Clinician Reviews

Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine — the second now cleared for emergency use in the United States — was endorsed by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on December 19.

The panel voted 11-0, with three recusals, to recommend use of Moderna’s vaccine for people aged 18 years and older, while seeking more information on risk for anaphylaxis. This vote followed the December 18th decision by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccine, known as mRNA-1273.

On December 11, the FDA granted the first US emergency clearance for a COVID-19 vaccine to the Pfizer-BioNTech product. ACIP met the following day and voted to endorse the use of that vaccine, with a vote of 11-0 and three recusals. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is recommended for use in people aged 16 years and older.

Moderna’s vaccine is expected to help curb the pandemic, with clinical trial data showing a 94.1% efficacy rate. But there’s also concerns about side effects noted in testing of both vaccines and in the early rollout of the Pfizer vaccine, particularly anaphylaxis.

“There are likely going to be lots of bumps in the road” with the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines, but these are being disclosed to the public in a way that is “fair and transparent,” said ACIP member Beth P. Bell, MD, MPH.

“Our systems so far appear to be doing what they are supposed to do” in terms of determining risks from the COVID-19 vaccine, added Bell, who is a clinical professor in the department of global health at the University of Washington’s School of Public Health in Seattle. The Moderna EUA  “represents progress towards ending this horrific pandemic,” she said.

In a new forecast released this week, the CDC projects that the number of newly reported COVID-19 deaths will likely increase over the next 4 weeks, with 15,800 to 27,700 new deaths likely to be reported in the week ending January 9, 2021. That could bring the total number of COVID-19 deaths in the United States to between 357,000 and 391,000 by this date, according to the agency.

ACIP panelist Lynn Bahta, RN, MPH, CPH, said she had been “eager” to have the panel proceed with its endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, “especially in light of the fact that we are seeing an average 2600 deaths a day.”

Having two COVID-19 vaccines available might help slow down the pandemic, “despite the fact that we still have a lot to learn both about the disease and the vaccine,” said Bahta, who is an immunization consultant with the Minnesota Department of Health in Saint Paul.

ACIP members encouraged Moderna officials who presented at the meeting to continue studies for potential complications associated with the vaccine when given to women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.

Panelists also pressed for more data on the risk for Bell’s palsy, which the FDA staff also had noted in the agency’s review of Moderna’s vaccine. Moderna has reported four cases from a pivotal study, one in the placebo group and three among study participants who received the company’s vaccine. These cases occurred between 15 and 33 days after vaccination, and are all resolved or resolving, according to Moderna.

There was also a question raised about how many doses of vaccine might be squeezed out of a vial. CDC will explore this topic further at its meeting on COVID-19 vaccines December 20, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the agency’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at the Saturday meeting.

“In this time of public health crisis, none of us would want to squander a single dose of a vaccine that’s potentially lifesaving,” CDC’s Messonnier said. “We’re going to plan to have a short discussion of that issue tomorrow.”

Messonnier also responded to a comment made during the meeting about cases where people who received COVID-19 vaccine were unaware of the CDC’s V-safe tool.

V-safe is a smartphone-based tool that uses text messaging and web surveys to help people keep in touch with the medical community after getting the COVID-19 vaccine and is seen as a way to help spot side effects. Messonnier asked that people listening to the webcast of the ACIP meeting help spread the word about the CDC’s V-safe tool.

“Our perception, based on the number of people who have enrolled in V-safe, is that the message is getting out to many places, but even one site that doesn’t have this information is something that we want to try to correct,” she said.

Anaphylaxis concerns

The chief concern for ACIP members and CDC staff about COVID-19 vaccines appeared to be reports of allergic reactions. Thomas Clark, MD, MPH, a CDC staff member, told the ACIP panel that, as of December 18, the agency had identified six cases of anaphylaxis following administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine that met a certain standard, known as the Brighton Collaboration criteria.

Additional case reports have been reviewed and determined not to be anaphylaxis, Clark said. All suspect cases were identified through processes such as the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), he said.

People who experience anaphylaxis following COVID-19 vaccination should not receive additional doses of the shot, Clark said in his presentation to ACIP. Members of the panel asked Clark whether there have been any discernible patterns to these cases, such as geographic clusters.

Clark replied that it was “early” in the process to make reports, with investigations still ongoing. He did note that the people who had anaphylaxis following vaccination had received their doses from more than one production lot, with multiple lots having been distributed.

“You folks may have seen in the news a couple of cases from Alaska, but we’ve had reports from other jurisdictions so there’s no obvious clustering geographically,” Clark said.

Another CDC staff member, Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, noted in her presentation that there should be an observation period of 30 minutes following COVID-19 vaccination for anyone with a history of anaphylaxis for any reason, and of at least 15 minutes for other recipients.

Disclosure of ingredients used in the COVID-19 vaccines might help people with an allergy assess these products, the representative for the American Medical Association, Sandra Fryhofer, MD, told ACIP. As such, she thanked CDC’s Mbaeyi for including a breakout of ingredients in her presentation to the panel. Fryhofer encouraged Moderna officials to be as transparent as possible in disclosing the ingredients of the company’s COVID-19 vaccine.

“That might be important because I think it’s very essential that we figure out what might be triggering these anaphylactic reactions, because that is definitely going to affect the vaccine implementation,” Fryhofer said.

The three ACIP members who had conflicts that prevented their voting were Robert L. Atmar, MD, who said at the Saturday meeting he had participated in COVID-19 trials, including research on the Moderna vaccine; Sharon E. Frey, MD, who said at the Saturday meeting that she had been involved with research on COVID-19 vaccines, including Moderna’s; and Paul Hunter, MD, who said he has received a grant from Pfizer for pneumococcal vaccines.

The other panel members have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine — the second now cleared for emergency use in the United States — was endorsed by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on December 19.

The panel voted 11-0, with three recusals, to recommend use of Moderna’s vaccine for people aged 18 years and older, while seeking more information on risk for anaphylaxis. This vote followed the December 18th decision by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccine, known as mRNA-1273.

On December 11, the FDA granted the first US emergency clearance for a COVID-19 vaccine to the Pfizer-BioNTech product. ACIP met the following day and voted to endorse the use of that vaccine, with a vote of 11-0 and three recusals. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is recommended for use in people aged 16 years and older.

Moderna’s vaccine is expected to help curb the pandemic, with clinical trial data showing a 94.1% efficacy rate. But there’s also concerns about side effects noted in testing of both vaccines and in the early rollout of the Pfizer vaccine, particularly anaphylaxis.

“There are likely going to be lots of bumps in the road” with the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines, but these are being disclosed to the public in a way that is “fair and transparent,” said ACIP member Beth P. Bell, MD, MPH.

“Our systems so far appear to be doing what they are supposed to do” in terms of determining risks from the COVID-19 vaccine, added Bell, who is a clinical professor in the department of global health at the University of Washington’s School of Public Health in Seattle. The Moderna EUA  “represents progress towards ending this horrific pandemic,” she said.

In a new forecast released this week, the CDC projects that the number of newly reported COVID-19 deaths will likely increase over the next 4 weeks, with 15,800 to 27,700 new deaths likely to be reported in the week ending January 9, 2021. That could bring the total number of COVID-19 deaths in the United States to between 357,000 and 391,000 by this date, according to the agency.

ACIP panelist Lynn Bahta, RN, MPH, CPH, said she had been “eager” to have the panel proceed with its endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, “especially in light of the fact that we are seeing an average 2600 deaths a day.”

Having two COVID-19 vaccines available might help slow down the pandemic, “despite the fact that we still have a lot to learn both about the disease and the vaccine,” said Bahta, who is an immunization consultant with the Minnesota Department of Health in Saint Paul.

ACIP members encouraged Moderna officials who presented at the meeting to continue studies for potential complications associated with the vaccine when given to women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.

Panelists also pressed for more data on the risk for Bell’s palsy, which the FDA staff also had noted in the agency’s review of Moderna’s vaccine. Moderna has reported four cases from a pivotal study, one in the placebo group and three among study participants who received the company’s vaccine. These cases occurred between 15 and 33 days after vaccination, and are all resolved or resolving, according to Moderna.

There was also a question raised about how many doses of vaccine might be squeezed out of a vial. CDC will explore this topic further at its meeting on COVID-19 vaccines December 20, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the agency’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at the Saturday meeting.

“In this time of public health crisis, none of us would want to squander a single dose of a vaccine that’s potentially lifesaving,” CDC’s Messonnier said. “We’re going to plan to have a short discussion of that issue tomorrow.”

Messonnier also responded to a comment made during the meeting about cases where people who received COVID-19 vaccine were unaware of the CDC’s V-safe tool.

V-safe is a smartphone-based tool that uses text messaging and web surveys to help people keep in touch with the medical community after getting the COVID-19 vaccine and is seen as a way to help spot side effects. Messonnier asked that people listening to the webcast of the ACIP meeting help spread the word about the CDC’s V-safe tool.

“Our perception, based on the number of people who have enrolled in V-safe, is that the message is getting out to many places, but even one site that doesn’t have this information is something that we want to try to correct,” she said.

Anaphylaxis concerns

The chief concern for ACIP members and CDC staff about COVID-19 vaccines appeared to be reports of allergic reactions. Thomas Clark, MD, MPH, a CDC staff member, told the ACIP panel that, as of December 18, the agency had identified six cases of anaphylaxis following administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine that met a certain standard, known as the Brighton Collaboration criteria.

Additional case reports have been reviewed and determined not to be anaphylaxis, Clark said. All suspect cases were identified through processes such as the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), he said.

People who experience anaphylaxis following COVID-19 vaccination should not receive additional doses of the shot, Clark said in his presentation to ACIP. Members of the panel asked Clark whether there have been any discernible patterns to these cases, such as geographic clusters.

Clark replied that it was “early” in the process to make reports, with investigations still ongoing. He did note that the people who had anaphylaxis following vaccination had received their doses from more than one production lot, with multiple lots having been distributed.

“You folks may have seen in the news a couple of cases from Alaska, but we’ve had reports from other jurisdictions so there’s no obvious clustering geographically,” Clark said.

Another CDC staff member, Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, noted in her presentation that there should be an observation period of 30 minutes following COVID-19 vaccination for anyone with a history of anaphylaxis for any reason, and of at least 15 minutes for other recipients.

Disclosure of ingredients used in the COVID-19 vaccines might help people with an allergy assess these products, the representative for the American Medical Association, Sandra Fryhofer, MD, told ACIP. As such, she thanked CDC’s Mbaeyi for including a breakout of ingredients in her presentation to the panel. Fryhofer encouraged Moderna officials to be as transparent as possible in disclosing the ingredients of the company’s COVID-19 vaccine.

“That might be important because I think it’s very essential that we figure out what might be triggering these anaphylactic reactions, because that is definitely going to affect the vaccine implementation,” Fryhofer said.

The three ACIP members who had conflicts that prevented their voting were Robert L. Atmar, MD, who said at the Saturday meeting he had participated in COVID-19 trials, including research on the Moderna vaccine; Sharon E. Frey, MD, who said at the Saturday meeting that she had been involved with research on COVID-19 vaccines, including Moderna’s; and Paul Hunter, MD, who said he has received a grant from Pfizer for pneumococcal vaccines.

The other panel members have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine — the second now cleared for emergency use in the United States — was endorsed by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on December 19.

The panel voted 11-0, with three recusals, to recommend use of Moderna’s vaccine for people aged 18 years and older, while seeking more information on risk for anaphylaxis. This vote followed the December 18th decision by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccine, known as mRNA-1273.

On December 11, the FDA granted the first US emergency clearance for a COVID-19 vaccine to the Pfizer-BioNTech product. ACIP met the following day and voted to endorse the use of that vaccine, with a vote of 11-0 and three recusals. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is recommended for use in people aged 16 years and older.

Moderna’s vaccine is expected to help curb the pandemic, with clinical trial data showing a 94.1% efficacy rate. But there’s also concerns about side effects noted in testing of both vaccines and in the early rollout of the Pfizer vaccine, particularly anaphylaxis.

“There are likely going to be lots of bumps in the road” with the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines, but these are being disclosed to the public in a way that is “fair and transparent,” said ACIP member Beth P. Bell, MD, MPH.

“Our systems so far appear to be doing what they are supposed to do” in terms of determining risks from the COVID-19 vaccine, added Bell, who is a clinical professor in the department of global health at the University of Washington’s School of Public Health in Seattle. The Moderna EUA  “represents progress towards ending this horrific pandemic,” she said.

In a new forecast released this week, the CDC projects that the number of newly reported COVID-19 deaths will likely increase over the next 4 weeks, with 15,800 to 27,700 new deaths likely to be reported in the week ending January 9, 2021. That could bring the total number of COVID-19 deaths in the United States to between 357,000 and 391,000 by this date, according to the agency.

ACIP panelist Lynn Bahta, RN, MPH, CPH, said she had been “eager” to have the panel proceed with its endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, “especially in light of the fact that we are seeing an average 2600 deaths a day.”

Having two COVID-19 vaccines available might help slow down the pandemic, “despite the fact that we still have a lot to learn both about the disease and the vaccine,” said Bahta, who is an immunization consultant with the Minnesota Department of Health in Saint Paul.

ACIP members encouraged Moderna officials who presented at the meeting to continue studies for potential complications associated with the vaccine when given to women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.

Panelists also pressed for more data on the risk for Bell’s palsy, which the FDA staff also had noted in the agency’s review of Moderna’s vaccine. Moderna has reported four cases from a pivotal study, one in the placebo group and three among study participants who received the company’s vaccine. These cases occurred between 15 and 33 days after vaccination, and are all resolved or resolving, according to Moderna.

There was also a question raised about how many doses of vaccine might be squeezed out of a vial. CDC will explore this topic further at its meeting on COVID-19 vaccines December 20, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the agency’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at the Saturday meeting.

“In this time of public health crisis, none of us would want to squander a single dose of a vaccine that’s potentially lifesaving,” CDC’s Messonnier said. “We’re going to plan to have a short discussion of that issue tomorrow.”

Messonnier also responded to a comment made during the meeting about cases where people who received COVID-19 vaccine were unaware of the CDC’s V-safe tool.

V-safe is a smartphone-based tool that uses text messaging and web surveys to help people keep in touch with the medical community after getting the COVID-19 vaccine and is seen as a way to help spot side effects. Messonnier asked that people listening to the webcast of the ACIP meeting help spread the word about the CDC’s V-safe tool.

“Our perception, based on the number of people who have enrolled in V-safe, is that the message is getting out to many places, but even one site that doesn’t have this information is something that we want to try to correct,” she said.

Anaphylaxis concerns

The chief concern for ACIP members and CDC staff about COVID-19 vaccines appeared to be reports of allergic reactions. Thomas Clark, MD, MPH, a CDC staff member, told the ACIP panel that, as of December 18, the agency had identified six cases of anaphylaxis following administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine that met a certain standard, known as the Brighton Collaboration criteria.

Additional case reports have been reviewed and determined not to be anaphylaxis, Clark said. All suspect cases were identified through processes such as the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), he said.

People who experience anaphylaxis following COVID-19 vaccination should not receive additional doses of the shot, Clark said in his presentation to ACIP. Members of the panel asked Clark whether there have been any discernible patterns to these cases, such as geographic clusters.

Clark replied that it was “early” in the process to make reports, with investigations still ongoing. He did note that the people who had anaphylaxis following vaccination had received their doses from more than one production lot, with multiple lots having been distributed.

“You folks may have seen in the news a couple of cases from Alaska, but we’ve had reports from other jurisdictions so there’s no obvious clustering geographically,” Clark said.

Another CDC staff member, Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, noted in her presentation that there should be an observation period of 30 minutes following COVID-19 vaccination for anyone with a history of anaphylaxis for any reason, and of at least 15 minutes for other recipients.

Disclosure of ingredients used in the COVID-19 vaccines might help people with an allergy assess these products, the representative for the American Medical Association, Sandra Fryhofer, MD, told ACIP. As such, she thanked CDC’s Mbaeyi for including a breakout of ingredients in her presentation to the panel. Fryhofer encouraged Moderna officials to be as transparent as possible in disclosing the ingredients of the company’s COVID-19 vaccine.

“That might be important because I think it’s very essential that we figure out what might be triggering these anaphylactic reactions, because that is definitely going to affect the vaccine implementation,” Fryhofer said.

The three ACIP members who had conflicts that prevented their voting were Robert L. Atmar, MD, who said at the Saturday meeting he had participated in COVID-19 trials, including research on the Moderna vaccine; Sharon E. Frey, MD, who said at the Saturday meeting that she had been involved with research on COVID-19 vaccines, including Moderna’s; and Paul Hunter, MD, who said he has received a grant from Pfizer for pneumococcal vaccines.

The other panel members have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee lit a long-standing fuse, recommending that evidence from the controversial TOPCAT trial can be used to support a new indication for spironolactone.

The generic aldosterone blocker is already approved for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). 

Hopes that it could be the first therapy to show improved outcomes in HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) were dashed in 2013 when TOPCAT failed to show a significant benefit over placebo for the primary endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, or aborted cardiac arrest.

Regional differences in the data, however, aroused concerns about the findings early on. Patients enrolled in Russia and the Republic of Georgia were younger, less likely to qualify on the basis of elevated natriuretic peptide levels, and had more evidence of ischemic heart disease than those in the Americas.

Event rates were also substantially lower in Russia/Georgia than in the Americas and in previous HFpEF trials, suggesting that many of these patients may not have had heart failure, the trialists argued.

