings were 2.1 mJ per microbeam microwave pulse energy and a 450 picosecond pulse duration delivered at 2 Hz through a holographic beam splitter with a 6 x 6–mm spot size containing 101 microbeams, for an estimated coverage of 4% per pulse. Four passes were performed for each area. The endpoint was a mild erythema to several treated areas a few minutes following laser treatment. Postoperative care consisted of applying a non-hydroquinone topical lightening agent twice daily to the affected area for 1 month. Near-complete resolution of the PIH was achieved, with no unexpected adverse reactions.

“In our clinical experience, PIH can be treated with the combination of topical skin lighteners and low density, low fluence laser therapy in almost all skin types,” Dr. Kream said. “The rationale behind this combination is to treat and remove existing pigment with the laser therapy while minimizing and preventing any pigmentary recurrence with diligent topical therapy and photoprotection.”

It is important to identify the cause of PIH “because some cases are trickier than others,” such as a lichenoid process that deposits pigment “a little bit deeper into the dermis,” she said. “When selecting an appropriate laser modality for the treatment of PIH in skin types V and VI, it’s especially important to consider the mechanism of action, depth of penetration, degree of tissue damage, and the extent of disruption to the dermal-epidermal junction.”

Following the presentation, one of the session moderators, Albert Wolkerstorfer, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Amsterdam University Medical Center, the Netherlands, emphasized the importance of proper patient selection for laser treatment of PIH. “Not every patient with PIH is adapted to treatment with the laser,” Dr. Wolkerstorfer said. “I think it’s also important to choose stable PIH, meaning you often see patients with an underlying disorder who want to get rid of the pigment. They often believe that the laser is the solution, but it often isn’t.”

During a question-and-answer session, a meeting attendee pointed out that the study lacked a control area to compare the treatment results to. “This was a retrospective case series,” Dr. Kream replied. “I’d like to see more elegant studies in the future, with a control [area],” she said.

Dr. Kream reported having no financial disclosures, Dr. Boen has no disclosures, and Dr. Wu has conducted research for many pharmaceutical and device companies. Dr. Wolkerstorfer disclosed that he has received grant or research funding from Lumenis, Novartis, and Avita Medical, and is an advisory board member for Incyte.

LISBON – A shift toward broader-spectrum antibiotics and increasing antibiotic resistance has led to high levels of mortality and neurodevelopmental impacts in surviving babies, according to a large international study conducted on four continents.

Results of the 3-year study were presented at this week’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID).

The observational study, NeoOBS, conducted by the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership (GARDP) and key partners from 2018 to 2020, explored the outcomes of more than 3,200 newborns, finding an overall mortality of 11% in those with suspected neonatal sepsis. The mortality rate increased to 18% in newborns in whom a pathogen was detected in blood culture.

More than half of infection-related deaths (59%) were due to hospital-acquired infections. Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common pathogen isolated and is usually associated with hospital-acquired infections, which are increasingly resistant to existing antibiotic treatments, said a report produced by GARDP to accompany the results.

The study also identified a worrying trend: Hospitals are frequently using last-line agents such as carbapenems because of the high degree of antibiotic resistance in their facilities. Of note, 15% of babies with neonatal sepsis were given last-line antibiotics.

Pediatrician Julia Bielicki, MD, PhD, senior lecturer, Paediatric Infectious Diseases Research Group, St. George’s University of London, and clinician at the University of Basel Children’s Hospital, Switzerland, was a coinvestigator on the NeoOBS study.

In an interview, she explained that, as well as reducing mortality, the research is about managing infections better to prevent long-term events and improve the quality of life for survivors of neonatal sepsis. “It can have life-changing impacts for so many babies,” Dr. Bielicki said. “Improving care is much more than just making sure the baby survives the episode of sepsis – it’s about ensuring these babies can become children and adults and go on to lead productive lives.”

Also, only a minority of patients (13%) received the World Health Organization guidelines for standard of care use of ampicillin and gentamicin, and there was increasing use of last-line agents such as carbapenems and even polymyxins in some settings in low- and middle-income countries. “This is alarming and foretells the impending crisis of a lack of antibiotics to treat sepsis caused by multidrug-resistant organisms,” according to the GARDP report.

There was wide variability in antibiotic combinations used across sites in Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Greece, India, Italy, Kenya, South Africa, Thailand, Uganda, and Vietnam, and often such use was not supported by underlying data.

Dr. Bielicki remarked that there was a shift toward broad-spectrum antibiotic use. “In a high-income country, you have more restrictive patterns of antibiotic use, but it isn’t necessarily less antibiotic exposure of neonates to antibiotics, but on the whole, usually narrow-spectrum agents are used.”

In Africa and Asia, on the other hand, clinicians often have to use a broader-spectrum antibiotic empirically and may need to switch to another antibiotic very quickly. “Sometimes alternatives are not available,” she pointed out.

“Local physicians are very perceptive of this problem of antibiotic resistance in their daily practice, especially in centers with high mortality,” said Dr. Bielicki, emphasizing that it is not their fault, but is “due to the limitations in terms of the weapons available to treat these babies, which strongly demonstrates the growing problem of antimicrobial resistance affecting these babies on a global scale.”

Tim Jinks, PhD, Head of Drug Resistant Infections Priority Program at Wellcome Trust, commented on the study in a series of text messages to this news organization. “This research provides further demonstration of the urgent need for improved treatment of newborns suffering with sepsis and particularly the requirement for new antibiotics that overcome the burden of drug-resistant infections caused by [antimicrobial resistance].”

“The study is a hugely important contribution to our understanding of the burden of neonatal sepsis in low- and middle- income countries,” he added, “and points toward ways that patient treatment can be improved to save more lives.”
 

High-, middle-, and low-income countries

The NeoOBS study gathered data from 19 hospitals in 11 high-, middle-, and low-income countries and assessed which antibiotics are currently being used to treat neonatal sepsis, as well as the degree of drug resistance associated with them. Sites included some in Italy and Greece, where most of the neonatal sepsis data currently originate, and this helped to anchor the data, Dr. Bielicki said.

The study identified babies with clinical sepsis over a 4-week period and observed how these patients were managed, particularly with respect to antibiotics, as well as outcomes including whether they recovered, remained in hospital, or died. Investigators obtained bacterial cultures from the patients and grew them to identify which organisms were causing the sepsis.

Of note, mortality varied widely between hospitals, ranging from 1% to 27%. Dr. Bielicki explained that the investigators were currently exploring the reasons behind this wide range of mortality. “There are lots of possible reasons for this, including structural factors such as how care is delivered, which is complex to measure,” she said. “It isn’t trivial to measure why, in a certain setting, mortality is low and why in another setting of comparable income range, mortality is much higher.”

Aside from the mortality results, Dr. Bielicki also emphasized that the survivors of neonatal sepsis frequently experience neurodevelopmental impacts. “A hospital may have low mortality, but many of these babies may have neurodevelopment problems, and this has a long-term impact.”

“Even though mortality might be low in a certain hospital, it might not be low in terms of morbidity,” she added.

The researchers also collected isolates from the cohort of neonates to determine which antibiotic combinations work against the pathogens. “This will help us define what sort of antibiotic regimen warrants further investigation,” Dr. Bielicki said.

Principal Investigator, Mike Sharland, MD, also from St. George’s, University of London, who is also the Antimicrobial Resistance Program Lead at Penta Child Health Research, said, in a press release, that the study had shown that antibiotic resistance is now one of the major threats to neonatal health globally. “There are virtually no studies underway on developing novel antibiotic treatments for babies with sepsis caused by multidrug-resistant infections.”

“This is a major problem for babies in all countries, both rich and poor,” he stressed.
 

NeoSep-1 trial to compare multiple different treatments

The results have paved the way for a major new global trial of multiple established and new antibiotics with the goal of reducing mortality from neonatal sepsis – the NeoSep1 trial.

“This is a randomized trial with a specific design that allows us to rank different treatments against each other in terms of effectiveness, safety, and costs,” Dr. Bielicki explained.

Among the antibiotics in the study are amikacin, flomoxef and amikacin, or fosfomycin and flomoxef in babies with sepsis 28 days old or younger. Similar to the NeoOBS study, patients will be recruited from all over the world, and in particular from low- and middle-income countries such as Kenya, South Africa, and other countries in Africa and Southeast Asia.

Ultimately, the researchers want to identify modifiable risk factors and enact change in practice. But Dr. Bielicki was quick to point out that it was difficult to disentangle those factors that can easily be changed. “Some can be changed in theory, but in practice it is actually difficult to change them. One modifiable risk factor that can be changed is probably infection control, so when resistant bacteria appear in a unit, we need to ensure that there is no or minimal transmission between babies.”

Luregn Schlapbach, MD, PhD, Head, department of intensive care and neonatology, University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, welcomed the study, saying recent recognition of pediatric and neonatal sepsis was an urgent problem worldwide.

She referred to the 2017 WHO resolution recognizing that sepsis represents a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide, affecting patients of all ages, across all continents and health care systems but that many were pediatric. “At that time, our understanding of the true burden of sepsis was limited, as was our knowledge of current epidemiology,” she said in an email interview. “The Global Burden of Disease study in 2020 revealed that about half of the approximatively 50 million global sepsis cases affect pediatric age groups, many of those during neonatal age.”

The formal acknowledgment of this extensive need emphasizes the “urgency to design preventive and therapeutic interventions to reduce this devastating burden,” Dr. Schlapbach said. “In this context, the work led by GARDP is of great importance – it is designed to improve our understanding of current practice, risk factors, and burden of neonatal sepsis across low- to middle-income settings and is essential to design adequately powered trials testing interventions such as antimicrobials to improve patient outcomes and reduce the further emergence of antimicrobial resistance.”

