User login
No increase in overdose deaths with take-home methadone
new research shows.
Overdose deaths both with and without methadone rose sharply in March 2020, when the policy was announced. Of note, methadone-related deaths decreased in the following months, whereas deaths not involving methadone continued to increase.
“Coupled with research demonstrating improved patient satisfaction, treatment access, and engagement from these policies, these findings can inform decisions about permanently expanding take-home methadone,” the investigators wrote.
The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
An essential tool
Before the pandemic, patients seeking methadone treatment for OUD in the United States had to visit a federally certified opioid treatment clinic every day to receive the medication.
In response to the pandemic, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration instituted a new policy that allowed states to request exceptions to provide take-home methadone for up to 4 weeks for stable patients and up to 2 weeks for those who were less stable.
To determine the effect of this policy change on overdose death rates, researchers analyzed data on overdose deaths from January 2019 to August 2021.
Overall, the percentage of deaths involving methadone decreased from 4.5% in 2019 to 3.2% in 2021.
The investigators found a sharp increase in all overdose deaths in March 2020. Deaths that did not involve methadone increased by an average of 78.12 more each month before March 2020, increased by an average of 1,078.27 during March 2020, and then continued to increase by an average of 69.07 more each month after March 2020.
Overdose deaths involving methadone increased by a similar amount in March 2020, stabilized, and then decreased 0.05% per month.
Researchers attributed the increase in methadone-related deaths in March 2020 with the rise in overall drug overdose deaths driven by illicitly made fentanyl in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
A study published in JAMA Network Open in March 2022 showed that methadone and other medications to treat OUD are widely underutilized.
That research cited concern over misuse as a key reason for clinicians’ reluctance to prescribe the drugs. The researchers of the current study hope that these new findings lay some of these fears to rest.
“Treatment is an essential tool to stop the addiction and overdose crises, but it is vastly underused,” Nora Volkow, MD, coinvestigator, and director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a press release. “This evidence adds significant weight to the argument that effective treatment for substance use disorders should be offered in an accessible and practical way that works for people who need it.”
The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant disclosures related to the study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research shows.
Overdose deaths both with and without methadone rose sharply in March 2020, when the policy was announced. Of note, methadone-related deaths decreased in the following months, whereas deaths not involving methadone continued to increase.
“Coupled with research demonstrating improved patient satisfaction, treatment access, and engagement from these policies, these findings can inform decisions about permanently expanding take-home methadone,” the investigators wrote.
The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
An essential tool
Before the pandemic, patients seeking methadone treatment for OUD in the United States had to visit a federally certified opioid treatment clinic every day to receive the medication.
In response to the pandemic, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration instituted a new policy that allowed states to request exceptions to provide take-home methadone for up to 4 weeks for stable patients and up to 2 weeks for those who were less stable.
To determine the effect of this policy change on overdose death rates, researchers analyzed data on overdose deaths from January 2019 to August 2021.
Overall, the percentage of deaths involving methadone decreased from 4.5% in 2019 to 3.2% in 2021.
The investigators found a sharp increase in all overdose deaths in March 2020. Deaths that did not involve methadone increased by an average of 78.12 more each month before March 2020, increased by an average of 1,078.27 during March 2020, and then continued to increase by an average of 69.07 more each month after March 2020.
Overdose deaths involving methadone increased by a similar amount in March 2020, stabilized, and then decreased 0.05% per month.
Researchers attributed the increase in methadone-related deaths in March 2020 with the rise in overall drug overdose deaths driven by illicitly made fentanyl in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
A study published in JAMA Network Open in March 2022 showed that methadone and other medications to treat OUD are widely underutilized.
That research cited concern over misuse as a key reason for clinicians’ reluctance to prescribe the drugs. The researchers of the current study hope that these new findings lay some of these fears to rest.
“Treatment is an essential tool to stop the addiction and overdose crises, but it is vastly underused,” Nora Volkow, MD, coinvestigator, and director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a press release. “This evidence adds significant weight to the argument that effective treatment for substance use disorders should be offered in an accessible and practical way that works for people who need it.”
The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant disclosures related to the study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research shows.
Overdose deaths both with and without methadone rose sharply in March 2020, when the policy was announced. Of note, methadone-related deaths decreased in the following months, whereas deaths not involving methadone continued to increase.
“Coupled with research demonstrating improved patient satisfaction, treatment access, and engagement from these policies, these findings can inform decisions about permanently expanding take-home methadone,” the investigators wrote.
The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
An essential tool
Before the pandemic, patients seeking methadone treatment for OUD in the United States had to visit a federally certified opioid treatment clinic every day to receive the medication.
In response to the pandemic, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration instituted a new policy that allowed states to request exceptions to provide take-home methadone for up to 4 weeks for stable patients and up to 2 weeks for those who were less stable.
To determine the effect of this policy change on overdose death rates, researchers analyzed data on overdose deaths from January 2019 to August 2021.
Overall, the percentage of deaths involving methadone decreased from 4.5% in 2019 to 3.2% in 2021.
The investigators found a sharp increase in all overdose deaths in March 2020. Deaths that did not involve methadone increased by an average of 78.12 more each month before March 2020, increased by an average of 1,078.27 during March 2020, and then continued to increase by an average of 69.07 more each month after March 2020.
Overdose deaths involving methadone increased by a similar amount in March 2020, stabilized, and then decreased 0.05% per month.
Researchers attributed the increase in methadone-related deaths in March 2020 with the rise in overall drug overdose deaths driven by illicitly made fentanyl in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
A study published in JAMA Network Open in March 2022 showed that methadone and other medications to treat OUD are widely underutilized.
That research cited concern over misuse as a key reason for clinicians’ reluctance to prescribe the drugs. The researchers of the current study hope that these new findings lay some of these fears to rest.
“Treatment is an essential tool to stop the addiction and overdose crises, but it is vastly underused,” Nora Volkow, MD, coinvestigator, and director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a press release. “This evidence adds significant weight to the argument that effective treatment for substance use disorders should be offered in an accessible and practical way that works for people who need it.”
The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant disclosures related to the study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA PSYCHIATRY
Global data provide new insight into problem gambling
Across the globe few individuals at risk for gambling problems seek help for the issue, new research shows.
In the first study to examine global prevalence of help-seeking for problem gambling, the systematic review showed that
“Our findings suggest a considerable need for help among those experiencing problems related to their gambling,” Rimke Bijker, PhD, of the University of Auckland (New Zealand) and colleagues wrote.
The findings were published online in Addiction.
A public health concern
An increase in online gambling and stress and isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic led to experts sounding the alarm about gambling disorders. But despite its emergence as a public health concern, systematic investigation of help-seeking for problem gambling has been lacking, the investigators noted.
In their review, they included 24 studies conducted between 2010 and 2020 and involving a total of 188,234 individuals. More than 70% of the studies were conducted in Australia and New Zealand and 25% were conducted in the United States and Canada.
The overall prevalence of help-seeking for problem gambling among adults worldwide was 0.23% (95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.33).
Prevalence estimates were significantly higher in studies assessing lifetime help-seeking (0.50%; 95% CI, 0.35-0.71), compared with studies that examined current help-seeking (0.14%; 95% CI, 0.1-0.2, P < .001).
There were no significant differences in prevalence by gambling participation, region, type of help-seeking (professional only or mixed options), or year of data collection.
Gambling severity was measured by the Problem Gambling Severity Index as low risk, as moderate risk, or as problem gambling. Help-seeking was highest in the problem gambling and the moderate-risk groups, compared with the low-risk group (20.63%, 3.73%, and 0.27%, respectively; P < .001).
“A public health approach to gambling problems should be grounded in robust evidence on what people currently do to minimize and reduce their gambling harm and this should be inclusive of professional and nonprofessional support and self-help,” the investigators wrote.
Around 40% of individuals with problem gambling recover with or without professional oversight, they added.
Historically, gambling interventions have focused on those with more severe gambling problems. To truly address the issue, gambling reduction efforts should consider individuals with problems across the full continuum of risk, including those experiencing less severe problem gambling, the researchers wrote.
They added that those with more severe gambling issues “are likely to have comorbidities and may require more intensive interventions, guided by professionals,” such as general practitioners, psychiatrists, or psychologists.
Those with a less severe form “may prefer non-professional options and self-help strategies, which highlights the importance of information on such sources of help being promoted and easily accessible,” the investigators wrote.
No funding source for the study was reported. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Across the globe few individuals at risk for gambling problems seek help for the issue, new research shows.
In the first study to examine global prevalence of help-seeking for problem gambling, the systematic review showed that
“Our findings suggest a considerable need for help among those experiencing problems related to their gambling,” Rimke Bijker, PhD, of the University of Auckland (New Zealand) and colleagues wrote.
The findings were published online in Addiction.
A public health concern
An increase in online gambling and stress and isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic led to experts sounding the alarm about gambling disorders. But despite its emergence as a public health concern, systematic investigation of help-seeking for problem gambling has been lacking, the investigators noted.
In their review, they included 24 studies conducted between 2010 and 2020 and involving a total of 188,234 individuals. More than 70% of the studies were conducted in Australia and New Zealand and 25% were conducted in the United States and Canada.
The overall prevalence of help-seeking for problem gambling among adults worldwide was 0.23% (95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.33).
Prevalence estimates were significantly higher in studies assessing lifetime help-seeking (0.50%; 95% CI, 0.35-0.71), compared with studies that examined current help-seeking (0.14%; 95% CI, 0.1-0.2, P < .001).
There were no significant differences in prevalence by gambling participation, region, type of help-seeking (professional only or mixed options), or year of data collection.
Gambling severity was measured by the Problem Gambling Severity Index as low risk, as moderate risk, or as problem gambling. Help-seeking was highest in the problem gambling and the moderate-risk groups, compared with the low-risk group (20.63%, 3.73%, and 0.27%, respectively; P < .001).
“A public health approach to gambling problems should be grounded in robust evidence on what people currently do to minimize and reduce their gambling harm and this should be inclusive of professional and nonprofessional support and self-help,” the investigators wrote.
Around 40% of individuals with problem gambling recover with or without professional oversight, they added.
Historically, gambling interventions have focused on those with more severe gambling problems. To truly address the issue, gambling reduction efforts should consider individuals with problems across the full continuum of risk, including those experiencing less severe problem gambling, the researchers wrote.
They added that those with more severe gambling issues “are likely to have comorbidities and may require more intensive interventions, guided by professionals,” such as general practitioners, psychiatrists, or psychologists.
Those with a less severe form “may prefer non-professional options and self-help strategies, which highlights the importance of information on such sources of help being promoted and easily accessible,” the investigators wrote.
No funding source for the study was reported. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Across the globe few individuals at risk for gambling problems seek help for the issue, new research shows.
In the first study to examine global prevalence of help-seeking for problem gambling, the systematic review showed that
“Our findings suggest a considerable need for help among those experiencing problems related to their gambling,” Rimke Bijker, PhD, of the University of Auckland (New Zealand) and colleagues wrote.
The findings were published online in Addiction.
A public health concern
An increase in online gambling and stress and isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic led to experts sounding the alarm about gambling disorders. But despite its emergence as a public health concern, systematic investigation of help-seeking for problem gambling has been lacking, the investigators noted.
In their review, they included 24 studies conducted between 2010 and 2020 and involving a total of 188,234 individuals. More than 70% of the studies were conducted in Australia and New Zealand and 25% were conducted in the United States and Canada.
The overall prevalence of help-seeking for problem gambling among adults worldwide was 0.23% (95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.33).
Prevalence estimates were significantly higher in studies assessing lifetime help-seeking (0.50%; 95% CI, 0.35-0.71), compared with studies that examined current help-seeking (0.14%; 95% CI, 0.1-0.2, P < .001).
There were no significant differences in prevalence by gambling participation, region, type of help-seeking (professional only or mixed options), or year of data collection.
Gambling severity was measured by the Problem Gambling Severity Index as low risk, as moderate risk, or as problem gambling. Help-seeking was highest in the problem gambling and the moderate-risk groups, compared with the low-risk group (20.63%, 3.73%, and 0.27%, respectively; P < .001).
“A public health approach to gambling problems should be grounded in robust evidence on what people currently do to minimize and reduce their gambling harm and this should be inclusive of professional and nonprofessional support and self-help,” the investigators wrote.
Around 40% of individuals with problem gambling recover with or without professional oversight, they added.
Historically, gambling interventions have focused on those with more severe gambling problems. To truly address the issue, gambling reduction efforts should consider individuals with problems across the full continuum of risk, including those experiencing less severe problem gambling, the researchers wrote.
They added that those with more severe gambling issues “are likely to have comorbidities and may require more intensive interventions, guided by professionals,” such as general practitioners, psychiatrists, or psychologists.
Those with a less severe form “may prefer non-professional options and self-help strategies, which highlights the importance of information on such sources of help being promoted and easily accessible,” the investigators wrote.
No funding source for the study was reported. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ADDICTION
Telemental health linked with improvements in key outcomes
, new research suggests.
In a nationwide study, researchers drew on Medicare data from nearly 3,000 counties covering the period from 2000 to 2018. Results show that counties in which there was greater use of telemental health services reported higher increases of clinical visits and better follow-up after hospitalization among patients with bipolar 1 disorder and schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders.
In the study, “clinical visits” referred to both in-person and telemental health visits.
“These findings really support the idea that telemental health can be safe and effective and beneficial for in-person care for people with severe mental illness,” coinvestigator Haiden Huskamp, PhD, professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Continuing trend?
Past studies have pointed to a sharp increase in the use of telepsychiatry services for patients with SMI. As reported by this news organization, this is a trend some clinicians say is likely to continue after the pandemic.
Use of telemedicine during the pandemic received a boost by the temporary suspension of certain Medicare rules that restrict telehealth use. Debate continues at the federal and state levels on whether to make that suspension permanent. Dr. Huskamp said more information is needed about the efficacy and accessibility of telemental health.
To investigate, researchers used Medicare fee-for-service data from 118,170 patients in 2,916 counties. More than two-thirds of the patients were aged 65 years or younger.
During the study period, telemental health service increased from 0.03 visits per patient with SMI in 2010 to 0.19 visits per patient in 2018. This increase was broad, with the number of counties reporting high use of telemental health increasing from 2% in 2010 to 17% in 2018.
Compared with counties in which there was no telemental health services, those with high use were less densely populated and had fewer health care professionals and hospital beds.
The number of overall visits with a mental health professional increased slightly in high-use counties compared to no-use counties, from 4.65 visits in 2010 to 4.79 visits in 2018. The number of in-person visits during that period declined from 4.55 visits in 2010 to 3.73 visits in 2018, which suggests that the overall increase was due to higher use of telemental health.
In the high-use group, the number of patients who had at least four mental health care visits increased 8%, and the number of patients who had a follow-up visit within 30 days of a hospitalization increased 20.4%.