In the Americas, results for the primary endpoint favor spironolactone over placebo (10.4 vs. 12.6 events per 100 patient-years; P = .026), whereas the rate in Russia/Georgia was much lower than in the Americas and slightly favors placebo (2.5 vs. 2.3 events/100 patient-years).

Medication noncompliance also may have been more common in Russia/Georgia based on pharmacodynamic studies and a 2017 analysis showing undetectable levels of canrenone, an active metabolite of spironolactone, in 30% of Russian versus 3% of North American patients who reported using the drug at 1 year.

TOPCAT investigator Marc Pfeffer, MD, PhD, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said no trial is without flaws but that the observations represent serious misconduct. “Really we’re talking about a cancer, a cancer that has clear margins. The margins are Russia, Georgia that warrant censoring their data.”

The FDA’s own review of the National Institutes of Health–sponsored study, however, showed no significant interaction between treatment and region (P = .12) and “insufficient evidence to conclude the two regions are different enough such that overall results should not be considered,” said FDA statistician Ququan Liu, MD, MS.

She cautioned against removing data from a whole region that constituted almost half the study population and said it would set a precedent on what is considered substantial evidence for approval.

Several advisors concurred but, ultimately, the Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee voted 8 to 4, with 1 abstention, that TOPCAT provides “sufficient evidence to support any indication.”

The same committee voted yesterday in support of an expanded role for sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) in select patients with HFpEF. In casting a “no” vote, panelist Steven E. Nissen, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic, said that decisions made by the panel set precedent.

Catherine Hackett

“If the pharmaceutical industry came to us with a study like this and said the P value was .14 but we think a bunch of our sites weren’t very good and so we’re going to throw those data out and just look at the sites we like, the FDA would not have even brought that before us,” he said. “I cannot hold other sponsors, including our own government, to a different standard.”

Dr. Nissen argued that the primary endpoint failed by a significant margin (P = .138), the study was marginally powered, there was a troubling amount of missing data in the two regions, and spironolactone is also not without side effects. “Poor study conduct cannot be an excuse for a result we don’t like.”

Panel chair Julia B. Lewis, MD, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., said she would love to support a cheap, generic drug to keep HF patients out of the hospital but was troubled by the egregious conduct of the trial and concerns about cherry-picking results. “My heart says this would be a great place for us to go but I can’t say that my head thinks this is an acceptable body of data.”

Several panelists, however, highlighted the benefits with spironolactone over placebo in the Americas including an 18% reduction in hospitalization for HF (21% vs. 25%; hazard ratio, 0.82; P = .04) and a 25% reduction in cumulative HF hospitalizations (361 vs. 438 events; incidence rate ratio, 0.75; P = .024).

There was also a reduction in CV mortality with spironolactone (11% vs. 14%; HR, 0.74; P = .027) – something, it was noted, not observed during the prior day’s proceeding on sacubitril/valsartan.

Panelist Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, from Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Falls Church, Va., and Duke University, Durham, N.C., said he voted “yes” because of the totality of the information and that the investigators provided “compelling evidence” with or without the Russia/Georgia cohort on the efficacy on HF hospitalization reduction. “I think this is the augmented sweet spot of this data set.”

C. Michael Gibson, MD, said his decision to vote yes was not based on analyses that excluded half the patients but rather on the totality of the evidence, particularly the benefit on cumulative HF hospitalizations and in those with an EF lower than 56%.

Several panelists and members of the public cited for treatments among patients with HFpEF. Edward K. Kasper, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said he found both sides of the argument persuasive but that he already uses spironolactone in this setting. “Somehow I’ve become convinced that this drug worked, so I voted yes.”

Dr. Kasper said the FDA may ultimately find there isn’t an indication for spironolactone in HFpEF but that it will likely move from a IIb to IIa recommendation in the next iteration of the American College of Cardiology guidelines.

Paul Ridker, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said he shared concerns about the precedent of dropping half the data, “even though, in this case, I believe half the data is wrong.”

Dr. Ridker noted that he would have been comfortable using the secondary endpoint of HF reduction as an indication in patients with mildly reduced EF but abstained because that data was not presented today, although it may be available from TOPCAT and the RALES trial.

The panel took up other nonvoting questions, including what additional data would be needed to augment support for approval. Suggestions ranged from additional analyses to a new trial, with TOPCAT serving as “pilot data,” but no recommendation was made.

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

A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee lit a long-standing fuse, recommending that evidence from the controversial TOPCAT trial can be used to support a new indication for spironolactone.

The generic aldosterone blocker is already approved for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). 

Hopes that it could be the first therapy to show improved outcomes in HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) were dashed in 2013 when TOPCAT failed to show a significant benefit over placebo for the primary endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, or aborted cardiac arrest.

Regional differences in the data, however, aroused concerns about the findings early on. Patients enrolled in Russia and the Republic of Georgia were younger, less likely to qualify on the basis of elevated natriuretic peptide levels, and had more evidence of ischemic heart disease than those in the Americas.

Event rates were also substantially lower in Russia/Georgia than in the Americas and in previous HFpEF trials, suggesting that many of these patients may not have had heart failure, the trialists argued.

In the Americas, results for the primary endpoint favor spironolactone over placebo (10.4 vs. 12.6 events per 100 patient-years; P = .026), whereas the rate in Russia/Georgia was much lower than in the Americas and slightly favors placebo (2.5 vs. 2.3 events/100 patient-years).

Medication noncompliance also may have been more common in Russia/Georgia based on pharmacodynamic studies and a 2017 analysis showing undetectable levels of canrenone, an active metabolite of spironolactone, in 30% of Russian versus 3% of North American patients who reported using the drug at 1 year.

TOPCAT investigator Marc Pfeffer, MD, PhD, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said no trial is without flaws but that the observations represent serious misconduct. “Really we’re talking about a cancer, a cancer that has clear margins. The margins are Russia, Georgia that warrant censoring their data.”

The FDA’s own review of the National Institutes of Health–sponsored study, however, showed no significant interaction between treatment and region (P = .12) and “insufficient evidence to conclude the two regions are different enough such that overall results should not be considered,” said FDA statistician Ququan Liu, MD, MS.

She cautioned against removing data from a whole region that constituted almost half the study population and said it would set a precedent on what is considered substantial evidence for approval.

Several advisors concurred but, ultimately, the Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee voted 8 to 4, with 1 abstention, that TOPCAT provides “sufficient evidence to support any indication.”

The same committee voted yesterday in support of an expanded role for sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) in select patients with HFpEF. In casting a “no” vote, panelist Steven E. Nissen, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic, said that decisions made by the panel set precedent.

Catherine Hackett

“If the pharmaceutical industry came to us with a study like this and said the P value was .14 but we think a bunch of our sites weren’t very good and so we’re going to throw those data out and just look at the sites we like, the FDA would not have even brought that before us,” he said. “I cannot hold other sponsors, including our own government, to a different standard.”

Dr. Nissen argued that the primary endpoint failed by a significant margin (P = .138), the study was marginally powered, there was a troubling amount of missing data in the two regions, and spironolactone is also not without side effects. “Poor study conduct cannot be an excuse for a result we don’t like.”

Panel chair Julia B. Lewis, MD, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., said she would love to support a cheap, generic drug to keep HF patients out of the hospital but was troubled by the egregious conduct of the trial and concerns about cherry-picking results. “My heart says this would be a great place for us to go but I can’t say that my head thinks this is an acceptable body of data.”

Several panelists, however, highlighted the benefits with spironolactone over placebo in the Americas including an 18% reduction in hospitalization for HF (21% vs. 25%; hazard ratio, 0.82; P = .04) and a 25% reduction in cumulative HF hospitalizations (361 vs. 438 events; incidence rate ratio, 0.75; P = .024).

There was also a reduction in CV mortality with spironolactone (11% vs. 14%; HR, 0.74; P = .027) – something, it was noted, not observed during the prior day’s proceeding on sacubitril/valsartan.

Panelist Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, from Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Falls Church, Va., and Duke University, Durham, N.C., said he voted “yes” because of the totality of the information and that the investigators provided “compelling evidence” with or without the Russia/Georgia cohort on the efficacy on HF hospitalization reduction. “I think this is the augmented sweet spot of this data set.”

C. Michael Gibson, MD, said his decision to vote yes was not based on analyses that excluded half the patients but rather on the totality of the evidence, particularly the benefit on cumulative HF hospitalizations and in those with an EF lower than 56%.

Several panelists and members of the public cited for treatments among patients with HFpEF. Edward K. Kasper, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said he found both sides of the argument persuasive but that he already uses spironolactone in this setting. “Somehow I’ve become convinced that this drug worked, so I voted yes.”

Dr. Kasper said the FDA may ultimately find there isn’t an indication for spironolactone in HFpEF but that it will likely move from a IIb to IIa recommendation in the next iteration of the American College of Cardiology guidelines.

Paul Ridker, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said he shared concerns about the precedent of dropping half the data, “even though, in this case, I believe half the data is wrong.”

Dr. Ridker noted that he would have been comfortable using the secondary endpoint of HF reduction as an indication in patients with mildly reduced EF but abstained because that data was not presented today, although it may be available from TOPCAT and the RALES trial.

The panel took up other nonvoting questions, including what additional data would be needed to augment support for approval. Suggestions ranged from additional analyses to a new trial, with TOPCAT serving as “pilot data,” but no recommendation was made.

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

A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee lit a long-standing fuse, recommending that evidence from the controversial TOPCAT trial can be used to support a new indication for spironolactone.

The generic aldosterone blocker is already approved for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). 

Hopes that it could be the first therapy to show improved outcomes in HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) were dashed in 2013 when TOPCAT failed to show a significant benefit over placebo for the primary endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, or aborted cardiac arrest.

Regional differences in the data, however, aroused concerns about the findings early on. Patients enrolled in Russia and the Republic of Georgia were younger, less likely to qualify on the basis of elevated natriuretic peptide levels, and had more evidence of ischemic heart disease than those in the Americas.

Event rates were also substantially lower in Russia/Georgia than in the Americas and in previous HFpEF trials, suggesting that many of these patients may not have had heart failure, the trialists argued.

In the Americas, results for the primary endpoint favor spironolactone over placebo (10.4 vs. 12.6 events per 100 patient-years; P = .026), whereas the rate in Russia/Georgia was much lower than in the Americas and slightly favors placebo (2.5 vs. 2.3 events/100 patient-years).

Medication noncompliance also may have been more common in Russia/Georgia based on pharmacodynamic studies and a 2017 analysis showing undetectable levels of canrenone, an active metabolite of spironolactone, in 30% of Russian versus 3% of North American patients who reported using the drug at 1 year.

TOPCAT investigator Marc Pfeffer, MD, PhD, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said no trial is without flaws but that the observations represent serious misconduct. “Really we’re talking about a cancer, a cancer that has clear margins. The margins are Russia, Georgia that warrant censoring their data.”

The FDA’s own review of the National Institutes of Health–sponsored study, however, showed no significant interaction between treatment and region (P = .12) and “insufficient evidence to conclude the two regions are different enough such that overall results should not be considered,” said FDA statistician Ququan Liu, MD, MS.

She cautioned against removing data from a whole region that constituted almost half the study population and said it would set a precedent on what is considered substantial evidence for approval.

Several advisors concurred but, ultimately, the Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee voted 8 to 4, with 1 abstention, that TOPCAT provides “sufficient evidence to support any indication.”

The same committee voted yesterday in support of an expanded role for sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) in select patients with HFpEF. In casting a “no” vote, panelist Steven E. Nissen, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic, said that decisions made by the panel set precedent.

Catherine Hackett

“If the pharmaceutical industry came to us with a study like this and said the P value was .14 but we think a bunch of our sites weren’t very good and so we’re going to throw those data out and just look at the sites we like, the FDA would not have even brought that before us,” he said. “I cannot hold other sponsors, including our own government, to a different standard.”

Dr. Nissen argued that the primary endpoint failed by a significant margin (P = .138), the study was marginally powered, there was a troubling amount of missing data in the two regions, and spironolactone is also not without side effects. “Poor study conduct cannot be an excuse for a result we don’t like.”

Panel chair Julia B. Lewis, MD, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., said she would love to support a cheap, generic drug to keep HF patients out of the hospital but was troubled by the egregious conduct of the trial and concerns about cherry-picking results. “My heart says this would be a great place for us to go but I can’t say that my head thinks this is an acceptable body of data.”

Several panelists, however, highlighted the benefits with spironolactone over placebo in the Americas including an 18% reduction in hospitalization for HF (21% vs. 25%; hazard ratio, 0.82; P = .04) and a 25% reduction in cumulative HF hospitalizations (361 vs. 438 events; incidence rate ratio, 0.75; P = .024).

There was also a reduction in CV mortality with spironolactone (11% vs. 14%; HR, 0.74; P = .027) – something, it was noted, not observed during the prior day’s proceeding on sacubitril/valsartan.

Panelist Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, from Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Falls Church, Va., and Duke University, Durham, N.C., said he voted “yes” because of the totality of the information and that the investigators provided “compelling evidence” with or without the Russia/Georgia cohort on the efficacy on HF hospitalization reduction. “I think this is the augmented sweet spot of this data set.”

C. Michael Gibson, MD, said his decision to vote yes was not based on analyses that excluded half the patients but rather on the totality of the evidence, particularly the benefit on cumulative HF hospitalizations and in those with an EF lower than 56%.

Several panelists and members of the public cited for treatments among patients with HFpEF. Edward K. Kasper, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said he found both sides of the argument persuasive but that he already uses spironolactone in this setting. “Somehow I’ve become convinced that this drug worked, so I voted yes.”

Dr. Kasper said the FDA may ultimately find there isn’t an indication for spironolactone in HFpEF but that it will likely move from a IIb to IIa recommendation in the next iteration of the American College of Cardiology guidelines.

Paul Ridker, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said he shared concerns about the precedent of dropping half the data, “even though, in this case, I believe half the data is wrong.”

Dr. Ridker noted that he would have been comfortable using the secondary endpoint of HF reduction as an indication in patients with mildly reduced EF but abstained because that data was not presented today, although it may be available from TOPCAT and the RALES trial.

The panel took up other nonvoting questions, including what additional data would be needed to augment support for approval. Suggestions ranged from additional analyses to a new trial, with TOPCAT serving as “pilot data,” but no recommendation was made.

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

Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in the face of growing microbial resistance is a global public health problem, and a major cause is perceived patient pressure. An analysis of adult and pediatric encounters suggests that a variety of techniques can be employed to alter expectations and reduce antibiotic prescribing.

At the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year, Tanya Stivers, PhD, professor of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles, presented some of her team’s work studying patterns of clinical prescription.

It is widely appreciated that inappropriate prescribing is a common problem that the medical community seems powerless to stop, particularly in primary care. Already, clinicians are running out of effective antibiotics to treat a range of serious infections. Dr. Stivers began by saying that this problem isn’t caused by a lack of understanding about disease causation and microbial resistance or patients overtly demanding antibiotics, which occurs in less than 2% of cases. Instead, the cause appears to lie in doctor-patient interactions during consultations.

In pediatric practice, physicians have previously been found to prescribe antibiotics for a clinically diagnosed respiratory viral infection in 62% of cases when they perceive that this diagnosis was expected by parents, compared with 7% in the absence of such perception. Similarly, associated ear infections were diagnosed three times more often, and sinus infections seven times more often, leading to increased prescribing.

In adult practice, Dr. Stivers reported that patients can exert subtle pressure to prescribe through:

• Priming. Patients help their physician to see the problem as relatively severe (e.g., a sore throat that “feels like a knife”).
• Nudging. Patients redirect physicians back to a bacterial problem (e.g., “I’ve tried all these medicines, and nothing worked”). Nudging was found to occur in 41% of encounters.
• Resisting. Patients contest diagnosis or treatment in 40% of consultations (e.g., “there was pus yesterday”).

Priming or nudging resulted in antibiotic prescribing in 60% of patients without signs of a bacterial infection, compared with 30% where this was not a feature (P < 0.05).

But how can these pressures be countered? Dr. Stivers offered advice based on her original data from 570 video recordings of pediatric encounters. The current findings come from an analysis of 68 adult primary care visits for upper respiratory tract infections in Southern California. Inappropriate prescribing was identified in 37%.

Wavebreakmedia/Thinkstock

When researching the antibiotic prescribing problem, it is helpful to explore a typical primary care consultation. The acute medical visit structure is a stepwise process involving opening, establishing the problem, gathering information, counseling, and then closing the consultation. It is important is to recognize that patients shape prescribing decisions, and effective communication is vital in influencing the outcome. In Dr. Stivers’ experience, priming, nudging, and resisting result in antibiotic prescribing in 60% of cases in whom clinical signs of bacterial illness are absent, compared with 30% where patient pressure is not a feature.

How can we change practice? Global experience suggests that printed material aimed at physicians is only of marginal benefit. By comparison, patient education does work but needs to be repeated, and there’s always a reason why this consultation should be “special.”
 

Try a 3-prong communication plan

To counteract these pressures, Dr. Stivers recommends a three-prong communication plan to influence the consultation:

• Foreshadowing, where suggesting that the cause of the patient’s symptoms is likely to be viral is introduced early in the consultation. This approach was found to reduce antibiotic prescribing to 33%, compared with 59% without foreshadowing (P < .05). Resistance may also be reduced.
• Affirmative nonantibiotic treatment plans, where specific positive recommendations given early (e.g., “I’m going to put you on some medicine to try to dry that out”) are less likely to be resisted than is vague negative advice at the end of a consultation.
• Persuasion, which involves explaining the diagnosis and nature of a cough and cold, educating about viral and bacterial differences, and presenting the risks of antibiotics. When persuasion is employed, antibiotic prescribing is reduced to 33%, compared with 63% (P < .05) without persuasion. In general, effective foreshadowing and affirmation should avoid the need for persuasion.

