Clinician Reviews

Scientists at Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania have discovered a new antibiotic candidate in a surprising place: the human gut. 

In mice, the antibiotic — a peptide known as prevotellin-2 — showed antimicrobial potency on par with polymyxin B, an antibiotic medication used to treat multidrug-resistant infections. Meanwhile, the peptide mainly left commensal, or beneficial, bacteria alone. The study, published in Cell, also identified several other potent antibiotic peptides with the potential to combat antimicrobial-resistant infections.

The research is part of a larger quest to find new antibiotics that can fight drug-resistant infections, a critical public health threat with more than 2.8 million cases and 35,000 deaths annually in the United States. That quest is urgent, said study author César de la Fuente, PhD, professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 

“The main pillars that have enabled us to almost double our lifespan in the last 100 years or so have been antibiotics, vaccines, and clean water,” said Dr. de la Fuente. “Imagine taking out one of those. I think it would be pretty dramatic.” (Dr. De la Fuente’s lab has become known for finding antibiotic candidates in unusual places, like ancient genetic information of Neanderthals and woolly mammoths.)  

The first widely used antibiotic, penicillin, was discovered in 1928, when a physician studying Staphylococcus bacteria returned to his lab after summer break to find mold growing in one of his petri dishes. But many other antibiotics — like streptomycin, tetracycline, and erythromycin — were discovered from soil bacteria, which produce variations of these substances to compete with other microorganisms. 

By looking in the gut microbiome, the researchers hoped to identify peptides that the trillions of microbes use against each other in the fight for limited resources — ideally, peptides that wouldn’t broadly kill off the entire microbiome. 
 

Kill the Bad, Spare the Good

Many traditional antibiotics are small molecules. This means they can wipe out the good bacteria in your body, and because each targets a specific bacterial function, bad bacteria can become resistant to them.

Peptide antibiotics, on the other hand, don’t diffuse into the whole body. If taken orally, they stay in the gut; if taken intravenously, they generally stay in the blood. And because of how they kill bacteria, targeting the membrane, they’re also less prone to bacterial resistance.

The microbiome is like a big reservoir of pathogens, said Ami Bhatt, MD, PhD, hematologist at Stanford University in California and one of the study’s authors. Because many antibiotics kill healthy gut bacteria, “what you have left over,” Dr. Bhatt said, “is this big open niche that gets filled up with multidrug-resistant organisms like E coli [Escherichia coli] or vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus.”

Dr. Bhatt has seen cancer patients undergo successful treatment only to die of a multidrug-resistant infection, because current antibiotics fail against those pathogens. “That’s like winning the battle to lose the war.”

By investigating the microbiome, “we wanted to see if we could identify antimicrobial peptides that might spare key members of our regular microbiome, so that we wouldn’t totally disrupt the microbiome the way we do when we use broad-spectrum, small molecule–based antibiotics,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The researchers used artificial intelligence to sift through 400,000 proteins to predict, based on known antibiotics, which peptide sequences might have antimicrobial properties. From the results, they chose 78 peptides to synthesize and test.

“The application of computational approaches combined with experimental validation is very powerful and exciting,” said Jennifer Geddes-McAlister, PhD, professor of cell biology at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, who was not involved in the study. “The study is robust in its approach to microbiome sampling.” 
 

The Long Journey from Lab to Clinic

More than half of the peptides the team tested effectively inhibited the growth of harmful bacteria, and prevotellin-2 (derived from the bacteria Prevotella copri)stood out as the most powerful.

“The study validates experimental data from the lab using animal models, which moves discoveries closer to the clinic,” said Dr. Geddes-McAlister. “Further testing with clinical trials is needed, but the potential for clinical application is promising.” 

Unfortunately, that’s not likely to happen anytime soon, said Dr. de la Fuente. “There is not enough economic incentive” for companies to develop new antibiotics. Ten years is his most hopeful guess for when we might see prevotellin-2, or a similar antibiotic, complete clinical trials.

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

Scientists at Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania have discovered a new antibiotic candidate in a surprising place: the human gut. 

In mice, the antibiotic — a peptide known as prevotellin-2 — showed antimicrobial potency on par with polymyxin B, an antibiotic medication used to treat multidrug-resistant infections. Meanwhile, the peptide mainly left commensal, or beneficial, bacteria alone. The study, published in Cell, also identified several other potent antibiotic peptides with the potential to combat antimicrobial-resistant infections.

The research is part of a larger quest to find new antibiotics that can fight drug-resistant infections, a critical public health threat with more than 2.8 million cases and 35,000 deaths annually in the United States. That quest is urgent, said study author César de la Fuente, PhD, professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 

“The main pillars that have enabled us to almost double our lifespan in the last 100 years or so have been antibiotics, vaccines, and clean water,” said Dr. de la Fuente. “Imagine taking out one of those. I think it would be pretty dramatic.” (Dr. De la Fuente’s lab has become known for finding antibiotic candidates in unusual places, like ancient genetic information of Neanderthals and woolly mammoths.)  

The first widely used antibiotic, penicillin, was discovered in 1928, when a physician studying Staphylococcus bacteria returned to his lab after summer break to find mold growing in one of his petri dishes. But many other antibiotics — like streptomycin, tetracycline, and erythromycin — were discovered from soil bacteria, which produce variations of these substances to compete with other microorganisms. 

By looking in the gut microbiome, the researchers hoped to identify peptides that the trillions of microbes use against each other in the fight for limited resources — ideally, peptides that wouldn’t broadly kill off the entire microbiome. 
 

Kill the Bad, Spare the Good

Many traditional antibiotics are small molecules. This means they can wipe out the good bacteria in your body, and because each targets a specific bacterial function, bad bacteria can become resistant to them.

Peptide antibiotics, on the other hand, don’t diffuse into the whole body. If taken orally, they stay in the gut; if taken intravenously, they generally stay in the blood. And because of how they kill bacteria, targeting the membrane, they’re also less prone to bacterial resistance.

The microbiome is like a big reservoir of pathogens, said Ami Bhatt, MD, PhD, hematologist at Stanford University in California and one of the study’s authors. Because many antibiotics kill healthy gut bacteria, “what you have left over,” Dr. Bhatt said, “is this big open niche that gets filled up with multidrug-resistant organisms like E coli [Escherichia coli] or vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus.”

Dr. Bhatt has seen cancer patients undergo successful treatment only to die of a multidrug-resistant infection, because current antibiotics fail against those pathogens. “That’s like winning the battle to lose the war.”

By investigating the microbiome, “we wanted to see if we could identify antimicrobial peptides that might spare key members of our regular microbiome, so that we wouldn’t totally disrupt the microbiome the way we do when we use broad-spectrum, small molecule–based antibiotics,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The researchers used artificial intelligence to sift through 400,000 proteins to predict, based on known antibiotics, which peptide sequences might have antimicrobial properties. From the results, they chose 78 peptides to synthesize and test.

“The application of computational approaches combined with experimental validation is very powerful and exciting,” said Jennifer Geddes-McAlister, PhD, professor of cell biology at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, who was not involved in the study. “The study is robust in its approach to microbiome sampling.” 
 

The Long Journey from Lab to Clinic

More than half of the peptides the team tested effectively inhibited the growth of harmful bacteria, and prevotellin-2 (derived from the bacteria Prevotella copri)stood out as the most powerful.

“The study validates experimental data from the lab using animal models, which moves discoveries closer to the clinic,” said Dr. Geddes-McAlister. “Further testing with clinical trials is needed, but the potential for clinical application is promising.” 

Unfortunately, that’s not likely to happen anytime soon, said Dr. de la Fuente. “There is not enough economic incentive” for companies to develop new antibiotics. Ten years is his most hopeful guess for when we might see prevotellin-2, or a similar antibiotic, complete clinical trials.

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

Scientists at Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania have discovered a new antibiotic candidate in a surprising place: the human gut. 

In mice, the antibiotic — a peptide known as prevotellin-2 — showed antimicrobial potency on par with polymyxin B, an antibiotic medication used to treat multidrug-resistant infections. Meanwhile, the peptide mainly left commensal, or beneficial, bacteria alone. The study, published in Cell, also identified several other potent antibiotic peptides with the potential to combat antimicrobial-resistant infections.

The research is part of a larger quest to find new antibiotics that can fight drug-resistant infections, a critical public health threat with more than 2.8 million cases and 35,000 deaths annually in the United States. That quest is urgent, said study author César de la Fuente, PhD, professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 

“The main pillars that have enabled us to almost double our lifespan in the last 100 years or so have been antibiotics, vaccines, and clean water,” said Dr. de la Fuente. “Imagine taking out one of those. I think it would be pretty dramatic.” (Dr. De la Fuente’s lab has become known for finding antibiotic candidates in unusual places, like ancient genetic information of Neanderthals and woolly mammoths.)  

The first widely used antibiotic, penicillin, was discovered in 1928, when a physician studying Staphylococcus bacteria returned to his lab after summer break to find mold growing in one of his petri dishes. But many other antibiotics — like streptomycin, tetracycline, and erythromycin — were discovered from soil bacteria, which produce variations of these substances to compete with other microorganisms. 

By looking in the gut microbiome, the researchers hoped to identify peptides that the trillions of microbes use against each other in the fight for limited resources — ideally, peptides that wouldn’t broadly kill off the entire microbiome. 
 

Kill the Bad, Spare the Good

Many traditional antibiotics are small molecules. This means they can wipe out the good bacteria in your body, and because each targets a specific bacterial function, bad bacteria can become resistant to them.

Peptide antibiotics, on the other hand, don’t diffuse into the whole body. If taken orally, they stay in the gut; if taken intravenously, they generally stay in the blood. And because of how they kill bacteria, targeting the membrane, they’re also less prone to bacterial resistance.

The microbiome is like a big reservoir of pathogens, said Ami Bhatt, MD, PhD, hematologist at Stanford University in California and one of the study’s authors. Because many antibiotics kill healthy gut bacteria, “what you have left over,” Dr. Bhatt said, “is this big open niche that gets filled up with multidrug-resistant organisms like E coli [Escherichia coli] or vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus.”

Dr. Bhatt has seen cancer patients undergo successful treatment only to die of a multidrug-resistant infection, because current antibiotics fail against those pathogens. “That’s like winning the battle to lose the war.”

By investigating the microbiome, “we wanted to see if we could identify antimicrobial peptides that might spare key members of our regular microbiome, so that we wouldn’t totally disrupt the microbiome the way we do when we use broad-spectrum, small molecule–based antibiotics,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The researchers used artificial intelligence to sift through 400,000 proteins to predict, based on known antibiotics, which peptide sequences might have antimicrobial properties. From the results, they chose 78 peptides to synthesize and test.

“The application of computational approaches combined with experimental validation is very powerful and exciting,” said Jennifer Geddes-McAlister, PhD, professor of cell biology at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, who was not involved in the study. “The study is robust in its approach to microbiome sampling.” 
 

The Long Journey from Lab to Clinic

More than half of the peptides the team tested effectively inhibited the growth of harmful bacteria, and prevotellin-2 (derived from the bacteria Prevotella copri)stood out as the most powerful.

“The study validates experimental data from the lab using animal models, which moves discoveries closer to the clinic,” said Dr. Geddes-McAlister. “Further testing with clinical trials is needed, but the potential for clinical application is promising.” 

Unfortunately, that’s not likely to happen anytime soon, said Dr. de la Fuente. “There is not enough economic incentive” for companies to develop new antibiotics. Ten years is his most hopeful guess for when we might see prevotellin-2, or a similar antibiotic, complete clinical trials.

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

Ah, blood. That sweet nectar of life that quiets angina, abolishes dyspnea, prevents orthostatic syncope, and quells sinus tachycardia. As a cardiologist, I am an unabashed hemophile. 

But we liberal transfusionists are challenged on every request for consideration of transfusion. Whereas the polite may resort to whispered skepticism, vehement critics respond with scorn as if we’d asked them to burn aromatic herbs or fetch a bucket of leeches. And to what do we owe this pathological angst? The broad and persistent misinterpretation of the pesky TRICC trial (N Engl J Med. 1999;340:409-417). You know; the one that should have been published with a boxed warning stating: “Misinterpretation of this trial could result in significant harm.” 
 

Point 1: Our Actively Bleeding Patient is Not a TRICC Patient. 

Published in 1999, the TRICC trial enrolled critical anemic patients older than 16 years who were stable after fluid resuscitation and were not actively bleeding. They had a hemoglobin level < 9 g/dL and were expected to stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) for more than 24 hours. They were randomly assigned to either a conservative trigger for transfusion of < 7 g/dL or a liberal threshold of < 10 g/dL. Mortality at 30 days was lower with the conservative approach — 18.7% vs 23.3% — but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .11). The findings were similar for the secondary endpoints of inpatient mortality (22.2% vs 28.1%; P = .05) and ICU mortality (13.9% vs 16.2%; P = .29). 

One must admit that these P values are not impressive, and the authors’ conclusion should have warranted caution: “A restrictive strategy ... is at least as effective as and possibly superior to a liberal transfusion strategy in critically ill patients, with the possible exception of patients with acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina.” 
 

Point 2: Our Critically Ill Cardiac Patient is Unlikely to be a “TRICC” Patient.

Another criticism of TRICC is that only 13% of those assessed and 26% of those eligible were enrolled, mostly owing to physician refusal. Only 26% of enrolled patients had cardiac disease. This makes the TRICC population highly selected and not representative of typical ICU patients. 

To prove my point that the edict against higher transfusion thresholds can be dangerous, I’ll describe my most recent interface with TRICC trial misinterpretation 
 

A Case in Point

The patient, Mrs. Kemp,* is 79 years old and has been on aspirin for years following coronary stent placement. One evening, she began spurting bright red blood from her rectum, interrupted only briefly by large clots the consistency of jellied cranberries. When she arrived at the hospital, she was hemodynamically stable, with a hemoglobin level of 10 g/dL, down from her usual 12 g/dL. That level bolstered the confidence of her provider, who insisted that she be managed conservatively. 