A ‘helpful option’
“Telemedicine doesn’t address the national shortage of providers, but it definitely helps in underserved areas [and] rural areas,” Dr. Huskamp said.
“We need more mental health providers and need to develop new models of care that can leverage the providers we have in the best way possible. This is at least a helpful option, especially when you’re thinking about the maldistribution of providers across the country,” she added.
The study results showed that there was no difference in medication adherence between low- and high-use counties.
There was greater contact with mental health care providers in counties with high use of telemental health, and patients in the high-use group were 7.6% more likely to be hospitalized within a year compared with their peers in counties that had no telemental health use.
“We did see modest increases in inpatient use in counties that shifted the most to telemental health services, but that’s not typically viewed as a measure of quality because it can mean so many different things,” Dr. Huskamp said.
For example, it could mean that counties with greater telemental health use did a better job of identifying and responding to patients’ need for acute care, she noted. It could also be a reflection of the loss of psychiatric inpatient care in low-use communities.
Another tool
Commenting on the findings, Robert Caudill, MD, director of Telemedicine and Information Technology Programs at the University of Louisville (Ky.), called the increase in hospitalization in high-use counties “surprising.” However, he noted it might be a reflection of the need to fine-tune telemental health for patients with SMI.
“I think that more time and experience with telehealth will further normalize the practice and help to narrow, if not close, the gap,” said Dr. Caudill, who was not involved with the research.
“There are so many side benefits to doing things via telehealth,” he added. “It is a simple matter of continuing to learn how to do those things better.”
A multidisciplinary approach that includes psychiatric care and case management is generally considered to be the gold standard in treating patients with the types of mental illness included in this study, Dr. Caudill said.
While some of that care can be delivered effectively via telemedicine, it is possible other aspects, such as case management, are better handled in person, he added.
“I don’t think it is the role of telehealth to make in-person care obsolete. It is simply a tool to be used when appropriate,” said Dr. Caudill, past chair of the American Telemedicine Association’s Telemental Health Special Interest Group.
“Surgeons did not abandon scalpels when laser surgery became possible,” he said.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Mental Health. Dr. Huskamp and Dr. Caudill report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests.
In a nationwide study, researchers drew on Medicare data from nearly 3,000 counties covering the period from 2000 to 2018. Results show that counties in which there was greater use of telemental health services reported higher increases of clinical visits and better follow-up after hospitalization among patients with bipolar 1 disorder and schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders.
In the study, “clinical visits” referred to both in-person and telemental health visits.
“These findings really support the idea that telemental health can be safe and effective and beneficial for in-person care for people with severe mental illness,” coinvestigator Haiden Huskamp, PhD, professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Continuing trend?
Past studies have pointed to a sharp increase in the use of telepsychiatry services for patients with SMI. As reported by this news organization, this is a trend some clinicians say is likely to continue after the pandemic.
Use of telemedicine during the pandemic received a boost by the temporary suspension of certain Medicare rules that restrict telehealth use. Debate continues at the federal and state levels on whether to make that suspension permanent. Dr. Huskamp said more information is needed about the efficacy and accessibility of telemental health.
To investigate, researchers used Medicare fee-for-service data from 118,170 patients in 2,916 counties. More than two-thirds of the patients were aged 65 years or younger.
During the study period, telemental health service increased from 0.03 visits per patient with SMI in 2010 to 0.19 visits per patient in 2018. This increase was broad, with the number of counties reporting high use of telemental health increasing from 2% in 2010 to 17% in 2018.
Compared with counties in which there was no telemental health services, those with high use were less densely populated and had fewer health care professionals and hospital beds.
The number of overall visits with a mental health professional increased slightly in high-use counties compared to no-use counties, from 4.65 visits in 2010 to 4.79 visits in 2018. The number of in-person visits during that period declined from 4.55 visits in 2010 to 3.73 visits in 2018, which suggests that the overall increase was due to higher use of telemental health.
In the high-use group, the number of patients who had at least four mental health care visits increased 8%, and the number of patients who had a follow-up visit within 30 days of a hospitalization increased 20.4%.
A ‘helpful option’
“Telemedicine doesn’t address the national shortage of providers, but it definitely helps in underserved areas [and] rural areas,” Dr. Huskamp said.
“We need more mental health providers and need to develop new models of care that can leverage the providers we have in the best way possible. This is at least a helpful option, especially when you’re thinking about the maldistribution of providers across the country,” she added.
The study results showed that there was no difference in medication adherence between low- and high-use counties.
There was greater contact with mental health care providers in counties with high use of telemental health, and patients in the high-use group were 7.6% more likely to be hospitalized within a year compared with their peers in counties that had no telemental health use.
“We did see modest increases in inpatient use in counties that shifted the most to telemental health services, but that’s not typically viewed as a measure of quality because it can mean so many different things,” Dr. Huskamp said.
For example, it could mean that counties with greater telemental health use did a better job of identifying and responding to patients’ need for acute care, she noted. It could also be a reflection of the loss of psychiatric inpatient care in low-use communities.
Another tool
Commenting on the findings, Robert Caudill, MD, director of Telemedicine and Information Technology Programs at the University of Louisville (Ky.), called the increase in hospitalization in high-use counties “surprising.” However, he noted it might be a reflection of the need to fine-tune telemental health for patients with SMI.
“I think that more time and experience with telehealth will further normalize the practice and help to narrow, if not close, the gap,” said Dr. Caudill, who was not involved with the research.
“There are so many side benefits to doing things via telehealth,” he added. “It is a simple matter of continuing to learn how to do those things better.”
A multidisciplinary approach that includes psychiatric care and case management is generally considered to be the gold standard in treating patients with the types of mental illness included in this study, Dr. Caudill said.
While some of that care can be delivered effectively via telemedicine, it is possible other aspects, such as case management, are better handled in person, he added.
“I don’t think it is the role of telehealth to make in-person care obsolete. It is simply a tool to be used when appropriate,” said Dr. Caudill, past chair of the American Telemedicine Association’s Telemental Health Special Interest Group.
“Surgeons did not abandon scalpels when laser surgery became possible,” he said.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Mental Health. Dr. Huskamp and Dr. Caudill report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests.
In a nationwide study, researchers drew on Medicare data from nearly 3,000 counties covering the period from 2000 to 2018. Results show that counties in which there was greater use of telemental health services reported higher increases of clinical visits and better follow-up after hospitalization among patients with bipolar 1 disorder and schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders.
In the study, “clinical visits” referred to both in-person and telemental health visits.
“These findings really support the idea that telemental health can be safe and effective and beneficial for in-person care for people with severe mental illness,” coinvestigator Haiden Huskamp, PhD, professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Continuing trend?
Past studies have pointed to a sharp increase in the use of telepsychiatry services for patients with SMI. As reported by this news organization, this is a trend some clinicians say is likely to continue after the pandemic.
Use of telemedicine during the pandemic received a boost by the temporary suspension of certain Medicare rules that restrict telehealth use. Debate continues at the federal and state levels on whether to make that suspension permanent. Dr. Huskamp said more information is needed about the efficacy and accessibility of telemental health.
To investigate, researchers used Medicare fee-for-service data from 118,170 patients in 2,916 counties. More than two-thirds of the patients were aged 65 years or younger.
During the study period, telemental health service increased from 0.03 visits per patient with SMI in 2010 to 0.19 visits per patient in 2018. This increase was broad, with the number of counties reporting high use of telemental health increasing from 2% in 2010 to 17% in 2018.
Compared with counties in which there was no telemental health services, those with high use were less densely populated and had fewer health care professionals and hospital beds.
The number of overall visits with a mental health professional increased slightly in high-use counties compared to no-use counties, from 4.65 visits in 2010 to 4.79 visits in 2018. The number of in-person visits during that period declined from 4.55 visits in 2010 to 3.73 visits in 2018, which suggests that the overall increase was due to higher use of telemental health.
In the high-use group, the number of patients who had at least four mental health care visits increased 8%, and the number of patients who had a follow-up visit within 30 days of a hospitalization increased 20.4%.
A ‘helpful option’
“Telemedicine doesn’t address the national shortage of providers, but it definitely helps in underserved areas [and] rural areas,” Dr. Huskamp said.
“We need more mental health providers and need to develop new models of care that can leverage the providers we have in the best way possible. This is at least a helpful option, especially when you’re thinking about the maldistribution of providers across the country,” she added.
The study results showed that there was no difference in medication adherence between low- and high-use counties.
There was greater contact with mental health care providers in counties with high use of telemental health, and patients in the high-use group were 7.6% more likely to be hospitalized within a year compared with their peers in counties that had no telemental health use.
“We did see modest increases in inpatient use in counties that shifted the most to telemental health services, but that’s not typically viewed as a measure of quality because it can mean so many different things,” Dr. Huskamp said.
For example, it could mean that counties with greater telemental health use did a better job of identifying and responding to patients’ need for acute care, she noted. It could also be a reflection of the loss of psychiatric inpatient care in low-use communities.
Another tool
Commenting on the findings, Robert Caudill, MD, director of Telemedicine and Information Technology Programs at the University of Louisville (Ky.), called the increase in hospitalization in high-use counties “surprising.” However, he noted it might be a reflection of the need to fine-tune telemental health for patients with SMI.
“I think that more time and experience with telehealth will further normalize the practice and help to narrow, if not close, the gap,” said Dr. Caudill, who was not involved with the research.
“There are so many side benefits to doing things via telehealth,” he added. “It is a simple matter of continuing to learn how to do those things better.”
A multidisciplinary approach that includes psychiatric care and case management is generally considered to be the gold standard in treating patients with the types of mental illness included in this study, Dr. Caudill said.
While some of that care can be delivered effectively via telemedicine, it is possible other aspects, such as case management, are better handled in person, he added.
“I don’t think it is the role of telehealth to make in-person care obsolete. It is simply a tool to be used when appropriate,” said Dr. Caudill, past chair of the American Telemedicine Association’s Telemental Health Special Interest Group.
“Surgeons did not abandon scalpels when laser surgery became possible,” he said.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Mental Health. Dr. Huskamp and Dr. Caudill report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
First-ever Huntington staging system may jump-start drug development for early-stage disease
Researchers liken the Huntington’s disease Integrated Staging System (HD-ISS) to the system currently used to stage cancer. It groups patients according to their underlying biological, clinical, and functional characteristics.
It also includes criteria to biologically define Huntington’s disease stages across the entire disease spectrum, from birth to death, which is something that has not been done before. For now, the HD-ISS is only intended for research, but it could one day be modified for use in the clinic, investigators wrote.
“This systematization is of critical importance to select the most appropriate target population for clinical trials and studies,” said co-investigator Cristina Sampaio, MD, chief medical officer at the CHDI Foundation, Princeton, N.J.
“By providing a methodology to precisely define cases early in the neurodegenerative process, the HD-ISS will be instrumental in conducting trials in the very early disease stages,” Dr. Sampaio added.
The position paper was published in the July issue of the Lancet Neurology.
New approach needed
There is no approved therapy to slow Huntington’s disease progression. Clinical trials currently enroll patients with demonstrable symptoms, which limits the ability to test therapeutics that could delay or prevent neurodegeneration.
Huntington’s disease is rare, occurring in about 2.7 per 100,000 individuals worldwide. It is caused by a mutation in the HTT gene involving a DNA segment known as a CAG trinucleotide repeat.
Currently, Huntington’s disease is diagnosed on the basis of clinical signs that emerge late in the disease course, an approach developed before the discovery of the HTT gene and the development of the genetic test for the CAG mutation.
The disease phase prior to diagnosis has been described as presymptomatic, premanifest, or prodromal. However, the three terms have varying definitions that make it difficult to compare study results across trials.
Because drug development had focused on the overt motor sign phase of the disease, there was no real need for an evidence-based staging system that classified disease phases from birth, the investigators noted.
“Now, the research community and regulators recognize that it is critical to conduct trials early in the disease when no signs or overt symptoms are measurable,” Dr. Sampaio said.
Defining disease stages
Work on the staging system was done through the Huntington’s Disease Regulatory Science Consortium, an international project begun in 2018 among biotech and pharma companies, academic institutions, and nonprofit research and advocacy organizations.
Overall, more than 50 clinicians and researchers were involved in developing the HD-ISS.
Using modeling data from four large observational studies that included patients with Huntington’s disease and control groups, researchers identified four different stages of Huntington’s disease:
- Stage 0: Begins at birth with identification of HTT gene mutations but no detectable pathologic changes.
- Stage 1: Begins when biomarker changes are detected via MRI by a volume decrease in six brain areas.
- Stage 2: Begins when clinical signs of Huntington’s disease are present, as determined through motor and cognitive assessments.
- Stage 3: Begins when functional decline is evident, with worsening on the Independence Scale and the Total Functional Capacity of the Unified Huntington’s Disease Rating Scale.
Applying the HD-ISS to clinical trials requires the collection of information routinely recorded in Huntington’s disease research, as well as some additional data, but researchers say its application is straightforward.
The HD-ISS uses a numerical staging system similar to that used in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s guidance for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and integrates the prodromal, presymptomatic, or premanifest phase of the disease. This distinguishes it from earlier classification systems.
The HD-ISS can be adapted if new Huntington’s disease biomarkers are identified.
“As research results are generated, this will further validate the HD-ISS and potentially lead to the development of a derivative, and possibly simplified, system for clinical practice,” Dr. Sampaio said.
The new system goes further than a more recent proposal from the Movement Disorder Society task force, which addresses earlier stages in Huntington’s disease but doesn’t consider objective biomarker data.
Question of timing
Commenting on the findings, Erin Furr-Stimming, MD, neurologist and director of the Huntington’s Disease Society of America Center of Excellence with McGovern Medical School, UTHealth, Houston, said targeting early-stage disease will be key.
“Similar to more common neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, there is a period of at least a decade when changes are occurring in the nervous system, prior to the manifestation of clinical symptoms and signs significant enough to warrant a clinical diagnosis,” Dr. Furr-Stimming said.
She noted that multiple trials of disease-modifying agents for Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and Huntington’s disease have failed for a multitude of reasons, “but one consistent question that is relevant to all these diseases is that of timing: Should we intervene and test these therapies earlier?
“The premanifest or prodromal period may be the ideal time to intervene with a disease-modifying therapy, prior to onset of any neurodegeneration,” Dr. Furr-Stimming said.
The CHDI Foundation provided financial support to the Critical Path Institute for the Huntington’s Disease Regulatory Science Consortium, including all working group efforts. Dr. Sampio is an employee of and receives salary from CHDI Management. She has also received consultancy honorariums (unrelated to HD) from Pfizer, Kyowa Kirin, vTv Therapeutics, GW Pharmaceuticals, Neuraly, Neuroderm, Green Valley Pharmaceuticals, and Pinteon Pharmaceuticals. A full list of disclosures for the other researchers is in the original article. Dr. Furr-Stimming reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers liken the Huntington’s disease Integrated Staging System (HD-ISS) to the system currently used to stage cancer. It groups patients according to their underlying biological, clinical, and functional characteristics.