Dr. Stivers’ research suggests that these techniques work, but to do so, they should be delivered naturally as part of routine practice. Interestingly, her data showed that physicians rarely foreshadowed, and when they encountered resistance, they adopted persuasion in 53% of cases. By comparison, affirmative recommendations were used in 89% of cases, but their effects were reduced by the physician being vague and nonspecific.

In conclusion, Dr. Stivers said that addressing inappropriate prescribing requires awareness but that is not enough. The challenge is to reconsider health policies and ways of communicating about antibiotics. There is no downside to foreshadowing a likely viral origin, delivering affirmation, or using persuasion. She added, “If we can make even a 5%-10% reduction [in prescribing], wouldn’t it be worth it?”
 

Questions answered

A question-and-answer session followed Dr. Stivers’ presentation, and points raised included:

• Physicians have a desire to please. Dr. Stivers countered this point by saying that satisfaction is not tied to antibiotic prescription, and that physicians often misjudge what patients want. It’s important to communicate other treatment options because patients often just want “something they can do.”
• Decision fatigue is often a factor. Evidence shows that antibiotic prescription is more frequent toward the end of a shift. Doctors should avoid negotiation because it increases consultation time. Here, foreshadowing early on may help. Setting may also be important – prescription is more frequent in the ED.
• Vaccine-resistant parents often want active treatment. Here, conversations can be challenging. Trying to persuade may be a less successful than giving positive instruction (e.g., “we’ll give you a vaccine today.”) Resistance is likely to be lower.
• Concern was expressed about manipulating patients ahead of a firm diagnosis. Could this lead to missing a serious bacterial infection? Dr. Stivers acknowledged that this was a gamble. She recommended a “neutral” early foreshadowing statement such as “we are seeing a lot of viral infections at the present.”
• Cultural differences can have an effect. In China, for example, the argument between parents and physicians no longer focuses on antibiotics versus nonantibiotics but rather on oral versus intravenous administration.
• Litigation is a factor in prescribing, especially in the United States. Dr. Stivers stated that her proposed approach to prescribing should not interfere with appropriate management. The clinical picture can change, and antibiotics should be prescribed where needed.
• Audits improve prescribing in the short term. These results were based on recorded consultations, and that factor may have influenced management. In unrecorded consultations, inappropriate antibiotic prescription would be higher.
• Increased point-of-care testing can reduce unnecessary prescribing. This has been documented in countries such as Sweden. Evidence from China suggests that many patients will still receive antibiotics even if a bacterial cause is excluded.

When patients dictate treatment, sometimes we must tell them what is best. Dr. Stivers closed her presentation by emphasizing that, “how you say things will matter.”

Louis Bont, MD, PhD, chair of this session and pediatric infectious diseases specialist at the University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), commented: “Antimicrobial resistance is a global health threat which jeopardizes sustainable health goals. The World Health Organization has declared that antimicrobial resistance is one of the top 10 global public health threats facing humanity. Resistance to ciprofloxacin varies from 8%-93% in Escherichia coli and 4%-80% in Klebsiella pneumoniae. Colistin is the only last-resort treatment for life-threatening infections caused by carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae.”

Dr. Stivers stated that she has nothing to disclose.

Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in the face of growing microbial resistance is a global public health problem, and a major cause is perceived patient pressure. An analysis of adult and pediatric encounters suggests that a variety of techniques can be employed to alter expectations and reduce antibiotic prescribing.

At the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year, Tanya Stivers, PhD, professor of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles, presented some of her team’s work studying patterns of clinical prescription.

It is widely appreciated that inappropriate prescribing is a common problem that the medical community seems powerless to stop, particularly in primary care. Already, clinicians are running out of effective antibiotics to treat a range of serious infections. Dr. Stivers began by saying that this problem isn’t caused by a lack of understanding about disease causation and microbial resistance or patients overtly demanding antibiotics, which occurs in less than 2% of cases. Instead, the cause appears to lie in doctor-patient interactions during consultations.

In pediatric practice, physicians have previously been found to prescribe antibiotics for a clinically diagnosed respiratory viral infection in 62% of cases when they perceive that this diagnosis was expected by parents, compared with 7% in the absence of such perception. Similarly, associated ear infections were diagnosed three times more often, and sinus infections seven times more often, leading to increased prescribing.

In adult practice, Dr. Stivers reported that patients can exert subtle pressure to prescribe through:

• Priming. Patients help their physician to see the problem as relatively severe (e.g., a sore throat that “feels like a knife”).
• Nudging. Patients redirect physicians back to a bacterial problem (e.g., “I’ve tried all these medicines, and nothing worked”). Nudging was found to occur in 41% of encounters.
• Resisting. Patients contest diagnosis or treatment in 40% of consultations (e.g., “there was pus yesterday”).

Priming or nudging resulted in antibiotic prescribing in 60% of patients without signs of a bacterial infection, compared with 30% where this was not a feature (P < 0.05).

But how can these pressures be countered? Dr. Stivers offered advice based on her original data from 570 video recordings of pediatric encounters. The current findings come from an analysis of 68 adult primary care visits for upper respiratory tract infections in Southern California. Inappropriate prescribing was identified in 37%.

Wavebreakmedia/Thinkstock

When researching the antibiotic prescribing problem, it is helpful to explore a typical primary care consultation. The acute medical visit structure is a stepwise process involving opening, establishing the problem, gathering information, counseling, and then closing the consultation. It is important is to recognize that patients shape prescribing decisions, and effective communication is vital in influencing the outcome. In Dr. Stivers’ experience, priming, nudging, and resisting result in antibiotic prescribing in 60% of cases in whom clinical signs of bacterial illness are absent, compared with 30% where patient pressure is not a feature.

How can we change practice? Global experience suggests that printed material aimed at physicians is only of marginal benefit. By comparison, patient education does work but needs to be repeated, and there’s always a reason why this consultation should be “special.”
 

Try a 3-prong communication plan

To counteract these pressures, Dr. Stivers recommends a three-prong communication plan to influence the consultation:

• Foreshadowing, where suggesting that the cause of the patient’s symptoms is likely to be viral is introduced early in the consultation. This approach was found to reduce antibiotic prescribing to 33%, compared with 59% without foreshadowing (P < .05). Resistance may also be reduced.
• Affirmative nonantibiotic treatment plans, where specific positive recommendations given early (e.g., “I’m going to put you on some medicine to try to dry that out”) are less likely to be resisted than is vague negative advice at the end of a consultation.
• Persuasion, which involves explaining the diagnosis and nature of a cough and cold, educating about viral and bacterial differences, and presenting the risks of antibiotics. When persuasion is employed, antibiotic prescribing is reduced to 33%, compared with 63% (P < .05) without persuasion. In general, effective foreshadowing and affirmation should avoid the need for persuasion.

Dr. Stivers’ research suggests that these techniques work, but to do so, they should be delivered naturally as part of routine practice. Interestingly, her data showed that physicians rarely foreshadowed, and when they encountered resistance, they adopted persuasion in 53% of cases. By comparison, affirmative recommendations were used in 89% of cases, but their effects were reduced by the physician being vague and nonspecific.

In conclusion, Dr. Stivers said that addressing inappropriate prescribing requires awareness but that is not enough. The challenge is to reconsider health policies and ways of communicating about antibiotics. There is no downside to foreshadowing a likely viral origin, delivering affirmation, or using persuasion. She added, “If we can make even a 5%-10% reduction [in prescribing], wouldn’t it be worth it?”
 

Questions answered

A question-and-answer session followed Dr. Stivers’ presentation, and points raised included:

• Physicians have a desire to please. Dr. Stivers countered this point by saying that satisfaction is not tied to antibiotic prescription, and that physicians often misjudge what patients want. It’s important to communicate other treatment options because patients often just want “something they can do.”
• Decision fatigue is often a factor. Evidence shows that antibiotic prescription is more frequent toward the end of a shift. Doctors should avoid negotiation because it increases consultation time. Here, foreshadowing early on may help. Setting may also be important – prescription is more frequent in the ED.
• Vaccine-resistant parents often want active treatment. Here, conversations can be challenging. Trying to persuade may be a less successful than giving positive instruction (e.g., “we’ll give you a vaccine today.”) Resistance is likely to be lower.
• Concern was expressed about manipulating patients ahead of a firm diagnosis. Could this lead to missing a serious bacterial infection? Dr. Stivers acknowledged that this was a gamble. She recommended a “neutral” early foreshadowing statement such as “we are seeing a lot of viral infections at the present.”
• Cultural differences can have an effect. In China, for example, the argument between parents and physicians no longer focuses on antibiotics versus nonantibiotics but rather on oral versus intravenous administration.
• Litigation is a factor in prescribing, especially in the United States. Dr. Stivers stated that her proposed approach to prescribing should not interfere with appropriate management. The clinical picture can change, and antibiotics should be prescribed where needed.
• Audits improve prescribing in the short term. These results were based on recorded consultations, and that factor may have influenced management. In unrecorded consultations, inappropriate antibiotic prescription would be higher.
• Increased point-of-care testing can reduce unnecessary prescribing. This has been documented in countries such as Sweden. Evidence from China suggests that many patients will still receive antibiotics even if a bacterial cause is excluded.

When patients dictate treatment, sometimes we must tell them what is best. Dr. Stivers closed her presentation by emphasizing that, “how you say things will matter.”

Louis Bont, MD, PhD, chair of this session and pediatric infectious diseases specialist at the University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), commented: “Antimicrobial resistance is a global health threat which jeopardizes sustainable health goals. The World Health Organization has declared that antimicrobial resistance is one of the top 10 global public health threats facing humanity. Resistance to ciprofloxacin varies from 8%-93% in Escherichia coli and 4%-80% in Klebsiella pneumoniae. Colistin is the only last-resort treatment for life-threatening infections caused by carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae.”

Dr. Stivers stated that she has nothing to disclose.

Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in the face of growing microbial resistance is a global public health problem, and a major cause is perceived patient pressure. An analysis of adult and pediatric encounters suggests that a variety of techniques can be employed to alter expectations and reduce antibiotic prescribing.

At the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year, Tanya Stivers, PhD, professor of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles, presented some of her team’s work studying patterns of clinical prescription.

It is widely appreciated that inappropriate prescribing is a common problem that the medical community seems powerless to stop, particularly in primary care. Already, clinicians are running out of effective antibiotics to treat a range of serious infections. Dr. Stivers began by saying that this problem isn’t caused by a lack of understanding about disease causation and microbial resistance or patients overtly demanding antibiotics, which occurs in less than 2% of cases. Instead, the cause appears to lie in doctor-patient interactions during consultations.

In pediatric practice, physicians have previously been found to prescribe antibiotics for a clinically diagnosed respiratory viral infection in 62% of cases when they perceive that this diagnosis was expected by parents, compared with 7% in the absence of such perception. Similarly, associated ear infections were diagnosed three times more often, and sinus infections seven times more often, leading to increased prescribing.

In adult practice, Dr. Stivers reported that patients can exert subtle pressure to prescribe through:

• Priming. Patients help their physician to see the problem as relatively severe (e.g., a sore throat that “feels like a knife”).
• Nudging. Patients redirect physicians back to a bacterial problem (e.g., “I’ve tried all these medicines, and nothing worked”). Nudging was found to occur in 41% of encounters.
• Resisting. Patients contest diagnosis or treatment in 40% of consultations (e.g., “there was pus yesterday”).

Priming or nudging resulted in antibiotic prescribing in 60% of patients without signs of a bacterial infection, compared with 30% where this was not a feature (P < 0.05).

But how can these pressures be countered? Dr. Stivers offered advice based on her original data from 570 video recordings of pediatric encounters. The current findings come from an analysis of 68 adult primary care visits for upper respiratory tract infections in Southern California. Inappropriate prescribing was identified in 37%.

Wavebreakmedia/Thinkstock

When researching the antibiotic prescribing problem, it is helpful to explore a typical primary care consultation. The acute medical visit structure is a stepwise process involving opening, establishing the problem, gathering information, counseling, and then closing the consultation. It is important is to recognize that patients shape prescribing decisions, and effective communication is vital in influencing the outcome. In Dr. Stivers’ experience, priming, nudging, and resisting result in antibiotic prescribing in 60% of cases in whom clinical signs of bacterial illness are absent, compared with 30% where patient pressure is not a feature.

How can we change practice? Global experience suggests that printed material aimed at physicians is only of marginal benefit. By comparison, patient education does work but needs to be repeated, and there’s always a reason why this consultation should be “special.”
 

Try a 3-prong communication plan

To counteract these pressures, Dr. Stivers recommends a three-prong communication plan to influence the consultation:

• Foreshadowing, where suggesting that the cause of the patient’s symptoms is likely to be viral is introduced early in the consultation. This approach was found to reduce antibiotic prescribing to 33%, compared with 59% without foreshadowing (P < .05). Resistance may also be reduced.
• Affirmative nonantibiotic treatment plans, where specific positive recommendations given early (e.g., “I’m going to put you on some medicine to try to dry that out”) are less likely to be resisted than is vague negative advice at the end of a consultation.
• Persuasion, which involves explaining the diagnosis and nature of a cough and cold, educating about viral and bacterial differences, and presenting the risks of antibiotics. When persuasion is employed, antibiotic prescribing is reduced to 33%, compared with 63% (P < .05) without persuasion. In general, effective foreshadowing and affirmation should avoid the need for persuasion.

Dr. Stivers’ research suggests that these techniques work, but to do so, they should be delivered naturally as part of routine practice. Interestingly, her data showed that physicians rarely foreshadowed, and when they encountered resistance, they adopted persuasion in 53% of cases. By comparison, affirmative recommendations were used in 89% of cases, but their effects were reduced by the physician being vague and nonspecific.

In conclusion, Dr. Stivers said that addressing inappropriate prescribing requires awareness but that is not enough. The challenge is to reconsider health policies and ways of communicating about antibiotics. There is no downside to foreshadowing a likely viral origin, delivering affirmation, or using persuasion. She added, “If we can make even a 5%-10% reduction [in prescribing], wouldn’t it be worth it?”
 

Questions answered

A question-and-answer session followed Dr. Stivers’ presentation, and points raised included:

• Physicians have a desire to please. Dr. Stivers countered this point by saying that satisfaction is not tied to antibiotic prescription, and that physicians often misjudge what patients want. It’s important to communicate other treatment options because patients often just want “something they can do.”
• Decision fatigue is often a factor. Evidence shows that antibiotic prescription is more frequent toward the end of a shift. Doctors should avoid negotiation because it increases consultation time. Here, foreshadowing early on may help. Setting may also be important – prescription is more frequent in the ED.
• Vaccine-resistant parents often want active treatment. Here, conversations can be challenging. Trying to persuade may be a less successful than giving positive instruction (e.g., “we’ll give you a vaccine today.”) Resistance is likely to be lower.
• Concern was expressed about manipulating patients ahead of a firm diagnosis. Could this lead to missing a serious bacterial infection? Dr. Stivers acknowledged that this was a gamble. She recommended a “neutral” early foreshadowing statement such as “we are seeing a lot of viral infections at the present.”
• Cultural differences can have an effect. In China, for example, the argument between parents and physicians no longer focuses on antibiotics versus nonantibiotics but rather on oral versus intravenous administration.
• Litigation is a factor in prescribing, especially in the United States. Dr. Stivers stated that her proposed approach to prescribing should not interfere with appropriate management. The clinical picture can change, and antibiotics should be prescribed where needed.
• Audits improve prescribing in the short term. These results were based on recorded consultations, and that factor may have influenced management. In unrecorded consultations, inappropriate antibiotic prescription would be higher.
• Increased point-of-care testing can reduce unnecessary prescribing. This has been documented in countries such as Sweden. Evidence from China suggests that many patients will still receive antibiotics even if a bacterial cause is excluded.

When patients dictate treatment, sometimes we must tell them what is best. Dr. Stivers closed her presentation by emphasizing that, “how you say things will matter.”

Louis Bont, MD, PhD, chair of this session and pediatric infectious diseases specialist at the University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), commented: “Antimicrobial resistance is a global health threat which jeopardizes sustainable health goals. The World Health Organization has declared that antimicrobial resistance is one of the top 10 global public health threats facing humanity. Resistance to ciprofloxacin varies from 8%-93% in Escherichia coli and 4%-80% in Klebsiella pneumoniae. Colistin is the only last-resort treatment for life-threatening infections caused by carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae.”

Dr. Stivers stated that she has nothing to disclose.

Levels of nicotine and marijuana vaping among adolescents remain elevated but did not increase significantly in the past year, data from the annual Monitoring the Future survey show.

The 2020 survey included responses from 11,821 individuals in 112 schools across the United States from Feb. 11, 2020, to March 14, 2020, at which time data collection ended prematurely because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results represent approximately 25% of the usual data collection.

A key positive finding in this year’s survey was the relatively stable levels of nicotine vaping from 2019 to 2020, following a trend of notably increased use annually since vaping was added to the survey in 2017.

During the years 2017-2019, the percentage of teens who reported vaping nicotine in the past 12 months increased from 7.5% to 16.5% among 8th graders, from 15.8% to 30.7% among 10th graders, and from 18.8% to 35.3% among 12th graders. However, in 2020, the percentages of teens who reported past-year nicotine vaping were relatively steady at 16.6%, 30.7%, and 34.5%, for 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-grade students, respectively. In addition, reports of daily or near-daily nicotine vaping (defined as 20 occasions in the past 30 days) decreased significantly, from 6.8% to 3.6% among 10th graders and from 11.6% to 5.3% among 12th graders.