Mrs. Kemp was transferred to the ward, where she continued to bleed briskly. Over the next 2 hours, her hemoglobin level dropped to 9 g/dL, then 8 g/dL. Her daughter, a healthcare worker, requested a transfusion. The answer was, wait for it — the well-scripted, somewhat patronizing oft-quoted line, “The medical literature states that we need to wait for a hemoglobin level of 7 g/dL before we transfuse.” 

Later that evening, Mrs. Kemp’s systolic blood pressure dropped to the upper 80s, despite her usual hypertension. The provider was again comforted by the fact that she was not tachycardic (she had a pacemaker and was on bisoprolol). The next morning, Mrs. Kemp felt the need to defecate and was placed on the bedside commode and left to her privacy. Predictably, she became dizzy and experienced frank syncope. Thankfully, she avoided a hip fracture or worse. A stat hemoglobin returned at 6 g/dL. 

Her daughter said she literally heard the hallelujah chorus because her mother’s hemoglobin was finally below that much revered and often misleading threshold of 7 g/dL. Finally, there was an order for platelets and packed red cells. Five units later, Mr. Kemp achieved a hemoglobin of 8 g/dL and survived. Two more units and she was soaring at 9 g/dL! 
 

Lessons for Transfusion Conservatives

There are many lessons here. 

The TRICC study found that hemodynamically stable, asymptomatic patients who are not actively bleeding may well tolerate a hemoglobin level of 7 g/dL. But a patient with bright red blood actively pouring from an orifice and a rapidly declining hemoglobin level isn’t one of those people. Additionally, a patient who faints from hypovolemia is not one of those people. 

Patients with a history of bleeding presenting with new resting sinus tachycardia (in those who have chronotropic competence) should be presumed to be actively bleeding, and the findings of TRICC do not apply to them. Patients who have bled buckets on anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapies and have dropped their hemoglobin will probably continue to ooze and should be subject to a low threshold for transfusion. 

Additionally, anemic people who are hemodynamically stable but can’t walk without new significant shortness of air or new rest angina need blood, and sometimes at hemoglobin levels higher than generally accepted by conservative strategists. Finally, failing to treat or at least monitor patients who are spontaneously bleeding as aggressively as some trauma patients is a failure to provide proper medical care. 

The vast majority of my healthcare clinician colleagues are competent, compassionate individuals who can reasonably discuss the nuances of any medical scenario. One important distinction of a good medical team is the willingness to change course based on a change in patient status or the presentation of what may be new information for the provider. 

But those proud transfusion conservatives who will not budge until their threshold is met need to make certain their patient is truly subject to their supposed edicts. Our blood banks should not be more difficult to access than Fort Knox, and transfusion should be used appropriately and liberally in the hemodynamically unstable, the symptomatic, and active brisk bleeders. 

I beg staunch transfusion conservatives to consider how they might feel if someone stuck a magic spigot in their brachial artery and acutely drained their hemoglobin to that magic threshold of 7 g/dL. When syncope, shortness of air, fatigue, and angina find them, they may generate empathy for those who need transfusion. Might that do the TRICC? 

*Some details have been changed to conceal the identity of the patient, but the essence of the case has been preserved.

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology and now does locums work in Montana, is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Ah, blood. That sweet nectar of life that quiets angina, abolishes dyspnea, prevents orthostatic syncope, and quells sinus tachycardia. As a cardiologist, I am an unabashed hemophile. 

But we liberal transfusionists are challenged on every request for consideration of transfusion. Whereas the polite may resort to whispered skepticism, vehement critics respond with scorn as if we’d asked them to burn aromatic herbs or fetch a bucket of leeches. And to what do we owe this pathological angst? The broad and persistent misinterpretation of the pesky TRICC trial (N Engl J Med. 1999;340:409-417). You know; the one that should have been published with a boxed warning stating: “Misinterpretation of this trial could result in significant harm.” 
 

Point 1: Our Actively Bleeding Patient is Not a TRICC Patient. 

Published in 1999, the TRICC trial enrolled critical anemic patients older than 16 years who were stable after fluid resuscitation and were not actively bleeding. They had a hemoglobin level < 9 g/dL and were expected to stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) for more than 24 hours. They were randomly assigned to either a conservative trigger for transfusion of < 7 g/dL or a liberal threshold of < 10 g/dL. Mortality at 30 days was lower with the conservative approach — 18.7% vs 23.3% — but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .11). The findings were similar for the secondary endpoints of inpatient mortality (22.2% vs 28.1%; P = .05) and ICU mortality (13.9% vs 16.2%; P = .29). 

One must admit that these P values are not impressive, and the authors’ conclusion should have warranted caution: “A restrictive strategy ... is at least as effective as and possibly superior to a liberal transfusion strategy in critically ill patients, with the possible exception of patients with acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina.” 
 

Point 2: Our Critically Ill Cardiac Patient is Unlikely to be a “TRICC” Patient.

Another criticism of TRICC is that only 13% of those assessed and 26% of those eligible were enrolled, mostly owing to physician refusal. Only 26% of enrolled patients had cardiac disease. This makes the TRICC population highly selected and not representative of typical ICU patients. 

To prove my point that the edict against higher transfusion thresholds can be dangerous, I’ll describe my most recent interface with TRICC trial misinterpretation 
 

A Case in Point

The patient, Mrs. Kemp,* is 79 years old and has been on aspirin for years following coronary stent placement. One evening, she began spurting bright red blood from her rectum, interrupted only briefly by large clots the consistency of jellied cranberries. When she arrived at the hospital, she was hemodynamically stable, with a hemoglobin level of 10 g/dL, down from her usual 12 g/dL. That level bolstered the confidence of her provider, who insisted that she be managed conservatively. 

Mrs. Kemp was transferred to the ward, where she continued to bleed briskly. Over the next 2 hours, her hemoglobin level dropped to 9 g/dL, then 8 g/dL. Her daughter, a healthcare worker, requested a transfusion. The answer was, wait for it — the well-scripted, somewhat patronizing oft-quoted line, “The medical literature states that we need to wait for a hemoglobin level of 7 g/dL before we transfuse.” 

Later that evening, Mrs. Kemp’s systolic blood pressure dropped to the upper 80s, despite her usual hypertension. The provider was again comforted by the fact that she was not tachycardic (she had a pacemaker and was on bisoprolol). The next morning, Mrs. Kemp felt the need to defecate and was placed on the bedside commode and left to her privacy. Predictably, she became dizzy and experienced frank syncope. Thankfully, she avoided a hip fracture or worse. A stat hemoglobin returned at 6 g/dL. 

Her daughter said she literally heard the hallelujah chorus because her mother’s hemoglobin was finally below that much revered and often misleading threshold of 7 g/dL. Finally, there was an order for platelets and packed red cells. Five units later, Mr. Kemp achieved a hemoglobin of 8 g/dL and survived. Two more units and she was soaring at 9 g/dL! 
 

Lessons for Transfusion Conservatives

There are many lessons here. 

The TRICC study found that hemodynamically stable, asymptomatic patients who are not actively bleeding may well tolerate a hemoglobin level of 7 g/dL. But a patient with bright red blood actively pouring from an orifice and a rapidly declining hemoglobin level isn’t one of those people. Additionally, a patient who faints from hypovolemia is not one of those people. 

Patients with a history of bleeding presenting with new resting sinus tachycardia (in those who have chronotropic competence) should be presumed to be actively bleeding, and the findings of TRICC do not apply to them. Patients who have bled buckets on anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapies and have dropped their hemoglobin will probably continue to ooze and should be subject to a low threshold for transfusion. 

Additionally, anemic people who are hemodynamically stable but can’t walk without new significant shortness of air or new rest angina need blood, and sometimes at hemoglobin levels higher than generally accepted by conservative strategists. Finally, failing to treat or at least monitor patients who are spontaneously bleeding as aggressively as some trauma patients is a failure to provide proper medical care. 

The vast majority of my healthcare clinician colleagues are competent, compassionate individuals who can reasonably discuss the nuances of any medical scenario. One important distinction of a good medical team is the willingness to change course based on a change in patient status or the presentation of what may be new information for the provider. 

But those proud transfusion conservatives who will not budge until their threshold is met need to make certain their patient is truly subject to their supposed edicts. Our blood banks should not be more difficult to access than Fort Knox, and transfusion should be used appropriately and liberally in the hemodynamically unstable, the symptomatic, and active brisk bleeders. 

I beg staunch transfusion conservatives to consider how they might feel if someone stuck a magic spigot in their brachial artery and acutely drained their hemoglobin to that magic threshold of 7 g/dL. When syncope, shortness of air, fatigue, and angina find them, they may generate empathy for those who need transfusion. Might that do the TRICC? 

*Some details have been changed to conceal the identity of the patient, but the essence of the case has been preserved.

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology and now does locums work in Montana, is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Ah, blood. That sweet nectar of life that quiets angina, abolishes dyspnea, prevents orthostatic syncope, and quells sinus tachycardia. As a cardiologist, I am an unabashed hemophile. 

But we liberal transfusionists are challenged on every request for consideration of transfusion. Whereas the polite may resort to whispered skepticism, vehement critics respond with scorn as if we’d asked them to burn aromatic herbs or fetch a bucket of leeches. And to what do we owe this pathological angst? The broad and persistent misinterpretation of the pesky TRICC trial (N Engl J Med. 1999;340:409-417). You know; the one that should have been published with a boxed warning stating: “Misinterpretation of this trial could result in significant harm.” 
 

Point 1: Our Actively Bleeding Patient is Not a TRICC Patient. 

Published in 1999, the TRICC trial enrolled critical anemic patients older than 16 years who were stable after fluid resuscitation and were not actively bleeding. They had a hemoglobin level < 9 g/dL and were expected to stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) for more than 24 hours. They were randomly assigned to either a conservative trigger for transfusion of < 7 g/dL or a liberal threshold of < 10 g/dL. Mortality at 30 days was lower with the conservative approach — 18.7% vs 23.3% — but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .11). The findings were similar for the secondary endpoints of inpatient mortality (22.2% vs 28.1%; P = .05) and ICU mortality (13.9% vs 16.2%; P = .29). 

One must admit that these P values are not impressive, and the authors’ conclusion should have warranted caution: “A restrictive strategy ... is at least as effective as and possibly superior to a liberal transfusion strategy in critically ill patients, with the possible exception of patients with acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina.” 
 

Point 2: Our Critically Ill Cardiac Patient is Unlikely to be a “TRICC” Patient.

Another criticism of TRICC is that only 13% of those assessed and 26% of those eligible were enrolled, mostly owing to physician refusal. Only 26% of enrolled patients had cardiac disease. This makes the TRICC population highly selected and not representative of typical ICU patients. 

To prove my point that the edict against higher transfusion thresholds can be dangerous, I’ll describe my most recent interface with TRICC trial misinterpretation 
 

A Case in Point

The patient, Mrs. Kemp,* is 79 years old and has been on aspirin for years following coronary stent placement. One evening, she began spurting bright red blood from her rectum, interrupted only briefly by large clots the consistency of jellied cranberries. When she arrived at the hospital, she was hemodynamically stable, with a hemoglobin level of 10 g/dL, down from her usual 12 g/dL. That level bolstered the confidence of her provider, who insisted that she be managed conservatively. 

Mrs. Kemp was transferred to the ward, where she continued to bleed briskly. Over the next 2 hours, her hemoglobin level dropped to 9 g/dL, then 8 g/dL. Her daughter, a healthcare worker, requested a transfusion. The answer was, wait for it — the well-scripted, somewhat patronizing oft-quoted line, “The medical literature states that we need to wait for a hemoglobin level of 7 g/dL before we transfuse.” 

Later that evening, Mrs. Kemp’s systolic blood pressure dropped to the upper 80s, despite her usual hypertension. The provider was again comforted by the fact that she was not tachycardic (she had a pacemaker and was on bisoprolol). The next morning, Mrs. Kemp felt the need to defecate and was placed on the bedside commode and left to her privacy. Predictably, she became dizzy and experienced frank syncope. Thankfully, she avoided a hip fracture or worse. A stat hemoglobin returned at 6 g/dL. 

Her daughter said she literally heard the hallelujah chorus because her mother’s hemoglobin was finally below that much revered and often misleading threshold of 7 g/dL. Finally, there was an order for platelets and packed red cells. Five units later, Mr. Kemp achieved a hemoglobin of 8 g/dL and survived. Two more units and she was soaring at 9 g/dL! 
 

Lessons for Transfusion Conservatives

There are many lessons here. 

The TRICC study found that hemodynamically stable, asymptomatic patients who are not actively bleeding may well tolerate a hemoglobin level of 7 g/dL. But a patient with bright red blood actively pouring from an orifice and a rapidly declining hemoglobin level isn’t one of those people. Additionally, a patient who faints from hypovolemia is not one of those people. 

Patients with a history of bleeding presenting with new resting sinus tachycardia (in those who have chronotropic competence) should be presumed to be actively bleeding, and the findings of TRICC do not apply to them. Patients who have bled buckets on anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapies and have dropped their hemoglobin will probably continue to ooze and should be subject to a low threshold for transfusion. 

Additionally, anemic people who are hemodynamically stable but can’t walk without new significant shortness of air or new rest angina need blood, and sometimes at hemoglobin levels higher than generally accepted by conservative strategists. Finally, failing to treat or at least monitor patients who are spontaneously bleeding as aggressively as some trauma patients is a failure to provide proper medical care. 

The vast majority of my healthcare clinician colleagues are competent, compassionate individuals who can reasonably discuss the nuances of any medical scenario. One important distinction of a good medical team is the willingness to change course based on a change in patient status or the presentation of what may be new information for the provider. 

But those proud transfusion conservatives who will not budge until their threshold is met need to make certain their patient is truly subject to their supposed edicts. Our blood banks should not be more difficult to access than Fort Knox, and transfusion should be used appropriately and liberally in the hemodynamically unstable, the symptomatic, and active brisk bleeders. 

I beg staunch transfusion conservatives to consider how they might feel if someone stuck a magic spigot in their brachial artery and acutely drained their hemoglobin to that magic threshold of 7 g/dL. When syncope, shortness of air, fatigue, and angina find them, they may generate empathy for those who need transfusion. Might that do the TRICC? 

