User login
EMERGENCY MEDICINE is a practical, peer-reviewed monthly publication and Web site that meets the educational needs of emergency clinicians and urgent care clinicians for their practice.
Automated Risk Assessment Tool Reduces Antibiotic Prescribing Rates
An algorithm-driven risk assessment embedded in an electronic health record (EHR) helped clinicians reduce inappropriate broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing by 17.4% and 28.4% in patients with UTIs and pneumonia, respectively, according to two related studies published in JAMA.
The randomized control trials included more than 200,000 adult patients with non–life threatening pneumonia or urinary tract infections (UTIs) in 59 hospitals owned by HCA Healthcare across the country.
Researchers analyzed baseline prescribing behaviors over an 18-month period starting in April 2017, and data from a 15-month period of implementation of the new antibiotic system starting in April 2019.
, according to lead author Shruti K. Gohil, MD, MPH, associate medical director of epidemiology and infection prevention, infectious diseases at the University of California Irvine School of Medicine.
“When a patient comes in with pneumonia or a UTI, it’s precisely because we are concerned that our patients have a multidrug-resistant organism that we end up using broad-spectrum antibiotics,” she said.
Despite growing awareness of the need to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use, clinicians have still been slow to adopt a more conservative approach to prescribing, Dr. Gohil said.
“What physicians have been needing is something to hang their hat on, to be able to say, ‘Okay, well, this one’s a low-risk person,’ ” Dr. Gohil said.
The trials compared the impact of routine antibiotic activities with a stewardship bundle, called INSPIRE (Intelligent Stewardship Prompts to Improve Real-time Empiric Antibiotic Selection).
Both groups received educational materials, quarterly coaching calls, prospective evaluations for antibiotic use, and were required to select a reason for prescribing an antibiotic.
But prescribers in the intervention group took part in monthly coaching calls and feedback reports. In addition, if a clinician ordered a broad-spectrum antibiotic to treat pneumonia or a UTI outside of the intensive care unit within 72 hours of admission, an EHR prompt would pop up. The pop-up suggested a standard-spectrum antibiotic instead if patient risk for developing a multidrug-resistant (MDRO) version of either condition was less than 10%.
An algorithm used data from the EHR calculated risk, using factors like patient demographics and history and MDRO infection at the community and hospital level.
Prescribing rates were based on the number of days a patient received a broad-spectrum antibiotic during the first 72 hours of hospitalization.
For the UTI intervention group, rates dropped by 17.4% (rate ratio [RR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89; P < .001), and 28.4% reduction in the pneumonia group (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.78; P < .001).
“We cannot know which element — prompt, education, or feedback — worked, but the data suggests that the prompt was the main driver,” Dr. Gohil said.
“In antibiotic stewardship, we have learned not only that doctors want to do the right thing, but that we as stewards need to make it easy for them do the right thing,” said Paul Pottinger, MD, professor of medicine at the Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle.
The prompt “is your easy button,” said Dr. Pottinger, who was not involved with either study. “The researchers made it simple, fast, and straightforward, so people don’t have to think about it too much.”
The studies showed similar safety outcomes for the control and intervention groups. Among patients with a UTI, those in the control group were transferred to the ICU after an average of 6.6 days compared to 7 days in the intervention group. Among patients with pneumonia, the average days to ICU transfer were 6.5 for the control group and 7.1 for the intervention group.
“This study is a proof of concept that physicians want to do the right thing and are willing to trust this information,” Dr. Pottinger said. “And this also shows us that this tool can be refined and made even more precise over time.”
The study was funded by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was led by the University of California Irvine, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute, and HCA Healthcare System. Various authors report funding and support from entities outside the submitted work. The full list can be found with the original articles.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
An algorithm-driven risk assessment embedded in an electronic health record (EHR) helped clinicians reduce inappropriate broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing by 17.4% and 28.4% in patients with UTIs and pneumonia, respectively, according to two related studies published in JAMA.
The randomized control trials included more than 200,000 adult patients with non–life threatening pneumonia or urinary tract infections (UTIs) in 59 hospitals owned by HCA Healthcare across the country.
Researchers analyzed baseline prescribing behaviors over an 18-month period starting in April 2017, and data from a 15-month period of implementation of the new antibiotic system starting in April 2019.
, according to lead author Shruti K. Gohil, MD, MPH, associate medical director of epidemiology and infection prevention, infectious diseases at the University of California Irvine School of Medicine.
“When a patient comes in with pneumonia or a UTI, it’s precisely because we are concerned that our patients have a multidrug-resistant organism that we end up using broad-spectrum antibiotics,” she said.
Despite growing awareness of the need to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use, clinicians have still been slow to adopt a more conservative approach to prescribing, Dr. Gohil said.
“What physicians have been needing is something to hang their hat on, to be able to say, ‘Okay, well, this one’s a low-risk person,’ ” Dr. Gohil said.
The trials compared the impact of routine antibiotic activities with a stewardship bundle, called INSPIRE (Intelligent Stewardship Prompts to Improve Real-time Empiric Antibiotic Selection).
Both groups received educational materials, quarterly coaching calls, prospective evaluations for antibiotic use, and were required to select a reason for prescribing an antibiotic.