“The rapid rise of teen nicotine vaping in recent years has been unprecedented and deeply concerning since we know that nicotine is highly addictive and can be delivered at high doses by vaping devices, which may also contain other toxic chemicals that may be harmful when inhaled,” said Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse in a press release accompanying the release of the findings. “It is encouraging to see a leveling off of this trend though the rates still remain very high.”

Reports of past-year marijuana vaping remained similar to 2019 levels after a twofold increase in the past 2 years, according to the survey. In early 2020, 8.1%, 19.1%, and 22.1% of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders reported past-year use. However, daily marijuana vaping decreased by more than half from 2019, to 1.1% among 10th graders and 1.5% among 12th graders.

Past-year use of the JUUL devices specifically also declined among older teens, from 28.7% in 2019 to 20% in 2020 among 10th graders and from 28.4% in 2019 to 22.7% in 2020 among 12th graders.

Other trends this year included the increased past-year use of amphetamines, inhalants, and cough medicines among 8th graders, and relatively low reported use among 12th graders of LSD (3.9%), synthetic cannabinoids (2.4%), cocaine (2.9%), ecstasy (1.8%), methamphetamine (1.4%), and heroin (0.3%).

The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.

 

Early data show progress

“The MTF survey is the most referenced and reliable longitudinal study reporting current use of tobacco, drugs, and alcohol among young people,” said Mark S. Gold, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, in an interview.

“The new data, collected before data collection stopped prematurely due to the COVID-19 pandemic, suggests that some progress is being made in slowing the increase in substance use among these, the most vulnerable,” he said.

“The best news was that nicotine vaping decreased significantly after its meteoric increase over the past few years,” Dr. Gold emphasized. “Past-year vaping of marijuana remained steady at alarming levels in 2020, with 8.1% of 8th graders, 19.1% of 10th graders, and 22.1% of 12th graders reporting past-year use, following a two-fold increase over the past 2 years.” The use of all forms of marijuana, including smoking and vaping, did not significantly change in any of the three grades for lifetime use, past 12-month use, past 30-day use, and daily use from 2019 to 2020.

“Teen alcohol use has not significantly changed over the past 5 years,” and cigarette smoking in the last 30 days did not significantly change from 2019 to 2020, said Dr. Gold. However, “as with adults, psychostimulant use is increasing. Past year nonmedical use of amphetamines among 8th graders increased, from 3.5% in 2017 to 5.3% in 2020.”
 

COVID-era limitations

“The data suggest that pre-COVID pandemic vaping, smoking cigarettes, marijuana, and alcohol use had stabilized,” Dr. Gold said. “However, it is very difficult to predict what the COVID era data will show as many young people are at home, on the streets, and unsupervised; while adult substance misuse, substance use disorders, and overdoses are increasing. Drug supplies and access have increased for alcohol, cannabis, vaping, and tobacco as have supply synthetics like methamphetamine and fentanyl.”

In addition, “access to evaluation, intervention, and treatment have been curtailed during the pandemic,” Dr. Gold said. “The loss of peer role models, daily routine, and teacher or other adult supervision and interventions may interact with increasing despair, social isolation, depression, and anxiety in ways that are unknown. “It will not be clear until the next survey if perceived dangerousness has changed in ways that can protect these 8th, 10th, and 12th graders and increase the numbers of never users or current nonusers.”

The Monitoring the Future survey is conducted each year by the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, and supported by NIDA, part of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Gold had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Levels of nicotine and marijuana vaping among adolescents remain elevated but did not increase significantly in the past year, data from the annual Monitoring the Future survey show.

The 2020 survey included responses from 11,821 individuals in 112 schools across the United States from Feb. 11, 2020, to March 14, 2020, at which time data collection ended prematurely because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results represent approximately 25% of the usual data collection.

A key positive finding in this year’s survey was the relatively stable levels of nicotine vaping from 2019 to 2020, following a trend of notably increased use annually since vaping was added to the survey in 2017.

During the years 2017-2019, the percentage of teens who reported vaping nicotine in the past 12 months increased from 7.5% to 16.5% among 8th graders, from 15.8% to 30.7% among 10th graders, and from 18.8% to 35.3% among 12th graders. However, in 2020, the percentages of teens who reported past-year nicotine vaping were relatively steady at 16.6%, 30.7%, and 34.5%, for 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-grade students, respectively. In addition, reports of daily or near-daily nicotine vaping (defined as 20 occasions in the past 30 days) decreased significantly, from 6.8% to 3.6% among 10th graders and from 11.6% to 5.3% among 12th graders.

“The rapid rise of teen nicotine vaping in recent years has been unprecedented and deeply concerning since we know that nicotine is highly addictive and can be delivered at high doses by vaping devices, which may also contain other toxic chemicals that may be harmful when inhaled,” said Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse in a press release accompanying the release of the findings. “It is encouraging to see a leveling off of this trend though the rates still remain very high.”

Reports of past-year marijuana vaping remained similar to 2019 levels after a twofold increase in the past 2 years, according to the survey. In early 2020, 8.1%, 19.1%, and 22.1% of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders reported past-year use. However, daily marijuana vaping decreased by more than half from 2019, to 1.1% among 10th graders and 1.5% among 12th graders.

Past-year use of the JUUL devices specifically also declined among older teens, from 28.7% in 2019 to 20% in 2020 among 10th graders and from 28.4% in 2019 to 22.7% in 2020 among 12th graders.

Other trends this year included the increased past-year use of amphetamines, inhalants, and cough medicines among 8th graders, and relatively low reported use among 12th graders of LSD (3.9%), synthetic cannabinoids (2.4%), cocaine (2.9%), ecstasy (1.8%), methamphetamine (1.4%), and heroin (0.3%).

The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.

 

Early data show progress

“The MTF survey is the most referenced and reliable longitudinal study reporting current use of tobacco, drugs, and alcohol among young people,” said Mark S. Gold, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, in an interview.

“The new data, collected before data collection stopped prematurely due to the COVID-19 pandemic, suggests that some progress is being made in slowing the increase in substance use among these, the most vulnerable,” he said.

“The best news was that nicotine vaping decreased significantly after its meteoric increase over the past few years,” Dr. Gold emphasized. “Past-year vaping of marijuana remained steady at alarming levels in 2020, with 8.1% of 8th graders, 19.1% of 10th graders, and 22.1% of 12th graders reporting past-year use, following a two-fold increase over the past 2 years.” The use of all forms of marijuana, including smoking and vaping, did not significantly change in any of the three grades for lifetime use, past 12-month use, past 30-day use, and daily use from 2019 to 2020.

“Teen alcohol use has not significantly changed over the past 5 years,” and cigarette smoking in the last 30 days did not significantly change from 2019 to 2020, said Dr. Gold. However, “as with adults, psychostimulant use is increasing. Past year nonmedical use of amphetamines among 8th graders increased, from 3.5% in 2017 to 5.3% in 2020.”
 

COVID-era limitations

“The data suggest that pre-COVID pandemic vaping, smoking cigarettes, marijuana, and alcohol use had stabilized,” Dr. Gold said. “However, it is very difficult to predict what the COVID era data will show as many young people are at home, on the streets, and unsupervised; while adult substance misuse, substance use disorders, and overdoses are increasing. Drug supplies and access have increased for alcohol, cannabis, vaping, and tobacco as have supply synthetics like methamphetamine and fentanyl.”

In addition, “access to evaluation, intervention, and treatment have been curtailed during the pandemic,” Dr. Gold said. “The loss of peer role models, daily routine, and teacher or other adult supervision and interventions may interact with increasing despair, social isolation, depression, and anxiety in ways that are unknown. “It will not be clear until the next survey if perceived dangerousness has changed in ways that can protect these 8th, 10th, and 12th graders and increase the numbers of never users or current nonusers.”

The Monitoring the Future survey is conducted each year by the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, and supported by NIDA, part of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Gold had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Levels of nicotine and marijuana vaping among adolescents remain elevated but did not increase significantly in the past year, data from the annual Monitoring the Future survey show.

The 2020 survey included responses from 11,821 individuals in 112 schools across the United States from Feb. 11, 2020, to March 14, 2020, at which time data collection ended prematurely because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results represent approximately 25% of the usual data collection.

A key positive finding in this year’s survey was the relatively stable levels of nicotine vaping from 2019 to 2020, following a trend of notably increased use annually since vaping was added to the survey in 2017.

During the years 2017-2019, the percentage of teens who reported vaping nicotine in the past 12 months increased from 7.5% to 16.5% among 8th graders, from 15.8% to 30.7% among 10th graders, and from 18.8% to 35.3% among 12th graders. However, in 2020, the percentages of teens who reported past-year nicotine vaping were relatively steady at 16.6%, 30.7%, and 34.5%, for 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-grade students, respectively. In addition, reports of daily or near-daily nicotine vaping (defined as 20 occasions in the past 30 days) decreased significantly, from 6.8% to 3.6% among 10th graders and from 11.6% to 5.3% among 12th graders.

“The rapid rise of teen nicotine vaping in recent years has been unprecedented and deeply concerning since we know that nicotine is highly addictive and can be delivered at high doses by vaping devices, which may also contain other toxic chemicals that may be harmful when inhaled,” said Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse in a press release accompanying the release of the findings. “It is encouraging to see a leveling off of this trend though the rates still remain very high.”

Reports of past-year marijuana vaping remained similar to 2019 levels after a twofold increase in the past 2 years, according to the survey. In early 2020, 8.1%, 19.1%, and 22.1% of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders reported past-year use. However, daily marijuana vaping decreased by more than half from 2019, to 1.1% among 10th graders and 1.5% among 12th graders.

Past-year use of the JUUL devices specifically also declined among older teens, from 28.7% in 2019 to 20% in 2020 among 10th graders and from 28.4% in 2019 to 22.7% in 2020 among 12th graders.

Other trends this year included the increased past-year use of amphetamines, inhalants, and cough medicines among 8th graders, and relatively low reported use among 12th graders of LSD (3.9%), synthetic cannabinoids (2.4%), cocaine (2.9%), ecstasy (1.8%), methamphetamine (1.4%), and heroin (0.3%).

The findings were published in JAMA Pediatrics.

 

Early data show progress

“The MTF survey is the most referenced and reliable longitudinal study reporting current use of tobacco, drugs, and alcohol among young people,” said Mark S. Gold, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, in an interview.

“The new data, collected before data collection stopped prematurely due to the COVID-19 pandemic, suggests that some progress is being made in slowing the increase in substance use among these, the most vulnerable,” he said.

“The best news was that nicotine vaping decreased significantly after its meteoric increase over the past few years,” Dr. Gold emphasized. “Past-year vaping of marijuana remained steady at alarming levels in 2020, with 8.1% of 8th graders, 19.1% of 10th graders, and 22.1% of 12th graders reporting past-year use, following a two-fold increase over the past 2 years.” The use of all forms of marijuana, including smoking and vaping, did not significantly change in any of the three grades for lifetime use, past 12-month use, past 30-day use, and daily use from 2019 to 2020.

“Teen alcohol use has not significantly changed over the past 5 years,” and cigarette smoking in the last 30 days did not significantly change from 2019 to 2020, said Dr. Gold. However, “as with adults, psychostimulant use is increasing. Past year nonmedical use of amphetamines among 8th graders increased, from 3.5% in 2017 to 5.3% in 2020.”
 

COVID-era limitations

“The data suggest that pre-COVID pandemic vaping, smoking cigarettes, marijuana, and alcohol use had stabilized,” Dr. Gold said. “However, it is very difficult to predict what the COVID era data will show as many young people are at home, on the streets, and unsupervised; while adult substance misuse, substance use disorders, and overdoses are increasing. Drug supplies and access have increased for alcohol, cannabis, vaping, and tobacco as have supply synthetics like methamphetamine and fentanyl.”

In addition, “access to evaluation, intervention, and treatment have been curtailed during the pandemic,” Dr. Gold said. “The loss of peer role models, daily routine, and teacher or other adult supervision and interventions may interact with increasing despair, social isolation, depression, and anxiety in ways that are unknown. “It will not be clear until the next survey if perceived dangerousness has changed in ways that can protect these 8th, 10th, and 12th graders and increase the numbers of never users or current nonusers.”

The Monitoring the Future survey is conducted each year by the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, and supported by NIDA, part of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Gold had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Sleep medications for older patients who report sleep problems may not be the best treatment given growing evidence of the link between these medications and the risk of incident dementia.

Adults aged 65 years and older who used sleep medications 5-7 days a week demonstrated a 30% increased risk of dementia, compared with those who did not use sleep medications, findings from a prospective study of 6,373 individuals show.

Adults aged 65 and older report a higher burden of sleep problems than other age groups, but major medical associations discourage the use of sleep medications by older adults because of growing evidence of a link between sleep medication use and cognitive decline, wrote Rebecca Robbins, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. However, data on this association among adults in the United States are limited, they said.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers surveyed 6,373 adults aged 65 years and older who were enrolled in the nationally representative National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS). The majority of the participants were non-Hispanic White (71%), 59% were women, and 21% ranged in age from 70 to 74 years.

Participants responded to questions about routine sleep medication use. Routine was defined as “most nights” or “every night.” The data were collected for an 8-year period from 2011 to 2018. The study began in 2011, with a core interview administered annually.

Approximately 15% of the study population reported routine use of sleep medications. Overall, routine use of sleep medication was significantly associated with risk of incident dementia (hazard ratio, 1.30; P < .01) after controlling for multiple variables including age, sex, education level, and chronic conditions.

Dementia screening was conducted by participants rating their memory and then performing a memory-related activity (immediate and delayed 10-word recall) and other exercises to assess executive function and orientation. A separate eight-item informant screener was performed for patient proxies. The researcher noted, “Sensitivity of the NHATS probable dementia screening measure has been determined in previous research to be 66%, and specificity is 87%, with respect to a clinical dementia diagnosis.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports, the lack of data on type or dose of sleep medication, and lack of data on the indication for the prescription, the researchers noted.

“Also, sleep medication use leads to worse performance on cognitive testing, such as the questionnaires used to screen for dementia in this study, and therefore could have resulted in a false diagnosis of dementia,” they added.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, nationally representative study population and support the need for quality geriatric care, the researchers said.

“Our findings provide further support and evidence that sleep medications are all too commonly administered, yet associated with greater risk for incident dementia, and that the U.S. health care system is in need of creative solutions for addressing poor sleep among older individuals,” they concluded.
 

Implications and alternatives

The study is important as the number of aging Americans increases, said Carolyn M. D’Ambrosio, MD, FCCP, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an interview. “In the elderly, inability to fall asleep or stay asleep are common issues that are brought to a health care provider,” she said. Dr. D’Ambrosio said she was not surprised by the study findings “as elderly patients often have sleep issues and sometimes a well-meaning health care provider gives them sleep medication to help. We have known that some of these sleep medications such as benzodiazepines affect cognitive performance,” she said.

Dr. D’Ambrosio said she avoids prescribing sleep medications for older adults if possible. “A deep dive into sleep habits, environment, and other things that disrupt sleep often gets to the problem rather than just masking it with a sleep medication,” she noted. Alternatives to improve sleep in older adults include exercise, exposure to bright light during the day, and good healthy sleep habits, all of which contribute to improved sleep in the elderly, said Dr. D’Ambrosio. She also recommends screening older adults for other issues that affect sleep, such as chronic pain.

The current study highlighted the association between sleep medication use and dementia, but it does not show causation, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “So much more needs to be done to determine whether the sleep medications are causing worsening cognitive function long term, or if the dementia is starting but not yet diagnosed and the sleep medication is given but not the cause of the dementia, she noted.
 

Research gaps and treatment strategies

Older adults experiencing sleep difficulties may try various medications including pharmacologics (e.g., benzodiazepines), over-the-counter agents, such as diphenhydramine or doxylamine preparations, and/or herbal and nutritional supplements such as valerian or melatonin, said Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, FCCP, of the University of Massachusetts Medical School–Baystate, Springfield, in an interview. “However, sleep medications, particularly benzodiazepines, are strongly discouraged by major medical associations including the American Geriatrics Society in part because of the growing evidence that use of sleep medications is associated with cognitive impairment and decline,” she said.

The current study results contribute to previous work demonstrating that both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic sleep medication, although commonly administered, is associated with subsequent adverse outcomes in older adults, Dr. Farmer said. This association sets the stage for creative and different solutions for addressing poor sleep among older adults, such as behavioral treatments including cognitive-behavioral therapy, she noted.

Dr. Farmer said, “Areas for future research include exploring the causal link between prescription and/or over-the-counter sleep medication use and incident dementia in a randomized controlled trial,” she added.

“Another interesting opportunity for future research is to explore the indications for sleep medications among older adults since it has been shown in the general population that sleep difficulties represent only 12% of the indication for sleep medication prescriptions,” Dr. Farmer noted. “Future research could examine the strength of the underlying motivation to use sleep medication even in light of suggested long-term effects, and the effectiveness of other measures to avoid or minimize sleep difficulties,” she said.

“My experience is that the majority of ambulatory patients recently seen in sleep clinic want to avoid long-term use of sleep medications and will ask what other measures can be tried to consistently achieve a good night’s sleep without medication use,” Dr. Farmer said. “If medications are used, patients would rather try melatonin than a benzodiazepine. Many patients who come to sleep clinic with sleep medications already prescribed and are subsequently found to have sleep apnea and/or restless legs find that they no longer need sleep medication when these other medical conditions are appropriately diagnosed and managed,” she explained. “Finally, many patients tell me they feel less energetic upon awakening, almost feel hung over, and express being less sharp cognitively when taking pharmacologic sleep medication, whether for short or long periods of time, and therefore they want to avoid continuing with sleep medication use,” she said.