*Some details have been changed to conceal the identity of the patient, but the essence of the case has been preserved.

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology and now does locums work in Montana, is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Preexposure prophylaxis prescription reversals and abandonments were lower for patients seen by primary care clinicians than by other non–infectious disease clinicians, based on data from approximately 37,000 individuals.

Although preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been associated with a reduced risk of HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infection when used as prescribed, the association between PrEP prescription pickup and specialty of the prescribing clinician has not been examined, wrote Lorraine T. Dean, ScD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues.

“HIV PrEP is highly effective at preventing new HIV cases, and while use is on the rise, is still used much less than it should be by people who are at risk of HIV,” Dr. Dean said in an interview. “This study is helpful in pinpointing who is at risk for not picking up PrEP and in helping us think through how to reach them so that they can be better positioned to get PrEP,” she said.

In a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data for PrEP care. The study population included 37,003 patients aged 18 years and older who received new insurer-approved PrEP prescriptions between 2015 and 2019. Most of the patients (77%) ranged in age from 25 to 64 years; 88% were male.

Pharmacy claims data were matched with clinician data from the US National Plan and Provider Enumeration System.

Clinicians were divided into three groups: primary care providers (PCPs), infectious disease specialists (IDs), and other specialists (defined as any clinician prescribing PrEP but not classified as a PCP or an ID specialist). The main binary outcomes were prescription reversal (defined as when a patient failed to retrieve a prescription) and abandonment (defined as when a patient neglected to pick up a prescription for 1 year).

Overall, of 24,604 patients 67% received prescriptions from PCPs, 3,571 (10%) received prescriptions from ID specialists, and 8828 (24%) received prescriptions from other specialty clinicians.

The prevalence of reversals for patients seen by PCPs, ID specialists, and other specialty clinicians was 18%, 18%, and 25%, respectively. The prevalence of abandonments by clinician group was 12%, 12%, and 20%, respectively.

In a regression analysis, patients prescribed PrEP by ID specialists had 10% lower odds of reversals and 12% lower odds of abandonments compared to those seen by PCPs (odds ratio 0.90 and 0.88, respectively). However, patients seen by other clinicians (not primary care or ID) were 33% and 54% more likely to have reversals and abandonments, respectively, compared with those seen by PCPs.

Many patients at risk for HIV first see a PCP and then are referred to a specialist, such as an ID physician, Dr. Dean said. “The patients who take the time to then follow up with a specialist may be most motivated and able to follow through with the specialist’s request, in this case, accessing their PrEP prescription,” she said. In the current study, the researchers were most surprised by how many other specialty providers are involved in PrEP care, which is very positive given the effectiveness of the medication, she noted.

“Our results suggest that a wide range of prescribers, regardless of specialty, should be equipped to prescribe PrEP as well as offer PrEP counseling,” Dr. Dean said. A key takeaway for clinicians is that PrEP should have no cost for the majority of patients in the United States, she emphasized. The absence of cost expands the population who should be interested and able to access PrEP, she said. Therefore, providers should be prepared to recommend PrEP to eligible patients, and seek training or continuing medical education for themselves so they feel equipped to prescribe and counsel patients on PrEP, she said.

“One limitation of this work is that, while it can point to what is happening, it cannot tell us why the reversals are happening; what is the reason patients prescribed by certain providers are more or less likely to get their PrEP,” Dr. Dean explained. “We have tried to do interviews with patients to understand why this might be happening, but it’s hard to find people who aren’t showing up to do something, compared to finding people who are showing up to do something,” she said. Alternatively, researchers could interview providers to understand their perspective on why differences in prescription pickups occur across specialties, she said.

Looking ahead, “a national PrEP program that includes elements of required clinician training could be beneficial, and research on how a national PrEP program could be implemented and impact HIV rates would be helpful in considering this strategy of prevention,” said Dr. Dean. 
 

Support All Prescribers to Increase PrEP Adherence

Differences in uptake of PrEP prescriptions may be explained by the different populations seen by various specialties, Meredith Green, MD, of Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, and Lona Mody, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an accompanying editorial. However, the key question is how to support all prescribers and promote initiation and adherence to PrEP, they said.

Considerations include whether people at risk for HIV prefer to discuss PrEP with a clinician they already know, vs. a new specialist, but many PCPs are not familiar with the latest PrEP guidelines, they said.

“Interventions that support PrEP provision by PCPs, especially since they prescribed the largest proportion of PrEP prescriptions, can accelerate the uptake of PrEP,” the editorialists wrote.

“Supporting a diverse clinician workforce reflective of communities most impacted by HIV will remain critical, as will acknowledging and addressing HIV stigma,” they said. Educational interventions, including online programs and specialist access for complex cases, would help as well, they said. The approval of additional PrEP agents since the current study was conducted make it even more important to support PrEP prescribers and promote treatment adherence for those at risk for HIV, Dr. Green and Dr. Mody emphasized.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Dean had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Green disclosed grants from Gilead and royalties from Wolters Kluwer unrelated to the current study; she also disclosed serving on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Health Resources and Services Administration advisory committee on HIV, viral hepatitis, and sexually transmitted infection prevention and treatment. Dr. Mody disclosed grants from the US National Institute on Aging, Veterans Affairs, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NanoVibronix, and UpToDate unrelated to the current study.

Preexposure prophylaxis prescription reversals and abandonments were lower for patients seen by primary care clinicians than by other non–infectious disease clinicians, based on data from approximately 37,000 individuals.

Although preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been associated with a reduced risk of HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infection when used as prescribed, the association between PrEP prescription pickup and specialty of the prescribing clinician has not been examined, wrote Lorraine T. Dean, ScD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues.

“HIV PrEP is highly effective at preventing new HIV cases, and while use is on the rise, is still used much less than it should be by people who are at risk of HIV,” Dr. Dean said in an interview. “This study is helpful in pinpointing who is at risk for not picking up PrEP and in helping us think through how to reach them so that they can be better positioned to get PrEP,” she said.

In a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data for PrEP care. The study population included 37,003 patients aged 18 years and older who received new insurer-approved PrEP prescriptions between 2015 and 2019. Most of the patients (77%) ranged in age from 25 to 64 years; 88% were male.

Pharmacy claims data were matched with clinician data from the US National Plan and Provider Enumeration System.

Clinicians were divided into three groups: primary care providers (PCPs), infectious disease specialists (IDs), and other specialists (defined as any clinician prescribing PrEP but not classified as a PCP or an ID specialist). The main binary outcomes were prescription reversal (defined as when a patient failed to retrieve a prescription) and abandonment (defined as when a patient neglected to pick up a prescription for 1 year).

Overall, of 24,604 patients 67% received prescriptions from PCPs, 3,571 (10%) received prescriptions from ID specialists, and 8828 (24%) received prescriptions from other specialty clinicians.

The prevalence of reversals for patients seen by PCPs, ID specialists, and other specialty clinicians was 18%, 18%, and 25%, respectively. The prevalence of abandonments by clinician group was 12%, 12%, and 20%, respectively.

In a regression analysis, patients prescribed PrEP by ID specialists had 10% lower odds of reversals and 12% lower odds of abandonments compared to those seen by PCPs (odds ratio 0.90 and 0.88, respectively). However, patients seen by other clinicians (not primary care or ID) were 33% and 54% more likely to have reversals and abandonments, respectively, compared with those seen by PCPs.

Many patients at risk for HIV first see a PCP and then are referred to a specialist, such as an ID physician, Dr. Dean said. “The patients who take the time to then follow up with a specialist may be most motivated and able to follow through with the specialist’s request, in this case, accessing their PrEP prescription,” she said. In the current study, the researchers were most surprised by how many other specialty providers are involved in PrEP care, which is very positive given the effectiveness of the medication, she noted.

“Our results suggest that a wide range of prescribers, regardless of specialty, should be equipped to prescribe PrEP as well as offer PrEP counseling,” Dr. Dean said. A key takeaway for clinicians is that PrEP should have no cost for the majority of patients in the United States, she emphasized. The absence of cost expands the population who should be interested and able to access PrEP, she said. Therefore, providers should be prepared to recommend PrEP to eligible patients, and seek training or continuing medical education for themselves so they feel equipped to prescribe and counsel patients on PrEP, she said.

“One limitation of this work is that, while it can point to what is happening, it cannot tell us why the reversals are happening; what is the reason patients prescribed by certain providers are more or less likely to get their PrEP,” Dr. Dean explained. “We have tried to do interviews with patients to understand why this might be happening, but it’s hard to find people who aren’t showing up to do something, compared to finding people who are showing up to do something,” she said. Alternatively, researchers could interview providers to understand their perspective on why differences in prescription pickups occur across specialties, she said.

Looking ahead, “a national PrEP program that includes elements of required clinician training could be beneficial, and research on how a national PrEP program could be implemented and impact HIV rates would be helpful in considering this strategy of prevention,” said Dr. Dean. 
 

Support All Prescribers to Increase PrEP Adherence

Differences in uptake of PrEP prescriptions may be explained by the different populations seen by various specialties, Meredith Green, MD, of Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, and Lona Mody, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an accompanying editorial. However, the key question is how to support all prescribers and promote initiation and adherence to PrEP, they said.

Considerations include whether people at risk for HIV prefer to discuss PrEP with a clinician they already know, vs. a new specialist, but many PCPs are not familiar with the latest PrEP guidelines, they said.

“Interventions that support PrEP provision by PCPs, especially since they prescribed the largest proportion of PrEP prescriptions, can accelerate the uptake of PrEP,” the editorialists wrote.

“Supporting a diverse clinician workforce reflective of communities most impacted by HIV will remain critical, as will acknowledging and addressing HIV stigma,” they said. Educational interventions, including online programs and specialist access for complex cases, would help as well, they said. The approval of additional PrEP agents since the current study was conducted make it even more important to support PrEP prescribers and promote treatment adherence for those at risk for HIV, Dr. Green and Dr. Mody emphasized.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Dean had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Green disclosed grants from Gilead and royalties from Wolters Kluwer unrelated to the current study; she also disclosed serving on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Health Resources and Services Administration advisory committee on HIV, viral hepatitis, and sexually transmitted infection prevention and treatment. Dr. Mody disclosed grants from the US National Institute on Aging, Veterans Affairs, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NanoVibronix, and UpToDate unrelated to the current study.

Preexposure prophylaxis prescription reversals and abandonments were lower for patients seen by primary care clinicians than by other non–infectious disease clinicians, based on data from approximately 37,000 individuals.

Although preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been associated with a reduced risk of HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infection when used as prescribed, the association between PrEP prescription pickup and specialty of the prescribing clinician has not been examined, wrote Lorraine T. Dean, ScD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues.

“HIV PrEP is highly effective at preventing new HIV cases, and while use is on the rise, is still used much less than it should be by people who are at risk of HIV,” Dr. Dean said in an interview. “This study is helpful in pinpointing who is at risk for not picking up PrEP and in helping us think through how to reach them so that they can be better positioned to get PrEP,” she said.

In a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data for PrEP care. The study population included 37,003 patients aged 18 years and older who received new insurer-approved PrEP prescriptions between 2015 and 2019. Most of the patients (77%) ranged in age from 25 to 64 years; 88% were male.

Pharmacy claims data were matched with clinician data from the US National Plan and Provider Enumeration System.

Clinicians were divided into three groups: primary care providers (PCPs), infectious disease specialists (IDs), and other specialists (defined as any clinician prescribing PrEP but not classified as a PCP or an ID specialist). The main binary outcomes were prescription reversal (defined as when a patient failed to retrieve a prescription) and abandonment (defined as when a patient neglected to pick up a prescription for 1 year).

Overall, of 24,604 patients 67% received prescriptions from PCPs, 3,571 (10%) received prescriptions from ID specialists, and 8828 (24%) received prescriptions from other specialty clinicians.

The prevalence of reversals for patients seen by PCPs, ID specialists, and other specialty clinicians was 18%, 18%, and 25%, respectively. The prevalence of abandonments by clinician group was 12%, 12%, and 20%, respectively.

In a regression analysis, patients prescribed PrEP by ID specialists had 10% lower odds of reversals and 12% lower odds of abandonments compared to those seen by PCPs (odds ratio 0.90 and 0.88, respectively). However, patients seen by other clinicians (not primary care or ID) were 33% and 54% more likely to have reversals and abandonments, respectively, compared with those seen by PCPs.

Many patients at risk for HIV first see a PCP and then are referred to a specialist, such as an ID physician, Dr. Dean said. “The patients who take the time to then follow up with a specialist may be most motivated and able to follow through with the specialist’s request, in this case, accessing their PrEP prescription,” she said. In the current study, the researchers were most surprised by how many other specialty providers are involved in PrEP care, which is very positive given the effectiveness of the medication, she noted.

“Our results suggest that a wide range of prescribers, regardless of specialty, should be equipped to prescribe PrEP as well as offer PrEP counseling,” Dr. Dean said. A key takeaway for clinicians is that PrEP should have no cost for the majority of patients in the United States, she emphasized. The absence of cost expands the population who should be interested and able to access PrEP, she said. Therefore, providers should be prepared to recommend PrEP to eligible patients, and seek training or continuing medical education for themselves so they feel equipped to prescribe and counsel patients on PrEP, she said.

“One limitation of this work is that, while it can point to what is happening, it cannot tell us why the reversals are happening; what is the reason patients prescribed by certain providers are more or less likely to get their PrEP,” Dr. Dean explained. “We have tried to do interviews with patients to understand why this might be happening, but it’s hard to find people who aren’t showing up to do something, compared to finding people who are showing up to do something,” she said. Alternatively, researchers could interview providers to understand their perspective on why differences in prescription pickups occur across specialties, she said.

Looking ahead, “a national PrEP program that includes elements of required clinician training could be beneficial, and research on how a national PrEP program could be implemented and impact HIV rates would be helpful in considering this strategy of prevention,” said Dr. Dean. 
 