It also includes criteria to biologically define Huntington’s disease stages across the entire disease spectrum, from birth to death, which is something that has not been done before. For now, the HD-ISS is only intended for research, but it could one day be modified for use in the clinic, investigators wrote.
“This systematization is of critical importance to select the most appropriate target population for clinical trials and studies,” said co-investigator Cristina Sampaio, MD, chief medical officer at the CHDI Foundation, Princeton, N.J.
“By providing a methodology to precisely define cases early in the neurodegenerative process, the HD-ISS will be instrumental in conducting trials in the very early disease stages,” Dr. Sampaio added.
The position paper was published in the July issue of the Lancet Neurology.
New approach needed
There is no approved therapy to slow Huntington’s disease progression. Clinical trials currently enroll patients with demonstrable symptoms, which limits the ability to test therapeutics that could delay or prevent neurodegeneration.
Huntington’s disease is rare, occurring in about 2.7 per 100,000 individuals worldwide. It is caused by a mutation in the HTT gene involving a DNA segment known as a CAG trinucleotide repeat.
Currently, Huntington’s disease is diagnosed on the basis of clinical signs that emerge late in the disease course, an approach developed before the discovery of the HTT gene and the development of the genetic test for the CAG mutation.
The disease phase prior to diagnosis has been described as presymptomatic, premanifest, or prodromal. However, the three terms have varying definitions that make it difficult to compare study results across trials.
Because drug development had focused on the overt motor sign phase of the disease, there was no real need for an evidence-based staging system that classified disease phases from birth, the investigators noted.
“Now, the research community and regulators recognize that it is critical to conduct trials early in the disease when no signs or overt symptoms are measurable,” Dr. Sampaio said.
Defining disease stages
Work on the staging system was done through the Huntington’s Disease Regulatory Science Consortium, an international project begun in 2018 among biotech and pharma companies, academic institutions, and nonprofit research and advocacy organizations.
Overall, more than 50 clinicians and researchers were involved in developing the HD-ISS.
Using modeling data from four large observational studies that included patients with Huntington’s disease and control groups, researchers identified four different stages of Huntington’s disease:
- Stage 0: Begins at birth with identification of HTT gene mutations but no detectable pathologic changes.
- Stage 1: Begins when biomarker changes are detected via MRI by a volume decrease in six brain areas.
- Stage 2: Begins when clinical signs of Huntington’s disease are present, as determined through motor and cognitive assessments.
- Stage 3: Begins when functional decline is evident, with worsening on the Independence Scale and the Total Functional Capacity of the Unified Huntington’s Disease Rating Scale.
Applying the HD-ISS to clinical trials requires the collection of information routinely recorded in Huntington’s disease research, as well as some additional data, but researchers say its application is straightforward.
The HD-ISS uses a numerical staging system similar to that used in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s guidance for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and integrates the prodromal, presymptomatic, or premanifest phase of the disease. This distinguishes it from earlier classification systems.
The HD-ISS can be adapted if new Huntington’s disease biomarkers are identified.
“As research results are generated, this will further validate the HD-ISS and potentially lead to the development of a derivative, and possibly simplified, system for clinical practice,” Dr. Sampaio said.
The new system goes further than a more recent proposal from the Movement Disorder Society task force, which addresses earlier stages in Huntington’s disease but doesn’t consider objective biomarker data.
Question of timing
Commenting on the findings, Erin Furr-Stimming, MD, neurologist and director of the Huntington’s Disease Society of America Center of Excellence with McGovern Medical School, UTHealth, Houston, said targeting early-stage disease will be key.
“Similar to more common neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, there is a period of at least a decade when changes are occurring in the nervous system, prior to the manifestation of clinical symptoms and signs significant enough to warrant a clinical diagnosis,” Dr. Furr-Stimming said.
She noted that multiple trials of disease-modifying agents for Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and Huntington’s disease have failed for a multitude of reasons, “but one consistent question that is relevant to all these diseases is that of timing: Should we intervene and test these therapies earlier?
“The premanifest or prodromal period may be the ideal time to intervene with a disease-modifying therapy, prior to onset of any neurodegeneration,” Dr. Furr-Stimming said.
The CHDI Foundation provided financial support to the Critical Path Institute for the Huntington’s Disease Regulatory Science Consortium, including all working group efforts. Dr. Sampio is an employee of and receives salary from CHDI Management. She has also received consultancy honorariums (unrelated to HD) from Pfizer, Kyowa Kirin, vTv Therapeutics, GW Pharmaceuticals, Neuraly, Neuroderm, Green Valley Pharmaceuticals, and Pinteon Pharmaceuticals. A full list of disclosures for the other researchers is in the original article. Dr. Furr-Stimming reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers liken the Huntington’s disease Integrated Staging System (HD-ISS) to the system currently used to stage cancer. It groups patients according to their underlying biological, clinical, and functional characteristics.
It also includes criteria to biologically define Huntington’s disease stages across the entire disease spectrum, from birth to death, which is something that has not been done before. For now, the HD-ISS is only intended for research, but it could one day be modified for use in the clinic, investigators wrote.
“This systematization is of critical importance to select the most appropriate target population for clinical trials and studies,” said co-investigator Cristina Sampaio, MD, chief medical officer at the CHDI Foundation, Princeton, N.J.
“By providing a methodology to precisely define cases early in the neurodegenerative process, the HD-ISS will be instrumental in conducting trials in the very early disease stages,” Dr. Sampaio added.
The position paper was published in the July issue of the Lancet Neurology.
New approach needed
There is no approved therapy to slow Huntington’s disease progression. Clinical trials currently enroll patients with demonstrable symptoms, which limits the ability to test therapeutics that could delay or prevent neurodegeneration.
Huntington’s disease is rare, occurring in about 2.7 per 100,000 individuals worldwide. It is caused by a mutation in the HTT gene involving a DNA segment known as a CAG trinucleotide repeat.
Currently, Huntington’s disease is diagnosed on the basis of clinical signs that emerge late in the disease course, an approach developed before the discovery of the HTT gene and the development of the genetic test for the CAG mutation.
The disease phase prior to diagnosis has been described as presymptomatic, premanifest, or prodromal. However, the three terms have varying definitions that make it difficult to compare study results across trials.
Because drug development had focused on the overt motor sign phase of the disease, there was no real need for an evidence-based staging system that classified disease phases from birth, the investigators noted.
“Now, the research community and regulators recognize that it is critical to conduct trials early in the disease when no signs or overt symptoms are measurable,” Dr. Sampaio said.
Defining disease stages
Work on the staging system was done through the Huntington’s Disease Regulatory Science Consortium, an international project begun in 2018 among biotech and pharma companies, academic institutions, and nonprofit research and advocacy organizations.
Overall, more than 50 clinicians and researchers were involved in developing the HD-ISS.
Using modeling data from four large observational studies that included patients with Huntington’s disease and control groups, researchers identified four different stages of Huntington’s disease:
- Stage 0: Begins at birth with identification of HTT gene mutations but no detectable pathologic changes.
- Stage 1: Begins when biomarker changes are detected via MRI by a volume decrease in six brain areas.
- Stage 2: Begins when clinical signs of Huntington’s disease are present, as determined through motor and cognitive assessments.
- Stage 3: Begins when functional decline is evident, with worsening on the Independence Scale and the Total Functional Capacity of the Unified Huntington’s Disease Rating Scale.
Applying the HD-ISS to clinical trials requires the collection of information routinely recorded in Huntington’s disease research, as well as some additional data, but researchers say its application is straightforward.
The HD-ISS uses a numerical staging system similar to that used in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s guidance for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and integrates the prodromal, presymptomatic, or premanifest phase of the disease. This distinguishes it from earlier classification systems.
The HD-ISS can be adapted if new Huntington’s disease biomarkers are identified.
“As research results are generated, this will further validate the HD-ISS and potentially lead to the development of a derivative, and possibly simplified, system for clinical practice,” Dr. Sampaio said.
The new system goes further than a more recent proposal from the Movement Disorder Society task force, which addresses earlier stages in Huntington’s disease but doesn’t consider objective biomarker data.
Question of timing
Commenting on the findings, Erin Furr-Stimming, MD, neurologist and director of the Huntington’s Disease Society of America Center of Excellence with McGovern Medical School, UTHealth, Houston, said targeting early-stage disease will be key.
“Similar to more common neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, there is a period of at least a decade when changes are occurring in the nervous system, prior to the manifestation of clinical symptoms and signs significant enough to warrant a clinical diagnosis,” Dr. Furr-Stimming said.
She noted that multiple trials of disease-modifying agents for Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and Huntington’s disease have failed for a multitude of reasons, “but one consistent question that is relevant to all these diseases is that of timing: Should we intervene and test these therapies earlier?
“The premanifest or prodromal period may be the ideal time to intervene with a disease-modifying therapy, prior to onset of any neurodegeneration,” Dr. Furr-Stimming said.
The CHDI Foundation provided financial support to the Critical Path Institute for the Huntington’s Disease Regulatory Science Consortium, including all working group efforts. Dr. Sampio is an employee of and receives salary from CHDI Management. She has also received consultancy honorariums (unrelated to HD) from Pfizer, Kyowa Kirin, vTv Therapeutics, GW Pharmaceuticals, Neuraly, Neuroderm, Green Valley Pharmaceuticals, and Pinteon Pharmaceuticals. A full list of disclosures for the other researchers is in the original article. Dr. Furr-Stimming reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET NEUROLOGY
Acupuncture deep needling technique points to greater tension headache relief
(TTH), new research suggests. Result of a randomized trial showed that though the majority of participants reported some relief from TTH after 8 weeks of acupuncture treatment, those who received needling at a depth of 12.5-20.0 mm reported the greatest reduction in headache frequency and severity.
At this depth, acupuncture promotes deqi sensation, a feeling of numbness, soreness, heaviness, or irritating pain in the needling site that is considered key to successful acupuncture treatment in traditional Chinese acupuncture theory.
“Our study showed that deqi sensation could enhance the effect of acupuncture in the treatment of chronic TTH, and the effect of acupuncture lasted at least 6 months when the treatment was stopped,” said co-investigator Ying Li, MD, PhD, The Third Hospital/Acupuncture and Tuina School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, China.
The findings were published online in Neurology.
Deqi sensation key
TTH is the most common type of headache, with a lifetime prevalence of up to 78% in some studies. The pain is often described as throbbing or a vice-like tightness on both sides of the head. TTH is considered chronic when it occurs at least 15 days a month.
Previous studies have suggested that acupuncture can offer relief from headache pain, but specific information on TTH, especially chronic TTH, has been lacking.
To address the issue, researchers designed a parallel-design, patient-and-assessor blinded randomized controlled trial with 218 individuals with a history of chronic TTH. All were untreated with prophylactic treatment in the previous 3 months.
The treatment group (n = 110) received 20 sessions of true acupuncture (TA) over 8 weeks. This included three sessions per week in the first 4 weeks and two sessions per week in the last 4 weeks. The depth of needling at each point ranged from 12.5 to 20 mm, which is needed to achieve deqi sensation.
The control group (n = 108) received superficial acupuncture (SA) on the same schedule as the TA group and at traditional acupuncture points. However, this was done at a maximum depth of 2 mm, which is not deep enough for deqi sensation.
At week 16, 68.2% of the participants receiving TA reported a greater than 50% reduction in monthly headache days, compared with 48.1% of those receiving SA (odds ratio, 2.65; P < .001).
Mean monthly headache days decreased from 20.38 days at baseline to 7.48 days at week 32 in the TA group versus 22.6 days at baseline to 11.94 days in the SA group.
Headache intensity and severity decreased in both groups, although those who achieved deqi sensation reported the most improvement.
Only four patients reported adverse effects, all of which were mild and none requiring treatment.
Patients in both groups reported some pain relief, suggesting that those who are not comfortable with deqi sensation may still benefit from superficial acupuncture, although to a lesser extent, Dr. Li said.
“We assume that the point-specific effect and placebo effect were combined to give the patients relief of headaches,” Dr. Li added. “Further, the effect of deqi sensation added more treatment effect. This might be explained by gate-control theory or other unknown mechanisms.”
Deeper understanding?
Commenting on the research, Jennifer Bickel, MD, a senior member of neurology at Moffit Cancer Center and professor of oncologic sciences at University of South Florida, Tampa, said that the study provides a deeper understanding of acupuncture’s efficacy for chronic TTH, which could aid clinicians who are unfamiliar with the therapy or when and how to refer treatment.
“This study provides a more descriptive outline for what type of acupuncture treatment and duration can be effective for patients so doctors can prep patients on what to expect and so doctors can better assess if patients received appropriate acupuncture for their headaches,” said Dr. Bickel, who was not involved with the research.
However, she noted that the acupuncture sites and techniques did not vary during the trial. Although that makes sense for a controlled study, it may not reflect real-world clinical practice, she added.
“The downside is that the study didn’t fully reflect that most acupuncturists in clinical practice would alter treatments during the 20 sessions based on the patient’s response and accompanying symptoms or comorbidities,” Dr. Bickel said.
The study also lacked information on medication overuse headache or patients’ prior history of TTH treatments.
“This could be helpful to understand which patients in clinical practice are most likely to benefit from treatment,” Dr. Bickel said.
Study authors received funding from the Department of Science and Technology of Sichuan Province and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Dr. Li, Dr. Bickel, and Dr. Vickers report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(TTH), new research suggests. Result of a randomized trial showed that though the majority of participants reported some relief from TTH after 8 weeks of acupuncture treatment, those who received needling at a depth of 12.5-20.0 mm reported the greatest reduction in headache frequency and severity.
At this depth, acupuncture promotes deqi sensation, a feeling of numbness, soreness, heaviness, or irritating pain in the needling site that is considered key to successful acupuncture treatment in traditional Chinese acupuncture theory.
“Our study showed that deqi sensation could enhance the effect of acupuncture in the treatment of chronic TTH, and the effect of acupuncture lasted at least 6 months when the treatment was stopped,” said co-investigator Ying Li, MD, PhD, The Third Hospital/Acupuncture and Tuina School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, China.
The findings were published online in Neurology.
Deqi sensation key
TTH is the most common type of headache, with a lifetime prevalence of up to 78% in some studies. The pain is often described as throbbing or a vice-like tightness on both sides of the head. TTH is considered chronic when it occurs at least 15 days a month.
Previous studies have suggested that acupuncture can offer relief from headache pain, but specific information on TTH, especially chronic TTH, has been lacking.
To address the issue, researchers designed a parallel-design, patient-and-assessor blinded randomized controlled trial with 218 individuals with a history of chronic TTH. All were untreated with prophylactic treatment in the previous 3 months.
The treatment group (n = 110) received 20 sessions of true acupuncture (TA) over 8 weeks. This included three sessions per week in the first 4 weeks and two sessions per week in the last 4 weeks. The depth of needling at each point ranged from 12.5 to 20 mm, which is needed to achieve deqi sensation.