Dr. Farmer’s strategy for developing alternatives to sleep medications in older adults includes taking a careful history, including a complete list of medical problems, review of medications, and a thorough sleep history including usual time of sleep onset, awake time, and the frequency of daytime naps. “Tips for improving the quality of nighttime sleep may include adequately treating pain and other medical conditions such as heartburn, sleep apnea, and restless legs, creating a soothing environment to promote sleep by eliminating noise and bright lights, avoiding stimulant medications and substances such as caffeine and nicotine before bedtime, avoiding excessive amounts of alcohol, avoiding diuretics before bedtime, encouraging physical activity during the day, spending time in the sunlight as much as possible to help regulate the sleep cycle, limiting daytime naps, and establishing a regular sleep schedule,” she said.

The study was supported by National Institutes of Health awards K01HL150339, U54MD000538, K07AG052685, R01AG056531, R01AG056031. Lead author Dr. Robbins had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. D’Ambrosio disclosed serving as a section editor for sleep medicine for Dynamed and owning a patent on a circadian programming device. Dr. Farmer had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Robbins R et al. Sleep Med. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2020.11.004.

Sleep medications for older patients who report sleep problems may not be the best treatment given growing evidence of the link between these medications and the risk of incident dementia.

Adults aged 65 years and older who used sleep medications 5-7 days a week demonstrated a 30% increased risk of dementia, compared with those who did not use sleep medications, findings from a prospective study of 6,373 individuals show.

Adults aged 65 and older report a higher burden of sleep problems than other age groups, but major medical associations discourage the use of sleep medications by older adults because of growing evidence of a link between sleep medication use and cognitive decline, wrote Rebecca Robbins, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. However, data on this association among adults in the United States are limited, they said.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers surveyed 6,373 adults aged 65 years and older who were enrolled in the nationally representative National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS). The majority of the participants were non-Hispanic White (71%), 59% were women, and 21% ranged in age from 70 to 74 years.

Participants responded to questions about routine sleep medication use. Routine was defined as “most nights” or “every night.” The data were collected for an 8-year period from 2011 to 2018. The study began in 2011, with a core interview administered annually.

Approximately 15% of the study population reported routine use of sleep medications. Overall, routine use of sleep medication was significantly associated with risk of incident dementia (hazard ratio, 1.30; P < .01) after controlling for multiple variables including age, sex, education level, and chronic conditions.

Dementia screening was conducted by participants rating their memory and then performing a memory-related activity (immediate and delayed 10-word recall) and other exercises to assess executive function and orientation. A separate eight-item informant screener was performed for patient proxies. The researcher noted, “Sensitivity of the NHATS probable dementia screening measure has been determined in previous research to be 66%, and specificity is 87%, with respect to a clinical dementia diagnosis.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports, the lack of data on type or dose of sleep medication, and lack of data on the indication for the prescription, the researchers noted.

“Also, sleep medication use leads to worse performance on cognitive testing, such as the questionnaires used to screen for dementia in this study, and therefore could have resulted in a false diagnosis of dementia,” they added.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, nationally representative study population and support the need for quality geriatric care, the researchers said.

“Our findings provide further support and evidence that sleep medications are all too commonly administered, yet associated with greater risk for incident dementia, and that the U.S. health care system is in need of creative solutions for addressing poor sleep among older individuals,” they concluded.
 

Implications and alternatives

The study is important as the number of aging Americans increases, said Carolyn M. D’Ambrosio, MD, FCCP, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an interview. “In the elderly, inability to fall asleep or stay asleep are common issues that are brought to a health care provider,” she said. Dr. D’Ambrosio said she was not surprised by the study findings “as elderly patients often have sleep issues and sometimes a well-meaning health care provider gives them sleep medication to help. We have known that some of these sleep medications such as benzodiazepines affect cognitive performance,” she said.

Dr. D’Ambrosio said she avoids prescribing sleep medications for older adults if possible. “A deep dive into sleep habits, environment, and other things that disrupt sleep often gets to the problem rather than just masking it with a sleep medication,” she noted. Alternatives to improve sleep in older adults include exercise, exposure to bright light during the day, and good healthy sleep habits, all of which contribute to improved sleep in the elderly, said Dr. D’Ambrosio. She also recommends screening older adults for other issues that affect sleep, such as chronic pain.

The current study highlighted the association between sleep medication use and dementia, but it does not show causation, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “So much more needs to be done to determine whether the sleep medications are causing worsening cognitive function long term, or if the dementia is starting but not yet diagnosed and the sleep medication is given but not the cause of the dementia, she noted.
 

Research gaps and treatment strategies

Older adults experiencing sleep difficulties may try various medications including pharmacologics (e.g., benzodiazepines), over-the-counter agents, such as diphenhydramine or doxylamine preparations, and/or herbal and nutritional supplements such as valerian or melatonin, said Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, FCCP, of the University of Massachusetts Medical School–Baystate, Springfield, in an interview. “However, sleep medications, particularly benzodiazepines, are strongly discouraged by major medical associations including the American Geriatrics Society in part because of the growing evidence that use of sleep medications is associated with cognitive impairment and decline,” she said.

The current study results contribute to previous work demonstrating that both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic sleep medication, although commonly administered, is associated with subsequent adverse outcomes in older adults, Dr. Farmer said. This association sets the stage for creative and different solutions for addressing poor sleep among older adults, such as behavioral treatments including cognitive-behavioral therapy, she noted.

Dr. Farmer said, “Areas for future research include exploring the causal link between prescription and/or over-the-counter sleep medication use and incident dementia in a randomized controlled trial,” she added.

“Another interesting opportunity for future research is to explore the indications for sleep medications among older adults since it has been shown in the general population that sleep difficulties represent only 12% of the indication for sleep medication prescriptions,” Dr. Farmer noted. “Future research could examine the strength of the underlying motivation to use sleep medication even in light of suggested long-term effects, and the effectiveness of other measures to avoid or minimize sleep difficulties,” she said.

“My experience is that the majority of ambulatory patients recently seen in sleep clinic want to avoid long-term use of sleep medications and will ask what other measures can be tried to consistently achieve a good night’s sleep without medication use,” Dr. Farmer said. “If medications are used, patients would rather try melatonin than a benzodiazepine. Many patients who come to sleep clinic with sleep medications already prescribed and are subsequently found to have sleep apnea and/or restless legs find that they no longer need sleep medication when these other medical conditions are appropriately diagnosed and managed,” she explained. “Finally, many patients tell me they feel less energetic upon awakening, almost feel hung over, and express being less sharp cognitively when taking pharmacologic sleep medication, whether for short or long periods of time, and therefore they want to avoid continuing with sleep medication use,” she said.

Dr. Farmer’s strategy for developing alternatives to sleep medications in older adults includes taking a careful history, including a complete list of medical problems, review of medications, and a thorough sleep history including usual time of sleep onset, awake time, and the frequency of daytime naps. “Tips for improving the quality of nighttime sleep may include adequately treating pain and other medical conditions such as heartburn, sleep apnea, and restless legs, creating a soothing environment to promote sleep by eliminating noise and bright lights, avoiding stimulant medications and substances such as caffeine and nicotine before bedtime, avoiding excessive amounts of alcohol, avoiding diuretics before bedtime, encouraging physical activity during the day, spending time in the sunlight as much as possible to help regulate the sleep cycle, limiting daytime naps, and establishing a regular sleep schedule,” she said.

The study was supported by National Institutes of Health awards K01HL150339, U54MD000538, K07AG052685, R01AG056531, R01AG056031. Lead author Dr. Robbins had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. D’Ambrosio disclosed serving as a section editor for sleep medicine for Dynamed and owning a patent on a circadian programming device. Dr. Farmer had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Robbins R et al. Sleep Med. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2020.11.004.

Sleep medications for older patients who report sleep problems may not be the best treatment given growing evidence of the link between these medications and the risk of incident dementia.

Adults aged 65 years and older who used sleep medications 5-7 days a week demonstrated a 30% increased risk of dementia, compared with those who did not use sleep medications, findings from a prospective study of 6,373 individuals show.

Adults aged 65 and older report a higher burden of sleep problems than other age groups, but major medical associations discourage the use of sleep medications by older adults because of growing evidence of a link between sleep medication use and cognitive decline, wrote Rebecca Robbins, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. However, data on this association among adults in the United States are limited, they said.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers surveyed 6,373 adults aged 65 years and older who were enrolled in the nationally representative National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS). The majority of the participants were non-Hispanic White (71%), 59% were women, and 21% ranged in age from 70 to 74 years.

Participants responded to questions about routine sleep medication use. Routine was defined as “most nights” or “every night.” The data were collected for an 8-year period from 2011 to 2018. The study began in 2011, with a core interview administered annually.

Approximately 15% of the study population reported routine use of sleep medications. Overall, routine use of sleep medication was significantly associated with risk of incident dementia (hazard ratio, 1.30; P < .01) after controlling for multiple variables including age, sex, education level, and chronic conditions.

Dementia screening was conducted by participants rating their memory and then performing a memory-related activity (immediate and delayed 10-word recall) and other exercises to assess executive function and orientation. A separate eight-item informant screener was performed for patient proxies. The researcher noted, “Sensitivity of the NHATS probable dementia screening measure has been determined in previous research to be 66%, and specificity is 87%, with respect to a clinical dementia diagnosis.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports, the lack of data on type or dose of sleep medication, and lack of data on the indication for the prescription, the researchers noted.

“Also, sleep medication use leads to worse performance on cognitive testing, such as the questionnaires used to screen for dementia in this study, and therefore could have resulted in a false diagnosis of dementia,” they added.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, nationally representative study population and support the need for quality geriatric care, the researchers said.

“Our findings provide further support and evidence that sleep medications are all too commonly administered, yet associated with greater risk for incident dementia, and that the U.S. health care system is in need of creative solutions for addressing poor sleep among older individuals,” they concluded.
 

Implications and alternatives

The study is important as the number of aging Americans increases, said Carolyn M. D’Ambrosio, MD, FCCP, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an interview. “In the elderly, inability to fall asleep or stay asleep are common issues that are brought to a health care provider,” she said. Dr. D’Ambrosio said she was not surprised by the study findings “as elderly patients often have sleep issues and sometimes a well-meaning health care provider gives them sleep medication to help. We have known that some of these sleep medications such as benzodiazepines affect cognitive performance,” she said.

Dr. D’Ambrosio said she avoids prescribing sleep medications for older adults if possible. “A deep dive into sleep habits, environment, and other things that disrupt sleep often gets to the problem rather than just masking it with a sleep medication,” she noted. Alternatives to improve sleep in older adults include exercise, exposure to bright light during the day, and good healthy sleep habits, all of which contribute to improved sleep in the elderly, said Dr. D’Ambrosio. She also recommends screening older adults for other issues that affect sleep, such as chronic pain.

The current study highlighted the association between sleep medication use and dementia, but it does not show causation, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “So much more needs to be done to determine whether the sleep medications are causing worsening cognitive function long term, or if the dementia is starting but not yet diagnosed and the sleep medication is given but not the cause of the dementia, she noted.
 

Research gaps and treatment strategies

Older adults experiencing sleep difficulties may try various medications including pharmacologics (e.g., benzodiazepines), over-the-counter agents, such as diphenhydramine or doxylamine preparations, and/or herbal and nutritional supplements such as valerian or melatonin, said Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, FCCP, of the University of Massachusetts Medical School–Baystate, Springfield, in an interview. “However, sleep medications, particularly benzodiazepines, are strongly discouraged by major medical associations including the American Geriatrics Society in part because of the growing evidence that use of sleep medications is associated with cognitive impairment and decline,” she said.

The current study results contribute to previous work demonstrating that both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic sleep medication, although commonly administered, is associated with subsequent adverse outcomes in older adults, Dr. Farmer said. This association sets the stage for creative and different solutions for addressing poor sleep among older adults, such as behavioral treatments including cognitive-behavioral therapy, she noted.

Dr. Farmer said, “Areas for future research include exploring the causal link between prescription and/or over-the-counter sleep medication use and incident dementia in a randomized controlled trial,” she added.

“Another interesting opportunity for future research is to explore the indications for sleep medications among older adults since it has been shown in the general population that sleep difficulties represent only 12% of the indication for sleep medication prescriptions,” Dr. Farmer noted. “Future research could examine the strength of the underlying motivation to use sleep medication even in light of suggested long-term effects, and the effectiveness of other measures to avoid or minimize sleep difficulties,” she said.

“My experience is that the majority of ambulatory patients recently seen in sleep clinic want to avoid long-term use of sleep medications and will ask what other measures can be tried to consistently achieve a good night’s sleep without medication use,” Dr. Farmer said. “If medications are used, patients would rather try melatonin than a benzodiazepine. Many patients who come to sleep clinic with sleep medications already prescribed and are subsequently found to have sleep apnea and/or restless legs find that they no longer need sleep medication when these other medical conditions are appropriately diagnosed and managed,” she explained. “Finally, many patients tell me they feel less energetic upon awakening, almost feel hung over, and express being less sharp cognitively when taking pharmacologic sleep medication, whether for short or long periods of time, and therefore they want to avoid continuing with sleep medication use,” she said.

Dr. Farmer’s strategy for developing alternatives to sleep medications in older adults includes taking a careful history, including a complete list of medical problems, review of medications, and a thorough sleep history including usual time of sleep onset, awake time, and the frequency of daytime naps. “Tips for improving the quality of nighttime sleep may include adequately treating pain and other medical conditions such as heartburn, sleep apnea, and restless legs, creating a soothing environment to promote sleep by eliminating noise and bright lights, avoiding stimulant medications and substances such as caffeine and nicotine before bedtime, avoiding excessive amounts of alcohol, avoiding diuretics before bedtime, encouraging physical activity during the day, spending time in the sunlight as much as possible to help regulate the sleep cycle, limiting daytime naps, and establishing a regular sleep schedule,” she said.

The study was supported by National Institutes of Health awards K01HL150339, U54MD000538, K07AG052685, R01AG056531, R01AG056031. Lead author Dr. Robbins had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. D’Ambrosio disclosed serving as a section editor for sleep medicine for Dynamed and owning a patent on a circadian programming device. Dr. Farmer had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Robbins R et al. Sleep Med. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2020.11.004.

Federal advisers on December 17 overwhelmingly recommended an emergency clearance to Moderna Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine, while noting concerns about potential allergic reactions and the challenges of continuing testing of this medicine.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Moderna’s application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The panel voted 20-0 on this question: “Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?” There was one abstention.

The FDA is not bound to act on the recommendations of its advisers, but the agency usually takes the panel’s advice. The FDA cleared the similar Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on December 11 through an emergency use authorization (EUA), following a positive vote for the product at a December 10 advisory committee meeting. In this case, the FDA staff appeared to be pushing for a broad endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, for which the agency appears likely to soon also grant an EUA.

Marion Gruber, PhD, director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, earlier rebuffed attempts by some of the panelists to alter the voting question. Some panelists wanted to make tweaks, including a rephrasing to underscore the limited nature of an EUA, compared with a more complete approval through the biologics license application (BLA) process.

FDA panelist Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, of the National Institutes of Health was the only panelist to abstain from voting. He said he was uncomfortable with the phrasing of the question.

“In the midst of a pandemic and with limited vaccine supply available, a blanket statement for individuals 18 years and older is just too broad,” he said. “I’m not convinced that for all of those age groups the benefits do actually outweigh the risks.”

In general, though, there was strong support for Moderna’s vaccine. FDA panelist James Hildreth Sr, MD, PhD, of Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee spoke of the “remarkable achievement” seen in having two vaccines ready for clearance by December for a virus that only emerged as a threat this year.

Study data indicate the primary efficacy endpoint demonstrated vaccine efficacy (VE) of 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3% - 96.8%) for the Moderna vaccine, with 11 COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 185 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group, the FDA staff noted during the meeting.

The advisers and FDA staff also honed in on several key issues with COVID-19 vaccines, including the challenge of having people in the placebo groups of studies seek to get cleared vaccines. Also of concern to the panel were early reports of allergic reactions seen with the Pfizer product.

Doran L. Fink, MD, PhD, an FDA official who has been closely involved with the COVID-19 vaccines, told the panel that two healthcare workers in Alaska had allergic reactions minutes after receiving the Pfizer vaccine, one of which was a case of anaphylactic reaction that resulted in hospitalization.

In the United Kingdom, there were two cases reported of notable allergic reactions, leading regulators there to issue a warning that people who have a history of significant allergic reactions should not currently receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

The people involved in these incidents have recovered or are recovering, Fink said. But the FDA expects there will be additional reports of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.

“These cases underscores the need to remain vigilant during the early phase of the vaccination campaign,” Fink said. “To this end, FDA is working with Pfizer to further revise factsheets and prescribing information for their vaccine to draw attention to CDC guidelines for post- vaccination monitoring and management of immediate allergic reactions.”

mRNA vaccines in the lead

An FDA emergency clearance for Moderna’s product would be another vote of confidence in a new approach to making vaccines. Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines provide the immune system with a kind of blueprint in the form of genetic material, mRNA. The mRNA sets the stage for the synthesis of the signature spike protein that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to attach to and infect human cells.

In a December 15 commentary for this news organization Michael E. Pichichero, MD, wrote that the “revolutionary aspect of mRNA vaccines is the speed at which they can be designed and produced.”

“This is why they lead the pack among the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates and why the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided financial, technical, and/or clinical support. Indeed, once the amino acid sequence of a protein can be determined (a relatively easy task these days) it’s straightforward to synthesize mRNA in the lab — and it can be done incredibly fast,” he wrote.