Support All Prescribers to Increase PrEP Adherence

Differences in uptake of PrEP prescriptions may be explained by the different populations seen by various specialties, Meredith Green, MD, of Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, and Lona Mody, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an accompanying editorial. However, the key question is how to support all prescribers and promote initiation and adherence to PrEP, they said.

Considerations include whether people at risk for HIV prefer to discuss PrEP with a clinician they already know, vs. a new specialist, but many PCPs are not familiar with the latest PrEP guidelines, they said.

“Interventions that support PrEP provision by PCPs, especially since they prescribed the largest proportion of PrEP prescriptions, can accelerate the uptake of PrEP,” the editorialists wrote.

“Supporting a diverse clinician workforce reflective of communities most impacted by HIV will remain critical, as will acknowledging and addressing HIV stigma,” they said. Educational interventions, including online programs and specialist access for complex cases, would help as well, they said. The approval of additional PrEP agents since the current study was conducted make it even more important to support PrEP prescribers and promote treatment adherence for those at risk for HIV, Dr. Green and Dr. Mody emphasized.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Dean had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Green disclosed grants from Gilead and royalties from Wolters Kluwer unrelated to the current study; she also disclosed serving on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Health Resources and Services Administration advisory committee on HIV, viral hepatitis, and sexually transmitted infection prevention and treatment. Dr. Mody disclosed grants from the US National Institute on Aging, Veterans Affairs, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NanoVibronix, and UpToDate unrelated to the current study.

Edema in the feet and legs is a common complaint in our practices. It can cause pain, weakness, heaviness, discomfort, limited movement, and a negative body image. Medications can contribute to edema, either alone or in combination with other health issues.

Edema is also associated with advanced age, female sex, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, pain, lack of physical activity, and mobility limitations. These factors often necessitate medication prescriptions, which can aggravate the problem. Therefore, it is important to know how to treat or prevent medication-induced edema.

There are four main causes of edema, and all can facilitate medication-induced edema.

• Increased capillary pressure. Conditions such as heart failure, renal dysfunction, venous insufficiency, deep vein thrombosis, and cirrhosis can increase capillary pressure, leading to edema.
• Decreased oncotic pressure. Hypoalbuminemia, a primary cause of reduced colloid oncotic pressure, can result from nephrotic syndrome, diabetic nephropathy, lupus nephropathy, amyloidosis, nephropathies, cirrhosis, chronic liver disease, and malabsorption or malnutrition.
• Increased capillary permeability. Vascular injury, often associated with diabetes, can increase capillary permeability and contribute to edema.
• Impaired lymphatic drainage. Lymphatic obstruction is common in patients with lymphedema, tumors, inflammation, fibrosis, certain infections, surgery, and congenital anomalies. Conditions such as thyroid disorders can also cause an increase in interstitial albumin and other proteins without a corresponding increase in lymphatic flow, leading to lymphedema.

Medications That Can Cause Edema

• Calcium channel blockers (CCBs). Drugs such as nifedipine and amlodipine can increase hydrostatic pressure by causing selective vasodilation of precapillary vessels, leading to increased intracapillary pressures. Newer lipophilic CCBs (eg, levamlodipine) exhibit lower rates of edema. Reducing the dose is often effective. Diuretics are not very effective for vasodilation-induced edema. Combining CCBs with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), which induce postcapillary dilation and normalize intracapillary pressure, may reduce fluid leakage into the interstitial space. This combination may be more beneficial than high-dose CCB monotherapy.
• Thiazolidinedione (eg, pioglitazone). These increase vascular permeability and hydrostatic pressure. They work by stimulating the peroxisome proliferator–activated gamma receptor, increasing vascular endothelial permeability, vascular endothelial growth factor secretion, and renal retention of sodium and fluids. Because of other adverse effects, their use is now limited.
• Agents for neuropathic pain (gabapentin and pregabalin). These drugs can induce selective vasodilation of arterioles through a mechanism similar to that of CCBs, causing increased intracapillary pressures. Edema usually begins within the first month of treatment or dose increase and often regresses after dose reduction or drug discontinuation.
• Antiparkinsonian dopamine agonists. These increase hydrostatic pressure by reducing sympathetic tone and dilating arterioles through alpha-2 adrenergic receptor activity.
• New antipsychotics. Drugs like clozapine, iloperidone, lurasidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone can increase hydrostatic pressure through antagonistic effects on alpha-1 adrenergic receptors, causing vasodilation.
• Nitrates. These drugs increase hydrostatic pressure by causing preferential venous dilation, leading to increased venous pooling.
• Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). These drugs can increase hydrostatic pressure by inhibiting vasodilation of afferent renal arterioles, decreasing the glomerular filtration rate, and stimulating the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which leads to sodium and water retention. These adverse effects warrant cautious use of these agents.
• ACE inhibitors. Drugs such as enalapril and ramipril can increase vascular permeability. They reduce the metabolism and accumulation of bradykinin, which increases vascular permeability and fluid leakage. These effects are rare and are usually related to allergic responses.
• Insulin. Insulin decreases capillary oncotic pressure and increases vascular permeability. Rapid correction of hyperglycemia can cause a loss of oncotic pressure, while chronic hyperglycemia can damage vascular membranes, increasing permeability. These effects are generally benign and can be managed with careful dose titration, sodium restriction, or diuretics.
• Steroids. Steroids with mineralocorticoid activity can increase renal sodium and water retention, leading to increased blood volume. Fludrocortisone has the highest mineralocorticoid activity, while dexamethasone and methylprednisolone have negligible activity.

Implications

Understanding how these medications cause edema is important for effective management. For example, in the case of those causing edema due to reduced oncotic pressure, like insulin, slow dose titrations can help adapt to osmolarity changes. For drugs causing edema due to increased hydrostatic pressure, diuretics are more effective in acute management.

The key takeaways from this review are:

• Awareness of drug-induced edema. Many drugs besides CCBs can cause edema.
• Combination therapy. Combining ACE inhibitors or ARBs with CCBs can prevent or reduce CCB-induced edema.
• Edema management strategies. Strategies to manage or prevent edema should include dose reductions or replacement of the problematic medication, especially in severe or refractory cases.

Dr. Wajngarten, professor of cardiology, University of São Paulo, Brazil, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Edema in the feet and legs is a common complaint in our practices. It can cause pain, weakness, heaviness, discomfort, limited movement, and a negative body image. Medications can contribute to edema, either alone or in combination with other health issues.

Edema is also associated with advanced age, female sex, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, pain, lack of physical activity, and mobility limitations. These factors often necessitate medication prescriptions, which can aggravate the problem. Therefore, it is important to know how to treat or prevent medication-induced edema.

There are four main causes of edema, and all can facilitate medication-induced edema.

• Increased capillary pressure. Conditions such as heart failure, renal dysfunction, venous insufficiency, deep vein thrombosis, and cirrhosis can increase capillary pressure, leading to edema.
• Decreased oncotic pressure. Hypoalbuminemia, a primary cause of reduced colloid oncotic pressure, can result from nephrotic syndrome, diabetic nephropathy, lupus nephropathy, amyloidosis, nephropathies, cirrhosis, chronic liver disease, and malabsorption or malnutrition.
• Increased capillary permeability. Vascular injury, often associated with diabetes, can increase capillary permeability and contribute to edema.
• Impaired lymphatic drainage. Lymphatic obstruction is common in patients with lymphedema, tumors, inflammation, fibrosis, certain infections, surgery, and congenital anomalies. Conditions such as thyroid disorders can also cause an increase in interstitial albumin and other proteins without a corresponding increase in lymphatic flow, leading to lymphedema.

Medications That Can Cause Edema

• Calcium channel blockers (CCBs). Drugs such as nifedipine and amlodipine can increase hydrostatic pressure by causing selective vasodilation of precapillary vessels, leading to increased intracapillary pressures. Newer lipophilic CCBs (eg, levamlodipine) exhibit lower rates of edema. Reducing the dose is often effective. Diuretics are not very effective for vasodilation-induced edema. Combining CCBs with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), which induce postcapillary dilation and normalize intracapillary pressure, may reduce fluid leakage into the interstitial space. This combination may be more beneficial than high-dose CCB monotherapy.
• Thiazolidinedione (eg, pioglitazone). These increase vascular permeability and hydrostatic pressure. They work by stimulating the peroxisome proliferator–activated gamma receptor, increasing vascular endothelial permeability, vascular endothelial growth factor secretion, and renal retention of sodium and fluids. Because of other adverse effects, their use is now limited.
• Agents for neuropathic pain (gabapentin and pregabalin). These drugs can induce selective vasodilation of arterioles through a mechanism similar to that of CCBs, causing increased intracapillary pressures. Edema usually begins within the first month of treatment or dose increase and often regresses after dose reduction or drug discontinuation.
• Antiparkinsonian dopamine agonists. These increase hydrostatic pressure by reducing sympathetic tone and dilating arterioles through alpha-2 adrenergic receptor activity.
• New antipsychotics. Drugs like clozapine, iloperidone, lurasidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone can increase hydrostatic pressure through antagonistic effects on alpha-1 adrenergic receptors, causing vasodilation.
• Nitrates. These drugs increase hydrostatic pressure by causing preferential venous dilation, leading to increased venous pooling.
• Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). These drugs can increase hydrostatic pressure by inhibiting vasodilation of afferent renal arterioles, decreasing the glomerular filtration rate, and stimulating the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which leads to sodium and water retention. These adverse effects warrant cautious use of these agents.
• ACE inhibitors. Drugs such as enalapril and ramipril can increase vascular permeability. They reduce the metabolism and accumulation of bradykinin, which increases vascular permeability and fluid leakage. These effects are rare and are usually related to allergic responses.
• Insulin. Insulin decreases capillary oncotic pressure and increases vascular permeability. Rapid correction of hyperglycemia can cause a loss of oncotic pressure, while chronic hyperglycemia can damage vascular membranes, increasing permeability. These effects are generally benign and can be managed with careful dose titration, sodium restriction, or diuretics.
• Steroids. Steroids with mineralocorticoid activity can increase renal sodium and water retention, leading to increased blood volume. Fludrocortisone has the highest mineralocorticoid activity, while dexamethasone and methylprednisolone have negligible activity.

Implications

Understanding how these medications cause edema is important for effective management. For example, in the case of those causing edema due to reduced oncotic pressure, like insulin, slow dose titrations can help adapt to osmolarity changes. For drugs causing edema due to increased hydrostatic pressure, diuretics are more effective in acute management.

The key takeaways from this review are:

• Awareness of drug-induced edema. Many drugs besides CCBs can cause edema.
• Combination therapy. Combining ACE inhibitors or ARBs with CCBs can prevent or reduce CCB-induced edema.
• Edema management strategies. Strategies to manage or prevent edema should include dose reductions or replacement of the problematic medication, especially in severe or refractory cases.

Dr. Wajngarten, professor of cardiology, University of São Paulo, Brazil, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Edema in the feet and legs is a common complaint in our practices. It can cause pain, weakness, heaviness, discomfort, limited movement, and a negative body image. Medications can contribute to edema, either alone or in combination with other health issues.

Edema is also associated with advanced age, female sex, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, pain, lack of physical activity, and mobility limitations. These factors often necessitate medication prescriptions, which can aggravate the problem. Therefore, it is important to know how to treat or prevent medication-induced edema.

There are four main causes of edema, and all can facilitate medication-induced edema.

• Increased capillary pressure. Conditions such as heart failure, renal dysfunction, venous insufficiency, deep vein thrombosis, and cirrhosis can increase capillary pressure, leading to edema.
• Decreased oncotic pressure. Hypoalbuminemia, a primary cause of reduced colloid oncotic pressure, can result from nephrotic syndrome, diabetic nephropathy, lupus nephropathy, amyloidosis, nephropathies, cirrhosis, chronic liver disease, and malabsorption or malnutrition.
• Increased capillary permeability. Vascular injury, often associated with diabetes, can increase capillary permeability and contribute to edema.
• Impaired lymphatic drainage. Lymphatic obstruction is common in patients with lymphedema, tumors, inflammation, fibrosis, certain infections, surgery, and congenital anomalies. Conditions such as thyroid disorders can also cause an increase in interstitial albumin and other proteins without a corresponding increase in lymphatic flow, leading to lymphedema.

Medications That Can Cause Edema

• Calcium channel blockers (CCBs). Drugs such as nifedipine and amlodipine can increase hydrostatic pressure by causing selective vasodilation of precapillary vessels, leading to increased intracapillary pressures. Newer lipophilic CCBs (eg, levamlodipine) exhibit lower rates of edema. Reducing the dose is often effective. Diuretics are not very effective for vasodilation-induced edema. Combining CCBs with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), which induce postcapillary dilation and normalize intracapillary pressure, may reduce fluid leakage into the interstitial space. This combination may be more beneficial than high-dose CCB monotherapy.
• Thiazolidinedione (eg, pioglitazone). These increase vascular permeability and hydrostatic pressure. They work by stimulating the peroxisome proliferator–activated gamma receptor, increasing vascular endothelial permeability, vascular endothelial growth factor secretion, and renal retention of sodium and fluids. Because of other adverse effects, their use is now limited.
• Agents for neuropathic pain (gabapentin and pregabalin). These drugs can induce selective vasodilation of arterioles through a mechanism similar to that of CCBs, causing increased intracapillary pressures. Edema usually begins within the first month of treatment or dose increase and often regresses after dose reduction or drug discontinuation.
• Antiparkinsonian dopamine agonists. These increase hydrostatic pressure by reducing sympathetic tone and dilating arterioles through alpha-2 adrenergic receptor activity.
• New antipsychotics. Drugs like clozapine, iloperidone, lurasidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone can increase hydrostatic pressure through antagonistic effects on alpha-1 adrenergic receptors, causing vasodilation.
• Nitrates. These drugs increase hydrostatic pressure by causing preferential venous dilation, leading to increased venous pooling.
• Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). These drugs can increase hydrostatic pressure by inhibiting vasodilation of afferent renal arterioles, decreasing the glomerular filtration rate, and stimulating the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which leads to sodium and water retention. These adverse effects warrant cautious use of these agents.
• ACE inhibitors. Drugs such as enalapril and ramipril can increase vascular permeability. They reduce the metabolism and accumulation of bradykinin, which increases vascular permeability and fluid leakage. These effects are rare and are usually related to allergic responses.
• Insulin. Insulin decreases capillary oncotic pressure and increases vascular permeability. Rapid correction of hyperglycemia can cause a loss of oncotic pressure, while chronic hyperglycemia can damage vascular membranes, increasing permeability. These effects are generally benign and can be managed with careful dose titration, sodium restriction, or diuretics.
• Steroids. Steroids with mineralocorticoid activity can increase renal sodium and water retention, leading to increased blood volume. Fludrocortisone has the highest mineralocorticoid activity, while dexamethasone and methylprednisolone have negligible activity.