The control group (n = 108) received superficial acupuncture (SA) on the same schedule as the TA group and at traditional acupuncture points. However, this was done at a maximum depth of 2 mm, which is not deep enough for deqi sensation.
At week 16, 68.2% of the participants receiving TA reported a greater than 50% reduction in monthly headache days, compared with 48.1% of those receiving SA (odds ratio, 2.65; P < .001).
Mean monthly headache days decreased from 20.38 days at baseline to 7.48 days at week 32 in the TA group versus 22.6 days at baseline to 11.94 days in the SA group.
Headache intensity and severity decreased in both groups, although those who achieved deqi sensation reported the most improvement.
Only four patients reported adverse effects, all of which were mild and none requiring treatment.
Patients in both groups reported some pain relief, suggesting that those who are not comfortable with deqi sensation may still benefit from superficial acupuncture, although to a lesser extent, Dr. Li said.
“We assume that the point-specific effect and placebo effect were combined to give the patients relief of headaches,” Dr. Li added. “Further, the effect of deqi sensation added more treatment effect. This might be explained by gate-control theory or other unknown mechanisms.”
Deeper understanding?
Commenting on the research, Jennifer Bickel, MD, a senior member of neurology at Moffit Cancer Center and professor of oncologic sciences at University of South Florida, Tampa, said that the study provides a deeper understanding of acupuncture’s efficacy for chronic TTH, which could aid clinicians who are unfamiliar with the therapy or when and how to refer treatment.
“This study provides a more descriptive outline for what type of acupuncture treatment and duration can be effective for patients so doctors can prep patients on what to expect and so doctors can better assess if patients received appropriate acupuncture for their headaches,” said Dr. Bickel, who was not involved with the research.
However, she noted that the acupuncture sites and techniques did not vary during the trial. Although that makes sense for a controlled study, it may not reflect real-world clinical practice, she added.
“The downside is that the study didn’t fully reflect that most acupuncturists in clinical practice would alter treatments during the 20 sessions based on the patient’s response and accompanying symptoms or comorbidities,” Dr. Bickel said.
The study also lacked information on medication overuse headache or patients’ prior history of TTH treatments.
“This could be helpful to understand which patients in clinical practice are most likely to benefit from treatment,” Dr. Bickel said.
Study authors received funding from the Department of Science and Technology of Sichuan Province and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Dr. Li, Dr. Bickel, and Dr. Vickers report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(TTH), new research suggests. Result of a randomized trial showed that though the majority of participants reported some relief from TTH after 8 weeks of acupuncture treatment, those who received needling at a depth of 12.5-20.0 mm reported the greatest reduction in headache frequency and severity.
At this depth, acupuncture promotes deqi sensation, a feeling of numbness, soreness, heaviness, or irritating pain in the needling site that is considered key to successful acupuncture treatment in traditional Chinese acupuncture theory.
“Our study showed that deqi sensation could enhance the effect of acupuncture in the treatment of chronic TTH, and the effect of acupuncture lasted at least 6 months when the treatment was stopped,” said co-investigator Ying Li, MD, PhD, The Third Hospital/Acupuncture and Tuina School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, China.
The findings were published online in Neurology.
Deqi sensation key
TTH is the most common type of headache, with a lifetime prevalence of up to 78% in some studies. The pain is often described as throbbing or a vice-like tightness on both sides of the head. TTH is considered chronic when it occurs at least 15 days a month.
Previous studies have suggested that acupuncture can offer relief from headache pain, but specific information on TTH, especially chronic TTH, has been lacking.
To address the issue, researchers designed a parallel-design, patient-and-assessor blinded randomized controlled trial with 218 individuals with a history of chronic TTH. All were untreated with prophylactic treatment in the previous 3 months.
The treatment group (n = 110) received 20 sessions of true acupuncture (TA) over 8 weeks. This included three sessions per week in the first 4 weeks and two sessions per week in the last 4 weeks. The depth of needling at each point ranged from 12.5 to 20 mm, which is needed to achieve deqi sensation.
The control group (n = 108) received superficial acupuncture (SA) on the same schedule as the TA group and at traditional acupuncture points. However, this was done at a maximum depth of 2 mm, which is not deep enough for deqi sensation.
At week 16, 68.2% of the participants receiving TA reported a greater than 50% reduction in monthly headache days, compared with 48.1% of those receiving SA (odds ratio, 2.65; P < .001).
Mean monthly headache days decreased from 20.38 days at baseline to 7.48 days at week 32 in the TA group versus 22.6 days at baseline to 11.94 days in the SA group.
Headache intensity and severity decreased in both groups, although those who achieved deqi sensation reported the most improvement.
Only four patients reported adverse effects, all of which were mild and none requiring treatment.
Patients in both groups reported some pain relief, suggesting that those who are not comfortable with deqi sensation may still benefit from superficial acupuncture, although to a lesser extent, Dr. Li said.
“We assume that the point-specific effect and placebo effect were combined to give the patients relief of headaches,” Dr. Li added. “Further, the effect of deqi sensation added more treatment effect. This might be explained by gate-control theory or other unknown mechanisms.”
Deeper understanding?
Commenting on the research, Jennifer Bickel, MD, a senior member of neurology at Moffit Cancer Center and professor of oncologic sciences at University of South Florida, Tampa, said that the study provides a deeper understanding of acupuncture’s efficacy for chronic TTH, which could aid clinicians who are unfamiliar with the therapy or when and how to refer treatment.
“This study provides a more descriptive outline for what type of acupuncture treatment and duration can be effective for patients so doctors can prep patients on what to expect and so doctors can better assess if patients received appropriate acupuncture for their headaches,” said Dr. Bickel, who was not involved with the research.
However, she noted that the acupuncture sites and techniques did not vary during the trial. Although that makes sense for a controlled study, it may not reflect real-world clinical practice, she added.
“The downside is that the study didn’t fully reflect that most acupuncturists in clinical practice would alter treatments during the 20 sessions based on the patient’s response and accompanying symptoms or comorbidities,” Dr. Bickel said.
The study also lacked information on medication overuse headache or patients’ prior history of TTH treatments.
“This could be helpful to understand which patients in clinical practice are most likely to benefit from treatment,” Dr. Bickel said.
Study authors received funding from the Department of Science and Technology of Sichuan Province and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Dr. Li, Dr. Bickel, and Dr. Vickers report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEUROLOGY
FDA panel rejects pimavanserin for Alzheimer’s psychosis
In a 9-3 vote, the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee (PDAC) found that the drug’s manufacturer failed to offer convincing evidence of its efficacy in patients with ADP.
The June 17 rejection was the second rejection in as many years for a new indication for pimavanserin, which was approved in 2016 for Parkinson’s disease psychosis (PDP).
In April 2021, the FDA denied Acadia’s supplemental new drug application to expand the drug’s indication to include the treatment of all dementia-related psychosis, regardless of the underlying cause of dementia, citing issues with two studies the company presented as evidence of efficacy.
For the current application, Acadia submitted some new analysis of those studies but limited its application to ADP, which affects up to 30% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and currently has no approved treatment.
Committee members who opposed the application were moved by testimony from caregivers and clinicians who treat patients with ADP but ultimately decided the evidence offered by Acadia once again failed to meet the threshold needed to demonstrate efficacy for an expanded indication.
“Sometimes I struggle with a decision on an advisory committee, but not today,” Dean Follmann, PhD, assistant director for biostatistics, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, Md., said of his “no” vote.
Lack of efficacy
Pimavanserin is a selective serotonin inverse agonist and antagonist preferentially targeting 5-HT2A receptors, which are thought to play an important role in psychosis, schizophrenia, depression, and other neuropsychiatric disorders.
When it rejected Acadia’s original, broader application for pimavanserin for all dementia-related psychosis, the FDA found that the HARMONY phase 3 trial, previously covered by this news organization, was underpowered to assess efficacy in specific dementia patient subgroups and lacked statistical significance of efficacy in patients with AD. In addition, it noted that overall findings appeared to be driven by results in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, a condition already covered by the approved indication.
The FDA found that the second study, referred to in the June 17 hearing as Study 019, which was also previously reported by this news organization, was not “an adequate and well-controlled study.”
Specifically, the agency raised concerns about “protocol deviations,” such as the inclusion of patients who lacked clear documentation that psychotic symptoms developed after an AD diagnosis had been established and patients who received exclusionary medications at the time of randomization.
Discussions between Acadia and the FDA continued over the past year, with the company submitting new analyses and responses. An FDA briefing document published in advance of the committee meeting seemed to suggest the agency was satisfied with Acadia’s response.
Lack of diversity
The advisory committee disagreed, pointing to the same concerns raised last year. Members raised concerns about patient diversity in the HARMONY trial, which included an almost entirely White and mostly male study population.
In addition, although the findings at 26 weeks did demonstrate a marked improvement in psychosis symptoms overall, committee members noted that, again, those findings were largely driven by efficacy in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, for which the drug is already approved.
When discussing the phase 2 Study 019, the committee noted that while the study met the primary outcome of improvement in psychosis at 6 weeks, those positive responses were not found at any other timepoint in the 12-week study.
“While it might have had a positive numerical effect in the study, the evidence is really not there to support it,” Dr. Follmann said.
Dr. Follmann and other committee members called for additional trials that focus on patients with Alzheimer’s disease, have a longer follow-up, and include more gender and racial diversity in the study population. They also called for more information about any off-label use of pimavanserin for ADP since it was approved for PDP in 2016.
An unmet need
Most individuals who testified during the public comment period pleaded with the committee to vote in favor of the new indication, sharing stories of family members and patients with ADP.
“I have been caring for and studying patients with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias for more than 30 years, and I can tell you very simply that if left untreated, psychosis has significant and sometimes devastating consequences for our patients,” said Pierre Tariot, MD, director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and a research professor of psychiatry at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, and an investigator on the HARMONY trial.
Those on the committee who voted against the application were quick to agree that lack of an approved treatment for ADP presents a hardship.
“I’m a neurologist who has cared for patients for more than 20 years,” said Madhav R. Thambisetty, MD, PhD, senior investigator for the National Institute on Aging and an adjunct professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “I recognize the unmet need in the field, I just think that the unmet need should not be a justification to cut corners.”
The committee did not focus on drug safety or unmet need in its deliberations, although information on both were presented during the meeting.
Commenting on his “no” vote, PDAC member Walter S. Dunn, MD, PhD, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of Interventional Psychiatry Service at West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, said he hopes that the FDA will consider those issues more broadly as they complete their review.
“The questions before the committee have been narrow and precise, so I trust the agency will take a broader approach in their final decision about approval,” Dr. Dunn said.
Commenting on the decision, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the news disappointing, “but while the unmet need for a treatment for ADP is clear, it is vital that approved treatments meet stringent safety and efficacy criteria so we can offer patients medications with clear benefits.”
The FDA will make its final decision by August 4.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a 9-3 vote, the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee (PDAC) found that the drug’s manufacturer failed to offer convincing evidence of its efficacy in patients with ADP.
The June 17 rejection was the second rejection in as many years for a new indication for pimavanserin, which was approved in 2016 for Parkinson’s disease psychosis (PDP).
In April 2021, the FDA denied Acadia’s supplemental new drug application to expand the drug’s indication to include the treatment of all dementia-related psychosis, regardless of the underlying cause of dementia, citing issues with two studies the company presented as evidence of efficacy.
For the current application, Acadia submitted some new analysis of those studies but limited its application to ADP, which affects up to 30% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and currently has no approved treatment.
Committee members who opposed the application were moved by testimony from caregivers and clinicians who treat patients with ADP but ultimately decided the evidence offered by Acadia once again failed to meet the threshold needed to demonstrate efficacy for an expanded indication.
“Sometimes I struggle with a decision on an advisory committee, but not today,” Dean Follmann, PhD, assistant director for biostatistics, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, Md., said of his “no” vote.
Lack of efficacy
Pimavanserin is a selective serotonin inverse agonist and antagonist preferentially targeting 5-HT2A receptors, which are thought to play an important role in psychosis, schizophrenia, depression, and other neuropsychiatric disorders.
When it rejected Acadia’s original, broader application for pimavanserin for all dementia-related psychosis, the FDA found that the HARMONY phase 3 trial, previously covered by this news organization, was underpowered to assess efficacy in specific dementia patient subgroups and lacked statistical significance of efficacy in patients with AD. In addition, it noted that overall findings appeared to be driven by results in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, a condition already covered by the approved indication.
The FDA found that the second study, referred to in the June 17 hearing as Study 019, which was also previously reported by this news organization, was not “an adequate and well-controlled study.”
Specifically, the agency raised concerns about “protocol deviations,” such as the inclusion of patients who lacked clear documentation that psychotic symptoms developed after an AD diagnosis had been established and patients who received exclusionary medications at the time of randomization.
Discussions between Acadia and the FDA continued over the past year, with the company submitting new analyses and responses. An FDA briefing document published in advance of the committee meeting seemed to suggest the agency was satisfied with Acadia’s response.
Lack of diversity
The advisory committee disagreed, pointing to the same concerns raised last year. Members raised concerns about patient diversity in the HARMONY trial, which included an almost entirely White and mostly male study population.
In addition, although the findings at 26 weeks did demonstrate a marked improvement in psychosis symptoms overall, committee members noted that, again, those findings were largely driven by efficacy in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, for which the drug is already approved.
When discussing the phase 2 Study 019, the committee noted that while the study met the primary outcome of improvement in psychosis at 6 weeks, those positive responses were not found at any other timepoint in the 12-week study.
“While it might have had a positive numerical effect in the study, the evidence is really not there to support it,” Dr. Follmann said.
Dr. Follmann and other committee members called for additional trials that focus on patients with Alzheimer’s disease, have a longer follow-up, and include more gender and racial diversity in the study population. They also called for more information about any off-label use of pimavanserin for ADP since it was approved for PDP in 2016.
An unmet need
Most individuals who testified during the public comment period pleaded with the committee to vote in favor of the new indication, sharing stories of family members and patients with ADP.
“I have been caring for and studying patients with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias for more than 30 years, and I can tell you very simply that if left untreated, psychosis has significant and sometimes devastating consequences for our patients,” said Pierre Tariot, MD, director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and a research professor of psychiatry at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, and an investigator on the HARMONY trial.
Those on the committee who voted against the application were quick to agree that lack of an approved treatment for ADP presents a hardship.
“I’m a neurologist who has cared for patients for more than 20 years,” said Madhav R. Thambisetty, MD, PhD, senior investigator for the National Institute on Aging and an adjunct professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “I recognize the unmet need in the field, I just think that the unmet need should not be a justification to cut corners.”
The committee did not focus on drug safety or unmet need in its deliberations, although information on both were presented during the meeting.
Commenting on his “no” vote, PDAC member Walter S. Dunn, MD, PhD, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of Interventional Psychiatry Service at West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, said he hopes that the FDA will consider those issues more broadly as they complete their review.