The FDA allowed one waiver for panelist James K. Hildreth in connection with his personal relationship to a trial participant and his university’s participation in vaccine testing.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal advisers on December 17 overwhelmingly recommended an emergency clearance to Moderna Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine, while noting concerns about potential allergic reactions and the challenges of continuing testing of this medicine.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Moderna’s application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The panel voted 20-0 on this question: “Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?” There was one abstention.

The FDA is not bound to act on the recommendations of its advisers, but the agency usually takes the panel’s advice. The FDA cleared the similar Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on December 11 through an emergency use authorization (EUA), following a positive vote for the product at a December 10 advisory committee meeting. In this case, the FDA staff appeared to be pushing for a broad endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, for which the agency appears likely to soon also grant an EUA.

Marion Gruber, PhD, director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, earlier rebuffed attempts by some of the panelists to alter the voting question. Some panelists wanted to make tweaks, including a rephrasing to underscore the limited nature of an EUA, compared with a more complete approval through the biologics license application (BLA) process.

FDA panelist Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, of the National Institutes of Health was the only panelist to abstain from voting. He said he was uncomfortable with the phrasing of the question.

“In the midst of a pandemic and with limited vaccine supply available, a blanket statement for individuals 18 years and older is just too broad,” he said. “I’m not convinced that for all of those age groups the benefits do actually outweigh the risks.”

In general, though, there was strong support for Moderna’s vaccine. FDA panelist James Hildreth Sr, MD, PhD, of Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee spoke of the “remarkable achievement” seen in having two vaccines ready for clearance by December for a virus that only emerged as a threat this year.

Study data indicate the primary efficacy endpoint demonstrated vaccine efficacy (VE) of 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3% - 96.8%) for the Moderna vaccine, with 11 COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 185 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group, the FDA staff noted during the meeting.

The advisers and FDA staff also honed in on several key issues with COVID-19 vaccines, including the challenge of having people in the placebo groups of studies seek to get cleared vaccines. Also of concern to the panel were early reports of allergic reactions seen with the Pfizer product.

Doran L. Fink, MD, PhD, an FDA official who has been closely involved with the COVID-19 vaccines, told the panel that two healthcare workers in Alaska had allergic reactions minutes after receiving the Pfizer vaccine, one of which was a case of anaphylactic reaction that resulted in hospitalization.

In the United Kingdom, there were two cases reported of notable allergic reactions, leading regulators there to issue a warning that people who have a history of significant allergic reactions should not currently receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

The people involved in these incidents have recovered or are recovering, Fink said. But the FDA expects there will be additional reports of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.

“These cases underscores the need to remain vigilant during the early phase of the vaccination campaign,” Fink said. “To this end, FDA is working with Pfizer to further revise factsheets and prescribing information for their vaccine to draw attention to CDC guidelines for post- vaccination monitoring and management of immediate allergic reactions.”

mRNA vaccines in the lead

An FDA emergency clearance for Moderna’s product would be another vote of confidence in a new approach to making vaccines. Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines provide the immune system with a kind of blueprint in the form of genetic material, mRNA. The mRNA sets the stage for the synthesis of the signature spike protein that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to attach to and infect human cells.

In a December 15 commentary for this news organization Michael E. Pichichero, MD, wrote that the “revolutionary aspect of mRNA vaccines is the speed at which they can be designed and produced.”

“This is why they lead the pack among the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates and why the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided financial, technical, and/or clinical support. Indeed, once the amino acid sequence of a protein can be determined (a relatively easy task these days) it’s straightforward to synthesize mRNA in the lab — and it can be done incredibly fast,” he wrote.

The FDA allowed one waiver for panelist James K. Hildreth in connection with his personal relationship to a trial participant and his university’s participation in vaccine testing.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal advisers on December 17 overwhelmingly recommended an emergency clearance to Moderna Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine, while noting concerns about potential allergic reactions and the challenges of continuing testing of this medicine.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Moderna’s application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The panel voted 20-0 on this question: “Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?” There was one abstention.

The FDA is not bound to act on the recommendations of its advisers, but the agency usually takes the panel’s advice. The FDA cleared the similar Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on December 11 through an emergency use authorization (EUA), following a positive vote for the product at a December 10 advisory committee meeting. In this case, the FDA staff appeared to be pushing for a broad endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, for which the agency appears likely to soon also grant an EUA.

Marion Gruber, PhD, director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, earlier rebuffed attempts by some of the panelists to alter the voting question. Some panelists wanted to make tweaks, including a rephrasing to underscore the limited nature of an EUA, compared with a more complete approval through the biologics license application (BLA) process.

FDA panelist Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, of the National Institutes of Health was the only panelist to abstain from voting. He said he was uncomfortable with the phrasing of the question.

“In the midst of a pandemic and with limited vaccine supply available, a blanket statement for individuals 18 years and older is just too broad,” he said. “I’m not convinced that for all of those age groups the benefits do actually outweigh the risks.”

In general, though, there was strong support for Moderna’s vaccine. FDA panelist James Hildreth Sr, MD, PhD, of Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee spoke of the “remarkable achievement” seen in having two vaccines ready for clearance by December for a virus that only emerged as a threat this year.

Study data indicate the primary efficacy endpoint demonstrated vaccine efficacy (VE) of 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3% - 96.8%) for the Moderna vaccine, with 11 COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 185 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group, the FDA staff noted during the meeting.

The advisers and FDA staff also honed in on several key issues with COVID-19 vaccines, including the challenge of having people in the placebo groups of studies seek to get cleared vaccines. Also of concern to the panel were early reports of allergic reactions seen with the Pfizer product.

Doran L. Fink, MD, PhD, an FDA official who has been closely involved with the COVID-19 vaccines, told the panel that two healthcare workers in Alaska had allergic reactions minutes after receiving the Pfizer vaccine, one of which was a case of anaphylactic reaction that resulted in hospitalization.

In the United Kingdom, there were two cases reported of notable allergic reactions, leading regulators there to issue a warning that people who have a history of significant allergic reactions should not currently receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

The people involved in these incidents have recovered or are recovering, Fink said. But the FDA expects there will be additional reports of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.

“These cases underscores the need to remain vigilant during the early phase of the vaccination campaign,” Fink said. “To this end, FDA is working with Pfizer to further revise factsheets and prescribing information for their vaccine to draw attention to CDC guidelines for post- vaccination monitoring and management of immediate allergic reactions.”

mRNA vaccines in the lead

An FDA emergency clearance for Moderna’s product would be another vote of confidence in a new approach to making vaccines. Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines provide the immune system with a kind of blueprint in the form of genetic material, mRNA. The mRNA sets the stage for the synthesis of the signature spike protein that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to attach to and infect human cells.

In a December 15 commentary for this news organization Michael E. Pichichero, MD, wrote that the “revolutionary aspect of mRNA vaccines is the speed at which they can be designed and produced.”

“This is why they lead the pack among the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates and why the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided financial, technical, and/or clinical support. Indeed, once the amino acid sequence of a protein can be determined (a relatively easy task these days) it’s straightforward to synthesize mRNA in the lab — and it can be done incredibly fast,” he wrote.

The FDA allowed one waiver for panelist James K. Hildreth in connection with his personal relationship to a trial participant and his university’s participation in vaccine testing.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Children with cancer are at increased risk of potentially life-threatening Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI), and CDI should be considered early in cancer patients who develop gastrointestinal symptoms, Brianna Murphy, DO, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.

CDI are characterized by diarrhea, fever, and loss of appetite. The clinical features are caused by the release of toxins A and B by this gram-positive bacterium. In pediatric groups, CDI are a leading cause of antibiotic-associated gastric illness. This in turn can lead to a protracted stay in hospital and increases risk of mortality. The rising incidence in the United States over the last 2 decades prompted Dr. Murphy, a pediatric hematology oncology fellow working at the department of pediatric research at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, to investigate further. A search of the literature found limited information regarding CDI and pediatric oncology patients.

Recognized factors for contracting CDI include the presence of other illnesses, a weakened immune system because of drugs or disease, enteral nutrition, usage of medicines such as proton pump inhibitors which decrease gastric acid production, and classically, treatment with broad spectrum antibiotics.

Dr. Murphy’s study included patients aged 1-18 years, all of whom had a cancer diagnosis and a positive stool culture for C. difficile. Presenting symptoms were three or more loose stools per day or acute onset ileus. The study evaluated data for the years 2000-2017 and included 11,366 children; 207 CDI (0.98%) cases were identified among pediatric oncology patients during the study period. This compares with historical data showing an incidence of 0.14% among hospitalized children in general.

Malignancy data were then subdivided into three groups: hematologic, nonneural solid tumors (NNST), and neural tumors. Hematologic malignancies had a CDI prevalence higher than the average for oncologic patients at 5.4%. Inside this group those suffering with acute myeloid leukemia had a rate of 10.5%. In the NNST and neural tumor groups, CDI rates were lower and closer to the overall average.

CDC/Jennifer Hulsey

Dr. Murphy then looked at her patient population in more detail. Poor clinical outcomes (PCOs) were defined as severe, refractory, recurrent, or multiple infections. Severe CDI included features such as toxic megacolon, gastrointestinal perforation, or need for surgical intervention. Refractory CDI were defined as continuation of symptoms beyond 7 days of appropriate therapy, and recurrent CDI were classed as reinfection within 8 weeks of a previous CDI. Ultimately, 51% of patients in this study died. Patients with severe CDI experienced increased mortality (P = .02). There was no difference shown when looking at the type of cancer, age, gender, or patient ethnicity.

Next, Dr. Murphy looked for associations. Hematologic and biochemical testing identified that elevated creatinine was statistically associated with the likelihood of PCOs, compared with leukocytosis and neutropenia, particularly in the NNST group. Treatment modality also was studied. Here radiation therapy was the only treatment shown to increase PCOs in patients with CDI. One-fifth (22%) of radiation therapy recipients experienced multiple CDI, compared with 12% of the total population.

In commenting on her paper, Louis Bent, MD, from the Netherlands raised the issue of deaths in septic patients. What was the origin of the responsible organism, for example from the GI tract or from central lines, and were patients receiving appropriate antibiotic treatment?

Dr. Kelly responded that sepsis was generally believed to occur as a result of infection with mixed bacterial translocation through the bowel wall, notably Escherichia coli. Patients were usually on a cocktail of antibiotics targeting CDI, but also other infections illustrating the serious nature of the situation.

Dr. Murphy had no financial conflicts of interest to declare.

Children with cancer are at increased risk of potentially life-threatening Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI), and CDI should be considered early in cancer patients who develop gastrointestinal symptoms, Brianna Murphy, DO, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.

CDI are characterized by diarrhea, fever, and loss of appetite. The clinical features are caused by the release of toxins A and B by this gram-positive bacterium. In pediatric groups, CDI are a leading cause of antibiotic-associated gastric illness. This in turn can lead to a protracted stay in hospital and increases risk of mortality. The rising incidence in the United States over the last 2 decades prompted Dr. Murphy, a pediatric hematology oncology fellow working at the department of pediatric research at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, to investigate further. A search of the literature found limited information regarding CDI and pediatric oncology patients.

Recognized factors for contracting CDI include the presence of other illnesses, a weakened immune system because of drugs or disease, enteral nutrition, usage of medicines such as proton pump inhibitors which decrease gastric acid production, and classically, treatment with broad spectrum antibiotics.

Dr. Murphy’s study included patients aged 1-18 years, all of whom had a cancer diagnosis and a positive stool culture for C. difficile. Presenting symptoms were three or more loose stools per day or acute onset ileus. The study evaluated data for the years 2000-2017 and included 11,366 children; 207 CDI (0.98%) cases were identified among pediatric oncology patients during the study period. This compares with historical data showing an incidence of 0.14% among hospitalized children in general.

Malignancy data were then subdivided into three groups: hematologic, nonneural solid tumors (NNST), and neural tumors. Hematologic malignancies had a CDI prevalence higher than the average for oncologic patients at 5.4%. Inside this group those suffering with acute myeloid leukemia had a rate of 10.5%. In the NNST and neural tumor groups, CDI rates were lower and closer to the overall average.

CDC/Jennifer Hulsey

Dr. Murphy then looked at her patient population in more detail. Poor clinical outcomes (PCOs) were defined as severe, refractory, recurrent, or multiple infections. Severe CDI included features such as toxic megacolon, gastrointestinal perforation, or need for surgical intervention. Refractory CDI were defined as continuation of symptoms beyond 7 days of appropriate therapy, and recurrent CDI were classed as reinfection within 8 weeks of a previous CDI. Ultimately, 51% of patients in this study died. Patients with severe CDI experienced increased mortality (P = .02). There was no difference shown when looking at the type of cancer, age, gender, or patient ethnicity.

Next, Dr. Murphy looked for associations. Hematologic and biochemical testing identified that elevated creatinine was statistically associated with the likelihood of PCOs, compared with leukocytosis and neutropenia, particularly in the NNST group. Treatment modality also was studied. Here radiation therapy was the only treatment shown to increase PCOs in patients with CDI. One-fifth (22%) of radiation therapy recipients experienced multiple CDI, compared with 12% of the total population.

In commenting on her paper, Louis Bent, MD, from the Netherlands raised the issue of deaths in septic patients. What was the origin of the responsible organism, for example from the GI tract or from central lines, and were patients receiving appropriate antibiotic treatment?

Dr. Kelly responded that sepsis was generally believed to occur as a result of infection with mixed bacterial translocation through the bowel wall, notably Escherichia coli. Patients were usually on a cocktail of antibiotics targeting CDI, but also other infections illustrating the serious nature of the situation.

Dr. Murphy had no financial conflicts of interest to declare.

Children with cancer are at increased risk of potentially life-threatening Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI), and CDI should be considered early in cancer patients who develop gastrointestinal symptoms, Brianna Murphy, DO, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.

CDI are characterized by diarrhea, fever, and loss of appetite. The clinical features are caused by the release of toxins A and B by this gram-positive bacterium. In pediatric groups, CDI are a leading cause of antibiotic-associated gastric illness. This in turn can lead to a protracted stay in hospital and increases risk of mortality. The rising incidence in the United States over the last 2 decades prompted Dr. Murphy, a pediatric hematology oncology fellow working at the department of pediatric research at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, to investigate further. A search of the literature found limited information regarding CDI and pediatric oncology patients.

Recognized factors for contracting CDI include the presence of other illnesses, a weakened immune system because of drugs or disease, enteral nutrition, usage of medicines such as proton pump inhibitors which decrease gastric acid production, and classically, treatment with broad spectrum antibiotics.

Dr. Murphy’s study included patients aged 1-18 years, all of whom had a cancer diagnosis and a positive stool culture for C. difficile. Presenting symptoms were three or more loose stools per day or acute onset ileus. The study evaluated data for the years 2000-2017 and included 11,366 children; 207 CDI (0.98%) cases were identified among pediatric oncology patients during the study period. This compares with historical data showing an incidence of 0.14% among hospitalized children in general.

Malignancy data were then subdivided into three groups: hematologic, nonneural solid tumors (NNST), and neural tumors. Hematologic malignancies had a CDI prevalence higher than the average for oncologic patients at 5.4%. Inside this group those suffering with acute myeloid leukemia had a rate of 10.5%. In the NNST and neural tumor groups, CDI rates were lower and closer to the overall average.

CDC/Jennifer Hulsey

Dr. Murphy then looked at her patient population in more detail. Poor clinical outcomes (PCOs) were defined as severe, refractory, recurrent, or multiple infections. Severe CDI included features such as toxic megacolon, gastrointestinal perforation, or need for surgical intervention. Refractory CDI were defined as continuation of symptoms beyond 7 days of appropriate therapy, and recurrent CDI were classed as reinfection within 8 weeks of a previous CDI. Ultimately, 51% of patients in this study died. Patients with severe CDI experienced increased mortality (P = .02). There was no difference shown when looking at the type of cancer, age, gender, or patient ethnicity.

Next, Dr. Murphy looked for associations. Hematologic and biochemical testing identified that elevated creatinine was statistically associated with the likelihood of PCOs, compared with leukocytosis and neutropenia, particularly in the NNST group. Treatment modality also was studied. Here radiation therapy was the only treatment shown to increase PCOs in patients with CDI. One-fifth (22%) of radiation therapy recipients experienced multiple CDI, compared with 12% of the total population.

In commenting on her paper, Louis Bent, MD, from the Netherlands raised the issue of deaths in septic patients. What was the origin of the responsible organism, for example from the GI tract or from central lines, and were patients receiving appropriate antibiotic treatment?

Dr. Kelly responded that sepsis was generally believed to occur as a result of infection with mixed bacterial translocation through the bowel wall, notably Escherichia coli. Patients were usually on a cocktail of antibiotics targeting CDI, but also other infections illustrating the serious nature of the situation.

Dr. Murphy had no financial conflicts of interest to declare.

COVID-19 became a leading cause of death in the United States in 2020, particularly for people over age 35, according to a new report published in JAMA on Thursday.

Adults over age 45 were more likely to die from COVID-19 than car crashes, respiratory diseases, drug overdoses, and suicide. And those over age 55 faced even higher rates of dying because of the coronavirus.

“The current exponential increase in COVID-19 is reaching a calamitous scale in the U.S.,” the authors wrote. “Putting these numbers in perspective may be difficult.”

Population health researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University put COVID-19 deaths into context by comparing this year’s numbers to the leading causes of death for March through October 2018, sorting by age.

By October 2020, COVID-19 had become the third leading cause of death overall for those between the ages of 45 and 84 years, following after heart disease and cancer. For those over age 85, COVID-19 was the second leading cause of death, surpassing cancer and following behind heart disease.