Implications

Understanding how these medications cause edema is important for effective management. For example, in the case of those causing edema due to reduced oncotic pressure, like insulin, slow dose titrations can help adapt to osmolarity changes. For drugs causing edema due to increased hydrostatic pressure, diuretics are more effective in acute management.

The key takeaways from this review are:

• Awareness of drug-induced edema. Many drugs besides CCBs can cause edema.
• Combination therapy. Combining ACE inhibitors or ARBs with CCBs can prevent or reduce CCB-induced edema.
• Edema management strategies. Strategies to manage or prevent edema should include dose reductions or replacement of the problematic medication, especially in severe or refractory cases.

Dr. Wajngarten, professor of cardiology, University of São Paulo, Brazil, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

The overall progression to chronic pancreatitis among adults was three times higher following recurrent episodes of acute pancreatitis than occurring after just the first acute pancreatitis episode.

METHODOLOGY:

• The progression of acute pancreatitis is time-dependent, with the recurrence and progression rates to recurrent acute pancreatitis and chronic pancreatitis varying based on the follow-up duration and may be affected by the cause and severity of the first acute episode.
• To better understand the progression of acute pancreatitis to recurrent acute pancreatitis and chronic pancreatitis, researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 119 studies, all of which were used for qualitative and quantitative synthesis and 29 of which also were used for calculating incidence rates.
• The primary outcomes were the incidence rates of recurrent acute and chronic pancreatitis following the initial episode of acute pancreatitis and the incidence rate of chronic pancreatitis after recurrent episodes of acute pancreatitis.
• The secondary outcomes were the cumulative incidences and proportions of recurrent acute and chronic pancreatitis following the initial acute pancreatitis episode and the proportion of chronic pancreatitis occurring after recurrent acute pancreatitis episodes.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence rate of recurrent acute pancreatitis after the first acute episode was 5.26 per 100 person-years in adults and 4.64 per 100 person-years in children, a difference that did not reach statistical significance.
• The progression rate to chronic pancreatitis in adults was threefold higher after recurrent acute pancreatitis episodes than after the first acute pancreatitis episode (4.31 vs 1.38 per 100 person-years).
• Hypertriglyceridemia-induced acute pancreatitis had the highest recurrence rates, followed by alcohol-induced, idiopathic, and biliary pancreatitis.
• The overall progression rate into chronic pancreatitis was 8% after the first acute pancreatitis episode and 24% after recurrent episodes of acute pancreatitis. Progression to chronic pancreatitis among adults was highest among those with alcohol-induced disease, followed by idiopathic and biliary pancreatitis.
• A moderately severe first episode of acute pancreatitis was associated with the highest recurrence rate, followed by mild and severe first episodes.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors emphasized the need to develop new interventions to address the factors associated with acute pancreatitis and its progression and to better utilize existing approaches, such as brief and repeated psychological interventions and alcohol and smoking cessation programs. Deeper investigation into the underlying causes of the disease’s etiology is warranted to reduce recurrence and progression rates, they noted.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Endre-Botond Gagyi, MD, of the Center for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary, was published online in Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

Most of the studies included in the analysis were retrospective, and there was high heterogeneity between them. The researchers could only analyze the presence of recurrent acute pancreatitis but could not explore the number of episodes or their impact on progression due to the lack of reported data.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the New National Excellence Program of the Ministry for Innovation and Technology from the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund. The authors declared no conflict of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

The overall progression to chronic pancreatitis among adults was three times higher following recurrent episodes of acute pancreatitis than occurring after just the first acute pancreatitis episode.

METHODOLOGY:

• The progression of acute pancreatitis is time-dependent, with the recurrence and progression rates to recurrent acute pancreatitis and chronic pancreatitis varying based on the follow-up duration and may be affected by the cause and severity of the first acute episode.
• To better understand the progression of acute pancreatitis to recurrent acute pancreatitis and chronic pancreatitis, researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 119 studies, all of which were used for qualitative and quantitative synthesis and 29 of which also were used for calculating incidence rates.
• The primary outcomes were the incidence rates of recurrent acute and chronic pancreatitis following the initial episode of acute pancreatitis and the incidence rate of chronic pancreatitis after recurrent episodes of acute pancreatitis.
• The secondary outcomes were the cumulative incidences and proportions of recurrent acute and chronic pancreatitis following the initial acute pancreatitis episode and the proportion of chronic pancreatitis occurring after recurrent acute pancreatitis episodes.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence rate of recurrent acute pancreatitis after the first acute episode was 5.26 per 100 person-years in adults and 4.64 per 100 person-years in children, a difference that did not reach statistical significance.
• The progression rate to chronic pancreatitis in adults was threefold higher after recurrent acute pancreatitis episodes than after the first acute pancreatitis episode (4.31 vs 1.38 per 100 person-years).
• Hypertriglyceridemia-induced acute pancreatitis had the highest recurrence rates, followed by alcohol-induced, idiopathic, and biliary pancreatitis.
• The overall progression rate into chronic pancreatitis was 8% after the first acute pancreatitis episode and 24% after recurrent episodes of acute pancreatitis. Progression to chronic pancreatitis among adults was highest among those with alcohol-induced disease, followed by idiopathic and biliary pancreatitis.
• A moderately severe first episode of acute pancreatitis was associated with the highest recurrence rate, followed by mild and severe first episodes.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors emphasized the need to develop new interventions to address the factors associated with acute pancreatitis and its progression and to better utilize existing approaches, such as brief and repeated psychological interventions and alcohol and smoking cessation programs. Deeper investigation into the underlying causes of the disease’s etiology is warranted to reduce recurrence and progression rates, they noted.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Endre-Botond Gagyi, MD, of the Center for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary, was published online in Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

Most of the studies included in the analysis were retrospective, and there was high heterogeneity between them. The researchers could only analyze the presence of recurrent acute pancreatitis but could not explore the number of episodes or their impact on progression due to the lack of reported data.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the New National Excellence Program of the Ministry for Innovation and Technology from the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund. The authors declared no conflict of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

The overall progression to chronic pancreatitis among adults was three times higher following recurrent episodes of acute pancreatitis than occurring after just the first acute pancreatitis episode.

METHODOLOGY:

• The progression of acute pancreatitis is time-dependent, with the recurrence and progression rates to recurrent acute pancreatitis and chronic pancreatitis varying based on the follow-up duration and may be affected by the cause and severity of the first acute episode.
• To better understand the progression of acute pancreatitis to recurrent acute pancreatitis and chronic pancreatitis, researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 119 studies, all of which were used for qualitative and quantitative synthesis and 29 of which also were used for calculating incidence rates.
• The primary outcomes were the incidence rates of recurrent acute and chronic pancreatitis following the initial episode of acute pancreatitis and the incidence rate of chronic pancreatitis after recurrent episodes of acute pancreatitis.
• The secondary outcomes were the cumulative incidences and proportions of recurrent acute and chronic pancreatitis following the initial acute pancreatitis episode and the proportion of chronic pancreatitis occurring after recurrent acute pancreatitis episodes.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence rate of recurrent acute pancreatitis after the first acute episode was 5.26 per 100 person-years in adults and 4.64 per 100 person-years in children, a difference that did not reach statistical significance.
• The progression rate to chronic pancreatitis in adults was threefold higher after recurrent acute pancreatitis episodes than after the first acute pancreatitis episode (4.31 vs 1.38 per 100 person-years).
• Hypertriglyceridemia-induced acute pancreatitis had the highest recurrence rates, followed by alcohol-induced, idiopathic, and biliary pancreatitis.
• The overall progression rate into chronic pancreatitis was 8% after the first acute pancreatitis episode and 24% after recurrent episodes of acute pancreatitis. Progression to chronic pancreatitis among adults was highest among those with alcohol-induced disease, followed by idiopathic and biliary pancreatitis.
• A moderately severe first episode of acute pancreatitis was associated with the highest recurrence rate, followed by mild and severe first episodes.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors emphasized the need to develop new interventions to address the factors associated with acute pancreatitis and its progression and to better utilize existing approaches, such as brief and repeated psychological interventions and alcohol and smoking cessation programs. Deeper investigation into the underlying causes of the disease’s etiology is warranted to reduce recurrence and progression rates, they noted.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Endre-Botond Gagyi, MD, of the Center for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary, was published online in Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

Most of the studies included in the analysis were retrospective, and there was high heterogeneity between them. The researchers could only analyze the presence of recurrent acute pancreatitis but could not explore the number of episodes or their impact on progression due to the lack of reported data.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the New National Excellence Program of the Ministry for Innovation and Technology from the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund. The authors declared no conflict of interest.

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

A multi-institutional partnership has funded six new research projects aimed at developing novel insulin analogs that more closely mimic the action of a healthy pancreas. 

The Type 1 Diabetes Grand Challenge comprises Diabetes UK, JDRF (now called “Breakthrough T1D” in the United States), and the Steve Morgan Foundation. It will provide a total of £50 million (about $64 million in US dollars) for type 1 diabetes research, including £15 million (~$19 million) for six separate projects on novel insulins to be conducted at universities in the United States, Australia, and China. Four will aim to develop glucose-responsive “smart” insulins, another one ultrafast-acting insulin, and the sixth a product combining insulin and glucagon. 

“Even with the currently available modern insulins, people living with type 1 diabetes put lots of effort into managing their diabetes every day to find a good balance between acceptable glycemic control on the one hand and avoiding hypoglycemia on the other. The funded six new research projects address major shortcomings in insulin therapy,” Tim Heise, MD, vice-chair of the project’s Novel Insulins Scientific Advisory Panel, said in a statement from the Steve Morgan Foundation. 

All six projects are currently in the preclinical stage, Dr. Heise said, noting that “the idea behind the funding program is to help the most promising research initiatives to reach the clinical stage.”

Glucose-responsive, or so-called “smart,” insulins are considered the holy grail because they would become active only to prevent hyperglycemia and remain dormant otherwise, thereby not causing hypoglycemia as current insulin analogs can. The idea isn’t new. In 2010, there was excitement in the type 1 diabetes community when the pharmaceutical company Merck acquired a smaller company called SmartCells that had been working on a “smart insulin” for several years. But nothing came of that. 

“The challenges then and today are pretty similar. In particular, it is quite difficult to find a glucose-sensing moiety that is safe, reacts sufficiently to relatively small changes in the human body in both falling and increasing glucose, and can be produced in large quantities,” Dr. Heise, lead scientist and co-founder of the diabetes contract research organization Profil, based in Neuss, Germany, told this news organization.

Several papers since have reported proof-of-concept in rodents, but there are no published data thus far in humans. However, in recent years the major insulin manufacturers Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly have acquired smaller companies with the aim of smart insulin development. 

It will still take some time, Dr. Heise said. “The challenges are well understood, although difficult to overcome. There has been quite some progress in the development of glucose-sensing moieties including, but not limited to, nanotechnological approaches.”

Applications for the newly funded projects “were thoroughly reviewed by a large panel of scientists with different areas of expertise. At the end, there was agreement in the review panel that these projects deserved further investigation, although considering their early stage, there still is a substantial risk of failure for all these projects,” he said. 

The development path might be a bit more straightforward for the other two projects. Ultra–fast-acting insulin is needed because the action of the current ones, Novo Nordisk’s Fiasp and Eli Lilly and Company’s Lyumjev, is still delayed, potentially leading to postmeal hyperglycemia if administered after or immediately prior to eating. “A truly rapid short-acting insulin might make it finally possible to progress from hybrid to fully closed loop systems, allowing a technological ‘cure’ for people with diabetes,” Dr. Heise said in the statement. 

And a protein combining insulin with glucagon could help minimize the risk for hypoglycemia, which still exists for current insulin analogs and remains “one of the major concerns associated with insulin therapy today,” he noted. 

Dr. Heise told this news organization that compared with “smart” insulin, development of the other two products “might be a bit faster if they succeed. But none of these approaches will make it to market in the next 5 years, and if one entered clinic within the next 2 years, that would be a huge success.” Nonetheless, “these research projects, if successful, might do no less than heralding a new era in insulin therapy.”

Dr. Heise is an employee of Profil, which has worked with a large number of the major diabetes industry manufacturers.

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

A multi-institutional partnership has funded six new research projects aimed at developing novel insulin analogs that more closely mimic the action of a healthy pancreas. 

The Type 1 Diabetes Grand Challenge comprises Diabetes UK, JDRF (now called “Breakthrough T1D” in the United States), and the Steve Morgan Foundation. It will provide a total of £50 million (about $64 million in US dollars) for type 1 diabetes research, including £15 million (~$19 million) for six separate projects on novel insulins to be conducted at universities in the United States, Australia, and China. Four will aim to develop glucose-responsive “smart” insulins, another one ultrafast-acting insulin, and the sixth a product combining insulin and glucagon. 

“Even with the currently available modern insulins, people living with type 1 diabetes put lots of effort into managing their diabetes every day to find a good balance between acceptable glycemic control on the one hand and avoiding hypoglycemia on the other. The funded six new research projects address major shortcomings in insulin therapy,” Tim Heise, MD, vice-chair of the project’s Novel Insulins Scientific Advisory Panel, said in a statement from the Steve Morgan Foundation. 

All six projects are currently in the preclinical stage, Dr. Heise said, noting that “the idea behind the funding program is to help the most promising research initiatives to reach the clinical stage.”