Dr. Bielicki and Dr. Schlapbach have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LISBON – A shift toward broader-spectrum antibiotics and increasing antibiotic resistance has led to high levels of mortality and neurodevelopmental impacts in surviving babies, according to a large international study conducted on four continents.

Results of the 3-year study were presented at this week’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID).

The observational study, NeoOBS, conducted by the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership (GARDP) and key partners from 2018 to 2020, explored the outcomes of more than 3,200 newborns, finding an overall mortality of 11% in those with suspected neonatal sepsis. The mortality rate increased to 18% in newborns in whom a pathogen was detected in blood culture.

More than half of infection-related deaths (59%) were due to hospital-acquired infections. Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common pathogen isolated and is usually associated with hospital-acquired infections, which are increasingly resistant to existing antibiotic treatments, said a report produced by GARDP to accompany the results.

The study also identified a worrying trend: Hospitals are frequently using last-line agents such as carbapenems because of the high degree of antibiotic resistance in their facilities. Of note, 15% of babies with neonatal sepsis were given last-line antibiotics.

Pediatrician Julia Bielicki, MD, PhD, senior lecturer, Paediatric Infectious Diseases Research Group, St. George’s University of London, and clinician at the University of Basel Children’s Hospital, Switzerland, was a coinvestigator on the NeoOBS study.

In an interview, she explained that, as well as reducing mortality, the research is about managing infections better to prevent long-term events and improve the quality of life for survivors of neonatal sepsis. “It can have life-changing impacts for so many babies,” Dr. Bielicki said. “Improving care is much more than just making sure the baby survives the episode of sepsis – it’s about ensuring these babies can become children and adults and go on to lead productive lives.”

Also, only a minority of patients (13%) received the World Health Organization guidelines for standard of care use of ampicillin and gentamicin, and there was increasing use of last-line agents such as carbapenems and even polymyxins in some settings in low- and middle-income countries. “This is alarming and foretells the impending crisis of a lack of antibiotics to treat sepsis caused by multidrug-resistant organisms,” according to the GARDP report.

There was wide variability in antibiotic combinations used across sites in Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Greece, India, Italy, Kenya, South Africa, Thailand, Uganda, and Vietnam, and often such use was not supported by underlying data.

Dr. Bielicki remarked that there was a shift toward broad-spectrum antibiotic use. “In a high-income country, you have more restrictive patterns of antibiotic use, but it isn’t necessarily less antibiotic exposure of neonates to antibiotics, but on the whole, usually narrow-spectrum agents are used.”

In Africa and Asia, on the other hand, clinicians often have to use a broader-spectrum antibiotic empirically and may need to switch to another antibiotic very quickly. “Sometimes alternatives are not available,” she pointed out.

“Local physicians are very perceptive of this problem of antibiotic resistance in their daily practice, especially in centers with high mortality,” said Dr. Bielicki, emphasizing that it is not their fault, but is “due to the limitations in terms of the weapons available to treat these babies, which strongly demonstrates the growing problem of antimicrobial resistance affecting these babies on a global scale.”

Tim Jinks, PhD, Head of Drug Resistant Infections Priority Program at Wellcome Trust, commented on the study in a series of text messages to this news organization. “This research provides further demonstration of the urgent need for improved treatment of newborns suffering with sepsis and particularly the requirement for new antibiotics that overcome the burden of drug-resistant infections caused by [antimicrobial resistance].”

“The study is a hugely important contribution to our understanding of the burden of neonatal sepsis in low- and middle- income countries,” he added, “and points toward ways that patient treatment can be improved to save more lives.”
 

High-, middle-, and low-income countries

The NeoOBS study gathered data from 19 hospitals in 11 high-, middle-, and low-income countries and assessed which antibiotics are currently being used to treat neonatal sepsis, as well as the degree of drug resistance associated with them. Sites included some in Italy and Greece, where most of the neonatal sepsis data currently originate, and this helped to anchor the data, Dr. Bielicki said.

The study identified babies with clinical sepsis over a 4-week period and observed how these patients were managed, particularly with respect to antibiotics, as well as outcomes including whether they recovered, remained in hospital, or died. Investigators obtained bacterial cultures from the patients and grew them to identify which organisms were causing the sepsis.

Of note, mortality varied widely between hospitals, ranging from 1% to 27%. Dr. Bielicki explained that the investigators were currently exploring the reasons behind this wide range of mortality. “There are lots of possible reasons for this, including structural factors such as how care is delivered, which is complex to measure,” she said. “It isn’t trivial to measure why, in a certain setting, mortality is low and why in another setting of comparable income range, mortality is much higher.”

Aside from the mortality results, Dr. Bielicki also emphasized that the survivors of neonatal sepsis frequently experience neurodevelopmental impacts. “A hospital may have low mortality, but many of these babies may have neurodevelopment problems, and this has a long-term impact.”

“Even though mortality might be low in a certain hospital, it might not be low in terms of morbidity,” she added.

The researchers also collected isolates from the cohort of neonates to determine which antibiotic combinations work against the pathogens. “This will help us define what sort of antibiotic regimen warrants further investigation,” Dr. Bielicki said.

Principal Investigator, Mike Sharland, MD, also from St. George’s, University of London, who is also the Antimicrobial Resistance Program Lead at Penta Child Health Research, said, in a press release, that the study had shown that antibiotic resistance is now one of the major threats to neonatal health globally. “There are virtually no studies underway on developing novel antibiotic treatments for babies with sepsis caused by multidrug-resistant infections.”

“This is a major problem for babies in all countries, both rich and poor,” he stressed.
 

NeoSep-1 trial to compare multiple different treatments

The results have paved the way for a major new global trial of multiple established and new antibiotics with the goal of reducing mortality from neonatal sepsis – the NeoSep1 trial.

“This is a randomized trial with a specific design that allows us to rank different treatments against each other in terms of effectiveness, safety, and costs,” Dr. Bielicki explained.

Among the antibiotics in the study are amikacin, flomoxef and amikacin, or fosfomycin and flomoxef in babies with sepsis 28 days old or younger. Similar to the NeoOBS study, patients will be recruited from all over the world, and in particular from low- and middle-income countries such as Kenya, South Africa, and other countries in Africa and Southeast Asia.

Ultimately, the researchers want to identify modifiable risk factors and enact change in practice. But Dr. Bielicki was quick to point out that it was difficult to disentangle those factors that can easily be changed. “Some can be changed in theory, but in practice it is actually difficult to change them. One modifiable risk factor that can be changed is probably infection control, so when resistant bacteria appear in a unit, we need to ensure that there is no or minimal transmission between babies.”

Luregn Schlapbach, MD, PhD, Head, department of intensive care and neonatology, University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, welcomed the study, saying recent recognition of pediatric and neonatal sepsis was an urgent problem worldwide.

She referred to the 2017 WHO resolution recognizing that sepsis represents a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide, affecting patients of all ages, across all continents and health care systems but that many were pediatric. “At that time, our understanding of the true burden of sepsis was limited, as was our knowledge of current epidemiology,” she said in an email interview. “The Global Burden of Disease study in 2020 revealed that about half of the approximatively 50 million global sepsis cases affect pediatric age groups, many of those during neonatal age.”

The formal acknowledgment of this extensive need emphasizes the “urgency to design preventive and therapeutic interventions to reduce this devastating burden,” Dr. Schlapbach said. “In this context, the work led by GARDP is of great importance – it is designed to improve our understanding of current practice, risk factors, and burden of neonatal sepsis across low- to middle-income settings and is essential to design adequately powered trials testing interventions such as antimicrobials to improve patient outcomes and reduce the further emergence of antimicrobial resistance.”

Dr. Bielicki and Dr. Schlapbach have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LISBON – A shift toward broader-spectrum antibiotics and increasing antibiotic resistance has led to high levels of mortality and neurodevelopmental impacts in surviving babies, according to a large international study conducted on four continents.

Results of the 3-year study were presented at this week’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID).

The observational study, NeoOBS, conducted by the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership (GARDP) and key partners from 2018 to 2020, explored the outcomes of more than 3,200 newborns, finding an overall mortality of 11% in those with suspected neonatal sepsis. The mortality rate increased to 18% in newborns in whom a pathogen was detected in blood culture.

More than half of infection-related deaths (59%) were due to hospital-acquired infections. Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common pathogen isolated and is usually associated with hospital-acquired infections, which are increasingly resistant to existing antibiotic treatments, said a report produced by GARDP to accompany the results.

The study also identified a worrying trend: Hospitals are frequently using last-line agents such as carbapenems because of the high degree of antibiotic resistance in their facilities. Of note, 15% of babies with neonatal sepsis were given last-line antibiotics.

Pediatrician Julia Bielicki, MD, PhD, senior lecturer, Paediatric Infectious Diseases Research Group, St. George’s University of London, and clinician at the University of Basel Children’s Hospital, Switzerland, was a coinvestigator on the NeoOBS study.

In an interview, she explained that, as well as reducing mortality, the research is about managing infections better to prevent long-term events and improve the quality of life for survivors of neonatal sepsis. “It can have life-changing impacts for so many babies,” Dr. Bielicki said. “Improving care is much more than just making sure the baby survives the episode of sepsis – it’s about ensuring these babies can become children and adults and go on to lead productive lives.”