“The questions before the committee have been narrow and precise, so I trust the agency will take a broader approach in their final decision about approval,” Dr. Dunn said.
Commenting on the decision, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the news disappointing, “but while the unmet need for a treatment for ADP is clear, it is vital that approved treatments meet stringent safety and efficacy criteria so we can offer patients medications with clear benefits.”
The FDA will make its final decision by August 4.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a 9-3 vote, the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee (PDAC) found that the drug’s manufacturer failed to offer convincing evidence of its efficacy in patients with ADP.
The June 17 rejection was the second rejection in as many years for a new indication for pimavanserin, which was approved in 2016 for Parkinson’s disease psychosis (PDP).
In April 2021, the FDA denied Acadia’s supplemental new drug application to expand the drug’s indication to include the treatment of all dementia-related psychosis, regardless of the underlying cause of dementia, citing issues with two studies the company presented as evidence of efficacy.
For the current application, Acadia submitted some new analysis of those studies but limited its application to ADP, which affects up to 30% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and currently has no approved treatment.
Committee members who opposed the application were moved by testimony from caregivers and clinicians who treat patients with ADP but ultimately decided the evidence offered by Acadia once again failed to meet the threshold needed to demonstrate efficacy for an expanded indication.
“Sometimes I struggle with a decision on an advisory committee, but not today,” Dean Follmann, PhD, assistant director for biostatistics, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, Md., said of his “no” vote.
Lack of efficacy
Pimavanserin is a selective serotonin inverse agonist and antagonist preferentially targeting 5-HT2A receptors, which are thought to play an important role in psychosis, schizophrenia, depression, and other neuropsychiatric disorders.
When it rejected Acadia’s original, broader application for pimavanserin for all dementia-related psychosis, the FDA found that the HARMONY phase 3 trial, previously covered by this news organization, was underpowered to assess efficacy in specific dementia patient subgroups and lacked statistical significance of efficacy in patients with AD. In addition, it noted that overall findings appeared to be driven by results in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, a condition already covered by the approved indication.
The FDA found that the second study, referred to in the June 17 hearing as Study 019, which was also previously reported by this news organization, was not “an adequate and well-controlled study.”
Specifically, the agency raised concerns about “protocol deviations,” such as the inclusion of patients who lacked clear documentation that psychotic symptoms developed after an AD diagnosis had been established and patients who received exclusionary medications at the time of randomization.
Discussions between Acadia and the FDA continued over the past year, with the company submitting new analyses and responses. An FDA briefing document published in advance of the committee meeting seemed to suggest the agency was satisfied with Acadia’s response.
Lack of diversity
The advisory committee disagreed, pointing to the same concerns raised last year. Members raised concerns about patient diversity in the HARMONY trial, which included an almost entirely White and mostly male study population.
In addition, although the findings at 26 weeks did demonstrate a marked improvement in psychosis symptoms overall, committee members noted that, again, those findings were largely driven by efficacy in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, for which the drug is already approved.
When discussing the phase 2 Study 019, the committee noted that while the study met the primary outcome of improvement in psychosis at 6 weeks, those positive responses were not found at any other timepoint in the 12-week study.
“While it might have had a positive numerical effect in the study, the evidence is really not there to support it,” Dr. Follmann said.
Dr. Follmann and other committee members called for additional trials that focus on patients with Alzheimer’s disease, have a longer follow-up, and include more gender and racial diversity in the study population. They also called for more information about any off-label use of pimavanserin for ADP since it was approved for PDP in 2016.
An unmet need
Most individuals who testified during the public comment period pleaded with the committee to vote in favor of the new indication, sharing stories of family members and patients with ADP.
“I have been caring for and studying patients with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias for more than 30 years, and I can tell you very simply that if left untreated, psychosis has significant and sometimes devastating consequences for our patients,” said Pierre Tariot, MD, director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and a research professor of psychiatry at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, and an investigator on the HARMONY trial.
Those on the committee who voted against the application were quick to agree that lack of an approved treatment for ADP presents a hardship.
“I’m a neurologist who has cared for patients for more than 20 years,” said Madhav R. Thambisetty, MD, PhD, senior investigator for the National Institute on Aging and an adjunct professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “I recognize the unmet need in the field, I just think that the unmet need should not be a justification to cut corners.”
The committee did not focus on drug safety or unmet need in its deliberations, although information on both were presented during the meeting.
Commenting on his “no” vote, PDAC member Walter S. Dunn, MD, PhD, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of Interventional Psychiatry Service at West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, said he hopes that the FDA will consider those issues more broadly as they complete their review.
“The questions before the committee have been narrow and precise, so I trust the agency will take a broader approach in their final decision about approval,” Dr. Dunn said.
Commenting on the decision, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the news disappointing, “but while the unmet need for a treatment for ADP is clear, it is vital that approved treatments meet stringent safety and efficacy criteria so we can offer patients medications with clear benefits.”
The FDA will make its final decision by August 4.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Synthetic opioid use up almost 800% nationwide
The results of a national urine drug test (UDT) study come as the United States is reporting a record-high number of drug overdose deaths – more than 80% of which involved fentanyl or other synthetic opioids and prompting a push for better surveillance models.
Researchers found that UDTs can be used to accurately identify which drugs are circulating in a community, revealing in just a matter of days critically important drug use trends that current surveillance methods take a month or longer to report.
The faster turnaround could potentially allow clinicians and public health officials to be more proactive with targeted overdose prevention and harm-reduction strategies such as distribution of naloxone and fentanyl test strips.
“We’re talking about trying to come up with an early-warning system,” study author Steven Passik, PhD, vice president for scientific affairs for Millennium Health, San Diego, Calif., told this news organization. “We’re trying to find out if we can let people in the harm reduction and treatment space know about what might be coming weeks or a month or more in advance so that some interventions could be marshaled.”
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Call for better surveillance
More than 100,000 people in the United States died of an unintended drug overdose in 2021, a record high and a 15% increase over 2020 figures, which also set a record.
Part of the federal government’s plan to address the crisis includes strengthening epidemiologic efforts by better collection and mining of public health surveillance data.
Sources currently used to detect drug use trends include mortality data, poison control centers, emergency departments, electronic health records, and crime laboratories. But analysis of these sources can take weeks or more.
“One of the real challenges in addressing and reducing overdose deaths has been the relative lack of accessible real-time data that can support agile responses to deployment of resources in a specific geographic region,” study coauthor Rebecca Jackson, MD, professor and associate dean for clinical and translational research at Ohio State University in Columbus, said in an interview.
Ohio State researchers partnered with scientists at Millennium Health, one of the largest urine test labs in the United States, on a cross-sectional study to find out if UDTs could be an accurate and speedier tool for drug surveillance.
They analyzed 500,000 unique urine samples from patients in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment facilities in all 50 states from 2013 to 2020, comparing levels of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, synthetic opioids, and other opioids found in the samples to levels of the same drugs from overdose mortality data at the national, state, and county level from the National Vital Statistics System.
On a national level, synthetic opioids and methamphetamine were highly correlated with overdose mortality data (Spearman’s rho = .96 for both). When synthetic opioids were coinvolved, methamphetamine (rho = .98), heroin (rho = .78), cocaine (rho = .94), and other opioids (rho = .83) were also highly correlated with overdose mortality data.
Similar correlations were found when examining state-level data from 24 states and at the county level upon analysis of 19 counties in Ohio.
A changing landscape
Researchers said the strong correlation between overdose deaths and UDT results for synthetic opioids and methamphetamine are likely explained by the drugs’ availability and lethality.
“The most important thing that we found was just the strength of the correlation, which goes right to the heart of why we considered correlation to be so critical,” lead author Penn Whitley, senior director of bioinformatics for Millennium Health, told this news organization. “We needed to demonstrate that there was a strong correlation of just the UDT positivity rates with mortality – in this case, fatal drug overdose rates – as a steppingstone to build out tools that could utilize UDT as a real-time data source.”
While the main goal of the study was to establish correlation between UDT results and national mortality data, the study also offers a view of a changing landscape in the opioid epidemic.
Overall, UDT positivity for total synthetic opioids increased from 2.1% in 2013 to 19.1% in 2020 (a 792.5% increase). Positivity rates for all included drug categories increased when synthetic opioids were present.
However, in the absence of synthetic opioids, UDT positivity decreased for almost all drug categories from 2013 to 2020 (from 7.7% to 4.7% for cocaine; 3.9% to 1.6% for heroin; 20.5% to 6.9% for other opioids).
Only methamphetamine positivity increased with or without involvement of synthetic opioids. With synthetic opioids, meth positivity rose from 0.1% in 2013 to 7.9% in 2020. Without them, meth positivity rates still rose, from 2.1% in 2013 to 13.1% in 2020.
The findings track with an earlier study showing methamphetamine-involved overdose deaths rose sharply between 2011 and 2018.
“The data from this manuscript support that the opioid epidemic is transitioning from an opioid epidemic to a polysubstance epidemic where illicit synthetic opioids, largely fentanyl, in combination with other substances are now responsible for upwards of 80% of OD deaths,” Dr. Jackson said.
In an accompanying editorial Jeffrey Brent, MD, PhD, clinical professor in internal medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and Stephanie T. Weiss, MD, PhD, staff clinician in the Translational Addiction Medicine Branch at the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Baltimore, note that as new agents emerge, different harm-reduction strategies will be needed, adding that having a real-time tool to identify the trends will be key to preventing deaths.
“Surveillance systems are an integral component of reducing morbidity and mortality associated with illicit drug use. On local, regional, and national levels, information of this type is needed to most efficiently allocate limited resources to maximize benefit and save lives,” Dr. Brent and Dr. Weiss write.
The study was funded by Millennium Health and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Full disclosures are included in the original articles, but no sources reported conflicts related to the study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The results of a national urine drug test (UDT) study come as the United States is reporting a record-high number of drug overdose deaths – more than 80% of which involved fentanyl or other synthetic opioids and prompting a push for better surveillance models.
Researchers found that UDTs can be used to accurately identify which drugs are circulating in a community, revealing in just a matter of days critically important drug use trends that current surveillance methods take a month or longer to report.
The faster turnaround could potentially allow clinicians and public health officials to be more proactive with targeted overdose prevention and harm-reduction strategies such as distribution of naloxone and fentanyl test strips.
“We’re talking about trying to come up with an early-warning system,” study author Steven Passik, PhD, vice president for scientific affairs for Millennium Health, San Diego, Calif., told this news organization. “We’re trying to find out if we can let people in the harm reduction and treatment space know about what might be coming weeks or a month or more in advance so that some interventions could be marshaled.”
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Call for better surveillance
More than 100,000 people in the United States died of an unintended drug overdose in 2021, a record high and a 15% increase over 2020 figures, which also set a record.
Part of the federal government’s plan to address the crisis includes strengthening epidemiologic efforts by better collection and mining of public health surveillance data.
Sources currently used to detect drug use trends include mortality data, poison control centers, emergency departments, electronic health records, and crime laboratories. But analysis of these sources can take weeks or more.
“One of the real challenges in addressing and reducing overdose deaths has been the relative lack of accessible real-time data that can support agile responses to deployment of resources in a specific geographic region,” study coauthor Rebecca Jackson, MD, professor and associate dean for clinical and translational research at Ohio State University in Columbus, said in an interview.
Ohio State researchers partnered with scientists at Millennium Health, one of the largest urine test labs in the United States, on a cross-sectional study to find out if UDTs could be an accurate and speedier tool for drug surveillance.
They analyzed 500,000 unique urine samples from patients in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment facilities in all 50 states from 2013 to 2020, comparing levels of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, synthetic opioids, and other opioids found in the samples to levels of the same drugs from overdose mortality data at the national, state, and county level from the National Vital Statistics System.
On a national level, synthetic opioids and methamphetamine were highly correlated with overdose mortality data (Spearman’s rho = .96 for both). When synthetic opioids were coinvolved, methamphetamine (rho = .98), heroin (rho = .78), cocaine (rho = .94), and other opioids (rho = .83) were also highly correlated with overdose mortality data.
Similar correlations were found when examining state-level data from 24 states and at the county level upon analysis of 19 counties in Ohio.
A changing landscape
Researchers said the strong correlation between overdose deaths and UDT results for synthetic opioids and methamphetamine are likely explained by the drugs’ availability and lethality.
“The most important thing that we found was just the strength of the correlation, which goes right to the heart of why we considered correlation to be so critical,” lead author Penn Whitley, senior director of bioinformatics for Millennium Health, told this news organization. “We needed to demonstrate that there was a strong correlation of just the UDT positivity rates with mortality – in this case, fatal drug overdose rates – as a steppingstone to build out tools that could utilize UDT as a real-time data source.”
While the main goal of the study was to establish correlation between UDT results and national mortality data, the study also offers a view of a changing landscape in the opioid epidemic.
Overall, UDT positivity for total synthetic opioids increased from 2.1% in 2013 to 19.1% in 2020 (a 792.5% increase). Positivity rates for all included drug categories increased when synthetic opioids were present.
However, in the absence of synthetic opioids, UDT positivity decreased for almost all drug categories from 2013 to 2020 (from 7.7% to 4.7% for cocaine; 3.9% to 1.6% for heroin; 20.5% to 6.9% for other opioids).
Only methamphetamine positivity increased with or without involvement of synthetic opioids. With synthetic opioids, meth positivity rose from 0.1% in 2013 to 7.9% in 2020. Without them, meth positivity rates still rose, from 2.1% in 2013 to 13.1% in 2020.
The findings track with an earlier study showing methamphetamine-involved overdose deaths rose sharply between 2011 and 2018.
“The data from this manuscript support that the opioid epidemic is transitioning from an opioid epidemic to a polysubstance epidemic where illicit synthetic opioids, largely fentanyl, in combination with other substances are now responsible for upwards of 80% of OD deaths,” Dr. Jackson said.
In an accompanying editorial Jeffrey Brent, MD, PhD, clinical professor in internal medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and Stephanie T. Weiss, MD, PhD, staff clinician in the Translational Addiction Medicine Branch at the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Baltimore, note that as new agents emerge, different harm-reduction strategies will be needed, adding that having a real-time tool to identify the trends will be key to preventing deaths.
“Surveillance systems are an integral component of reducing morbidity and mortality associated with illicit drug use. On local, regional, and national levels, information of this type is needed to most efficiently allocate limited resources to maximize benefit and save lives,” Dr. Brent and Dr. Weiss write.
The study was funded by Millennium Health and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Full disclosures are included in the original articles, but no sources reported conflicts related to the study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The results of a national urine drug test (UDT) study come as the United States is reporting a record-high number of drug overdose deaths – more than 80% of which involved fentanyl or other synthetic opioids and prompting a push for better surveillance models.
Researchers found that UDTs can be used to accurately identify which drugs are circulating in a community, revealing in just a matter of days critically important drug use trends that current surveillance methods take a month or longer to report.