For people aged 35-44 years, COVID-19 surpassed car crashes and respiratory diseases and was slightly lower than suicide, heart disease, and cancer. For those under age 35, drug overdoses, suicide, and car crashes remained the leading causes of death.

Importantly, the authors wrote, death rates for the two leading causes – heart disease and cancer – are about 1,700 and 1,600 per day, respectively. COVID-19 deaths have surpassed these numbers individually throughout December and, on Wednesday, beat them combined. More than 3,400 deaths were reported, according to the COVID Tracking Project, marking an all-time high that continues to increase. Hospitalizations were also at a new high, with more than 113,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, and another 232,000 new cases were reported.

“With COVID-19 mortality rates now exceeding these thresholds, this infectious disease has become deadlier than heart disease and cancer,” the authors wrote. “Its lethality may increase further as transmission increases with holiday travel and gatherings and with the intensified indoor exposure that winter brings.”

The reported number of COVID-19 deaths is likely a 20% underestimate, they wrote, attributable to delays in reporting and an increase in non–COVID-19 deaths that were undetected and untreated because of pandemic-related disruptions. Since the coronavirus is communicable and spreads easily, COVID-19 deaths are particularly unique and worrying, they said.

“Individuals who die from homicide or cancer do not transmit the risk of morbidity and mortality to those nearby,” they wrote. “Every COVID-19 death signals the possibility of more deaths among close contacts.”

The fall surge in cases and deaths is widespread nationally, as compared to the spring, with hot spots on both coasts and in rural areas, according to an accompanying editorial in JAMA from public health researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. People of color have faced twice the death rate as well, with one in 875 Black people and one in 925 Indigenous people dying from COVID-19, as compared with one in 1,625 White people.

“The year 2020 ends with COVID-19 massively surging, as it was in the spring, to be the leading cause of death,” they wrote. “The accelerating numbers of deaths fall far short of fully capturing each devastating human story: Every death represents untold loss for countless families.”

Vaccines offer hope, they said, but won’t prevent the upcoming increase in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths this winter. In 2021, containing the pandemic will require national coordination, resources to help overwhelmed health care workers, new support for state and local public health officials, a stimulus package for schools and businesses, and financial aid for people on the brink of eviction. The country needs federal coordination of testing, contact tracing, personal protective equipment, travel precautions, and a face mask mandate, they wrote.

“Ending this crisis will require not only further advances in treatment but also unprecedented commitment to all aspects of prevention, vaccination, and public health,” they wrote. “Only by doing so can future years see this illness revert back to the unfamiliar and unknown condition it once was.”

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

COVID-19 became a leading cause of death in the United States in 2020, particularly for people over age 35, according to a new report published in JAMA on Thursday.

Adults over age 45 were more likely to die from COVID-19 than car crashes, respiratory diseases, drug overdoses, and suicide. And those over age 55 faced even higher rates of dying because of the coronavirus.

“The current exponential increase in COVID-19 is reaching a calamitous scale in the U.S.,” the authors wrote. “Putting these numbers in perspective may be difficult.”

Population health researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University put COVID-19 deaths into context by comparing this year’s numbers to the leading causes of death for March through October 2018, sorting by age.

By October 2020, COVID-19 had become the third leading cause of death overall for those between the ages of 45 and 84 years, following after heart disease and cancer. For those over age 85, COVID-19 was the second leading cause of death, surpassing cancer and following behind heart disease.

For people aged 35-44 years, COVID-19 surpassed car crashes and respiratory diseases and was slightly lower than suicide, heart disease, and cancer. For those under age 35, drug overdoses, suicide, and car crashes remained the leading causes of death.

Importantly, the authors wrote, death rates for the two leading causes – heart disease and cancer – are about 1,700 and 1,600 per day, respectively. COVID-19 deaths have surpassed these numbers individually throughout December and, on Wednesday, beat them combined. More than 3,400 deaths were reported, according to the COVID Tracking Project, marking an all-time high that continues to increase. Hospitalizations were also at a new high, with more than 113,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, and another 232,000 new cases were reported.

“With COVID-19 mortality rates now exceeding these thresholds, this infectious disease has become deadlier than heart disease and cancer,” the authors wrote. “Its lethality may increase further as transmission increases with holiday travel and gatherings and with the intensified indoor exposure that winter brings.”

The reported number of COVID-19 deaths is likely a 20% underestimate, they wrote, attributable to delays in reporting and an increase in non–COVID-19 deaths that were undetected and untreated because of pandemic-related disruptions. Since the coronavirus is communicable and spreads easily, COVID-19 deaths are particularly unique and worrying, they said.

“Individuals who die from homicide or cancer do not transmit the risk of morbidity and mortality to those nearby,” they wrote. “Every COVID-19 death signals the possibility of more deaths among close contacts.”

The fall surge in cases and deaths is widespread nationally, as compared to the spring, with hot spots on both coasts and in rural areas, according to an accompanying editorial in JAMA from public health researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. People of color have faced twice the death rate as well, with one in 875 Black people and one in 925 Indigenous people dying from COVID-19, as compared with one in 1,625 White people.

“The year 2020 ends with COVID-19 massively surging, as it was in the spring, to be the leading cause of death,” they wrote. “The accelerating numbers of deaths fall far short of fully capturing each devastating human story: Every death represents untold loss for countless families.”

Vaccines offer hope, they said, but won’t prevent the upcoming increase in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths this winter. In 2021, containing the pandemic will require national coordination, resources to help overwhelmed health care workers, new support for state and local public health officials, a stimulus package for schools and businesses, and financial aid for people on the brink of eviction. The country needs federal coordination of testing, contact tracing, personal protective equipment, travel precautions, and a face mask mandate, they wrote.

“Ending this crisis will require not only further advances in treatment but also unprecedented commitment to all aspects of prevention, vaccination, and public health,” they wrote. “Only by doing so can future years see this illness revert back to the unfamiliar and unknown condition it once was.”

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

COVID-19 became a leading cause of death in the United States in 2020, particularly for people over age 35, according to a new report published in JAMA on Thursday.

Adults over age 45 were more likely to die from COVID-19 than car crashes, respiratory diseases, drug overdoses, and suicide. And those over age 55 faced even higher rates of dying because of the coronavirus.

“The current exponential increase in COVID-19 is reaching a calamitous scale in the U.S.,” the authors wrote. “Putting these numbers in perspective may be difficult.”

Population health researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University put COVID-19 deaths into context by comparing this year’s numbers to the leading causes of death for March through October 2018, sorting by age.

By October 2020, COVID-19 had become the third leading cause of death overall for those between the ages of 45 and 84 years, following after heart disease and cancer. For those over age 85, COVID-19 was the second leading cause of death, surpassing cancer and following behind heart disease.

For people aged 35-44 years, COVID-19 surpassed car crashes and respiratory diseases and was slightly lower than suicide, heart disease, and cancer. For those under age 35, drug overdoses, suicide, and car crashes remained the leading causes of death.

Importantly, the authors wrote, death rates for the two leading causes – heart disease and cancer – are about 1,700 and 1,600 per day, respectively. COVID-19 deaths have surpassed these numbers individually throughout December and, on Wednesday, beat them combined. More than 3,400 deaths were reported, according to the COVID Tracking Project, marking an all-time high that continues to increase. Hospitalizations were also at a new high, with more than 113,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, and another 232,000 new cases were reported.

“With COVID-19 mortality rates now exceeding these thresholds, this infectious disease has become deadlier than heart disease and cancer,” the authors wrote. “Its lethality may increase further as transmission increases with holiday travel and gatherings and with the intensified indoor exposure that winter brings.”

The reported number of COVID-19 deaths is likely a 20% underestimate, they wrote, attributable to delays in reporting and an increase in non–COVID-19 deaths that were undetected and untreated because of pandemic-related disruptions. Since the coronavirus is communicable and spreads easily, COVID-19 deaths are particularly unique and worrying, they said.

“Individuals who die from homicide or cancer do not transmit the risk of morbidity and mortality to those nearby,” they wrote. “Every COVID-19 death signals the possibility of more deaths among close contacts.”

The fall surge in cases and deaths is widespread nationally, as compared to the spring, with hot spots on both coasts and in rural areas, according to an accompanying editorial in JAMA from public health researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. People of color have faced twice the death rate as well, with one in 875 Black people and one in 925 Indigenous people dying from COVID-19, as compared with one in 1,625 White people.

“The year 2020 ends with COVID-19 massively surging, as it was in the spring, to be the leading cause of death,” they wrote. “The accelerating numbers of deaths fall far short of fully capturing each devastating human story: Every death represents untold loss for countless families.”

Vaccines offer hope, they said, but won’t prevent the upcoming increase in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths this winter. In 2021, containing the pandemic will require national coordination, resources to help overwhelmed health care workers, new support for state and local public health officials, a stimulus package for schools and businesses, and financial aid for people on the brink of eviction. The country needs federal coordination of testing, contact tracing, personal protective equipment, travel precautions, and a face mask mandate, they wrote.

“Ending this crisis will require not only further advances in treatment but also unprecedented commitment to all aspects of prevention, vaccination, and public health,” they wrote. “Only by doing so can future years see this illness revert back to the unfamiliar and unknown condition it once was.”

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The use of antibiotics to treat a sore throat remains contentious, with guidelines from around the world providing contradictory advice. This topic generated a lively debate at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.

Lauri Ivaska, MD, of the department of pediatrics and adolescent medicine at Turku (Finland) University Hospital, argued for the use of antibiotics, while Borbála Zsigmond, MD, of Heim Pál Children’s Hospital in Budapest, made the case against their use. Interestingly, this debate occurred against the background of a poll conducted before the debate, which found that only 11% of the audience voted in favor of using antibiotics to treat sore throats.

Both speakers began by exploring their approach to the treatment of a recent clinical case involving a 4-year-old girl presenting with sore throat. Dr. Ivaska stressed the difference between a sore throat, pharyngitis, and tonsillitis: the latter two refer to a physical finding, while the former is a subjective symptom.
 

International guidelines differ on the subject

The debate moved to discussing the international guidelines for treating pharyngitis and tonsillitis. Dr. Zsigmond believes that these are flawed and unhelpful, arguing that they differ depending on what part of the world a physician is practicing in. For example, the 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines recommend using best clinical judgment and then backing this up by testing. If testing proves positive for group A Streptococcus pyogenes (GAS), the physician should universally treat. By comparison, the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Sore Throat Guideline Group focuses on severity rather than the cause of the infection. If the case is deemed to be serious, antibiotics can be prescribed without a positive test.

Sore throat is frequently associated with a common cold. In a recent study, more that 80% of students with an acute viral respiratory tract infection had soreness at the beginning of their illness.

Reporting from his own research, Dr. Ivaska argued that viruses can be detected in almost two-thirds of children with pharyngitis using polymerase chain reaction analysis. He thinks antibiotics should be reserved for those 30%-40% of patients with a confirmed GAS infection. The potential role of Fusobacterium necrophorum was raised, but there is no evidence of the benefits of antibiotic treatment in such cases.
 

There are diagnostic aids for GAS infection

It was suggested that, instead of concentrating on sore throat, the debate should be about whether to use antibiotics to treat GAS infection. But how can the diagnosis be confirmed simply in a clinical setting? Dr. Ivaska recommended adopting diagnostic aids such as Centor, McIsaac, and FeverPAIN, which award scores for several common disease features – the higher the score, the more likely a patient is to be suffering from a GAS infection.

Dr. Zsigmond also likes scoring symptoms but believes they are often inaccurate, especially in young children. She pointed to a report that examined the use of the Centor tool among 441 children attending a pediatric ED. The authors concluded that the Centor criteria were ineffective in predicting a positive GAS culture in throat swabs taken from symptomatic patients.
 

When are antibiotics warranted?

It is widely accepted that antibiotics should be avoided for viral infections. Returning to the case described at the start of this debate, Dr. Zsigmond calculated that her patient with a 2-day history of sore throat, elevated temperature, pussy tonsils, and enlarged cervical lymph glands but no cough or rhinitis had a FeverPAIN score of 4-5 and a Centor score of 4, meaning that, according to the European guidelines, she should receive antibiotic treatment. However, viral swabs proved positive for adenovirus.

LightFieldStudios/Getty Images

Dr. Ivaska responded with his recent experiences of a similar case, where a 5-year-old boy had a FeverPAIN score of 4-5 and Centor score of 3. Cultures from his throat were GAS positive, illustrating the problem of differentiating between bacterial and viral infections.

But does a GAS-positive pharyngeal culture necessarily mean that antibiotic treatment is indicated? Dr. Ivaska believes it does, citing the importance of preventing serious complications such as rheumatic fever. Dr. Zsigmind countered by pointing out the low levels of acute rheumatic fever in developed nations. In her own country, Hungary, there has not been a case in the last 30 years. Giving antibiotics for historical reasons cannot, in her view, be justified.

Dr. Ivaska responded that perhaps this is because of early treatment in children with sore throats.

Another complication of tonsillitis is quinsy. Dr. Zsigmond cited a study showing that there is no statistically significant evidence demonstrating that antibiotics prevent quinsy. She attributed this to quinsy appearing quickly, typically within 2 days. Delay in seeking help means that the window to treat is often missed. However, should symptoms present early, there is no statistical evidence that prior antibiotic use can prevent quinsy. Also, given the rarity of this condition, prevention would mean excessive use of antibiotics.

Are there other possible benefits of antibiotic treatment in patients with a sore throat? Dr. Ivaska referred to a Cochrane review that found a shortening in duration of throat soreness and fever. Furthermore, compared with placebo, antibiotics reduced the incidence of suppurative complications such as acute otitis media and sinusitis following a sore throat. Other studies have also pointed to the potential benefits of reduced transmission in families where one member with pharyngitis was GAS positive.

As the debate ended, Dr. Zsigmond reported evidence of global antibiotic overprescribing for sore throat ranging from 53% in Europe to 94% in Australia. She also highlighted risks such as altered gut flora, drug resistance, and rashes.

Robin Marlow from the University of Bristol (England), PhD, MBBS, commented that “one of the most enjoyable parts of the ESPID meeting is hearing different viewpoints rationally explained from across the world. As [antibiotic prescription for a sore throat is] a clinical conundrum that faces pediatricians every day, I thought this debate was a really great example of how, despite our different health care systems and ways of working, we are all striving together to improve children’s health using the best evidence available.”

The presenters had no financial conflicts of interest to declare.

The use of antibiotics to treat a sore throat remains contentious, with guidelines from around the world providing contradictory advice. This topic generated a lively debate at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.

Lauri Ivaska, MD, of the department of pediatrics and adolescent medicine at Turku (Finland) University Hospital, argued for the use of antibiotics, while Borbála Zsigmond, MD, of Heim Pál Children’s Hospital in Budapest, made the case against their use. Interestingly, this debate occurred against the background of a poll conducted before the debate, which found that only 11% of the audience voted in favor of using antibiotics to treat sore throats.

Both speakers began by exploring their approach to the treatment of a recent clinical case involving a 4-year-old girl presenting with sore throat. Dr. Ivaska stressed the difference between a sore throat, pharyngitis, and tonsillitis: the latter two refer to a physical finding, while the former is a subjective symptom.
 

International guidelines differ on the subject

The debate moved to discussing the international guidelines for treating pharyngitis and tonsillitis. Dr. Zsigmond believes that these are flawed and unhelpful, arguing that they differ depending on what part of the world a physician is practicing in. For example, the 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines recommend using best clinical judgment and then backing this up by testing. If testing proves positive for group A Streptococcus pyogenes (GAS), the physician should universally treat. By comparison, the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Sore Throat Guideline Group focuses on severity rather than the cause of the infection. If the case is deemed to be serious, antibiotics can be prescribed without a positive test.

Sore throat is frequently associated with a common cold. In a recent study, more that 80% of students with an acute viral respiratory tract infection had soreness at the beginning of their illness.

Reporting from his own research, Dr. Ivaska argued that viruses can be detected in almost two-thirds of children with pharyngitis using polymerase chain reaction analysis. He thinks antibiotics should be reserved for those 30%-40% of patients with a confirmed GAS infection. The potential role of Fusobacterium necrophorum was raised, but there is no evidence of the benefits of antibiotic treatment in such cases.
 

There are diagnostic aids for GAS infection

It was suggested that, instead of concentrating on sore throat, the debate should be about whether to use antibiotics to treat GAS infection. But how can the diagnosis be confirmed simply in a clinical setting? Dr. Ivaska recommended adopting diagnostic aids such as Centor, McIsaac, and FeverPAIN, which award scores for several common disease features – the higher the score, the more likely a patient is to be suffering from a GAS infection.

Dr. Zsigmond also likes scoring symptoms but believes they are often inaccurate, especially in young children. She pointed to a report that examined the use of the Centor tool among 441 children attending a pediatric ED. The authors concluded that the Centor criteria were ineffective in predicting a positive GAS culture in throat swabs taken from symptomatic patients.
 

When are antibiotics warranted?

It is widely accepted that antibiotics should be avoided for viral infections. Returning to the case described at the start of this debate, Dr. Zsigmond calculated that her patient with a 2-day history of sore throat, elevated temperature, pussy tonsils, and enlarged cervical lymph glands but no cough or rhinitis had a FeverPAIN score of 4-5 and a Centor score of 4, meaning that, according to the European guidelines, she should receive antibiotic treatment. However, viral swabs proved positive for adenovirus.