Also, only a minority of patients (13%) received the World Health Organization guidelines for standard of care use of ampicillin and gentamicin, and there was increasing use of last-line agents such as carbapenems and even polymyxins in some settings in low- and middle-income countries. “This is alarming and foretells the impending crisis of a lack of antibiotics to treat sepsis caused by multidrug-resistant organisms,” according to the GARDP report.

There was wide variability in antibiotic combinations used across sites in Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Greece, India, Italy, Kenya, South Africa, Thailand, Uganda, and Vietnam, and often such use was not supported by underlying data.

Dr. Bielicki remarked that there was a shift toward broad-spectrum antibiotic use. “In a high-income country, you have more restrictive patterns of antibiotic use, but it isn’t necessarily less antibiotic exposure of neonates to antibiotics, but on the whole, usually narrow-spectrum agents are used.”

In Africa and Asia, on the other hand, clinicians often have to use a broader-spectrum antibiotic empirically and may need to switch to another antibiotic very quickly. “Sometimes alternatives are not available,” she pointed out.

“Local physicians are very perceptive of this problem of antibiotic resistance in their daily practice, especially in centers with high mortality,” said Dr. Bielicki, emphasizing that it is not their fault, but is “due to the limitations in terms of the weapons available to treat these babies, which strongly demonstrates the growing problem of antimicrobial resistance affecting these babies on a global scale.”

Tim Jinks, PhD, Head of Drug Resistant Infections Priority Program at Wellcome Trust, commented on the study in a series of text messages to this news organization. “This research provides further demonstration of the urgent need for improved treatment of newborns suffering with sepsis and particularly the requirement for new antibiotics that overcome the burden of drug-resistant infections caused by [antimicrobial resistance].”

“The study is a hugely important contribution to our understanding of the burden of neonatal sepsis in low- and middle- income countries,” he added, “and points toward ways that patient treatment can be improved to save more lives.”
 

High-, middle-, and low-income countries

The NeoOBS study gathered data from 19 hospitals in 11 high-, middle-, and low-income countries and assessed which antibiotics are currently being used to treat neonatal sepsis, as well as the degree of drug resistance associated with them. Sites included some in Italy and Greece, where most of the neonatal sepsis data currently originate, and this helped to anchor the data, Dr. Bielicki said.

The study identified babies with clinical sepsis over a 4-week period and observed how these patients were managed, particularly with respect to antibiotics, as well as outcomes including whether they recovered, remained in hospital, or died. Investigators obtained bacterial cultures from the patients and grew them to identify which organisms were causing the sepsis.

Of note, mortality varied widely between hospitals, ranging from 1% to 27%. Dr. Bielicki explained that the investigators were currently exploring the reasons behind this wide range of mortality. “There are lots of possible reasons for this, including structural factors such as how care is delivered, which is complex to measure,” she said. “It isn’t trivial to measure why, in a certain setting, mortality is low and why in another setting of comparable income range, mortality is much higher.”

Aside from the mortality results, Dr. Bielicki also emphasized that the survivors of neonatal sepsis frequently experience neurodevelopmental impacts. “A hospital may have low mortality, but many of these babies may have neurodevelopment problems, and this has a long-term impact.”

“Even though mortality might be low in a certain hospital, it might not be low in terms of morbidity,” she added.

The researchers also collected isolates from the cohort of neonates to determine which antibiotic combinations work against the pathogens. “This will help us define what sort of antibiotic regimen warrants further investigation,” Dr. Bielicki said.

Principal Investigator, Mike Sharland, MD, also from St. George’s, University of London, who is also the Antimicrobial Resistance Program Lead at Penta Child Health Research, said, in a press release, that the study had shown that antibiotic resistance is now one of the major threats to neonatal health globally. “There are virtually no studies underway on developing novel antibiotic treatments for babies with sepsis caused by multidrug-resistant infections.”

“This is a major problem for babies in all countries, both rich and poor,” he stressed.
 

NeoSep-1 trial to compare multiple different treatments

The results have paved the way for a major new global trial of multiple established and new antibiotics with the goal of reducing mortality from neonatal sepsis – the NeoSep1 trial.

“This is a randomized trial with a specific design that allows us to rank different treatments against each other in terms of effectiveness, safety, and costs,” Dr. Bielicki explained.

Among the antibiotics in the study are amikacin, flomoxef and amikacin, or fosfomycin and flomoxef in babies with sepsis 28 days old or younger. Similar to the NeoOBS study, patients will be recruited from all over the world, and in particular from low- and middle-income countries such as Kenya, South Africa, and other countries in Africa and Southeast Asia.

Ultimately, the researchers want to identify modifiable risk factors and enact change in practice. But Dr. Bielicki was quick to point out that it was difficult to disentangle those factors that can easily be changed. “Some can be changed in theory, but in practice it is actually difficult to change them. One modifiable risk factor that can be changed is probably infection control, so when resistant bacteria appear in a unit, we need to ensure that there is no or minimal transmission between babies.”

Luregn Schlapbach, MD, PhD, Head, department of intensive care and neonatology, University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, welcomed the study, saying recent recognition of pediatric and neonatal sepsis was an urgent problem worldwide.

She referred to the 2017 WHO resolution recognizing that sepsis represents a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide, affecting patients of all ages, across all continents and health care systems but that many were pediatric. “At that time, our understanding of the true burden of sepsis was limited, as was our knowledge of current epidemiology,” she said in an email interview. “The Global Burden of Disease study in 2020 revealed that about half of the approximatively 50 million global sepsis cases affect pediatric age groups, many of those during neonatal age.”

The formal acknowledgment of this extensive need emphasizes the “urgency to design preventive and therapeutic interventions to reduce this devastating burden,” Dr. Schlapbach said. “In this context, the work led by GARDP is of great importance – it is designed to improve our understanding of current practice, risk factors, and burden of neonatal sepsis across low- to middle-income settings and is essential to design adequately powered trials testing interventions such as antimicrobials to improve patient outcomes and reduce the further emergence of antimicrobial resistance.”

Dr. Bielicki and Dr. Schlapbach have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The risk for dementia goes up in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), but some evidence suggests that risk can be blunted with therapies that restore sinus rhythm. However, a new cohort study suggests that the treatment effect’s magnitude might depend on the rhythm control strategy. It hinted that AFib catheter ablation might be more effective than pharmacologic rhythm control alone at cutting the risk for dementia.

The case-matched study of more than 38,000 adults with AFib saw a 41% reduction (P < .0001) in risk for dementia among those who underwent catheter ablation after attempted rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD), compared with those managed with pharmacologic rhythm control therapy alone.

The observational study comprising 20 years of data comes with big limitations and can’t say for sure whether catheter ablation is better than AAD-only at cutting the dementia risk in AFib. But it and other evidence support the idea, which has yet to be explored in a randomized fashion.

In a secondary finding, the analysis showed a similar reduction in dementia risk from catheter ablation, compared with AAD, in women and in men by 40% and 45%, respectively (P < .0001 for both). The findings are particularly relevant “given the higher life-long risk of dementia among women and the lower likelihood that women will be offered ablation, which has been demonstrated repeatedly,” Emily P. Zeitler, MD, MHS, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, told this news organization. “I think this is another reason to try to be more generous in offering ablation to women.”

Management of AFib certainly evolved in important ways from 2000 to 2021, the period covered by the study. But a sensitivity analysis based on data from 2010 to 2021 showed “no meaningful differences” in the results, said Dr. Zeitler, who is slated to present the findings April 30 at the Heart Rhythm Society 2022 Scientific Sessions, conducted virtually and live in San Francisco.

Dr. Zeitler acknowledged that the observational study, even with its propensity-matched ablation and AAD cohorts, can only hint at a preference for ablation over AAD for lowering risk for AFib-associated dementia. “We know there’s unmeasured and unfixable confounding between those two groups, so we see this really as hypothesis-generating.”

It was “a well-done analysis,” and the conclusion that the dementia risk was lower with catheter ablation is “absolutely correct,” but only as far as the study and its limitations allow, agreed David Conen, MD, MPH, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, who is not a coauthor.

“Even with propensity matching, you can get rid of some sorts of confounding, but you can never get rid of all selection bias issues.” That, he said when interviewed, takes randomized trials.

Dr. Conen, who is studying cognitive decline in AFib as a SWISS-AF trial principal investigator, pointed to a secondary finding of the analysis as evidence for such confounding. He said the ablation group’s nearly 50% drop (P < .0001) in competing risk for death, compared with patients managed with AAD, isn’t plausible.

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

The risk for dementia goes up in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), but some evidence suggests that risk can be blunted with therapies that restore sinus rhythm. However, a new cohort study suggests that the treatment effect’s magnitude might depend on the rhythm control strategy. It hinted that AFib catheter ablation might be more effective than pharmacologic rhythm control alone at cutting the risk for dementia.

The case-matched study of more than 38,000 adults with AFib saw a 41% reduction (P < .0001) in risk for dementia among those who underwent catheter ablation after attempted rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD), compared with those managed with pharmacologic rhythm control therapy alone.

The observational study comprising 20 years of data comes with big limitations and can’t say for sure whether catheter ablation is better than AAD-only at cutting the dementia risk in AFib. But it and other evidence support the idea, which has yet to be explored in a randomized fashion.

In a secondary finding, the analysis showed a similar reduction in dementia risk from catheter ablation, compared with AAD, in women and in men by 40% and 45%, respectively (P < .0001 for both). The findings are particularly relevant “given the higher life-long risk of dementia among women and the lower likelihood that women will be offered ablation, which has been demonstrated repeatedly,” Emily P. Zeitler, MD, MHS, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, told this news organization. “I think this is another reason to try to be more generous in offering ablation to women.”