The faster turnaround could potentially allow clinicians and public health officials to be more proactive with targeted overdose prevention and harm-reduction strategies such as distribution of naloxone and fentanyl test strips.
“We’re talking about trying to come up with an early-warning system,” study author Steven Passik, PhD, vice president for scientific affairs for Millennium Health, San Diego, Calif., told this news organization. “We’re trying to find out if we can let people in the harm reduction and treatment space know about what might be coming weeks or a month or more in advance so that some interventions could be marshaled.”
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Call for better surveillance
More than 100,000 people in the United States died of an unintended drug overdose in 2021, a record high and a 15% increase over 2020 figures, which also set a record.
Part of the federal government’s plan to address the crisis includes strengthening epidemiologic efforts by better collection and mining of public health surveillance data.
Sources currently used to detect drug use trends include mortality data, poison control centers, emergency departments, electronic health records, and crime laboratories. But analysis of these sources can take weeks or more.
“One of the real challenges in addressing and reducing overdose deaths has been the relative lack of accessible real-time data that can support agile responses to deployment of resources in a specific geographic region,” study coauthor Rebecca Jackson, MD, professor and associate dean for clinical and translational research at Ohio State University in Columbus, said in an interview.
Ohio State researchers partnered with scientists at Millennium Health, one of the largest urine test labs in the United States, on a cross-sectional study to find out if UDTs could be an accurate and speedier tool for drug surveillance.
They analyzed 500,000 unique urine samples from patients in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment facilities in all 50 states from 2013 to 2020, comparing levels of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, synthetic opioids, and other opioids found in the samples to levels of the same drugs from overdose mortality data at the national, state, and county level from the National Vital Statistics System.
On a national level, synthetic opioids and methamphetamine were highly correlated with overdose mortality data (Spearman’s rho = .96 for both). When synthetic opioids were coinvolved, methamphetamine (rho = .98), heroin (rho = .78), cocaine (rho = .94), and other opioids (rho = .83) were also highly correlated with overdose mortality data.
Similar correlations were found when examining state-level data from 24 states and at the county level upon analysis of 19 counties in Ohio.
A changing landscape
Researchers said the strong correlation between overdose deaths and UDT results for synthetic opioids and methamphetamine are likely explained by the drugs’ availability and lethality.
“The most important thing that we found was just the strength of the correlation, which goes right to the heart of why we considered correlation to be so critical,” lead author Penn Whitley, senior director of bioinformatics for Millennium Health, told this news organization. “We needed to demonstrate that there was a strong correlation of just the UDT positivity rates with mortality – in this case, fatal drug overdose rates – as a steppingstone to build out tools that could utilize UDT as a real-time data source.”
While the main goal of the study was to establish correlation between UDT results and national mortality data, the study also offers a view of a changing landscape in the opioid epidemic.
Overall, UDT positivity for total synthetic opioids increased from 2.1% in 2013 to 19.1% in 2020 (a 792.5% increase). Positivity rates for all included drug categories increased when synthetic opioids were present.
However, in the absence of synthetic opioids, UDT positivity decreased for almost all drug categories from 2013 to 2020 (from 7.7% to 4.7% for cocaine; 3.9% to 1.6% for heroin; 20.5% to 6.9% for other opioids).
Only methamphetamine positivity increased with or without involvement of synthetic opioids. With synthetic opioids, meth positivity rose from 0.1% in 2013 to 7.9% in 2020. Without them, meth positivity rates still rose, from 2.1% in 2013 to 13.1% in 2020.
The findings track with an earlier study showing methamphetamine-involved overdose deaths rose sharply between 2011 and 2018.
“The data from this manuscript support that the opioid epidemic is transitioning from an opioid epidemic to a polysubstance epidemic where illicit synthetic opioids, largely fentanyl, in combination with other substances are now responsible for upwards of 80% of OD deaths,” Dr. Jackson said.
In an accompanying editorial Jeffrey Brent, MD, PhD, clinical professor in internal medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and Stephanie T. Weiss, MD, PhD, staff clinician in the Translational Addiction Medicine Branch at the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Baltimore, note that as new agents emerge, different harm-reduction strategies will be needed, adding that having a real-time tool to identify the trends will be key to preventing deaths.
“Surveillance systems are an integral component of reducing morbidity and mortality associated with illicit drug use. On local, regional, and national levels, information of this type is needed to most efficiently allocate limited resources to maximize benefit and save lives,” Dr. Brent and Dr. Weiss write.
The study was funded by Millennium Health and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Full disclosures are included in the original articles, but no sources reported conflicts related to the study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
B-cell level may affect COVID booster efficacy in MS
Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with the B-cell-depleting medication rituximab who have not yet been vaccinated against COVID-19 should get the initial vaccination as soon as possible but wait to get a booster shot until B-cell levels increase, new research suggests.
In a prospective cohort study, 90% of patients taking rituximab whose B-cell level was at least 40 cells/mcL had a sufficient antibody response to the Pfizer vaccine, whereas among those with lower levels, the antibody response was significantly lower.
Results also showed a wide variation in the length of time needed for adequate B-cell restoration. Some patients needed a year or longer for levels to become adequate.
The findings led the hospital where the study was conducted to suspend rituximab therapy until patients could be vaccinated. The findings also prompted researchers to call for new guidelines on vaccine scheduling that are based on B-cell levels and not on the current criteria of length of time since last treatment.
“It’s meaningless to just go by some recommendation covering time since the last treatment,” study investigator Joachim Burman, MD, PhD, a consultant neurologist at Uppsala University Hospital and an associate professor at Uppsala University, both in Sweden, told this news organization.
“It’s misleading and potentially harmful for patients,” Dr. Burman said.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Finding the cutoff
Drugs such as rituximab target CD20, a protein found on the surface of B cells, resulting in B-cell depletion.
Rituximab is the most common MS therapy used in Sweden. The drug is approved in the United States to treat rheumatoid arthritis and some forms of cancer, but it is not approved for treatment of MS.
Prior research showed that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccines was lower in patients receiving B-cell therapy than in the general population. That was not altogether surprising, given the fact that studies have found a similarly weakened antibody response to other vaccines.
But before now, there was no known B-cell threshold sufficient to mount an acceptable antibody response following COVID vaccination.
Researchers enrolled 67 patients in the study. Of those patients, 60 had received rituximab treatment, and seven had not.
Approximately 6 months after the last rituximab dose, the B-cell count was lower than 10/mcL for 40% of patients. In that group, rituximab treatment duration was the only factor significantly associated with slower B-cell mobilization (median duration, 4.0 years, vs. 2.1; P = .002).
Close monitoring needed
Six weeks after vaccination with tozinameran, the mRNA vaccine manufactured by Pfizer, 28% of patients failed to generate a sufficient antibody response. Among those patients, the median B-cell count was 22/mcL, versus 51/mcL for the remainder of the cohort (P < .001).
A cutoff value of 40/mcL rendered adequate levels of anti-spike immunoglobulin G antibodies in 90% of patients and a strong response in anti-RBD antibodies in 72%.
Study participants did register an adequate T-cell response to the vaccine, suggesting at least some level of protection.
Because MS patients are at increased risk for serious illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators recommend that patients with MS receive their initial COVID vaccines as soon as possible – but that they should hold off on receiving a booster until their B-cell counts reach 40/mcL.
Regarding when a clinician should re-vaccinate, “the results from our study strongly suggest that you should not do that right away or just follow some generic guideline,” Dr. Burman said.
“You should closely monitor the B-cell values, and re-vaccinate once those B- cells hit the level of 40 cells/mcL” he added.
Dr. Burman said he would expect that their findings would hold with the other mRNA vaccine and with any other B-cell therapy.
Too soon for B-cell measures?
Commenting for this news organization, Robert J. Fox, MD, staff neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS and vice-chair for research at the Neurological Institute at Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, said the B-cell threshold identified in the study is much higher than what is typically seen in patients who undergo treatment with ocrelizumab, an anti-CD20 B-cell therapy approved in the United States for treating MS.
“Decisions about treatment interval need to balance efficacy in treating MS with safety, including response to vaccines,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the research.
“Given the unknown efficacy of these extended intervals, I don’t think we’re at the point of making management recommendations based upon B-cell counts,” he added.
And yet, Uppsala University Hospital, where the study was conducted, and other centers in Sweden decided to do just that. They suspended administering rituximab to patients with MS until the patients were vaccinated. For patients newly diagnosed with MS, therapy was initiated using another disease-modifying treatment, and for those who were due for a rituximab infusion, that treatment was delayed.
Only one patient experienced a mild MS relapse during the rituximab suspension, and that case went into remission within a week, Dr. Burman reported.
“Ever since the Bar-Or report showing that the humeral response to vaccines is markedly diminished in MS patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies, clinicians have been struggling to balance those safety concerns related to anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody treatments and the clinical benefit of this treatment class,” Dr. Fox said.
“Given the uncharted waters of the COVID pandemic, clinicians made judgments and decisions as best they could, given the paucity of data,” he noted.
“At this point, we don’t know which decisions were right or wrong, but I certainly don’t think we should judge clinicians for making decisions the best they could.”
The study was funded by the Engkvist Foundation, the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, and the Swedish Society for Medical Research. Dr. Burman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fox has received consulting fees from Genentech/Roche, Biogen, and other companies that promote MS therapies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with the B-cell-depleting medication rituximab who have not yet been vaccinated against COVID-19 should get the initial vaccination as soon as possible but wait to get a booster shot until B-cell levels increase, new research suggests.
In a prospective cohort study, 90% of patients taking rituximab whose B-cell level was at least 40 cells/mcL had a sufficient antibody response to the Pfizer vaccine, whereas among those with lower levels, the antibody response was significantly lower.
Results also showed a wide variation in the length of time needed for adequate B-cell restoration. Some patients needed a year or longer for levels to become adequate.
The findings led the hospital where the study was conducted to suspend rituximab therapy until patients could be vaccinated. The findings also prompted researchers to call for new guidelines on vaccine scheduling that are based on B-cell levels and not on the current criteria of length of time since last treatment.
“It’s meaningless to just go by some recommendation covering time since the last treatment,” study investigator Joachim Burman, MD, PhD, a consultant neurologist at Uppsala University Hospital and an associate professor at Uppsala University, both in Sweden, told this news organization.
“It’s misleading and potentially harmful for patients,” Dr. Burman said.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Finding the cutoff
Drugs such as rituximab target CD20, a protein found on the surface of B cells, resulting in B-cell depletion.
Rituximab is the most common MS therapy used in Sweden. The drug is approved in the United States to treat rheumatoid arthritis and some forms of cancer, but it is not approved for treatment of MS.
Prior research showed that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccines was lower in patients receiving B-cell therapy than in the general population. That was not altogether surprising, given the fact that studies have found a similarly weakened antibody response to other vaccines.
But before now, there was no known B-cell threshold sufficient to mount an acceptable antibody response following COVID vaccination.
Researchers enrolled 67 patients in the study. Of those patients, 60 had received rituximab treatment, and seven had not.
Approximately 6 months after the last rituximab dose, the B-cell count was lower than 10/mcL for 40% of patients. In that group, rituximab treatment duration was the only factor significantly associated with slower B-cell mobilization (median duration, 4.0 years, vs. 2.1; P = .002).
Close monitoring needed
Six weeks after vaccination with tozinameran, the mRNA vaccine manufactured by Pfizer, 28% of patients failed to generate a sufficient antibody response. Among those patients, the median B-cell count was 22/mcL, versus 51/mcL for the remainder of the cohort (P < .001).
A cutoff value of 40/mcL rendered adequate levels of anti-spike immunoglobulin G antibodies in 90% of patients and a strong response in anti-RBD antibodies in 72%.
Study participants did register an adequate T-cell response to the vaccine, suggesting at least some level of protection.
Because MS patients are at increased risk for serious illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators recommend that patients with MS receive their initial COVID vaccines as soon as possible – but that they should hold off on receiving a booster until their B-cell counts reach 40/mcL.
Regarding when a clinician should re-vaccinate, “the results from our study strongly suggest that you should not do that right away or just follow some generic guideline,” Dr. Burman said.
“You should closely monitor the B-cell values, and re-vaccinate once those B- cells hit the level of 40 cells/mcL” he added.
Dr. Burman said he would expect that their findings would hold with the other mRNA vaccine and with any other B-cell therapy.
Too soon for B-cell measures?
Commenting for this news organization, Robert J. Fox, MD, staff neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS and vice-chair for research at the Neurological Institute at Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, said the B-cell threshold identified in the study is much higher than what is typically seen in patients who undergo treatment with ocrelizumab, an anti-CD20 B-cell therapy approved in the United States for treating MS.
“Decisions about treatment interval need to balance efficacy in treating MS with safety, including response to vaccines,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the research.
“Given the unknown efficacy of these extended intervals, I don’t think we’re at the point of making management recommendations based upon B-cell counts,” he added.
And yet, Uppsala University Hospital, where the study was conducted, and other centers in Sweden decided to do just that. They suspended administering rituximab to patients with MS until the patients were vaccinated. For patients newly diagnosed with MS, therapy was initiated using another disease-modifying treatment, and for those who were due for a rituximab infusion, that treatment was delayed.
Only one patient experienced a mild MS relapse during the rituximab suspension, and that case went into remission within a week, Dr. Burman reported.
“Ever since the Bar-Or report showing that the humeral response to vaccines is markedly diminished in MS patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies, clinicians have been struggling to balance those safety concerns related to anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody treatments and the clinical benefit of this treatment class,” Dr. Fox said.
“Given the uncharted waters of the COVID pandemic, clinicians made judgments and decisions as best they could, given the paucity of data,” he noted.
“At this point, we don’t know which decisions were right or wrong, but I certainly don’t think we should judge clinicians for making decisions the best they could.”
The study was funded by the Engkvist Foundation, the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, and the Swedish Society for Medical Research. Dr. Burman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fox has received consulting fees from Genentech/Roche, Biogen, and other companies that promote MS therapies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with the B-cell-depleting medication rituximab who have not yet been vaccinated against COVID-19 should get the initial vaccination as soon as possible but wait to get a booster shot until B-cell levels increase, new research suggests.
In a prospective cohort study, 90% of patients taking rituximab whose B-cell level was at least 40 cells/mcL had a sufficient antibody response to the Pfizer vaccine, whereas among those with lower levels, the antibody response was significantly lower.
Results also showed a wide variation in the length of time needed for adequate B-cell restoration. Some patients needed a year or longer for levels to become adequate.
The findings led the hospital where the study was conducted to suspend rituximab therapy until patients could be vaccinated. The findings also prompted researchers to call for new guidelines on vaccine scheduling that are based on B-cell levels and not on the current criteria of length of time since last treatment.
“It’s meaningless to just go by some recommendation covering time since the last treatment,” study investigator Joachim Burman, MD, PhD, a consultant neurologist at Uppsala University Hospital and an associate professor at Uppsala University, both in Sweden, told this news organization.