LightFieldStudios/Getty Images

Dr. Ivaska responded with his recent experiences of a similar case, where a 5-year-old boy had a FeverPAIN score of 4-5 and Centor score of 3. Cultures from his throat were GAS positive, illustrating the problem of differentiating between bacterial and viral infections.

But does a GAS-positive pharyngeal culture necessarily mean that antibiotic treatment is indicated? Dr. Ivaska believes it does, citing the importance of preventing serious complications such as rheumatic fever. Dr. Zsigmind countered by pointing out the low levels of acute rheumatic fever in developed nations. In her own country, Hungary, there has not been a case in the last 30 years. Giving antibiotics for historical reasons cannot, in her view, be justified.

Dr. Ivaska responded that perhaps this is because of early treatment in children with sore throats.

Another complication of tonsillitis is quinsy. Dr. Zsigmond cited a study showing that there is no statistically significant evidence demonstrating that antibiotics prevent quinsy. She attributed this to quinsy appearing quickly, typically within 2 days. Delay in seeking help means that the window to treat is often missed. However, should symptoms present early, there is no statistical evidence that prior antibiotic use can prevent quinsy. Also, given the rarity of this condition, prevention would mean excessive use of antibiotics.

Are there other possible benefits of antibiotic treatment in patients with a sore throat? Dr. Ivaska referred to a Cochrane review that found a shortening in duration of throat soreness and fever. Furthermore, compared with placebo, antibiotics reduced the incidence of suppurative complications such as acute otitis media and sinusitis following a sore throat. Other studies have also pointed to the potential benefits of reduced transmission in families where one member with pharyngitis was GAS positive.

As the debate ended, Dr. Zsigmond reported evidence of global antibiotic overprescribing for sore throat ranging from 53% in Europe to 94% in Australia. She also highlighted risks such as altered gut flora, drug resistance, and rashes.

Robin Marlow from the University of Bristol (England), PhD, MBBS, commented that “one of the most enjoyable parts of the ESPID meeting is hearing different viewpoints rationally explained from across the world. As [antibiotic prescription for a sore throat is] a clinical conundrum that faces pediatricians every day, I thought this debate was a really great example of how, despite our different health care systems and ways of working, we are all striving together to improve children’s health using the best evidence available.”

The presenters had no financial conflicts of interest to declare.

The use of antibiotics to treat a sore throat remains contentious, with guidelines from around the world providing contradictory advice. This topic generated a lively debate at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.

Lauri Ivaska, MD, of the department of pediatrics and adolescent medicine at Turku (Finland) University Hospital, argued for the use of antibiotics, while Borbála Zsigmond, MD, of Heim Pál Children’s Hospital in Budapest, made the case against their use. Interestingly, this debate occurred against the background of a poll conducted before the debate, which found that only 11% of the audience voted in favor of using antibiotics to treat sore throats.

Both speakers began by exploring their approach to the treatment of a recent clinical case involving a 4-year-old girl presenting with sore throat. Dr. Ivaska stressed the difference between a sore throat, pharyngitis, and tonsillitis: the latter two refer to a physical finding, while the former is a subjective symptom.
 

International guidelines differ on the subject

The debate moved to discussing the international guidelines for treating pharyngitis and tonsillitis. Dr. Zsigmond believes that these are flawed and unhelpful, arguing that they differ depending on what part of the world a physician is practicing in. For example, the 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines recommend using best clinical judgment and then backing this up by testing. If testing proves positive for group A Streptococcus pyogenes (GAS), the physician should universally treat. By comparison, the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Sore Throat Guideline Group focuses on severity rather than the cause of the infection. If the case is deemed to be serious, antibiotics can be prescribed without a positive test.

Sore throat is frequently associated with a common cold. In a recent study, more that 80% of students with an acute viral respiratory tract infection had soreness at the beginning of their illness.

Reporting from his own research, Dr. Ivaska argued that viruses can be detected in almost two-thirds of children with pharyngitis using polymerase chain reaction analysis. He thinks antibiotics should be reserved for those 30%-40% of patients with a confirmed GAS infection. The potential role of Fusobacterium necrophorum was raised, but there is no evidence of the benefits of antibiotic treatment in such cases.
 

There are diagnostic aids for GAS infection

It was suggested that, instead of concentrating on sore throat, the debate should be about whether to use antibiotics to treat GAS infection. But how can the diagnosis be confirmed simply in a clinical setting? Dr. Ivaska recommended adopting diagnostic aids such as Centor, McIsaac, and FeverPAIN, which award scores for several common disease features – the higher the score, the more likely a patient is to be suffering from a GAS infection.

Dr. Zsigmond also likes scoring symptoms but believes they are often inaccurate, especially in young children. She pointed to a report that examined the use of the Centor tool among 441 children attending a pediatric ED. The authors concluded that the Centor criteria were ineffective in predicting a positive GAS culture in throat swabs taken from symptomatic patients.
 

When are antibiotics warranted?

It is widely accepted that antibiotics should be avoided for viral infections. Returning to the case described at the start of this debate, Dr. Zsigmond calculated that her patient with a 2-day history of sore throat, elevated temperature, pussy tonsils, and enlarged cervical lymph glands but no cough or rhinitis had a FeverPAIN score of 4-5 and a Centor score of 4, meaning that, according to the European guidelines, she should receive antibiotic treatment. However, viral swabs proved positive for adenovirus.

LightFieldStudios/Getty Images

Dr. Ivaska responded with his recent experiences of a similar case, where a 5-year-old boy had a FeverPAIN score of 4-5 and Centor score of 3. Cultures from his throat were GAS positive, illustrating the problem of differentiating between bacterial and viral infections.

But does a GAS-positive pharyngeal culture necessarily mean that antibiotic treatment is indicated? Dr. Ivaska believes it does, citing the importance of preventing serious complications such as rheumatic fever. Dr. Zsigmind countered by pointing out the low levels of acute rheumatic fever in developed nations. In her own country, Hungary, there has not been a case in the last 30 years. Giving antibiotics for historical reasons cannot, in her view, be justified.

Dr. Ivaska responded that perhaps this is because of early treatment in children with sore throats.

Another complication of tonsillitis is quinsy. Dr. Zsigmond cited a study showing that there is no statistically significant evidence demonstrating that antibiotics prevent quinsy. She attributed this to quinsy appearing quickly, typically within 2 days. Delay in seeking help means that the window to treat is often missed. However, should symptoms present early, there is no statistical evidence that prior antibiotic use can prevent quinsy. Also, given the rarity of this condition, prevention would mean excessive use of antibiotics.

Are there other possible benefits of antibiotic treatment in patients with a sore throat? Dr. Ivaska referred to a Cochrane review that found a shortening in duration of throat soreness and fever. Furthermore, compared with placebo, antibiotics reduced the incidence of suppurative complications such as acute otitis media and sinusitis following a sore throat. Other studies have also pointed to the potential benefits of reduced transmission in families where one member with pharyngitis was GAS positive.

As the debate ended, Dr. Zsigmond reported evidence of global antibiotic overprescribing for sore throat ranging from 53% in Europe to 94% in Australia. She also highlighted risks such as altered gut flora, drug resistance, and rashes.

Robin Marlow from the University of Bristol (England), PhD, MBBS, commented that “one of the most enjoyable parts of the ESPID meeting is hearing different viewpoints rationally explained from across the world. As [antibiotic prescription for a sore throat is] a clinical conundrum that faces pediatricians every day, I thought this debate was a really great example of how, despite our different health care systems and ways of working, we are all striving together to improve children’s health using the best evidence available.”

The presenters had no financial conflicts of interest to declare.

Evidence continues to accumulate linking e-cigarettes to a range of lung diseases.

ArminStautBerlin/Thinkstock

Results from a large national prospective cohort study of adults demonstrated that the use of electronic cigarettes is associated with an increased risk of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema, and chronic bronchitis – independent of cigarette smoking and other combustible tobacco product use.

“Our longitudinal results are consistent with the findings of prior population studies,” researchers led by Wubin Xie, DrPH, MPH, wrote in a study published online in JAMA Network Open. “With a more refined study design assessing multiple respiratory conditions and extensive sensitivity checks to mitigate bias from reverse causation and residual confounding by cigarette smoking and other tobacco product use, our results strengthen the evidence of the potential role of e-cigarette use in pulmonary disease pathogenesis. The findings may be used to inform counseling of patients on the potential risks of e-cigarette use.”

Dr. Xie of Boston University, and colleagues used data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study waves 1-4 to examine the association of e-cigarette use with incident respiratory conditions, including COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and asthma. An earlier analysis of PATH data found an association between e-cigarette use with a composite respiratory disease outcome, but it did not consider the timing of respiratory events over follow-up and was underpowered to evaluate specific respiratory conditions.

The current analysis included data from 21,618 U.S. adults who were surveyed in four waves of PATH between 2013 and 2018. Of these, 49% were men, 65% were non-Hispanic White, 12% were non-Hispanic Black, 16% were Hispanic, and the remainder were non-Hispanic other. Their mean pack-years was 6.7 at baseline, 26% had self-reported hypertension, and their mean body mass index was 27.8 kg/m². The analysis was limited to data from the wave 1 cohort of adults and the prospective follow-up at waves 2-4 from public use files. It excluded adults who reported a history of a respiratory condition such as COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, or asthma at wave 1 (baseline).

Two-thirds of respondents (66%) were never e-cigarette users, 12% were former e-cigarette users, and 5% were current e-cigarette users. After the researchers adjusted for cigarette and other combustible tobacco product use, demographic characteristics, and chronic health conditions, they observed an increased risk of respiratory disease among former e-cigarette users (incidence rate ratio, 1.28) and current e-cigarette users (IRR, 1.31). Among respondents with good self-reported health, the IRR for former e-cigarette users was 1.21 and the IRR for current e-cigarette users was 1.43. As for specific respiratory diseases among current e-cigarette users, the IRR was 1.33 for chronic bronchitis, 1.69 for emphysema, 1.57 for COPD, and 1.31 for asthma.

“Our findings on clinical outcome were consistent with studies assessing in vivo biomarkers of e-cigarette exposure in animal subjects, human participants, and population studies,” the authors wrote. “Studies have documented that exclusive e-cigarette use may be associated with higher exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents, compared with tobacco nonuse. The potential mechanisms of the association of e-cigarette exposure with pulmonary diseases include pulmonary inflammation, increased oxidative stress, and inhibited immune response. Animal studies have generated substantial evidence on e-cigarette exposure and emphysematous lung destruction, loss of pulmonary capillaries, reduced small airway function, and airway hyperresponsiveness, suggesting the plausibility of e-cigarettes causing chronic lung diseases.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its reliance on self-reported measures of e-cigarette and other tobacco product use and its reliance on self-reported diagnoses of respiratory diseases.

The study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; and the American Lung Association Public Policy Research Award. Dr. Xie reported having no financial disclosures. His coauthors reported having received research grants and personal fees from a variety of sources.

SOURCE: Xie W et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 12. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.20816

Evidence continues to accumulate linking e-cigarettes to a range of lung diseases.

ArminStautBerlin/Thinkstock

Results from a large national prospective cohort study of adults demonstrated that the use of electronic cigarettes is associated with an increased risk of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema, and chronic bronchitis – independent of cigarette smoking and other combustible tobacco product use.

“Our longitudinal results are consistent with the findings of prior population studies,” researchers led by Wubin Xie, DrPH, MPH, wrote in a study published online in JAMA Network Open. “With a more refined study design assessing multiple respiratory conditions and extensive sensitivity checks to mitigate bias from reverse causation and residual confounding by cigarette smoking and other tobacco product use, our results strengthen the evidence of the potential role of e-cigarette use in pulmonary disease pathogenesis. The findings may be used to inform counseling of patients on the potential risks of e-cigarette use.”

Dr. Xie of Boston University, and colleagues used data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study waves 1-4 to examine the association of e-cigarette use with incident respiratory conditions, including COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and asthma. An earlier analysis of PATH data found an association between e-cigarette use with a composite respiratory disease outcome, but it did not consider the timing of respiratory events over follow-up and was underpowered to evaluate specific respiratory conditions.

The current analysis included data from 21,618 U.S. adults who were surveyed in four waves of PATH between 2013 and 2018. Of these, 49% were men, 65% were non-Hispanic White, 12% were non-Hispanic Black, 16% were Hispanic, and the remainder were non-Hispanic other. Their mean pack-years was 6.7 at baseline, 26% had self-reported hypertension, and their mean body mass index was 27.8 kg/m². The analysis was limited to data from the wave 1 cohort of adults and the prospective follow-up at waves 2-4 from public use files. It excluded adults who reported a history of a respiratory condition such as COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, or asthma at wave 1 (baseline).

Two-thirds of respondents (66%) were never e-cigarette users, 12% were former e-cigarette users, and 5% were current e-cigarette users. After the researchers adjusted for cigarette and other combustible tobacco product use, demographic characteristics, and chronic health conditions, they observed an increased risk of respiratory disease among former e-cigarette users (incidence rate ratio, 1.28) and current e-cigarette users (IRR, 1.31). Among respondents with good self-reported health, the IRR for former e-cigarette users was 1.21 and the IRR for current e-cigarette users was 1.43. As for specific respiratory diseases among current e-cigarette users, the IRR was 1.33 for chronic bronchitis, 1.69 for emphysema, 1.57 for COPD, and 1.31 for asthma.

“Our findings on clinical outcome were consistent with studies assessing in vivo biomarkers of e-cigarette exposure in animal subjects, human participants, and population studies,” the authors wrote. “Studies have documented that exclusive e-cigarette use may be associated with higher exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents, compared with tobacco nonuse. The potential mechanisms of the association of e-cigarette exposure with pulmonary diseases include pulmonary inflammation, increased oxidative stress, and inhibited immune response. Animal studies have generated substantial evidence on e-cigarette exposure and emphysematous lung destruction, loss of pulmonary capillaries, reduced small airway function, and airway hyperresponsiveness, suggesting the plausibility of e-cigarettes causing chronic lung diseases.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its reliance on self-reported measures of e-cigarette and other tobacco product use and its reliance on self-reported diagnoses of respiratory diseases.

The study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; and the American Lung Association Public Policy Research Award. Dr. Xie reported having no financial disclosures. His coauthors reported having received research grants and personal fees from a variety of sources.

SOURCE: Xie W et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 12. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.20816

Evidence continues to accumulate linking e-cigarettes to a range of lung diseases.

ArminStautBerlin/Thinkstock

Results from a large national prospective cohort study of adults demonstrated that the use of electronic cigarettes is associated with an increased risk of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema, and chronic bronchitis – independent of cigarette smoking and other combustible tobacco product use.

“Our longitudinal results are consistent with the findings of prior population studies,” researchers led by Wubin Xie, DrPH, MPH, wrote in a study published online in JAMA Network Open. “With a more refined study design assessing multiple respiratory conditions and extensive sensitivity checks to mitigate bias from reverse causation and residual confounding by cigarette smoking and other tobacco product use, our results strengthen the evidence of the potential role of e-cigarette use in pulmonary disease pathogenesis. The findings may be used to inform counseling of patients on the potential risks of e-cigarette use.”

Dr. Xie of Boston University, and colleagues used data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study waves 1-4 to examine the association of e-cigarette use with incident respiratory conditions, including COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and asthma. An earlier analysis of PATH data found an association between e-cigarette use with a composite respiratory disease outcome, but it did not consider the timing of respiratory events over follow-up and was underpowered to evaluate specific respiratory conditions.

The current analysis included data from 21,618 U.S. adults who were surveyed in four waves of PATH between 2013 and 2018. Of these, 49% were men, 65% were non-Hispanic White, 12% were non-Hispanic Black, 16% were Hispanic, and the remainder were non-Hispanic other. Their mean pack-years was 6.7 at baseline, 26% had self-reported hypertension, and their mean body mass index was 27.8 kg/m². The analysis was limited to data from the wave 1 cohort of adults and the prospective follow-up at waves 2-4 from public use files. It excluded adults who reported a history of a respiratory condition such as COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, or asthma at wave 1 (baseline).

Two-thirds of respondents (66%) were never e-cigarette users, 12% were former e-cigarette users, and 5% were current e-cigarette users. After the researchers adjusted for cigarette and other combustible tobacco product use, demographic characteristics, and chronic health conditions, they observed an increased risk of respiratory disease among former e-cigarette users (incidence rate ratio, 1.28) and current e-cigarette users (IRR, 1.31). Among respondents with good self-reported health, the IRR for former e-cigarette users was 1.21 and the IRR for current e-cigarette users was 1.43. As for specific respiratory diseases among current e-cigarette users, the IRR was 1.33 for chronic bronchitis, 1.69 for emphysema, 1.57 for COPD, and 1.31 for asthma.

“Our findings on clinical outcome were consistent with studies assessing in vivo biomarkers of e-cigarette exposure in animal subjects, human participants, and population studies,” the authors wrote. “Studies have documented that exclusive e-cigarette use may be associated with higher exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents, compared with tobacco nonuse. The potential mechanisms of the association of e-cigarette exposure with pulmonary diseases include pulmonary inflammation, increased oxidative stress, and inhibited immune response. Animal studies have generated substantial evidence on e-cigarette exposure and emphysematous lung destruction, loss of pulmonary capillaries, reduced small airway function, and airway hyperresponsiveness, suggesting the plausibility of e-cigarettes causing chronic lung diseases.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its reliance on self-reported measures of e-cigarette and other tobacco product use and its reliance on self-reported diagnoses of respiratory diseases.

The study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; and the American Lung Association Public Policy Research Award. Dr. Xie reported having no financial disclosures. His coauthors reported having received research grants and personal fees from a variety of sources.

SOURCE: Xie W et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 12. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.20816