Management of AFib certainly evolved in important ways from 2000 to 2021, the period covered by the study. But a sensitivity analysis based on data from 2010 to 2021 showed “no meaningful differences” in the results, said Dr. Zeitler, who is slated to present the findings April 30 at the Heart Rhythm Society 2022 Scientific Sessions, conducted virtually and live in San Francisco.

Dr. Zeitler acknowledged that the observational study, even with its propensity-matched ablation and AAD cohorts, can only hint at a preference for ablation over AAD for lowering risk for AFib-associated dementia. “We know there’s unmeasured and unfixable confounding between those two groups, so we see this really as hypothesis-generating.”

It was “a well-done analysis,” and the conclusion that the dementia risk was lower with catheter ablation is “absolutely correct,” but only as far as the study and its limitations allow, agreed David Conen, MD, MPH, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, who is not a coauthor.

“Even with propensity matching, you can get rid of some sorts of confounding, but you can never get rid of all selection bias issues.” That, he said when interviewed, takes randomized trials.

Dr. Conen, who is studying cognitive decline in AFib as a SWISS-AF trial principal investigator, pointed to a secondary finding of the analysis as evidence for such confounding. He said the ablation group’s nearly 50% drop (P < .0001) in competing risk for death, compared with patients managed with AAD, isn’t plausible.

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

The risk for dementia goes up in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), but some evidence suggests that risk can be blunted with therapies that restore sinus rhythm. However, a new cohort study suggests that the treatment effect’s magnitude might depend on the rhythm control strategy. It hinted that AFib catheter ablation might be more effective than pharmacologic rhythm control alone at cutting the risk for dementia.

The case-matched study of more than 38,000 adults with AFib saw a 41% reduction (P < .0001) in risk for dementia among those who underwent catheter ablation after attempted rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD), compared with those managed with pharmacologic rhythm control therapy alone.

The observational study comprising 20 years of data comes with big limitations and can’t say for sure whether catheter ablation is better than AAD-only at cutting the dementia risk in AFib. But it and other evidence support the idea, which has yet to be explored in a randomized fashion.

In a secondary finding, the analysis showed a similar reduction in dementia risk from catheter ablation, compared with AAD, in women and in men by 40% and 45%, respectively (P < .0001 for both). The findings are particularly relevant “given the higher life-long risk of dementia among women and the lower likelihood that women will be offered ablation, which has been demonstrated repeatedly,” Emily P. Zeitler, MD, MHS, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, told this news organization. “I think this is another reason to try to be more generous in offering ablation to women.”

Management of AFib certainly evolved in important ways from 2000 to 2021, the period covered by the study. But a sensitivity analysis based on data from 2010 to 2021 showed “no meaningful differences” in the results, said Dr. Zeitler, who is slated to present the findings April 30 at the Heart Rhythm Society 2022 Scientific Sessions, conducted virtually and live in San Francisco.

Dr. Zeitler acknowledged that the observational study, even with its propensity-matched ablation and AAD cohorts, can only hint at a preference for ablation over AAD for lowering risk for AFib-associated dementia. “We know there’s unmeasured and unfixable confounding between those two groups, so we see this really as hypothesis-generating.”

It was “a well-done analysis,” and the conclusion that the dementia risk was lower with catheter ablation is “absolutely correct,” but only as far as the study and its limitations allow, agreed David Conen, MD, MPH, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, who is not a coauthor.

“Even with propensity matching, you can get rid of some sorts of confounding, but you can never get rid of all selection bias issues.” That, he said when interviewed, takes randomized trials.

Dr. Conen, who is studying cognitive decline in AFib as a SWISS-AF trial principal investigator, pointed to a secondary finding of the analysis as evidence for such confounding. He said the ablation group’s nearly 50% drop (P < .0001) in competing risk for death, compared with patients managed with AAD, isn’t plausible.

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

CHICAGO – Recent research has changed at least one physician’s understanding of obesity and boosted her hope for fighting it.

Caroline Apovian, MD, codirector of the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, described some of the new insights about obesity she has gained during her talk at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“When I was a medical student a while back, I learned that fat tissue just sat there and stored fat,” she said. “Now we know it’s an endocrine organ.”

This tissue secretes hormones, such as leptin, and other factors that have an array of effects on the brain, pancreas, heart, liver, and muscles. Moreover, it has plasticity, with the ability to change, constantly adjusting our metabolism as nutrient supply and demand changes, she continued.

Obesity leads to a decline in this plasticity, leading to fibrosis and inflammation and other problems. These changes can further impair the function of adipose tissue, leading to metabolic disease. But the central role of adipose tissue, and its dynamic nature, presents an opportunity for treatment, Dr. Apovian said, during her talk.
 

Hints to why obesity has become more common

More than 42% of the U.S. population – “unbelievably,” Dr. Apovian said – is obese, meaning they have a BMI over 30, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s up by about 25% since 1960, although calories eaten hasn’t increased, and physical activity has increased somewhat, she said.

The root cause is still a bit of a mystery, but according to “good hints and clues” from animal models that are starting to be translated to the study of human obesity, “it has to do with epigenetics and how our brains and our bodies are perceiving the environment,” she noted, during her presentation.

“Our genes haven’t changed. Our environment has changed,” she said.

The industrialization of the food supply, the use of pesticides and preservatives, the dawn of fast food have all combined, most likely, to do “a number on our bodies,” Dr. Apovian said.

But not all hope is lost thanks to new research, Dr. Apovian suggested.
 

New treatments show promise for helping patients’ obesity

New research that has increased Dr. Apovian’s understanding of the sophisticated role of adipose tissue may be helpful for treating patients with obesity, offering more targets for intervention, she told the audience.

Some treatment avenues already identified have started producing results, Dr. Apovian noted.

Gastric bypass surgery typically leads to a loss of 25% of body weight, but is often shunned by patients, she said. “With such a great surgical procedure, we still only do 256,000 procedures and we have millions of Americans with a BMI over 30.”

Weight control with obsessive dieting, meal-planning and calorie-counting, “can be done, but it’s really hard,” Dr. Apovian noted.

More appealing therapies targeting hormones and appetite suppression have produced impressive results. Recently approved semaglutide produced 14% weight loss, compared with about 2% for placebo, she said.

Results just released for tirzepatide, a dual agonist of gut hormones GLP-1 and GIP, show a 22% total weight loss, compared with about 2% for placebo, with about 56% of patients losing more than 20% of their body weight, Dr. Apovian said.

Referencing studies finding that several hormones are altered during weight loss, she predicted that targeting multiple hormones with drug treatment will also be necessary for best results.

But, she noted, “we’re treating obesity now with one- or two-drug combos.”
 

Medication costs are too high for many patients

Isis Smith, MD, an internist at University Medical Center in New Orleans, said in an interview that the cost of the most effective medications – which are not covered by Medicaid – means that many of her patients don’t have access to these treatments.

“We’re talking about $1,000 a month. And so there is no way they can afford [them]. I can prescribe phentermine [but] unless a patient has another indication, Medicaid will not pay for it,” she explained.

“I love hearing about all of the new developments. ... It’s interesting to hear, but we need to get insurance to pay so that I can actually prescribe,” Dr. Smith noted.

Dr. Apovian reports financial relationships with Xeno Biosciences, Cowen, Allergan, Novo Nordisk, Abbott Nutrition, and other companies.

CHICAGO – Recent research has changed at least one physician’s understanding of obesity and boosted her hope for fighting it.

Caroline Apovian, MD, codirector of the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, described some of the new insights about obesity she has gained during her talk at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“When I was a medical student a while back, I learned that fat tissue just sat there and stored fat,” she said. “Now we know it’s an endocrine organ.”

This tissue secretes hormones, such as leptin, and other factors that have an array of effects on the brain, pancreas, heart, liver, and muscles. Moreover, it has plasticity, with the ability to change, constantly adjusting our metabolism as nutrient supply and demand changes, she continued.

Obesity leads to a decline in this plasticity, leading to fibrosis and inflammation and other problems. These changes can further impair the function of adipose tissue, leading to metabolic disease. But the central role of adipose tissue, and its dynamic nature, presents an opportunity for treatment, Dr. Apovian said, during her talk.
 

Hints to why obesity has become more common

More than 42% of the U.S. population – “unbelievably,” Dr. Apovian said – is obese, meaning they have a BMI over 30, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s up by about 25% since 1960, although calories eaten hasn’t increased, and physical activity has increased somewhat, she said.

The root cause is still a bit of a mystery, but according to “good hints and clues” from animal models that are starting to be translated to the study of human obesity, “it has to do with epigenetics and how our brains and our bodies are perceiving the environment,” she noted, during her presentation.

“Our genes haven’t changed. Our environment has changed,” she said.

The industrialization of the food supply, the use of pesticides and preservatives, the dawn of fast food have all combined, most likely, to do “a number on our bodies,” Dr. Apovian said.

But not all hope is lost thanks to new research, Dr. Apovian suggested.
 

New treatments show promise for helping patients’ obesity

New research that has increased Dr. Apovian’s understanding of the sophisticated role of adipose tissue may be helpful for treating patients with obesity, offering more targets for intervention, she told the audience.

Some treatment avenues already identified have started producing results, Dr. Apovian noted.

Gastric bypass surgery typically leads to a loss of 25% of body weight, but is often shunned by patients, she said. “With such a great surgical procedure, we still only do 256,000 procedures and we have millions of Americans with a BMI over 30.”

Weight control with obsessive dieting, meal-planning and calorie-counting, “can be done, but it’s really hard,” Dr. Apovian noted.