“It’s misleading and potentially harmful for patients,” Dr. Burman said.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Finding the cutoff
Drugs such as rituximab target CD20, a protein found on the surface of B cells, resulting in B-cell depletion.
Rituximab is the most common MS therapy used in Sweden. The drug is approved in the United States to treat rheumatoid arthritis and some forms of cancer, but it is not approved for treatment of MS.
Prior research showed that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccines was lower in patients receiving B-cell therapy than in the general population. That was not altogether surprising, given the fact that studies have found a similarly weakened antibody response to other vaccines.
But before now, there was no known B-cell threshold sufficient to mount an acceptable antibody response following COVID vaccination.
Researchers enrolled 67 patients in the study. Of those patients, 60 had received rituximab treatment, and seven had not.
Approximately 6 months after the last rituximab dose, the B-cell count was lower than 10/mcL for 40% of patients. In that group, rituximab treatment duration was the only factor significantly associated with slower B-cell mobilization (median duration, 4.0 years, vs. 2.1; P = .002).
Close monitoring needed
Six weeks after vaccination with tozinameran, the mRNA vaccine manufactured by Pfizer, 28% of patients failed to generate a sufficient antibody response. Among those patients, the median B-cell count was 22/mcL, versus 51/mcL for the remainder of the cohort (P < .001).
A cutoff value of 40/mcL rendered adequate levels of anti-spike immunoglobulin G antibodies in 90% of patients and a strong response in anti-RBD antibodies in 72%.
Study participants did register an adequate T-cell response to the vaccine, suggesting at least some level of protection.
Because MS patients are at increased risk for serious illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators recommend that patients with MS receive their initial COVID vaccines as soon as possible – but that they should hold off on receiving a booster until their B-cell counts reach 40/mcL.
Regarding when a clinician should re-vaccinate, “the results from our study strongly suggest that you should not do that right away or just follow some generic guideline,” Dr. Burman said.
“You should closely monitor the B-cell values, and re-vaccinate once those B- cells hit the level of 40 cells/mcL” he added.
Dr. Burman said he would expect that their findings would hold with the other mRNA vaccine and with any other B-cell therapy.
Too soon for B-cell measures?
Commenting for this news organization, Robert J. Fox, MD, staff neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS and vice-chair for research at the Neurological Institute at Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, said the B-cell threshold identified in the study is much higher than what is typically seen in patients who undergo treatment with ocrelizumab, an anti-CD20 B-cell therapy approved in the United States for treating MS.
“Decisions about treatment interval need to balance efficacy in treating MS with safety, including response to vaccines,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the research.
“Given the unknown efficacy of these extended intervals, I don’t think we’re at the point of making management recommendations based upon B-cell counts,” he added.
And yet, Uppsala University Hospital, where the study was conducted, and other centers in Sweden decided to do just that. They suspended administering rituximab to patients with MS until the patients were vaccinated. For patients newly diagnosed with MS, therapy was initiated using another disease-modifying treatment, and for those who were due for a rituximab infusion, that treatment was delayed.
Only one patient experienced a mild MS relapse during the rituximab suspension, and that case went into remission within a week, Dr. Burman reported.
“Ever since the Bar-Or report showing that the humeral response to vaccines is markedly diminished in MS patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies, clinicians have been struggling to balance those safety concerns related to anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody treatments and the clinical benefit of this treatment class,” Dr. Fox said.
“Given the uncharted waters of the COVID pandemic, clinicians made judgments and decisions as best they could, given the paucity of data,” he noted.
“At this point, we don’t know which decisions were right or wrong, but I certainly don’t think we should judge clinicians for making decisions the best they could.”
The study was funded by the Engkvist Foundation, the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, and the Swedish Society for Medical Research. Dr. Burman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fox has received consulting fees from Genentech/Roche, Biogen, and other companies that promote MS therapies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Thrombolysis is safe in stroke patients on oral anticoagulants
, a new observational study suggests, prompting researchers to ask whether guidelines that restrict its use should be updated.
Researchers found that DOAC users were significantly less likely to develop symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) after IVT, and there was no difference in functional independence at 3 months, compared with patients who received IVT but who did not receive DOAC.
“At the moment, the guidelines really pose a barrier and stop sign in front of the most important medical reperfusion therapy, which is thrombolysis,” said principal investigator Jan Purrucker, MD, professor of neurology at Heidelberg University Hospital.
“The main question we have to answer is, is IVT safe in patients with acute ischemic stroke who were pretreated with direct oral anticoagulants or not?”
The findings were presented at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) 2022, Lyon, France.
A ‘daily clinical problem’
As many as 20% of patients with atrial fibrillation experience ischemic stroke while receiving DOAC therapy. Reperfusion therapy with intravenous alteplase is considered standard of care for acute ischemic stroke, but current guidelines recommend against the use of IVT for patients who have recently received a DOAC, owing to safety concerns that researchers say are not backed by strong clinical evidence.
A recent study found no significant difference in sICH among patients who received IV alteplase for acute ischemic stroke within 7 days of receiving therapy with non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants.
“In our daily clinical practice, we face a lot of patients who have received oral anticoagulation, many with atrial fibrillation, but a lot of other indicators as well, and they suffer from ischemic stroke,” Dr. Purrucker said. “They usually are ineligible for medical reperfusion therapy because of quite strict guideline recommendations at the moment. This is a daily clinical problem.”
Dr. Purrucker and colleagues in New Zealand and Switzerland launched an international, observational, multicenter cohort study to examine the issue.
Researchers collected data on patients with ischemic stroke who had last received DOAC therapy 48 hours or less before the event or whose last intake was unknown and who had received IVT. They included 20,448 patients, 830 of whom were receiving DOAC therapy at the time of stroke onset.
Among the DOAC users, 30% received DOAC reversal prior to IVT, 27% had their DOAC level measured, and 42% received IVT without reversal treatment or knowledge of DOAC levels.
Overall, 4.5% of patients developed sICH. Compared with the control group, DOAC users were half as likely to develop sICH (adjusted odds ratio, 0.47; P = .003).
There was no significant difference between groups in independent outcome at 3 months, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 1 to 3 (aOR, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.49).
This finding held across patient subgroups, including patients for whom selection methods differed and patients with very recent intake of less than 12 hours.
“The question is whether we are so confident in these data that we would change our clinical practice now,” Dr. Purrucker said.
Infrastructure needed
While the findings are promising, more data are needed to strengthen the argument for revising current IVT guidelines, said Ho-Yan Yvonne Chun, PhD, honorary senior clinical lecturer with the Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences at the University of Edinburgh and a consultant in stroke medicine for NHS Lothian and Borders General Hospital, who commented on the findings.
“The study sample are a highly selected group of patients from selected centers that have the infrastructure to offer DOAC level checking and DOAC reversal,” Dr. Chun said. “The selected centers are not representative of the majority of hospitals that offer IVT to stroke patients with acute stroke.”
Most hospitals lack the equipment necessary to test DOAC levels and don’t have immediate access to DOAC reversal agents, Dr. Chun said. In those centers, she added, the administration of IVT could be delayed, which might affect clinical outcomes.
“Infrastructure needs to be in place to ensure timely delivery of IVT to these patients,” Dr. Chun added. “This means that in real-world practice, hospitals need to have right logistical pathway in place in order to provide timely DOAC level checking and DOAC reversal agents.”
Dr. Chun added that “large pragmatic clinical trials, preferably multicentered, are needed to provide the definitive evidence on the safety and effectiveness of using these approaches to select patients with prior DOAC use for IVT.”
But such a study may not be feasible, Dr. Purrucker said. Among the hurdles he noted are the large sample size needed for such a trial, uncertainty regarding funding, and patient selection bias, resulting from the fact that such studies would likely exclude patients eligible for mechanical thrombectomy or those eligible for reversal treatment.
In light of earlier studies, including preclinical data that support the safety of DOACs in IVT, and these new data, Dr. Purrucker said he hopes a change in guidelines might be taken up in the future.
“But it should be good academic practice to first let the results be externally evaluated, for example, during the manuscript submission process,” he said. “But once published, guideline working groups will have to evaluate the recent and new evidence and might reconsider previous recommendations.”
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Purrucker and Dr. Chun reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new observational study suggests, prompting researchers to ask whether guidelines that restrict its use should be updated.
Researchers found that DOAC users were significantly less likely to develop symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) after IVT, and there was no difference in functional independence at 3 months, compared with patients who received IVT but who did not receive DOAC.
“At the moment, the guidelines really pose a barrier and stop sign in front of the most important medical reperfusion therapy, which is thrombolysis,” said principal investigator Jan Purrucker, MD, professor of neurology at Heidelberg University Hospital.
“The main question we have to answer is, is IVT safe in patients with acute ischemic stroke who were pretreated with direct oral anticoagulants or not?”
The findings were presented at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) 2022, Lyon, France.
A ‘daily clinical problem’
As many as 20% of patients with atrial fibrillation experience ischemic stroke while receiving DOAC therapy. Reperfusion therapy with intravenous alteplase is considered standard of care for acute ischemic stroke, but current guidelines recommend against the use of IVT for patients who have recently received a DOAC, owing to safety concerns that researchers say are not backed by strong clinical evidence.
A recent study found no significant difference in sICH among patients who received IV alteplase for acute ischemic stroke within 7 days of receiving therapy with non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants.
“In our daily clinical practice, we face a lot of patients who have received oral anticoagulation, many with atrial fibrillation, but a lot of other indicators as well, and they suffer from ischemic stroke,” Dr. Purrucker said. “They usually are ineligible for medical reperfusion therapy because of quite strict guideline recommendations at the moment. This is a daily clinical problem.”
Dr. Purrucker and colleagues in New Zealand and Switzerland launched an international, observational, multicenter cohort study to examine the issue.
Researchers collected data on patients with ischemic stroke who had last received DOAC therapy 48 hours or less before the event or whose last intake was unknown and who had received IVT. They included 20,448 patients, 830 of whom were receiving DOAC therapy at the time of stroke onset.
Among the DOAC users, 30% received DOAC reversal prior to IVT, 27% had their DOAC level measured, and 42% received IVT without reversal treatment or knowledge of DOAC levels.
Overall, 4.5% of patients developed sICH. Compared with the control group, DOAC users were half as likely to develop sICH (adjusted odds ratio, 0.47; P = .003).
There was no significant difference between groups in independent outcome at 3 months, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 1 to 3 (aOR, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.49).
This finding held across patient subgroups, including patients for whom selection methods differed and patients with very recent intake of less than 12 hours.
“The question is whether we are so confident in these data that we would change our clinical practice now,” Dr. Purrucker said.
Infrastructure needed
While the findings are promising, more data are needed to strengthen the argument for revising current IVT guidelines, said Ho-Yan Yvonne Chun, PhD, honorary senior clinical lecturer with the Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences at the University of Edinburgh and a consultant in stroke medicine for NHS Lothian and Borders General Hospital, who commented on the findings.
“The study sample are a highly selected group of patients from selected centers that have the infrastructure to offer DOAC level checking and DOAC reversal,” Dr. Chun said. “The selected centers are not representative of the majority of hospitals that offer IVT to stroke patients with acute stroke.”
Most hospitals lack the equipment necessary to test DOAC levels and don’t have immediate access to DOAC reversal agents, Dr. Chun said. In those centers, she added, the administration of IVT could be delayed, which might affect clinical outcomes.
“Infrastructure needs to be in place to ensure timely delivery of IVT to these patients,” Dr. Chun added. “This means that in real-world practice, hospitals need to have right logistical pathway in place in order to provide timely DOAC level checking and DOAC reversal agents.”
Dr. Chun added that “large pragmatic clinical trials, preferably multicentered, are needed to provide the definitive evidence on the safety and effectiveness of using these approaches to select patients with prior DOAC use for IVT.”
But such a study may not be feasible, Dr. Purrucker said. Among the hurdles he noted are the large sample size needed for such a trial, uncertainty regarding funding, and patient selection bias, resulting from the fact that such studies would likely exclude patients eligible for mechanical thrombectomy or those eligible for reversal treatment.
In light of earlier studies, including preclinical data that support the safety of DOACs in IVT, and these new data, Dr. Purrucker said he hopes a change in guidelines might be taken up in the future.
“But it should be good academic practice to first let the results be externally evaluated, for example, during the manuscript submission process,” he said. “But once published, guideline working groups will have to evaluate the recent and new evidence and might reconsider previous recommendations.”
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Purrucker and Dr. Chun reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new observational study suggests, prompting researchers to ask whether guidelines that restrict its use should be updated.
Researchers found that DOAC users were significantly less likely to develop symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) after IVT, and there was no difference in functional independence at 3 months, compared with patients who received IVT but who did not receive DOAC.
“At the moment, the guidelines really pose a barrier and stop sign in front of the most important medical reperfusion therapy, which is thrombolysis,” said principal investigator Jan Purrucker, MD, professor of neurology at Heidelberg University Hospital.
“The main question we have to answer is, is IVT safe in patients with acute ischemic stroke who were pretreated with direct oral anticoagulants or not?”
The findings were presented at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) 2022, Lyon, France.
A ‘daily clinical problem’
As many as 20% of patients with atrial fibrillation experience ischemic stroke while receiving DOAC therapy. Reperfusion therapy with intravenous alteplase is considered standard of care for acute ischemic stroke, but current guidelines recommend against the use of IVT for patients who have recently received a DOAC, owing to safety concerns that researchers say are not backed by strong clinical evidence.
A recent study found no significant difference in sICH among patients who received IV alteplase for acute ischemic stroke within 7 days of receiving therapy with non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants.
“In our daily clinical practice, we face a lot of patients who have received oral anticoagulation, many with atrial fibrillation, but a lot of other indicators as well, and they suffer from ischemic stroke,” Dr. Purrucker said. “They usually are ineligible for medical reperfusion therapy because of quite strict guideline recommendations at the moment. This is a daily clinical problem.”
Dr. Purrucker and colleagues in New Zealand and Switzerland launched an international, observational, multicenter cohort study to examine the issue.
Researchers collected data on patients with ischemic stroke who had last received DOAC therapy 48 hours or less before the event or whose last intake was unknown and who had received IVT. They included 20,448 patients, 830 of whom were receiving DOAC therapy at the time of stroke onset.
Among the DOAC users, 30% received DOAC reversal prior to IVT, 27% had their DOAC level measured, and 42% received IVT without reversal treatment or knowledge of DOAC levels.
Overall, 4.5% of patients developed sICH. Compared with the control group, DOAC users were half as likely to develop sICH (adjusted odds ratio, 0.47; P = .003).
There was no significant difference between groups in independent outcome at 3 months, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 1 to 3 (aOR, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.49).
This finding held across patient subgroups, including patients for whom selection methods differed and patients with very recent intake of less than 12 hours.
“The question is whether we are so confident in these data that we would change our clinical practice now,” Dr. Purrucker said.