Glucose-responsive, or so-called “smart,” insulins are considered the holy grail because they would become active only to prevent hyperglycemia and remain dormant otherwise, thereby not causing hypoglycemia as current insulin analogs can. The idea isn’t new. In 2010, there was excitement in the type 1 diabetes community when the pharmaceutical company Merck acquired a smaller company called SmartCells that had been working on a “smart insulin” for several years. But nothing came of that. 

“The challenges then and today are pretty similar. In particular, it is quite difficult to find a glucose-sensing moiety that is safe, reacts sufficiently to relatively small changes in the human body in both falling and increasing glucose, and can be produced in large quantities,” Dr. Heise, lead scientist and co-founder of the diabetes contract research organization Profil, based in Neuss, Germany, told this news organization.

Several papers since have reported proof-of-concept in rodents, but there are no published data thus far in humans. However, in recent years the major insulin manufacturers Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly have acquired smaller companies with the aim of smart insulin development. 

It will still take some time, Dr. Heise said. “The challenges are well understood, although difficult to overcome. There has been quite some progress in the development of glucose-sensing moieties including, but not limited to, nanotechnological approaches.”

Applications for the newly funded projects “were thoroughly reviewed by a large panel of scientists with different areas of expertise. At the end, there was agreement in the review panel that these projects deserved further investigation, although considering their early stage, there still is a substantial risk of failure for all these projects,” he said. 

The development path might be a bit more straightforward for the other two projects. Ultra–fast-acting insulin is needed because the action of the current ones, Novo Nordisk’s Fiasp and Eli Lilly and Company’s Lyumjev, is still delayed, potentially leading to postmeal hyperglycemia if administered after or immediately prior to eating. “A truly rapid short-acting insulin might make it finally possible to progress from hybrid to fully closed loop systems, allowing a technological ‘cure’ for people with diabetes,” Dr. Heise said in the statement. 

And a protein combining insulin with glucagon could help minimize the risk for hypoglycemia, which still exists for current insulin analogs and remains “one of the major concerns associated with insulin therapy today,” he noted. 

Dr. Heise told this news organization that compared with “smart” insulin, development of the other two products “might be a bit faster if they succeed. But none of these approaches will make it to market in the next 5 years, and if one entered clinic within the next 2 years, that would be a huge success.” Nonetheless, “these research projects, if successful, might do no less than heralding a new era in insulin therapy.”

Dr. Heise is an employee of Profil, which has worked with a large number of the major diabetes industry manufacturers.

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

A multi-institutional partnership has funded six new research projects aimed at developing novel insulin analogs that more closely mimic the action of a healthy pancreas. 

The Type 1 Diabetes Grand Challenge comprises Diabetes UK, JDRF (now called “Breakthrough T1D” in the United States), and the Steve Morgan Foundation. It will provide a total of £50 million (about $64 million in US dollars) for type 1 diabetes research, including £15 million (~$19 million) for six separate projects on novel insulins to be conducted at universities in the United States, Australia, and China. Four will aim to develop glucose-responsive “smart” insulins, another one ultrafast-acting insulin, and the sixth a product combining insulin and glucagon. 

“Even with the currently available modern insulins, people living with type 1 diabetes put lots of effort into managing their diabetes every day to find a good balance between acceptable glycemic control on the one hand and avoiding hypoglycemia on the other. The funded six new research projects address major shortcomings in insulin therapy,” Tim Heise, MD, vice-chair of the project’s Novel Insulins Scientific Advisory Panel, said in a statement from the Steve Morgan Foundation. 

All six projects are currently in the preclinical stage, Dr. Heise said, noting that “the idea behind the funding program is to help the most promising research initiatives to reach the clinical stage.”

Glucose-responsive, or so-called “smart,” insulins are considered the holy grail because they would become active only to prevent hyperglycemia and remain dormant otherwise, thereby not causing hypoglycemia as current insulin analogs can. The idea isn’t new. In 2010, there was excitement in the type 1 diabetes community when the pharmaceutical company Merck acquired a smaller company called SmartCells that had been working on a “smart insulin” for several years. But nothing came of that. 

“The challenges then and today are pretty similar. In particular, it is quite difficult to find a glucose-sensing moiety that is safe, reacts sufficiently to relatively small changes in the human body in both falling and increasing glucose, and can be produced in large quantities,” Dr. Heise, lead scientist and co-founder of the diabetes contract research organization Profil, based in Neuss, Germany, told this news organization.

Several papers since have reported proof-of-concept in rodents, but there are no published data thus far in humans. However, in recent years the major insulin manufacturers Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly have acquired smaller companies with the aim of smart insulin development. 

It will still take some time, Dr. Heise said. “The challenges are well understood, although difficult to overcome. There has been quite some progress in the development of glucose-sensing moieties including, but not limited to, nanotechnological approaches.”

Applications for the newly funded projects “were thoroughly reviewed by a large panel of scientists with different areas of expertise. At the end, there was agreement in the review panel that these projects deserved further investigation, although considering their early stage, there still is a substantial risk of failure for all these projects,” he said. 

The development path might be a bit more straightforward for the other two projects. Ultra–fast-acting insulin is needed because the action of the current ones, Novo Nordisk’s Fiasp and Eli Lilly and Company’s Lyumjev, is still delayed, potentially leading to postmeal hyperglycemia if administered after or immediately prior to eating. “A truly rapid short-acting insulin might make it finally possible to progress from hybrid to fully closed loop systems, allowing a technological ‘cure’ for people with diabetes,” Dr. Heise said in the statement. 

And a protein combining insulin with glucagon could help minimize the risk for hypoglycemia, which still exists for current insulin analogs and remains “one of the major concerns associated with insulin therapy today,” he noted. 

Dr. Heise told this news organization that compared with “smart” insulin, development of the other two products “might be a bit faster if they succeed. But none of these approaches will make it to market in the next 5 years, and if one entered clinic within the next 2 years, that would be a huge success.” Nonetheless, “these research projects, if successful, might do no less than heralding a new era in insulin therapy.”

Dr. Heise is an employee of Profil, which has worked with a large number of the major diabetes industry manufacturers.

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

People over age 60 who drink alcohol regularly are at an increased risk of early death, particularly from cancer or issues related to the heart and blood vessels.

That’s according to the findings of a new, large study that was published in JAMA Network Openand build upon numerous other recent studies concluding that any amount of alcohol consumption is linked to significant health risks. That’s a change from decades of public health messaging suggesting that moderate alcohol intake (one or two drinks per day) wasn’t dangerous. Recently, experts have uncovered flaws in how researchers came to those earlier conclusions.

In this latest study, researchers in Spain analyzed health data for more than 135,000 people, all of whom were at least 60 years old, lived in the United Kingdom, and provided their health information to the UK Biobank database. The average age of people at the start of the analysis period was 64.

The researchers compared 12 years of health outcomes for occasional drinkers with those who averaged drinking at least some alcohol on a daily basis. The greatest health risks were seen between occasional drinkers and those whom the researchers labeled “high risk.” Occasional drinkers had less than about two drinks per week. The high-risk group included men who averaged nearly three drinks per day or more, and women who averaged about a drink and a half per day or more. The analysis showed that, compared with occasional drinking, high-risk drinking was linked to a 33% increased risk of early death, a 39% increased risk of dying from cancer, and a 21% increased risk of dying from problems with the heart and blood vessels.

More moderate drinking habits were also linked to an increased risk of early death and dying from cancer, and even just averaging about one drink or less daily was associated with an 11% higher risk of dying from cancer. Low and moderate drinkers were most at risk if they also had health problems or experienced socioeconomic factors like living in less affluent neighborhoods.

The findings also suggested the potential that mostly drinking wine, or drinking mostly with meals, may be lower risk, but the researchers called for further study on those topics since “it may mostly reflect the effect of healthier lifestyles, slower alcohol absorption, or nonalcoholic components of beverages.”

A recent Gallup poll showed that overall, Americans’ attitudes toward the health impacts of alcohol are changing, with 65% of young adults (ages 18-34) saying that drinking can have negative health effects. But just 39% of adults age 55 or older agreed that drinking is bad for a person’s health. The gap in perspectives between younger and older adults about drinking is the largest on record, Gallup reported.

The study investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

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

People over age 60 who drink alcohol regularly are at an increased risk of early death, particularly from cancer or issues related to the heart and blood vessels.

That’s according to the findings of a new, large study that was published in JAMA Network Openand build upon numerous other recent studies concluding that any amount of alcohol consumption is linked to significant health risks. That’s a change from decades of public health messaging suggesting that moderate alcohol intake (one or two drinks per day) wasn’t dangerous. Recently, experts have uncovered flaws in how researchers came to those earlier conclusions.

In this latest study, researchers in Spain analyzed health data for more than 135,000 people, all of whom were at least 60 years old, lived in the United Kingdom, and provided their health information to the UK Biobank database. The average age of people at the start of the analysis period was 64.

The researchers compared 12 years of health outcomes for occasional drinkers with those who averaged drinking at least some alcohol on a daily basis. The greatest health risks were seen between occasional drinkers and those whom the researchers labeled “high risk.” Occasional drinkers had less than about two drinks per week. The high-risk group included men who averaged nearly three drinks per day or more, and women who averaged about a drink and a half per day or more. The analysis showed that, compared with occasional drinking, high-risk drinking was linked to a 33% increased risk of early death, a 39% increased risk of dying from cancer, and a 21% increased risk of dying from problems with the heart and blood vessels.

More moderate drinking habits were also linked to an increased risk of early death and dying from cancer, and even just averaging about one drink or less daily was associated with an 11% higher risk of dying from cancer. Low and moderate drinkers were most at risk if they also had health problems or experienced socioeconomic factors like living in less affluent neighborhoods.

The findings also suggested the potential that mostly drinking wine, or drinking mostly with meals, may be lower risk, but the researchers called for further study on those topics since “it may mostly reflect the effect of healthier lifestyles, slower alcohol absorption, or nonalcoholic components of beverages.”

A recent Gallup poll showed that overall, Americans’ attitudes toward the health impacts of alcohol are changing, with 65% of young adults (ages 18-34) saying that drinking can have negative health effects. But just 39% of adults age 55 or older agreed that drinking is bad for a person’s health. The gap in perspectives between younger and older adults about drinking is the largest on record, Gallup reported.

The study investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

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

People over age 60 who drink alcohol regularly are at an increased risk of early death, particularly from cancer or issues related to the heart and blood vessels.

That’s according to the findings of a new, large study that was published in JAMA Network Openand build upon numerous other recent studies concluding that any amount of alcohol consumption is linked to significant health risks. That’s a change from decades of public health messaging suggesting that moderate alcohol intake (one or two drinks per day) wasn’t dangerous. Recently, experts have uncovered flaws in how researchers came to those earlier conclusions.

In this latest study, researchers in Spain analyzed health data for more than 135,000 people, all of whom were at least 60 years old, lived in the United Kingdom, and provided their health information to the UK Biobank database. The average age of people at the start of the analysis period was 64.

The researchers compared 12 years of health outcomes for occasional drinkers with those who averaged drinking at least some alcohol on a daily basis. The greatest health risks were seen between occasional drinkers and those whom the researchers labeled “high risk.” Occasional drinkers had less than about two drinks per week. The high-risk group included men who averaged nearly three drinks per day or more, and women who averaged about a drink and a half per day or more. The analysis showed that, compared with occasional drinking, high-risk drinking was linked to a 33% increased risk of early death, a 39% increased risk of dying from cancer, and a 21% increased risk of dying from problems with the heart and blood vessels.

More moderate drinking habits were also linked to an increased risk of early death and dying from cancer, and even just averaging about one drink or less daily was associated with an 11% higher risk of dying from cancer. Low and moderate drinkers were most at risk if they also had health problems or experienced socioeconomic factors like living in less affluent neighborhoods.

The findings also suggested the potential that mostly drinking wine, or drinking mostly with meals, may be lower risk, but the researchers called for further study on those topics since “it may mostly reflect the effect of healthier lifestyles, slower alcohol absorption, or nonalcoholic components of beverages.”

A recent Gallup poll showed that overall, Americans’ attitudes toward the health impacts of alcohol are changing, with 65% of young adults (ages 18-34) saying that drinking can have negative health effects. But just 39% of adults age 55 or older agreed that drinking is bad for a person’s health. The gap in perspectives between younger and older adults about drinking is the largest on record, Gallup reported.

The study investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Ensifentrine (Ohtuvayre), a novel medication for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, has been shown to reduce COPD exacerbations and may improve the quality of life for patients, but these potential benefits come at a high annual cost, authors of a cost-effectiveness analysis say.

Ensifentrine is a first-in-class selective dual inhibitor of both phosphodiesterase 3 (PDE-3) and PDE-4, combining both bronchodilator and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory effects in a single molecule. The drug is delivered through a standard jet nebulizer.

In the phase 3 ENHANCE 1 and 2 trials, ensifentrine significantly improved lung function based on the primary outcome of average forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) within 0-12 hours of administration compared with placebo. In addition, patients were found to tolerate the inhaled treatment well, with similar proportions of ensifentrine- and placebo-assigned patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and back pain, reported in < 3% of the ensifentrine group.
 

High Cost Barrier

But as authors of the analysis from the Boston-based Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) found, the therapeutic edge offered by ensifentrine is outweighed by the annual wholesale acquisition cost that its maker, Verona Pharma, has established: $35,400, which far exceeds the estimated health-benefit price of $7500 to $12,700, according to ICER. ICER is an independent, nonprofit research institute that conducts evidence-based reviews of healthcare interventions, including prescription drugs, other treatments, and diagnostic tests. 

“Current evidence shows that ensifentrine decreases COPD exacerbations when used in combination with some current inhaled therapies, but there are uncertainties about how much benefit it may add to unstudied combinations of inhaled treatments,” said David Rind, MD, chief medical officer of ICER, in a statement.