More appealing therapies targeting hormones and appetite suppression have produced impressive results. Recently approved semaglutide produced 14% weight loss, compared with about 2% for placebo, she said.

Results just released for tirzepatide, a dual agonist of gut hormones GLP-1 and GIP, show a 22% total weight loss, compared with about 2% for placebo, with about 56% of patients losing more than 20% of their body weight, Dr. Apovian said.

Referencing studies finding that several hormones are altered during weight loss, she predicted that targeting multiple hormones with drug treatment will also be necessary for best results.

But, she noted, “we’re treating obesity now with one- or two-drug combos.”
 

Medication costs are too high for many patients

Isis Smith, MD, an internist at University Medical Center in New Orleans, said in an interview that the cost of the most effective medications – which are not covered by Medicaid – means that many of her patients don’t have access to these treatments.

“We’re talking about $1,000 a month. And so there is no way they can afford [them]. I can prescribe phentermine [but] unless a patient has another indication, Medicaid will not pay for it,” she explained.

“I love hearing about all of the new developments. ... It’s interesting to hear, but we need to get insurance to pay so that I can actually prescribe,” Dr. Smith noted.

Dr. Apovian reports financial relationships with Xeno Biosciences, Cowen, Allergan, Novo Nordisk, Abbott Nutrition, and other companies.

CHICAGO – Recent research has changed at least one physician’s understanding of obesity and boosted her hope for fighting it.

Caroline Apovian, MD, codirector of the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, described some of the new insights about obesity she has gained during her talk at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“When I was a medical student a while back, I learned that fat tissue just sat there and stored fat,” she said. “Now we know it’s an endocrine organ.”

This tissue secretes hormones, such as leptin, and other factors that have an array of effects on the brain, pancreas, heart, liver, and muscles. Moreover, it has plasticity, with the ability to change, constantly adjusting our metabolism as nutrient supply and demand changes, she continued.

Obesity leads to a decline in this plasticity, leading to fibrosis and inflammation and other problems. These changes can further impair the function of adipose tissue, leading to metabolic disease. But the central role of adipose tissue, and its dynamic nature, presents an opportunity for treatment, Dr. Apovian said, during her talk.
 

Hints to why obesity has become more common

More than 42% of the U.S. population – “unbelievably,” Dr. Apovian said – is obese, meaning they have a BMI over 30, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s up by about 25% since 1960, although calories eaten hasn’t increased, and physical activity has increased somewhat, she said.

The root cause is still a bit of a mystery, but according to “good hints and clues” from animal models that are starting to be translated to the study of human obesity, “it has to do with epigenetics and how our brains and our bodies are perceiving the environment,” she noted, during her presentation.

“Our genes haven’t changed. Our environment has changed,” she said.

The industrialization of the food supply, the use of pesticides and preservatives, the dawn of fast food have all combined, most likely, to do “a number on our bodies,” Dr. Apovian said.

But not all hope is lost thanks to new research, Dr. Apovian suggested.
 

New treatments show promise for helping patients’ obesity

New research that has increased Dr. Apovian’s understanding of the sophisticated role of adipose tissue may be helpful for treating patients with obesity, offering more targets for intervention, she told the audience.

Some treatment avenues already identified have started producing results, Dr. Apovian noted.

Gastric bypass surgery typically leads to a loss of 25% of body weight, but is often shunned by patients, she said. “With such a great surgical procedure, we still only do 256,000 procedures and we have millions of Americans with a BMI over 30.”

Weight control with obsessive dieting, meal-planning and calorie-counting, “can be done, but it’s really hard,” Dr. Apovian noted.

More appealing therapies targeting hormones and appetite suppression have produced impressive results. Recently approved semaglutide produced 14% weight loss, compared with about 2% for placebo, she said.

Results just released for tirzepatide, a dual agonist of gut hormones GLP-1 and GIP, show a 22% total weight loss, compared with about 2% for placebo, with about 56% of patients losing more than 20% of their body weight, Dr. Apovian said.

Referencing studies finding that several hormones are altered during weight loss, she predicted that targeting multiple hormones with drug treatment will also be necessary for best results.

But, she noted, “we’re treating obesity now with one- or two-drug combos.”
 

Medication costs are too high for many patients

Isis Smith, MD, an internist at University Medical Center in New Orleans, said in an interview that the cost of the most effective medications – which are not covered by Medicaid – means that many of her patients don’t have access to these treatments.

“We’re talking about $1,000 a month. And so there is no way they can afford [them]. I can prescribe phentermine [but] unless a patient has another indication, Medicaid will not pay for it,” she explained.

“I love hearing about all of the new developments. ... It’s interesting to hear, but we need to get insurance to pay so that I can actually prescribe,” Dr. Smith noted.

Dr. Apovian reports financial relationships with Xeno Biosciences, Cowen, Allergan, Novo Nordisk, Abbott Nutrition, and other companies.

Health officials are investigating at least 30 cases of severe hepatitis in children across 10 U.S. states. The Minnesota Department of Health received two reports of severe hepatitis, one in an infant and another in a 2-year-old, the Associated Press reported on April 30. One child was treated “several months ago” and required a liver transplant, according to the article. 

Worldwide cases surpass 200, including 34 cases in the United Kingdom, the U.K. Health Security Agency announced on April 29. Most cases have occurred in the United Kingdom, but there have been more than 55 probable and confirmed hepatitis cases in children in 12 countries in the European Union or the European Economic Area. Cases have also been identified in Asia, with both Japan and Singapore reporting one case each of acute hepatitis, Bloomberg reported. Additionally, three children in Indonesia died from acute hepatitis in April, but the total number of cases in that country was not available.

Although the total number of worldwide cases remains small, the severity of the cases – as well as their unexplained cause – have health officials on alert, said David Lee Thomas, MD, MPH, of the Viral Hepatitis Center at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. “There are some kids who would have died if not for liver transplants.”

In the United States, the only confirmed cases are in Alabama, where nine patients were admitted for severe hepatitis between October 2021 and February 2022. Beyond the two suspected cases in Minnesota, health officials are investigating at least 19 other potential cases in eight states, according to NBC News: Delaware (1), Georgia, Illinois (3), Louisiana (1), New York, North Carolina (2), Tennessee (6), and Wisconsin (4). (New York and Georgia did not specify the number of cases being investigated.)

Reported cases have occurred in patients aged between 1 month and 16 years old. Globally, at least 17 patients have needed liver transplants, according to a World Health Organization alert on April 23. While WHO officials said there has been at least one death globally linked to hepatitis, that does not include the three deaths in Indonesia. One death has also been reported in Wisconsin, but the state’s Department of Health Services did not confirm whether this death was included in the WHO announcement.

The cause of these severe hepatitis cases has yet to be identified, but these cases have tested negative for more common viruses that can cause hepatitis in children. There is no link between these cases and COVID-19 vaccination, according to WHO, because most affected children have not been vaccinated.

Adenovirus is a possible contributing factor in these cases, as many of the cases in Europe tested positive for the virus. In an analysis of the nine Alabama cases released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, adenovirus was detected in the blood samples of all nine children. Five of the nine children tested positive for adenovirus type 41, which is a common cause of acute gastroenteritis in children. While the six liver biopsies performed showed varying degrees of hepatitis, there were “no viral inclusions observed, no immunohistochemical evidence of adenovirus, or no viral particles identified by electron microscopy,” according to the report. None of the children tested positive for COVID-19 or had a documented history of previous COVID-19 infection.

“At this time, we believe that adenovirus may be the cause for these reported cases, but other potential environmental and situational factors are still being investigated,” the CDC said in a media statement. The CDC added that the report was specific to the nine Alabama cases, and that the agency is working to investigate other potential cases with state and local public health officials.

While the “growing consensus” among experts is that adenovirus could be behind these severe cases, there are many unanswered questions, Dr. Thomas added, such as why this strain of adenovirus causes such severe hepatitis, and why the liver biopsies do not show classic signs of viral infection. That information will come as investigations continue.

“From a provider point of view, if you have a child with an unexplained liver problem, report it to the CDC,” he advised. “Right now, we have to learn more about [these cases],” and that requires more research like the investigations in Alabama, he noted.

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

Health officials are investigating at least 30 cases of severe hepatitis in children across 10 U.S. states. The Minnesota Department of Health received two reports of severe hepatitis, one in an infant and another in a 2-year-old, the Associated Press reported on April 30. One child was treated “several months ago” and required a liver transplant, according to the article. 

Worldwide cases surpass 200, including 34 cases in the United Kingdom, the U.K. Health Security Agency announced on April 29. Most cases have occurred in the United Kingdom, but there have been more than 55 probable and confirmed hepatitis cases in children in 12 countries in the European Union or the European Economic Area. Cases have also been identified in Asia, with both Japan and Singapore reporting one case each of acute hepatitis, Bloomberg reported. Additionally, three children in Indonesia died from acute hepatitis in April, but the total number of cases in that country was not available.

Although the total number of worldwide cases remains small, the severity of the cases – as well as their unexplained cause – have health officials on alert, said David Lee Thomas, MD, MPH, of the Viral Hepatitis Center at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. “There are some kids who would have died if not for liver transplants.”

In the United States, the only confirmed cases are in Alabama, where nine patients were admitted for severe hepatitis between October 2021 and February 2022. Beyond the two suspected cases in Minnesota, health officials are investigating at least 19 other potential cases in eight states, according to NBC News: Delaware (1), Georgia, Illinois (3), Louisiana (1), New York, North Carolina (2), Tennessee (6), and Wisconsin (4). (New York and Georgia did not specify the number of cases being investigated.)