Infrastructure needed
While the findings are promising, more data are needed to strengthen the argument for revising current IVT guidelines, said Ho-Yan Yvonne Chun, PhD, honorary senior clinical lecturer with the Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences at the University of Edinburgh and a consultant in stroke medicine for NHS Lothian and Borders General Hospital, who commented on the findings.
“The study sample are a highly selected group of patients from selected centers that have the infrastructure to offer DOAC level checking and DOAC reversal,” Dr. Chun said. “The selected centers are not representative of the majority of hospitals that offer IVT to stroke patients with acute stroke.”
Most hospitals lack the equipment necessary to test DOAC levels and don’t have immediate access to DOAC reversal agents, Dr. Chun said. In those centers, she added, the administration of IVT could be delayed, which might affect clinical outcomes.
“Infrastructure needs to be in place to ensure timely delivery of IVT to these patients,” Dr. Chun added. “This means that in real-world practice, hospitals need to have right logistical pathway in place in order to provide timely DOAC level checking and DOAC reversal agents.”
Dr. Chun added that “large pragmatic clinical trials, preferably multicentered, are needed to provide the definitive evidence on the safety and effectiveness of using these approaches to select patients with prior DOAC use for IVT.”
But such a study may not be feasible, Dr. Purrucker said. Among the hurdles he noted are the large sample size needed for such a trial, uncertainty regarding funding, and patient selection bias, resulting from the fact that such studies would likely exclude patients eligible for mechanical thrombectomy or those eligible for reversal treatment.
In light of earlier studies, including preclinical data that support the safety of DOACs in IVT, and these new data, Dr. Purrucker said he hopes a change in guidelines might be taken up in the future.
“But it should be good academic practice to first let the results be externally evaluated, for example, during the manuscript submission process,” he said. “But once published, guideline working groups will have to evaluate the recent and new evidence and might reconsider previous recommendations.”
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Purrucker and Dr. Chun reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESOC 2022
Exenatide linked to less hyperglycemia after stroke
Treatment with the diabetes drug exenatide was associated with a significant decrease in hyperglycemia in acute stroke patients, a new study shows.
The research could offer clinicians an alternative to insulin therapy to treat hyperglycemia and reduce glucose levels, which are elevated in up to 60% of stroke patients and associated with worse outcomes after stroke.
“Use of these diabetes drugs to control glucose in acute stroke has enormous potential,” said lead researcher Christopher Bladin, PhD, professor of neurology at Monash University and Eastern Health Clinical School, Australia.
The findings were presented at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) 2022 annual meeting in Lyon, France.
A better fix than insulin?
Hyperglycemia is common in stroke patients, including those who have no prior history of diabetes. Among stroke patients with normal blood glucose upon admission, about 30% will develop hyperglycemia within 48 hours of stroke onset.
Previous research suggests that hyperglycemia is a poor prognostic factor in patients with stroke and may reduce the efficacy of reperfusion therapies such as thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy.
“We’ve been looking for different ways of treating hyperglycemia for quite some time, and one of the obvious ways is to use insulin therapy,” Dr. Bladin said. “But as we’ve seen from multiple studies, insulin therapy is difficult.”
Insulin treatment is resource-heavy, significantly increases the risk for hypoglycemia, and some studies suggest the therapy isn’t associated with better outcomes.
An advantage to a GLP-1 agonist-like exenatide, Dr. Bladin added, is that it’s glucose-dependent. As the glucose level falls, the drug’s efficacy diminishes. It is delivered via an autoinjector and easy to administer.
A case for more study
To study exenatide’s efficacy in reducing hyperglycemia and improving neurologic outcomes, researchers developed the phase 2, international, multicenter, randomized controlled TEXAIS trial.
The study enrolled 350 patients following an ischemic stroke. Within 9 hours of stroke onset, patients received either standard care or a subcutaneous injection of 5 mg of exenatide twice daily for 5 days.
On admission, 42% of patients had hyperglycemia, defined as blood glucose > 7.0 mmol/L.
The study’s primary outcome was at least an 8-point improvement in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score by 7 days after treatment with exenatide. Although there was a trend toward better scores with exenatide, the score was not significantly different between groups (56.7% with standard care versus 61.2% with exenatide; adjusted odds ratio, 1.22; P = .38).
However, when the researchers examined hyperglycemia frequency, they found significantly lower incidence in patients treated with exenatide (P = .002).
There were no cases of hypoglycemia in either group, and only 4% of the study group reported nausea or vomiting.
“Clearly exenatide is having some benefit in terms of keeping glucose under control, reducing hyperglycemia,” Dr. Bladin said. “It certainly lends itself to a larger phase 3 study which can look at this more completely.”
Value to clinicians
Commenting on the findings, Yvonne Chun, PhD, honorary senior clinical lecturer at University of Edinburgh, noted that, even though the study didn’t find a significant association with improved neurological outcomes, the reduced risk for hypoglycemia makes exenatide an attractive alternative to insulin therapy in stroke patients.
“The results are of value to clinicians, as exenatide could potentially be a safer medication to administer than an insulin infusion in acute stroke patients with hyperglycemia,” Dr. Chun said. “There is less risk of hypoglycemia with exenatide compared to standard care.”
However, Dr. Chun noted that more study is needed before exenatide can replace standard care. Dr. Bladin agrees and would like to pursue a phase 3 trial with a modified design to answer questions raised by Dr. Chun and others.
“The next phase could consider changing the primary outcome to an ordinal shift analysis on modified Rankin Scale – a very commonly used primary outcome in stroke clinical trials to assess improvement in disability,” Dr. Chun said. “The primary outcome used in the presented trial – an 8-point improvement on NIHSS – seemed too ambitious and does not inform disability of the patient post stroke.”
Dr. Bladin said he would also like to see the next phase enroll more patients, examine a higher dose of exenatide, and include better stratification of patients with a history of diabetes. Such a trial could yield findings demonstrating the drug’s effectiveness at reducing hyperglycemia and improving outcomes after stroke, he said.
“I can see the day patients will come in with acute stroke, and as they’re coming into the emergency department, they’ll simply get their shot of exenatide because we know it’s safe to use, and it doesn’t cause hypoglycemia,” Dr. Bladin said. “And from the moment that patient arrives the glucose control is underway.”
Dr. Bladin and Dr. Chun reported no relevant financial relationships. Study funding was not disclosed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Treatment with the diabetes drug exenatide was associated with a significant decrease in hyperglycemia in acute stroke patients, a new study shows.
The research could offer clinicians an alternative to insulin therapy to treat hyperglycemia and reduce glucose levels, which are elevated in up to 60% of stroke patients and associated with worse outcomes after stroke.
“Use of these diabetes drugs to control glucose in acute stroke has enormous potential,” said lead researcher Christopher Bladin, PhD, professor of neurology at Monash University and Eastern Health Clinical School, Australia.
The findings were presented at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) 2022 annual meeting in Lyon, France.
A better fix than insulin?
Hyperglycemia is common in stroke patients, including those who have no prior history of diabetes. Among stroke patients with normal blood glucose upon admission, about 30% will develop hyperglycemia within 48 hours of stroke onset.
Previous research suggests that hyperglycemia is a poor prognostic factor in patients with stroke and may reduce the efficacy of reperfusion therapies such as thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy.
“We’ve been looking for different ways of treating hyperglycemia for quite some time, and one of the obvious ways is to use insulin therapy,” Dr. Bladin said. “But as we’ve seen from multiple studies, insulin therapy is difficult.”
Insulin treatment is resource-heavy, significantly increases the risk for hypoglycemia, and some studies suggest the therapy isn’t associated with better outcomes.
An advantage to a GLP-1 agonist-like exenatide, Dr. Bladin added, is that it’s glucose-dependent. As the glucose level falls, the drug’s efficacy diminishes. It is delivered via an autoinjector and easy to administer.
A case for more study
To study exenatide’s efficacy in reducing hyperglycemia and improving neurologic outcomes, researchers developed the phase 2, international, multicenter, randomized controlled TEXAIS trial.
The study enrolled 350 patients following an ischemic stroke. Within 9 hours of stroke onset, patients received either standard care or a subcutaneous injection of 5 mg of exenatide twice daily for 5 days.
On admission, 42% of patients had hyperglycemia, defined as blood glucose > 7.0 mmol/L.
The study’s primary outcome was at least an 8-point improvement in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score by 7 days after treatment with exenatide. Although there was a trend toward better scores with exenatide, the score was not significantly different between groups (56.7% with standard care versus 61.2% with exenatide; adjusted odds ratio, 1.22; P = .38).
However, when the researchers examined hyperglycemia frequency, they found significantly lower incidence in patients treated with exenatide (P = .002).
There were no cases of hypoglycemia in either group, and only 4% of the study group reported nausea or vomiting.
“Clearly exenatide is having some benefit in terms of keeping glucose under control, reducing hyperglycemia,” Dr. Bladin said. “It certainly lends itself to a larger phase 3 study which can look at this more completely.”
Value to clinicians
Commenting on the findings, Yvonne Chun, PhD, honorary senior clinical lecturer at University of Edinburgh, noted that, even though the study didn’t find a significant association with improved neurological outcomes, the reduced risk for hypoglycemia makes exenatide an attractive alternative to insulin therapy in stroke patients.
“The results are of value to clinicians, as exenatide could potentially be a safer medication to administer than an insulin infusion in acute stroke patients with hyperglycemia,” Dr. Chun said. “There is less risk of hypoglycemia with exenatide compared to standard care.”
However, Dr. Chun noted that more study is needed before exenatide can replace standard care. Dr. Bladin agrees and would like to pursue a phase 3 trial with a modified design to answer questions raised by Dr. Chun and others.
“The next phase could consider changing the primary outcome to an ordinal shift analysis on modified Rankin Scale – a very commonly used primary outcome in stroke clinical trials to assess improvement in disability,” Dr. Chun said. “The primary outcome used in the presented trial – an 8-point improvement on NIHSS – seemed too ambitious and does not inform disability of the patient post stroke.”
Dr. Bladin said he would also like to see the next phase enroll more patients, examine a higher dose of exenatide, and include better stratification of patients with a history of diabetes. Such a trial could yield findings demonstrating the drug’s effectiveness at reducing hyperglycemia and improving outcomes after stroke, he said.
“I can see the day patients will come in with acute stroke, and as they’re coming into the emergency department, they’ll simply get their shot of exenatide because we know it’s safe to use, and it doesn’t cause hypoglycemia,” Dr. Bladin said. “And from the moment that patient arrives the glucose control is underway.”
Dr. Bladin and Dr. Chun reported no relevant financial relationships. Study funding was not disclosed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Treatment with the diabetes drug exenatide was associated with a significant decrease in hyperglycemia in acute stroke patients, a new study shows.
The research could offer clinicians an alternative to insulin therapy to treat hyperglycemia and reduce glucose levels, which are elevated in up to 60% of stroke patients and associated with worse outcomes after stroke.
“Use of these diabetes drugs to control glucose in acute stroke has enormous potential,” said lead researcher Christopher Bladin, PhD, professor of neurology at Monash University and Eastern Health Clinical School, Australia.
The findings were presented at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) 2022 annual meeting in Lyon, France.
A better fix than insulin?
Hyperglycemia is common in stroke patients, including those who have no prior history of diabetes. Among stroke patients with normal blood glucose upon admission, about 30% will develop hyperglycemia within 48 hours of stroke onset.
Previous research suggests that hyperglycemia is a poor prognostic factor in patients with stroke and may reduce the efficacy of reperfusion therapies such as thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy.
“We’ve been looking for different ways of treating hyperglycemia for quite some time, and one of the obvious ways is to use insulin therapy,” Dr. Bladin said. “But as we’ve seen from multiple studies, insulin therapy is difficult.”
Insulin treatment is resource-heavy, significantly increases the risk for hypoglycemia, and some studies suggest the therapy isn’t associated with better outcomes.
An advantage to a GLP-1 agonist-like exenatide, Dr. Bladin added, is that it’s glucose-dependent. As the glucose level falls, the drug’s efficacy diminishes. It is delivered via an autoinjector and easy to administer.
A case for more study
To study exenatide’s efficacy in reducing hyperglycemia and improving neurologic outcomes, researchers developed the phase 2, international, multicenter, randomized controlled TEXAIS trial.
The study enrolled 350 patients following an ischemic stroke. Within 9 hours of stroke onset, patients received either standard care or a subcutaneous injection of 5 mg of exenatide twice daily for 5 days.
On admission, 42% of patients had hyperglycemia, defined as blood glucose > 7.0 mmol/L.
The study’s primary outcome was at least an 8-point improvement in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score by 7 days after treatment with exenatide. Although there was a trend toward better scores with exenatide, the score was not significantly different between groups (56.7% with standard care versus 61.2% with exenatide; adjusted odds ratio, 1.22; P = .38).
However, when the researchers examined hyperglycemia frequency, they found significantly lower incidence in patients treated with exenatide (P = .002).
There were no cases of hypoglycemia in either group, and only 4% of the study group reported nausea or vomiting.
“Clearly exenatide is having some benefit in terms of keeping glucose under control, reducing hyperglycemia,” Dr. Bladin said. “It certainly lends itself to a larger phase 3 study which can look at this more completely.”
Value to clinicians
Commenting on the findings, Yvonne Chun, PhD, honorary senior clinical lecturer at University of Edinburgh, noted that, even though the study didn’t find a significant association with improved neurological outcomes, the reduced risk for hypoglycemia makes exenatide an attractive alternative to insulin therapy in stroke patients.
“The results are of value to clinicians, as exenatide could potentially be a safer medication to administer than an insulin infusion in acute stroke patients with hyperglycemia,” Dr. Chun said. “There is less risk of hypoglycemia with exenatide compared to standard care.”
However, Dr. Chun noted that more study is needed before exenatide can replace standard care. Dr. Bladin agrees and would like to pursue a phase 3 trial with a modified design to answer questions raised by Dr. Chun and others.
“The next phase could consider changing the primary outcome to an ordinal shift analysis on modified Rankin Scale – a very commonly used primary outcome in stroke clinical trials to assess improvement in disability,” Dr. Chun said. “The primary outcome used in the presented trial – an 8-point improvement on NIHSS – seemed too ambitious and does not inform disability of the patient post stroke.”
Dr. Bladin said he would also like to see the next phase enroll more patients, examine a higher dose of exenatide, and include better stratification of patients with a history of diabetes. Such a trial could yield findings demonstrating the drug’s effectiveness at reducing hyperglycemia and improving outcomes after stroke, he said.
“I can see the day patients will come in with acute stroke, and as they’re coming into the emergency department, they’ll simply get their shot of exenatide because we know it’s safe to use, and it doesn’t cause hypoglycemia,” Dr. Bladin said. “And from the moment that patient arrives the glucose control is underway.”
Dr. Bladin and Dr. Chun reported no relevant financial relationships. Study funding was not disclosed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESOC 2022