In an interview, Dr. Rind noted that the high price of ensifentrine may lead payers to restrict access to an otherwise promising new therapy. “Obviously many drugs in the US are overpriced, and this one, too, looks like it is overpriced. That causes ongoing financial toxicity for individual patients and it causes problems for the entire US health system, because when we pay too much for drugs we don’t have money for other things. So I’m worried about the fact that this price is too high compared to the benefit it provides,” he said.

As previously reported, as many as 1 in 6 persons with COPD in the United States miss or delay COPD medication doses owing to high drug costs. “I think that the pricing they chose is going to cause lots of barriers to people getting access and that insurance companies will throw up barriers. Primary care physicians like me won’t even try to get approval for a drug like this given the hoops we will be made to jump through, and so fewer people will get this drug,” Dr. Rind said. He pointed out that a lower wholesale acquisition cost could encourage higher volume sales, affording the drug maker a comparable profit to the higher cost but lower volume option.
 

Good Drug, High Price

An independent appraisal committee for ICER determined that “current evidence is adequate to demonstrate a net health benefit for ensifentrine added to maintenance therapy when compared to maintenance therapy alone.”

But ICER also issued an access and affordability alert “to signal to stakeholders and policymakers that the amount of added health care costs associated with a new service may be difficult for the health system to absorb over the short term without displacing other needed services.” ICER recommends that payers should include coverage for smoking cessation therapies, and that drug manufacturers “set prices that will foster affordability and good access for all patients by aligning prices with the patient-centered therapeutic value of their treatments.”

“This looks like a pretty good drug,” Dr. Rind said. “It looks quite safe, and I think there will be a lot of patients, particularly those who are having frequent exacerbations, who this would be appropriate for, particularly once they’ve maxed out existing therapies, but maybe even earlier than that. And if the price comes down to the point that patients can really access this and providers can access it, people really should look at this as a potential therapy.”
 

Drug Not Yet Available? 

However, providers have not yet had experience to gauge the new medication. “We haven’t been able to prescribe it yet,” said Corinne Young, MSN, FNP-C, FCCP, director of advance practice provider and clinical services for Colorado Springs Pulmonary Consultants and president and founder of the Association of Pulmonary Advanced Practice Providers. She learned that “they were going to release it to select specialty pharmacies in the third quarter of 2024. But all the ones we call do not have it, and no one knows who does. They haven’t sent any reps into the field in my area, so we don’t have any points of contact either,” she said. 

Verona Pharma stated it anticipates ensifentrine to be available in the third quarter of 2024 “through an exclusive network of accredited specialty pharmacies.” 

Funding for the ICER report came from nonprofit foundations. No funding came from health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers, or life science companies. Dr. Rind had no disclosures relevant to ensifentrine or Verona Pharma. Ms. Young is a member of the CHEST Physician Editorial Board.

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

Ensifentrine (Ohtuvayre), a novel medication for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, has been shown to reduce COPD exacerbations and may improve the quality of life for patients, but these potential benefits come at a high annual cost, authors of a cost-effectiveness analysis say.

Ensifentrine is a first-in-class selective dual inhibitor of both phosphodiesterase 3 (PDE-3) and PDE-4, combining both bronchodilator and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory effects in a single molecule. The drug is delivered through a standard jet nebulizer.

In the phase 3 ENHANCE 1 and 2 trials, ensifentrine significantly improved lung function based on the primary outcome of average forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) within 0-12 hours of administration compared with placebo. In addition, patients were found to tolerate the inhaled treatment well, with similar proportions of ensifentrine- and placebo-assigned patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and back pain, reported in < 3% of the ensifentrine group.
 

High Cost Barrier

But as authors of the analysis from the Boston-based Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) found, the therapeutic edge offered by ensifentrine is outweighed by the annual wholesale acquisition cost that its maker, Verona Pharma, has established: $35,400, which far exceeds the estimated health-benefit price of $7500 to $12,700, according to ICER. ICER is an independent, nonprofit research institute that conducts evidence-based reviews of healthcare interventions, including prescription drugs, other treatments, and diagnostic tests. 

“Current evidence shows that ensifentrine decreases COPD exacerbations when used in combination with some current inhaled therapies, but there are uncertainties about how much benefit it may add to unstudied combinations of inhaled treatments,” said David Rind, MD, chief medical officer of ICER, in a statement.

In an interview, Dr. Rind noted that the high price of ensifentrine may lead payers to restrict access to an otherwise promising new therapy. “Obviously many drugs in the US are overpriced, and this one, too, looks like it is overpriced. That causes ongoing financial toxicity for individual patients and it causes problems for the entire US health system, because when we pay too much for drugs we don’t have money for other things. So I’m worried about the fact that this price is too high compared to the benefit it provides,” he said.

As previously reported, as many as 1 in 6 persons with COPD in the United States miss or delay COPD medication doses owing to high drug costs. “I think that the pricing they chose is going to cause lots of barriers to people getting access and that insurance companies will throw up barriers. Primary care physicians like me won’t even try to get approval for a drug like this given the hoops we will be made to jump through, and so fewer people will get this drug,” Dr. Rind said. He pointed out that a lower wholesale acquisition cost could encourage higher volume sales, affording the drug maker a comparable profit to the higher cost but lower volume option.
 

Good Drug, High Price

An independent appraisal committee for ICER determined that “current evidence is adequate to demonstrate a net health benefit for ensifentrine added to maintenance therapy when compared to maintenance therapy alone.”

But ICER also issued an access and affordability alert “to signal to stakeholders and policymakers that the amount of added health care costs associated with a new service may be difficult for the health system to absorb over the short term without displacing other needed services.” ICER recommends that payers should include coverage for smoking cessation therapies, and that drug manufacturers “set prices that will foster affordability and good access for all patients by aligning prices with the patient-centered therapeutic value of their treatments.”

“This looks like a pretty good drug,” Dr. Rind said. “It looks quite safe, and I think there will be a lot of patients, particularly those who are having frequent exacerbations, who this would be appropriate for, particularly once they’ve maxed out existing therapies, but maybe even earlier than that. And if the price comes down to the point that patients can really access this and providers can access it, people really should look at this as a potential therapy.”
 

Drug Not Yet Available? 

However, providers have not yet had experience to gauge the new medication. “We haven’t been able to prescribe it yet,” said Corinne Young, MSN, FNP-C, FCCP, director of advance practice provider and clinical services for Colorado Springs Pulmonary Consultants and president and founder of the Association of Pulmonary Advanced Practice Providers. She learned that “they were going to release it to select specialty pharmacies in the third quarter of 2024. But all the ones we call do not have it, and no one knows who does. They haven’t sent any reps into the field in my area, so we don’t have any points of contact either,” she said. 

Verona Pharma stated it anticipates ensifentrine to be available in the third quarter of 2024 “through an exclusive network of accredited specialty pharmacies.” 

Funding for the ICER report came from nonprofit foundations. No funding came from health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers, or life science companies. Dr. Rind had no disclosures relevant to ensifentrine or Verona Pharma. Ms. Young is a member of the CHEST Physician Editorial Board.

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

Ensifentrine (Ohtuvayre), a novel medication for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, has been shown to reduce COPD exacerbations and may improve the quality of life for patients, but these potential benefits come at a high annual cost, authors of a cost-effectiveness analysis say.

Ensifentrine is a first-in-class selective dual inhibitor of both phosphodiesterase 3 (PDE-3) and PDE-4, combining both bronchodilator and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory effects in a single molecule. The drug is delivered through a standard jet nebulizer.

In the phase 3 ENHANCE 1 and 2 trials, ensifentrine significantly improved lung function based on the primary outcome of average forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) within 0-12 hours of administration compared with placebo. In addition, patients were found to tolerate the inhaled treatment well, with similar proportions of ensifentrine- and placebo-assigned patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and back pain, reported in < 3% of the ensifentrine group.
 

High Cost Barrier

But as authors of the analysis from the Boston-based Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) found, the therapeutic edge offered by ensifentrine is outweighed by the annual wholesale acquisition cost that its maker, Verona Pharma, has established: $35,400, which far exceeds the estimated health-benefit price of $7500 to $12,700, according to ICER. ICER is an independent, nonprofit research institute that conducts evidence-based reviews of healthcare interventions, including prescription drugs, other treatments, and diagnostic tests. 

“Current evidence shows that ensifentrine decreases COPD exacerbations when used in combination with some current inhaled therapies, but there are uncertainties about how much benefit it may add to unstudied combinations of inhaled treatments,” said David Rind, MD, chief medical officer of ICER, in a statement.

In an interview, Dr. Rind noted that the high price of ensifentrine may lead payers to restrict access to an otherwise promising new therapy. “Obviously many drugs in the US are overpriced, and this one, too, looks like it is overpriced. That causes ongoing financial toxicity for individual patients and it causes problems for the entire US health system, because when we pay too much for drugs we don’t have money for other things. So I’m worried about the fact that this price is too high compared to the benefit it provides,” he said.

As previously reported, as many as 1 in 6 persons with COPD in the United States miss or delay COPD medication doses owing to high drug costs. “I think that the pricing they chose is going to cause lots of barriers to people getting access and that insurance companies will throw up barriers. Primary care physicians like me won’t even try to get approval for a drug like this given the hoops we will be made to jump through, and so fewer people will get this drug,” Dr. Rind said. He pointed out that a lower wholesale acquisition cost could encourage higher volume sales, affording the drug maker a comparable profit to the higher cost but lower volume option.
 

Good Drug, High Price

An independent appraisal committee for ICER determined that “current evidence is adequate to demonstrate a net health benefit for ensifentrine added to maintenance therapy when compared to maintenance therapy alone.”

But ICER also issued an access and affordability alert “to signal to stakeholders and policymakers that the amount of added health care costs associated with a new service may be difficult for the health system to absorb over the short term without displacing other needed services.” ICER recommends that payers should include coverage for smoking cessation therapies, and that drug manufacturers “set prices that will foster affordability and good access for all patients by aligning prices with the patient-centered therapeutic value of their treatments.”

“This looks like a pretty good drug,” Dr. Rind said. “It looks quite safe, and I think there will be a lot of patients, particularly those who are having frequent exacerbations, who this would be appropriate for, particularly once they’ve maxed out existing therapies, but maybe even earlier than that. And if the price comes down to the point that patients can really access this and providers can access it, people really should look at this as a potential therapy.”
 

Drug Not Yet Available? 

However, providers have not yet had experience to gauge the new medication. “We haven’t been able to prescribe it yet,” said Corinne Young, MSN, FNP-C, FCCP, director of advance practice provider and clinical services for Colorado Springs Pulmonary Consultants and president and founder of the Association of Pulmonary Advanced Practice Providers. She learned that “they were going to release it to select specialty pharmacies in the third quarter of 2024. But all the ones we call do not have it, and no one knows who does. They haven’t sent any reps into the field in my area, so we don’t have any points of contact either,” she said. 

Verona Pharma stated it anticipates ensifentrine to be available in the third quarter of 2024 “through an exclusive network of accredited specialty pharmacies.” 

Funding for the ICER report came from nonprofit foundations. No funding came from health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers, or life science companies. Dr. Rind had no disclosures relevant to ensifentrine or Verona Pharma. Ms. Young is a member of the CHEST Physician Editorial Board.

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

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) has revoked certification for two physicians known for leading an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Pierre Kory, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine, pulmonary disease, and internal medicine, according to the ABIM website. Paul Ellis Marik, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine or internal medicine. 

Dr. Marik is the chief scientific officer and Dr. Kory is president emeritus of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a group they founded in March 2020. The FLCCC gained notoriety during the height of the pandemic for advocating ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. It now espouses regimens of supplements to treat “vaccine injury” and also offers treatments for Lyme disease.

Ivermectin was proven to not be of use in treating COVID. Studies purporting to show a benefit were later linked to errors, and some were found to have been based on potentially fraudulent research.

The ABIM declined to comment when asked by this news organization about its action. Its website indicates that “revoked” indicates “loss of certification due to disciplinary action for which ABIM has determined that the conduct underlying the sanction does not warrant a defined pathway for restoration of certification at the time of disciplinary sanction.”

In a statement emailed to this news organization, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said, “we believe this decision represents a dangerous shift away from the foundation principles of medical discourse and scientific debate that have historically been the bedrock of medical education associations.”

The FLCCC said in the statement that it, along with Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik, are “evaluating options to challenge these decisions.”

Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said they were notified in May 2022 that they were facing a potential ABIM disciplinary action. An ABIM committee recommended the revocation in July 2023, saying the two men were spreading “false or inaccurate medical information,” according to FLCCC. Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik lost an appeal. 

In a 2023 statement, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik called the ABIM action an “attack on freedom of speech.”

“This isn’t a free speech question,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, the Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Professor of Bioethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine’s Department of Population Health, New York City. “You do have the right to free speech, but you don’t have the right to practice outside of the standard of care boundaries,” he told this news organization.

The ABIM action “is the field standing up and saying, ‘These are the limits of what you can do,’” said Dr. Caplan. It means the profession is rejecting those “who are involved in things that harm patients or delay them getting accepted treatments,” he said. Caplan noted that a disciplinary action had been a long time in coming — 3 years since the first battles over ivermectin. 

Wendy Parmet, JD, Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law at Northeastern University School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs, Boston, said that misinformation spread by physicians is especially harmful because it comes with an air of credibility.

“We certainly want people to be able to dissent,” Ms. Parmet told this news organization. To engender trust, any sanctions by a professional board should be done in a deliberative process with a strong evidentiary base, she said. 

“You want to leave sufficient room for discourse and discussion within the profession, and you don’t want the board to enforce a narrow, rigid orthodoxy,” she said. But in cases where people are “peddling information that is way outside the consensus” or are “profiting off of it, for the profession to take no action, that is, I think, detrimental also to the trust in the profession,” she said.

She was not surprised that Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik would fight to retain certification. “Board certification is an important, very worthwhile thing to have,” she said. “Losing it is not trivial.”

Dr. Kory, who is licensed in California, New York, and Wisconsin, “does not require this certification for his independent practice but is evaluating next steps with attorneys,” according to the statement from FLCCC.

Dr. Marik, whose Virginia medical license expired in 2022, “is no longer treating patients and has dedicated his time and efforts to the FLCCC Alliance,” the statement said.