Reported cases have occurred in patients aged between 1 month and 16 years old. Globally, at least 17 patients have needed liver transplants, according to a World Health Organization alert on April 23. While WHO officials said there has been at least one death globally linked to hepatitis, that does not include the three deaths in Indonesia. One death has also been reported in Wisconsin, but the state’s Department of Health Services did not confirm whether this death was included in the WHO announcement.

The cause of these severe hepatitis cases has yet to be identified, but these cases have tested negative for more common viruses that can cause hepatitis in children. There is no link between these cases and COVID-19 vaccination, according to WHO, because most affected children have not been vaccinated.

Adenovirus is a possible contributing factor in these cases, as many of the cases in Europe tested positive for the virus. In an analysis of the nine Alabama cases released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, adenovirus was detected in the blood samples of all nine children. Five of the nine children tested positive for adenovirus type 41, which is a common cause of acute gastroenteritis in children. While the six liver biopsies performed showed varying degrees of hepatitis, there were “no viral inclusions observed, no immunohistochemical evidence of adenovirus, or no viral particles identified by electron microscopy,” according to the report. None of the children tested positive for COVID-19 or had a documented history of previous COVID-19 infection.

“At this time, we believe that adenovirus may be the cause for these reported cases, but other potential environmental and situational factors are still being investigated,” the CDC said in a media statement. The CDC added that the report was specific to the nine Alabama cases, and that the agency is working to investigate other potential cases with state and local public health officials.

While the “growing consensus” among experts is that adenovirus could be behind these severe cases, there are many unanswered questions, Dr. Thomas added, such as why this strain of adenovirus causes such severe hepatitis, and why the liver biopsies do not show classic signs of viral infection. That information will come as investigations continue.

“From a provider point of view, if you have a child with an unexplained liver problem, report it to the CDC,” he advised. “Right now, we have to learn more about [these cases],” and that requires more research like the investigations in Alabama, he noted.

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

Health officials are investigating at least 30 cases of severe hepatitis in children across 10 U.S. states. The Minnesota Department of Health received two reports of severe hepatitis, one in an infant and another in a 2-year-old, the Associated Press reported on April 30. One child was treated “several months ago” and required a liver transplant, according to the article. 

Worldwide cases surpass 200, including 34 cases in the United Kingdom, the U.K. Health Security Agency announced on April 29. Most cases have occurred in the United Kingdom, but there have been more than 55 probable and confirmed hepatitis cases in children in 12 countries in the European Union or the European Economic Area. Cases have also been identified in Asia, with both Japan and Singapore reporting one case each of acute hepatitis, Bloomberg reported. Additionally, three children in Indonesia died from acute hepatitis in April, but the total number of cases in that country was not available.

Although the total number of worldwide cases remains small, the severity of the cases – as well as their unexplained cause – have health officials on alert, said David Lee Thomas, MD, MPH, of the Viral Hepatitis Center at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. “There are some kids who would have died if not for liver transplants.”

In the United States, the only confirmed cases are in Alabama, where nine patients were admitted for severe hepatitis between October 2021 and February 2022. Beyond the two suspected cases in Minnesota, health officials are investigating at least 19 other potential cases in eight states, according to NBC News: Delaware (1), Georgia, Illinois (3), Louisiana (1), New York, North Carolina (2), Tennessee (6), and Wisconsin (4). (New York and Georgia did not specify the number of cases being investigated.)

Reported cases have occurred in patients aged between 1 month and 16 years old. Globally, at least 17 patients have needed liver transplants, according to a World Health Organization alert on April 23. While WHO officials said there has been at least one death globally linked to hepatitis, that does not include the three deaths in Indonesia. One death has also been reported in Wisconsin, but the state’s Department of Health Services did not confirm whether this death was included in the WHO announcement.

The cause of these severe hepatitis cases has yet to be identified, but these cases have tested negative for more common viruses that can cause hepatitis in children. There is no link between these cases and COVID-19 vaccination, according to WHO, because most affected children have not been vaccinated.

Adenovirus is a possible contributing factor in these cases, as many of the cases in Europe tested positive for the virus. In an analysis of the nine Alabama cases released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, adenovirus was detected in the blood samples of all nine children. Five of the nine children tested positive for adenovirus type 41, which is a common cause of acute gastroenteritis in children. While the six liver biopsies performed showed varying degrees of hepatitis, there were “no viral inclusions observed, no immunohistochemical evidence of adenovirus, or no viral particles identified by electron microscopy,” according to the report. None of the children tested positive for COVID-19 or had a documented history of previous COVID-19 infection.

“At this time, we believe that adenovirus may be the cause for these reported cases, but other potential environmental and situational factors are still being investigated,” the CDC said in a media statement. The CDC added that the report was specific to the nine Alabama cases, and that the agency is working to investigate other potential cases with state and local public health officials.

While the “growing consensus” among experts is that adenovirus could be behind these severe cases, there are many unanswered questions, Dr. Thomas added, such as why this strain of adenovirus causes such severe hepatitis, and why the liver biopsies do not show classic signs of viral infection. That information will come as investigations continue.

“From a provider point of view, if you have a child with an unexplained liver problem, report it to the CDC,” he advised. “Right now, we have to learn more about [these cases],” and that requires more research like the investigations in Alabama, he noted.

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

SAN DIEGO – Using a 1,064-nm Q-switched Nd:YAG laser with or without 1,550-nm nonablative fractional resurfacing is safe and effective for treatment of Nevus of Ota in Black patients with Fitzpatrick skin types V-VI, results from a small single-center study showed.

Nevus of Ota is a benign melanocytic lesion that presents as a unilateral blue-gray to blue-brown facial patch favoring the distribution of the first two branches of the trigeminal nerve. Among Asians, the prevalence of the condition among Asians is estimated to be between 0.03% and 1.113%, while the prevalence among Blacks population is estimated to be between 0.01% and 0.016%, Shelby L. Kubicki, MD, said during a clinical abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

“Most existing literature describes the characteristics and treatment of Nevus of Ota based on Asian patients with skin types I-IV,” said Dr. Kubicki, a third-year dermatology resident at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center/University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, both in Houston. “Special considerations are required when treating [Fitzpatrick skin types] V-VI, which is why it’s important to characterize these patients, to make sure they’re well represented in the literature.”

In what she said is the largest reported case series of its kind, Dr. Kubicki and colleagues identified eight Fitzpatrick skin type V or VI patients who underwent laser treatment for Nevus of Ota from 2016-2021. All were treated with the 1,064-nm Q‐switched Nd:YAG and on average, received 5.4 treatments at 2-10 month intervals. Fluence ranged from 1.8 to 2.4 J/cm², and total pulse count ranged from 536.8 to 831.1. Two of these patients were additionally treated with 1,550-nm nonablative fractional resurfacing with a mean of six treatments. Primary outcomes were based on improvement of before and after clinical photographs by three independent board-certified dermatologists, who used a 5-point visual analogue scale for grading.

The mean age of patients was 30.4 years and ranged from 9 months to 45 years. Six were females and two were males, two had Fitzpatrick skin type V, and six had Fitzpatrick skin type VI. Of the eight patients, six had blue-gray lesions, one patient had a dark brown lesion, and one patient had “a hybrid lesion that had blue-gray and brown discoloration,” Dr. Kubicki said.

After grading of the clinical photographs, patients demonstrated a mean improvement of 51%-75% at follow-up 5-56 weeks after treatment (a mean of 16.9 weeks). No long-term adverse events were encountered in either group, but three patients developed mild guttate hypopigmentation following laser treatment.

“Lesional color may contribute to outcome, and patients should be educated about the risk of guttate hypopigmentation,” Dr. Kubicki said. “More studies are needed to determine the optimal device and treatment settings in this population.”

In an interview at the meeting, one of the session moderators, Oge Onwudiwe, MD, a dermatologist who practices at AllPhases Dermatology in Alexandria, Va., said that, while the study results impressed her, she speculated that the patients may require more treatments in the future. “What to look out for is the risk of rebound,” Dr. Onwudiwe said. “Because Nevus of Ota is a hamartomatous lesion, it’s very hard to treat, and sometimes it will come back. It will be nice to see how long this treatment can last. If you can use a combination therapy and have ... cases where you’re only needing a touch-up every so often, that’s still a win.”

Another session moderator, Eliot Battle, MD, CEO of Cultura Dermatology and Laser Center in Washington, D.C., said that he wondered what histologic analysis following treatment might show, and if a biopsy after treatment would show “if we really got rid of the nevus, or if we are just cosmetically improving the appearance temporarily.”

Neither Dr. Kubicki nor Dr. Onwudiwe reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Battle disclosed that he conducts research for Cynosure. He has also received discounts from Cynosure, Cutera, Solta Medical, Lumenis, Be Inc., and Sciton.

SAN DIEGO – Using a 1,064-nm Q-switched Nd:YAG laser with or without 1,550-nm nonablative fractional resurfacing is safe and effective for treatment of Nevus of Ota in Black patients with Fitzpatrick skin types V-VI, results from a small single-center study showed.

Nevus of Ota is a benign melanocytic lesion that presents as a unilateral blue-gray to blue-brown facial patch favoring the distribution of the first two branches of the trigeminal nerve. Among Asians, the prevalence of the condition among Asians is estimated to be between 0.03% and 1.113%, while the prevalence among Blacks population is estimated to be between 0.01% and 0.016%, Shelby L. Kubicki, MD, said during a clinical abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

“Most existing literature describes the characteristics and treatment of Nevus of Ota based on Asian patients with skin types I-IV,” said Dr. Kubicki, a third-year dermatology resident at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center/University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, both in Houston. “Special considerations are required when treating [Fitzpatrick skin types] V-VI, which is why it’s important to characterize these patients, to make sure they’re well represented in the literature.”

In what she said is the largest reported case series of its kind, Dr. Kubicki and colleagues identified eight Fitzpatrick skin type V or VI patients who underwent laser treatment for Nevus of Ota from 2016-2021. All were treated with the 1,064-nm Q‐switched Nd:YAG and on average, received 5.4 treatments at 2-10 month intervals. Fluence ranged from 1.8 to 2.4 J/cm², and total pulse count ranged from 536.8 to 831.1. Two of these patients were additionally treated with 1,550-nm nonablative fractional resurfacing with a mean of six treatments. Primary outcomes were based on improvement of before and after clinical photographs by three independent board-certified dermatologists, who used a 5-point visual analogue scale for grading.

The mean age of patients was 30.4 years and ranged from 9 months to 45 years. Six were females and two were males, two had Fitzpatrick skin type V, and six had Fitzpatrick skin type VI. Of the eight patients, six had blue-gray lesions, one patient had a dark brown lesion, and one patient had “a hybrid lesion that had blue-gray and brown discoloration,” Dr. Kubicki said.

After grading of the clinical photographs, patients demonstrated a mean improvement of 51%-75% at follow-up 5-56 weeks after treatment (a mean of 16.9 weeks). No long-term adverse events were encountered in either group, but three patients developed mild guttate hypopigmentation following laser treatment.

“Lesional color may contribute to outcome, and patients should be educated about the risk of guttate hypopigmentation,” Dr. Kubicki said. “More studies are needed to determine the optimal device and treatment settings in this population.”

In an interview at the meeting, one of the session moderators, Oge Onwudiwe, MD, a dermatologist who practices at AllPhases Dermatology in Alexandria, Va., said that, while the study results impressed her, she speculated that the patients may require more treatments in the future. “What to look out for is the risk of rebound,” Dr. Onwudiwe said. “Because Nevus of Ota is a hamartomatous lesion, it’s very hard to treat, and sometimes it will come back. It will be nice to see how long this treatment can last. If you can use a combination therapy and have ... cases where you’re only needing a touch-up every so often, that’s still a win.”

Another session moderator, Eliot Battle, MD, CEO of Cultura Dermatology and Laser Center in Washington, D.C., said that he wondered what histologic analysis following treatment might show, and if a biopsy after treatment would show “if we really got rid of the nevus, or if we are just cosmetically improving the appearance temporarily.”

Neither Dr. Kubicki nor Dr. Onwudiwe reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Battle disclosed that he conducts research for Cynosure. He has also received discounts from Cynosure, Cutera, Solta Medical, Lumenis, Be Inc., and Sciton.

SAN DIEGO – Using a 1,064-nm Q-switched Nd:YAG laser with or without 1,550-nm nonablative fractional resurfacing is safe and effective for treatment of Nevus of Ota in Black patients with Fitzpatrick skin types V-VI, results from a small single-center study showed.

Nevus of Ota is a benign melanocytic lesion that presents as a unilateral blue-gray to blue-brown facial patch favoring the distribution of the first two branches of the trigeminal nerve. Among Asians, the prevalence of the condition among Asians is estimated to be between 0.03% and 1.113%, while the prevalence among Blacks population is estimated to be between 0.01% and 0.016%, Shelby L. Kubicki, MD, said during a clinical abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

“Most existing literature describes the characteristics and treatment of Nevus of Ota based on Asian patients with skin types I-IV,” said Dr. Kubicki, a third-year dermatology resident at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center/University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, both in Houston. “Special considerations are required when treating [Fitzpatrick skin types] V-VI, which is why it’s important to characterize these patients, to make sure they’re well represented in the literature.”

In what she said is the largest reported case series of its kind, Dr. Kubicki and colleagues identified eight Fitzpatrick skin type V or VI patients who underwent laser treatment for Nevus of Ota from 2016-2021. All were treated with the 1,064-nm Q‐switched Nd:YAG and on average, received 5.4 treatments at 2-10 month intervals. Fluence ranged from 1.8 to 2.4 J/cm², and total pulse count ranged from 536.8 to 831.1. Two of these patients were additionally treated with 1,550-nm nonablative fractional resurfacing with a mean of six treatments. Primary outcomes were based on improvement of before and after clinical photographs by three independent board-certified dermatologists, who used a 5-point visual analogue scale for grading.

The mean age of patients was 30.4 years and ranged from 9 months to 45 years. Six were females and two were males, two had Fitzpatrick skin type V, and six had Fitzpatrick skin type VI. Of the eight patients, six had blue-gray lesions, one patient had a dark brown lesion, and one patient had “a hybrid lesion that had blue-gray and brown discoloration,” Dr. Kubicki said.

After grading of the clinical photographs, patients demonstrated a mean improvement of 51%-75% at follow-up 5-56 weeks after treatment (a mean of 16.9 weeks). No long-term adverse events were encountered in either group, but three patients developed mild guttate hypopigmentation following laser treatment.

“Lesional color may contribute to outcome, and patients should be educated about the risk of guttate hypopigmentation,” Dr. Kubicki said. “More studies are needed to determine the optimal device and treatment settings in this population.”

In an interview at the meeting, one of the session moderators, Oge Onwudiwe, MD, a dermatologist who practices at AllPhases Dermatology in Alexandria, Va., said that, while the study results impressed her, she speculated that the patients may require more treatments in the future. “What to look out for is the risk of rebound,” Dr. Onwudiwe said. “Because Nevus of Ota is a hamartomatous lesion, it’s very hard to treat, and sometimes it will come back. It will be nice to see how long this treatment can last. If you can use a combination therapy and have ... cases where you’re only needing a touch-up every so often, that’s still a win.”

Another session moderator, Eliot Battle, MD, CEO of Cultura Dermatology and Laser Center in Washington, D.C., said that he wondered what histologic analysis following treatment might show, and if a biopsy after treatment would show “if we really got rid of the nevus, or if we are just cosmetically improving the appearance temporarily.”

Neither Dr. Kubicki nor Dr. Onwudiwe reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Battle disclosed that he conducts research for Cynosure. He has also received discounts from Cynosure, Cutera, Solta Medical, Lumenis, Be Inc., and Sciton.

The risk for dementia goes up in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), but some evidence suggests that risk can be blunted with therapies that restore sinus rhythm. But a new cohort study suggests that the treatment effect’s magnitude might depend on the rhythm control strategy. It hinted that AFib catheter ablation might be more effective than pharmacologic rhythm control alone at cutting the risk for dementia.

The case-matched study of more than 38,000 adults with AFib saw a 41% reduction (P < .0001) in risk for dementia among those who underwent catheter ablation after attempted rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD), compared with those managed with pharmacologic rhythm control therapy alone.

The observational study comprising 20 years of data comes with big limitations and can’t say for sure whether catheter ablation is better than AAD alone at cutting the dementia risk in AFib. But it and other evidence support the idea, which has yet to be explored in a randomized fashion.

In a secondary finding, the analysis showed a similar reduction in dementia risk from catheter ablation, compared with AAD, in women and in men by 40% and 45%, respectively (P < .0001 for both). The findings are particularly relevant “given the higher life-long risk of dementia among women and the lower likelihood that women will be offered ablation, which has been demonstrated repeatedly,” Emily P. Zeitler, MD, MHS, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said in an interview. “I think this is another reason to try to be more generous in offering ablation to women.”

Management of AFib certainly evolved in important ways from 2000 to 2021, the period covered by the study. But a sensitivity analysis based on data from 2010 to 2021 showed “no meaningful differences” in the results, said Dr. Zeitler, who is slated to present the findings at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society.

Dr. Zeitler acknowledged that the observational study, even with its propensity-matched ablation and AAD cohorts, can only hint at a preference for ablation over AAD for lowering risk for AFib-associated dementia. “We know there’s unmeasured and unfixable confounding between those two groups, so we see this really as hypothesis-generating.”

It was “a well-done analysis,” and the conclusion that the dementia risk was lower with catheter ablation is “absolutely correct,” but only as far as the study and its limitations allow, agreed David Conen, MD, MPH, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who is not a coauthor.

“Even with propensity matching, you can get rid of some sorts of confounding, but you can never get rid of all selection bias issues.” That, he said when interviewed, takes randomized trials.

Dr. Conen, who is studying cognitive decline in AFib as a SWISS-AF trial principal investigator, pointed to a secondary finding of the analysis as evidence for such confounding. He said the ablation group’s nearly 50% drop (P < .0001) in competing risk for death, compared with patients managed with AAD, isn’t plausible.

The finding “strongly suggests these people were healthier and that there’s some sort of selection bias. They were at lower risk of death, they were at lower risk of dementia, and they were probably also at lower risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, thrombosis, and cancer because they were just probably a little healthier than the others,” Dr. Conen said. The ablation and AAD groups “were two very different populations from the get-go.”

The analysis was based on U.S. insurance and Medicare claims data from AFib patients who either underwent catheter ablation after at least one AAD trial or filled prescriptions for at least two different antiarrhythmic agents in the year after AFib diagnosis. Patients with history of dementia, catheter or surgical AFib ablation, or a valve procedure were excluded.

The ablation and AAD-only groups each consisted of 19,066 patients after propensity matching, and the groups were balanced with respect to age, sex, type of insurance, CHA2DS2-VASc scores, and use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, oral anticoagulants, and antiplatelets.