Dr. Caplan served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position) and is a contributing author and advisor for this news organization. Ms. Parmet reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) has revoked certification for two physicians known for leading an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Pierre Kory, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine, pulmonary disease, and internal medicine, according to the ABIM website. Paul Ellis Marik, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine or internal medicine. 

Dr. Marik is the chief scientific officer and Dr. Kory is president emeritus of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a group they founded in March 2020. The FLCCC gained notoriety during the height of the pandemic for advocating ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. It now espouses regimens of supplements to treat “vaccine injury” and also offers treatments for Lyme disease.

Ivermectin was proven to not be of use in treating COVID. Studies purporting to show a benefit were later linked to errors, and some were found to have been based on potentially fraudulent research.

The ABIM declined to comment when asked by this news organization about its action. Its website indicates that “revoked” indicates “loss of certification due to disciplinary action for which ABIM has determined that the conduct underlying the sanction does not warrant a defined pathway for restoration of certification at the time of disciplinary sanction.”

In a statement emailed to this news organization, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said, “we believe this decision represents a dangerous shift away from the foundation principles of medical discourse and scientific debate that have historically been the bedrock of medical education associations.”

The FLCCC said in the statement that it, along with Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik, are “evaluating options to challenge these decisions.”

Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said they were notified in May 2022 that they were facing a potential ABIM disciplinary action. An ABIM committee recommended the revocation in July 2023, saying the two men were spreading “false or inaccurate medical information,” according to FLCCC. Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik lost an appeal. 

In a 2023 statement, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik called the ABIM action an “attack on freedom of speech.”

“This isn’t a free speech question,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, the Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Professor of Bioethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine’s Department of Population Health, New York City. “You do have the right to free speech, but you don’t have the right to practice outside of the standard of care boundaries,” he told this news organization.

The ABIM action “is the field standing up and saying, ‘These are the limits of what you can do,’” said Dr. Caplan. It means the profession is rejecting those “who are involved in things that harm patients or delay them getting accepted treatments,” he said. Caplan noted that a disciplinary action had been a long time in coming — 3 years since the first battles over ivermectin. 

Wendy Parmet, JD, Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law at Northeastern University School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs, Boston, said that misinformation spread by physicians is especially harmful because it comes with an air of credibility.

“We certainly want people to be able to dissent,” Ms. Parmet told this news organization. To engender trust, any sanctions by a professional board should be done in a deliberative process with a strong evidentiary base, she said. 

“You want to leave sufficient room for discourse and discussion within the profession, and you don’t want the board to enforce a narrow, rigid orthodoxy,” she said. But in cases where people are “peddling information that is way outside the consensus” or are “profiting off of it, for the profession to take no action, that is, I think, detrimental also to the trust in the profession,” she said.

She was not surprised that Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik would fight to retain certification. “Board certification is an important, very worthwhile thing to have,” she said. “Losing it is not trivial.”

Dr. Kory, who is licensed in California, New York, and Wisconsin, “does not require this certification for his independent practice but is evaluating next steps with attorneys,” according to the statement from FLCCC.

Dr. Marik, whose Virginia medical license expired in 2022, “is no longer treating patients and has dedicated his time and efforts to the FLCCC Alliance,” the statement said.

Dr. Caplan served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position) and is a contributing author and advisor for this news organization. Ms. Parmet reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) has revoked certification for two physicians known for leading an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Pierre Kory, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine, pulmonary disease, and internal medicine, according to the ABIM website. Paul Ellis Marik, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine or internal medicine. 

Dr. Marik is the chief scientific officer and Dr. Kory is president emeritus of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a group they founded in March 2020. The FLCCC gained notoriety during the height of the pandemic for advocating ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. It now espouses regimens of supplements to treat “vaccine injury” and also offers treatments for Lyme disease.

Ivermectin was proven to not be of use in treating COVID. Studies purporting to show a benefit were later linked to errors, and some were found to have been based on potentially fraudulent research.

The ABIM declined to comment when asked by this news organization about its action. Its website indicates that “revoked” indicates “loss of certification due to disciplinary action for which ABIM has determined that the conduct underlying the sanction does not warrant a defined pathway for restoration of certification at the time of disciplinary sanction.”

In a statement emailed to this news organization, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said, “we believe this decision represents a dangerous shift away from the foundation principles of medical discourse and scientific debate that have historically been the bedrock of medical education associations.”

The FLCCC said in the statement that it, along with Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik, are “evaluating options to challenge these decisions.”

Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik said they were notified in May 2022 that they were facing a potential ABIM disciplinary action. An ABIM committee recommended the revocation in July 2023, saying the two men were spreading “false or inaccurate medical information,” according to FLCCC. Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik lost an appeal. 

In a 2023 statement, Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik called the ABIM action an “attack on freedom of speech.”

“This isn’t a free speech question,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, the Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Professor of Bioethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine’s Department of Population Health, New York City. “You do have the right to free speech, but you don’t have the right to practice outside of the standard of care boundaries,” he told this news organization.

The ABIM action “is the field standing up and saying, ‘These are the limits of what you can do,’” said Dr. Caplan. It means the profession is rejecting those “who are involved in things that harm patients or delay them getting accepted treatments,” he said. Caplan noted that a disciplinary action had been a long time in coming — 3 years since the first battles over ivermectin. 

Wendy Parmet, JD, Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law at Northeastern University School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs, Boston, said that misinformation spread by physicians is especially harmful because it comes with an air of credibility.

“We certainly want people to be able to dissent,” Ms. Parmet told this news organization. To engender trust, any sanctions by a professional board should be done in a deliberative process with a strong evidentiary base, she said. 

“You want to leave sufficient room for discourse and discussion within the profession, and you don’t want the board to enforce a narrow, rigid orthodoxy,” she said. But in cases where people are “peddling information that is way outside the consensus” or are “profiting off of it, for the profession to take no action, that is, I think, detrimental also to the trust in the profession,” she said.

She was not surprised that Dr. Kory and Dr. Marik would fight to retain certification. “Board certification is an important, very worthwhile thing to have,” she said. “Losing it is not trivial.”

Dr. Kory, who is licensed in California, New York, and Wisconsin, “does not require this certification for his independent practice but is evaluating next steps with attorneys,” according to the statement from FLCCC.

Dr. Marik, whose Virginia medical license expired in 2022, “is no longer treating patients and has dedicated his time and efforts to the FLCCC Alliance,” the statement said.

Dr. Caplan served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position) and is a contributing author and advisor for this news organization. Ms. Parmet reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for Livdelzi (seladelpar, Gilead Sciences, Inc.) for primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in adults who fail to respond adequately to UDCA, or as monotherapy in those who can’t tolerate UDCA. 

Livdelzi, a selective agonist of peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor delta, is not recommended in adults who have or develop decompensated cirrhosis.

PBC is a rare, chronic, autoimmune disease of the bile ducts that affects roughly 130,000 Americans, primarily women, and can cause liver damage and possible liver failure if untreated. The disease currently has no cure.

The FDA approved Livdelzi based largely on results of the phase 3 RESPONSE study, in which the drug significantly improved liver biomarkers of disease activity and bothersome symptoms of pruritus in adults with PBC.

The primary endpoint of the trial was a biochemical response, defined as an alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level < 1.67 times the upper limit of the normal range, with a decrease of 15% or more from baseline, and a normal total bilirubin level, at 12 months.

After 12 months, 62% of patients taking Livdelzi met the primary endpoint vs 20% of patients taking placebo.

In addition, significantly more patients taking Livdelzi than placebo had normalization of the ALP level (25% vs 0%). The average decrease in ALP from baseline was 42.4% in the Livdelzi group vs 4.3% in the placebo group.

At 12 months, alanine aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyl transferase levels were reduced by 23.5% and 39.1%, respectively, in the Livdelzi group compared with 6.5% and 11.4%, respectively, in the placebo group.

A key secondary endpoint was change in patient-reported pruritus.

At baseline, 38.3% of patients in the Livdelzi group and 35.4% of those in the placebo group had moderate to severe pruritus, with a daily numerical rating scale (NRS) score ≥ 4 out of 10.

Among these patients, the reduction from baseline in the pruritus NRS score at month 6 was significantly greater with Livdelzi than with placebo (change from baseline, -3.2 vs -1.7 points). These improvements were sustained through 12 months.

Improvements on the 5-D Itch Scale in both the moderate- to severe-pruritis population and the overall population also favored Livdelzi over placebo for itch relief, which had a positive impact on sleep.

“The availability of a new treatment option that can help reduce [the] intense itching while also improving biomarkers of active liver disease is a milestone for our community,” Carol Roberts, president, The PBCers Organization, said in a news release announcing the approval. 

The most common adverse reactions with Livdelzi were headache, abdominal pain, nausea, abdominal distension, and dizziness.

The company noted that the FDA granted accelerated approval for Livdelzi based on a reduction of ALP. Improvement in survival or prevention of liver decompensation events have not been demonstrated. Continued approval of Livdelzi for PBC may be contingent on verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trial(s).
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for Livdelzi (seladelpar, Gilead Sciences, Inc.) for primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in adults who fail to respond adequately to UDCA, or as monotherapy in those who can’t tolerate UDCA. 

Livdelzi, a selective agonist of peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor delta, is not recommended in adults who have or develop decompensated cirrhosis.

PBC is a rare, chronic, autoimmune disease of the bile ducts that affects roughly 130,000 Americans, primarily women, and can cause liver damage and possible liver failure if untreated. The disease currently has no cure.

The FDA approved Livdelzi based largely on results of the phase 3 RESPONSE study, in which the drug significantly improved liver biomarkers of disease activity and bothersome symptoms of pruritus in adults with PBC.

The primary endpoint of the trial was a biochemical response, defined as an alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level < 1.67 times the upper limit of the normal range, with a decrease of 15% or more from baseline, and a normal total bilirubin level, at 12 months.

After 12 months, 62% of patients taking Livdelzi met the primary endpoint vs 20% of patients taking placebo.

In addition, significantly more patients taking Livdelzi than placebo had normalization of the ALP level (25% vs 0%). The average decrease in ALP from baseline was 42.4% in the Livdelzi group vs 4.3% in the placebo group.

At 12 months, alanine aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyl transferase levels were reduced by 23.5% and 39.1%, respectively, in the Livdelzi group compared with 6.5% and 11.4%, respectively, in the placebo group.

A key secondary endpoint was change in patient-reported pruritus.

At baseline, 38.3% of patients in the Livdelzi group and 35.4% of those in the placebo group had moderate to severe pruritus, with a daily numerical rating scale (NRS) score ≥ 4 out of 10.

Among these patients, the reduction from baseline in the pruritus NRS score at month 6 was significantly greater with Livdelzi than with placebo (change from baseline, -3.2 vs -1.7 points). These improvements were sustained through 12 months.

Improvements on the 5-D Itch Scale in both the moderate- to severe-pruritis population and the overall population also favored Livdelzi over placebo for itch relief, which had a positive impact on sleep.

“The availability of a new treatment option that can help reduce [the] intense itching while also improving biomarkers of active liver disease is a milestone for our community,” Carol Roberts, president, The PBCers Organization, said in a news release announcing the approval. 

The most common adverse reactions with Livdelzi were headache, abdominal pain, nausea, abdominal distension, and dizziness.

The company noted that the FDA granted accelerated approval for Livdelzi based on a reduction of ALP. Improvement in survival or prevention of liver decompensation events have not been demonstrated. Continued approval of Livdelzi for PBC may be contingent on verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trial(s).
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for Livdelzi (seladelpar, Gilead Sciences, Inc.) for primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in adults who fail to respond adequately to UDCA, or as monotherapy in those who can’t tolerate UDCA. 

Livdelzi, a selective agonist of peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor delta, is not recommended in adults who have or develop decompensated cirrhosis.

PBC is a rare, chronic, autoimmune disease of the bile ducts that affects roughly 130,000 Americans, primarily women, and can cause liver damage and possible liver failure if untreated. The disease currently has no cure.

The FDA approved Livdelzi based largely on results of the phase 3 RESPONSE study, in which the drug significantly improved liver biomarkers of disease activity and bothersome symptoms of pruritus in adults with PBC.

The primary endpoint of the trial was a biochemical response, defined as an alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level < 1.67 times the upper limit of the normal range, with a decrease of 15% or more from baseline, and a normal total bilirubin level, at 12 months.

After 12 months, 62% of patients taking Livdelzi met the primary endpoint vs 20% of patients taking placebo.

In addition, significantly more patients taking Livdelzi than placebo had normalization of the ALP level (25% vs 0%). The average decrease in ALP from baseline was 42.4% in the Livdelzi group vs 4.3% in the placebo group.

At 12 months, alanine aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyl transferase levels were reduced by 23.5% and 39.1%, respectively, in the Livdelzi group compared with 6.5% and 11.4%, respectively, in the placebo group.

A key secondary endpoint was change in patient-reported pruritus.

At baseline, 38.3% of patients in the Livdelzi group and 35.4% of those in the placebo group had moderate to severe pruritus, with a daily numerical rating scale (NRS) score ≥ 4 out of 10.

Among these patients, the reduction from baseline in the pruritus NRS score at month 6 was significantly greater with Livdelzi than with placebo (change from baseline, -3.2 vs -1.7 points). These improvements were sustained through 12 months.

Improvements on the 5-D Itch Scale in both the moderate- to severe-pruritis population and the overall population also favored Livdelzi over placebo for itch relief, which had a positive impact on sleep.

“The availability of a new treatment option that can help reduce [the] intense itching while also improving biomarkers of active liver disease is a milestone for our community,” Carol Roberts, president, The PBCers Organization, said in a news release announcing the approval. 

The most common adverse reactions with Livdelzi were headache, abdominal pain, nausea, abdominal distension, and dizziness.

The company noted that the FDA granted accelerated approval for Livdelzi based on a reduction of ALP. Improvement in survival or prevention of liver decompensation events have not been demonstrated. Continued approval of Livdelzi for PBC may be contingent on verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trial(s).
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.