The overall risk for dementia was 1.9% for the ablation group and 3.3% for AAD-only patients (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.67). Corresponding HRs by sex were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.46-0.66) for men and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.50-0.72) for women.

The competing risk for death was also significantly decreased in the ablation group (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.46-0.55).

Dr. Zeitler pointed to a randomized trial now in the early stages called Neurocognition and Greater Maintenance of Sinus Rhythm in Atrial Fibrillation, or NOGGIN-AF, which will explore relationships between rhythm control therapy and dementia in patients with AFib, whether catheter ablation or AAD can mitigate that risk, and whether either strategy works better than the other, among other goals.

“I’m optimistic,” she said, “and I think it’s going to add to the growing motivations to get patients ablated more quickly and more broadly.”

The analysis was funded by Biosense-Webster. Dr. Zeitler disclosed consulting for Biosense-Webster and Arena Pharmaceuticals (now Pfizer); fees for speaking from Medtronic; and receiving research support from Boston Scientific, Sanofi, and Biosense-Webster. Dr. Conen has previously reported receiving speaker fees from Servier Canada.

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

The risk for dementia goes up in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), but some evidence suggests that risk can be blunted with therapies that restore sinus rhythm. But a new cohort study suggests that the treatment effect’s magnitude might depend on the rhythm control strategy. It hinted that AFib catheter ablation might be more effective than pharmacologic rhythm control alone at cutting the risk for dementia.

The case-matched study of more than 38,000 adults with AFib saw a 41% reduction (P < .0001) in risk for dementia among those who underwent catheter ablation after attempted rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD), compared with those managed with pharmacologic rhythm control therapy alone.

The observational study comprising 20 years of data comes with big limitations and can’t say for sure whether catheter ablation is better than AAD alone at cutting the dementia risk in AFib. But it and other evidence support the idea, which has yet to be explored in a randomized fashion.

In a secondary finding, the analysis showed a similar reduction in dementia risk from catheter ablation, compared with AAD, in women and in men by 40% and 45%, respectively (P < .0001 for both). The findings are particularly relevant “given the higher life-long risk of dementia among women and the lower likelihood that women will be offered ablation, which has been demonstrated repeatedly,” Emily P. Zeitler, MD, MHS, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said in an interview. “I think this is another reason to try to be more generous in offering ablation to women.”

Management of AFib certainly evolved in important ways from 2000 to 2021, the period covered by the study. But a sensitivity analysis based on data from 2010 to 2021 showed “no meaningful differences” in the results, said Dr. Zeitler, who is slated to present the findings at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society.

Dr. Zeitler acknowledged that the observational study, even with its propensity-matched ablation and AAD cohorts, can only hint at a preference for ablation over AAD for lowering risk for AFib-associated dementia. “We know there’s unmeasured and unfixable confounding between those two groups, so we see this really as hypothesis-generating.”

It was “a well-done analysis,” and the conclusion that the dementia risk was lower with catheter ablation is “absolutely correct,” but only as far as the study and its limitations allow, agreed David Conen, MD, MPH, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who is not a coauthor.

“Even with propensity matching, you can get rid of some sorts of confounding, but you can never get rid of all selection bias issues.” That, he said when interviewed, takes randomized trials.

Dr. Conen, who is studying cognitive decline in AFib as a SWISS-AF trial principal investigator, pointed to a secondary finding of the analysis as evidence for such confounding. He said the ablation group’s nearly 50% drop (P < .0001) in competing risk for death, compared with patients managed with AAD, isn’t plausible.

The finding “strongly suggests these people were healthier and that there’s some sort of selection bias. They were at lower risk of death, they were at lower risk of dementia, and they were probably also at lower risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, thrombosis, and cancer because they were just probably a little healthier than the others,” Dr. Conen said. The ablation and AAD groups “were two very different populations from the get-go.”

The analysis was based on U.S. insurance and Medicare claims data from AFib patients who either underwent catheter ablation after at least one AAD trial or filled prescriptions for at least two different antiarrhythmic agents in the year after AFib diagnosis. Patients with history of dementia, catheter or surgical AFib ablation, or a valve procedure were excluded.

The ablation and AAD-only groups each consisted of 19,066 patients after propensity matching, and the groups were balanced with respect to age, sex, type of insurance, CHA2DS2-VASc scores, and use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, oral anticoagulants, and antiplatelets.

The overall risk for dementia was 1.9% for the ablation group and 3.3% for AAD-only patients (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.67). Corresponding HRs by sex were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.46-0.66) for men and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.50-0.72) for women.

The competing risk for death was also significantly decreased in the ablation group (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.46-0.55).

Dr. Zeitler pointed to a randomized trial now in the early stages called Neurocognition and Greater Maintenance of Sinus Rhythm in Atrial Fibrillation, or NOGGIN-AF, which will explore relationships between rhythm control therapy and dementia in patients with AFib, whether catheter ablation or AAD can mitigate that risk, and whether either strategy works better than the other, among other goals.

“I’m optimistic,” she said, “and I think it’s going to add to the growing motivations to get patients ablated more quickly and more broadly.”

The analysis was funded by Biosense-Webster. Dr. Zeitler disclosed consulting for Biosense-Webster and Arena Pharmaceuticals (now Pfizer); fees for speaking from Medtronic; and receiving research support from Boston Scientific, Sanofi, and Biosense-Webster. Dr. Conen has previously reported receiving speaker fees from Servier Canada.

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

The risk for dementia goes up in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), but some evidence suggests that risk can be blunted with therapies that restore sinus rhythm. But a new cohort study suggests that the treatment effect’s magnitude might depend on the rhythm control strategy. It hinted that AFib catheter ablation might be more effective than pharmacologic rhythm control alone at cutting the risk for dementia.

The case-matched study of more than 38,000 adults with AFib saw a 41% reduction (P < .0001) in risk for dementia among those who underwent catheter ablation after attempted rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD), compared with those managed with pharmacologic rhythm control therapy alone.

The observational study comprising 20 years of data comes with big limitations and can’t say for sure whether catheter ablation is better than AAD alone at cutting the dementia risk in AFib. But it and other evidence support the idea, which has yet to be explored in a randomized fashion.

In a secondary finding, the analysis showed a similar reduction in dementia risk from catheter ablation, compared with AAD, in women and in men by 40% and 45%, respectively (P < .0001 for both). The findings are particularly relevant “given the higher life-long risk of dementia among women and the lower likelihood that women will be offered ablation, which has been demonstrated repeatedly,” Emily P. Zeitler, MD, MHS, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said in an interview. “I think this is another reason to try to be more generous in offering ablation to women.”

Management of AFib certainly evolved in important ways from 2000 to 2021, the period covered by the study. But a sensitivity analysis based on data from 2010 to 2021 showed “no meaningful differences” in the results, said Dr. Zeitler, who is slated to present the findings at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society.

Dr. Zeitler acknowledged that the observational study, even with its propensity-matched ablation and AAD cohorts, can only hint at a preference for ablation over AAD for lowering risk for AFib-associated dementia. “We know there’s unmeasured and unfixable confounding between those two groups, so we see this really as hypothesis-generating.”

It was “a well-done analysis,” and the conclusion that the dementia risk was lower with catheter ablation is “absolutely correct,” but only as far as the study and its limitations allow, agreed David Conen, MD, MPH, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who is not a coauthor.

“Even with propensity matching, you can get rid of some sorts of confounding, but you can never get rid of all selection bias issues.” That, he said when interviewed, takes randomized trials.

Dr. Conen, who is studying cognitive decline in AFib as a SWISS-AF trial principal investigator, pointed to a secondary finding of the analysis as evidence for such confounding. He said the ablation group’s nearly 50% drop (P < .0001) in competing risk for death, compared with patients managed with AAD, isn’t plausible.

The finding “strongly suggests these people were healthier and that there’s some sort of selection bias. They were at lower risk of death, they were at lower risk of dementia, and they were probably also at lower risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, thrombosis, and cancer because they were just probably a little healthier than the others,” Dr. Conen said. The ablation and AAD groups “were two very different populations from the get-go.”

The analysis was based on U.S. insurance and Medicare claims data from AFib patients who either underwent catheter ablation after at least one AAD trial or filled prescriptions for at least two different antiarrhythmic agents in the year after AFib diagnosis. Patients with history of dementia, catheter or surgical AFib ablation, or a valve procedure were excluded.

The ablation and AAD-only groups each consisted of 19,066 patients after propensity matching, and the groups were balanced with respect to age, sex, type of insurance, CHA2DS2-VASc scores, and use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, oral anticoagulants, and antiplatelets.

The overall risk for dementia was 1.9% for the ablation group and 3.3% for AAD-only patients (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.67). Corresponding HRs by sex were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.46-0.66) for men and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.50-0.72) for women.

The competing risk for death was also significantly decreased in the ablation group (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.46-0.55).

Dr. Zeitler pointed to a randomized trial now in the early stages called Neurocognition and Greater Maintenance of Sinus Rhythm in Atrial Fibrillation, or NOGGIN-AF, which will explore relationships between rhythm control therapy and dementia in patients with AFib, whether catheter ablation or AAD can mitigate that risk, and whether either strategy works better than the other, among other goals.

“I’m optimistic,” she said, “and I think it’s going to add to the growing motivations to get patients ablated more quickly and more broadly.”

The analysis was funded by Biosense-Webster. Dr. Zeitler disclosed consulting for Biosense-Webster and Arena Pharmaceuticals (now Pfizer); fees for speaking from Medtronic; and receiving research support from Boston Scientific, Sanofi, and Biosense-Webster. Dr. Conen has previously reported receiving speaker fees from Servier Canada.

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