But prescribers in the intervention group took part in monthly coaching calls and feedback reports. In addition, if a clinician ordered a broad-spectrum antibiotic to treat pneumonia or a UTI outside of the intensive care unit within 72 hours of admission, an EHR prompt would pop up. The pop-up suggested a standard-spectrum antibiotic instead if patient risk for developing a multidrug-resistant (MDRO) version of either condition was less than 10%.
An algorithm used data from the EHR calculated risk, using factors like patient demographics and history and MDRO infection at the community and hospital level.
Prescribing rates were based on the number of days a patient received a broad-spectrum antibiotic during the first 72 hours of hospitalization.
For the UTI intervention group, rates dropped by 17.4% (rate ratio [RR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89; P < .001), and 28.4% reduction in the pneumonia group (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.78; P < .001).
“We cannot know which element — prompt, education, or feedback — worked, but the data suggests that the prompt was the main driver,” Dr. Gohil said.
“In antibiotic stewardship, we have learned not only that doctors want to do the right thing, but that we as stewards need to make it easy for them do the right thing,” said Paul Pottinger, MD, professor of medicine at the Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle.
The prompt “is your easy button,” said Dr. Pottinger, who was not involved with either study. “The researchers made it simple, fast, and straightforward, so people don’t have to think about it too much.”
The studies showed similar safety outcomes for the control and intervention groups. Among patients with a UTI, those in the control group were transferred to the ICU after an average of 6.6 days compared to 7 days in the intervention group. Among patients with pneumonia, the average days to ICU transfer were 6.5 for the control group and 7.1 for the intervention group.
“This study is a proof of concept that physicians want to do the right thing and are willing to trust this information,” Dr. Pottinger said. “And this also shows us that this tool can be refined and made even more precise over time.”
The study was funded by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was led by the University of California Irvine, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute, and HCA Healthcare System. Various authors report funding and support from entities outside the submitted work. The full list can be found with the original articles.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
An algorithm-driven risk assessment embedded in an electronic health record (EHR) helped clinicians reduce inappropriate broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing by 17.4% and 28.4% in patients with UTIs and pneumonia, respectively, according to two related studies published in JAMA.
The randomized control trials included more than 200,000 adult patients with non–life threatening pneumonia or urinary tract infections (UTIs) in 59 hospitals owned by HCA Healthcare across the country.
Researchers analyzed baseline prescribing behaviors over an 18-month period starting in April 2017, and data from a 15-month period of implementation of the new antibiotic system starting in April 2019.
, according to lead author Shruti K. Gohil, MD, MPH, associate medical director of epidemiology and infection prevention, infectious diseases at the University of California Irvine School of Medicine.
“When a patient comes in with pneumonia or a UTI, it’s precisely because we are concerned that our patients have a multidrug-resistant organism that we end up using broad-spectrum antibiotics,” she said.
Despite growing awareness of the need to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use, clinicians have still been slow to adopt a more conservative approach to prescribing, Dr. Gohil said.
“What physicians have been needing is something to hang their hat on, to be able to say, ‘Okay, well, this one’s a low-risk person,’ ” Dr. Gohil said.
The trials compared the impact of routine antibiotic activities with a stewardship bundle, called INSPIRE (Intelligent Stewardship Prompts to Improve Real-time Empiric Antibiotic Selection).
Both groups received educational materials, quarterly coaching calls, prospective evaluations for antibiotic use, and were required to select a reason for prescribing an antibiotic.
But prescribers in the intervention group took part in monthly coaching calls and feedback reports. In addition, if a clinician ordered a broad-spectrum antibiotic to treat pneumonia or a UTI outside of the intensive care unit within 72 hours of admission, an EHR prompt would pop up. The pop-up suggested a standard-spectrum antibiotic instead if patient risk for developing a multidrug-resistant (MDRO) version of either condition was less than 10%.
An algorithm used data from the EHR calculated risk, using factors like patient demographics and history and MDRO infection at the community and hospital level.
Prescribing rates were based on the number of days a patient received a broad-spectrum antibiotic during the first 72 hours of hospitalization.
For the UTI intervention group, rates dropped by 17.4% (rate ratio [RR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89; P < .001), and 28.4% reduction in the pneumonia group (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.78; P < .001).
“We cannot know which element — prompt, education, or feedback — worked, but the data suggests that the prompt was the main driver,” Dr. Gohil said.
“In antibiotic stewardship, we have learned not only that doctors want to do the right thing, but that we as stewards need to make it easy for them do the right thing,” said Paul Pottinger, MD, professor of medicine at the Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle.
The prompt “is your easy button,” said Dr. Pottinger, who was not involved with either study. “The researchers made it simple, fast, and straightforward, so people don’t have to think about it too much.”
The studies showed similar safety outcomes for the control and intervention groups. Among patients with a UTI, those in the control group were transferred to the ICU after an average of 6.6 days compared to 7 days in the intervention group. Among patients with pneumonia, the average days to ICU transfer were 6.5 for the control group and 7.1 for the intervention group.
“This study is a proof of concept that physicians want to do the right thing and are willing to trust this information,” Dr. Pottinger said. “And this also shows us that this tool can be refined and made even more precise over time.”
The study was funded by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was led by the University of California Irvine, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute, and HCA Healthcare System. Various authors report funding and support from entities outside the submitted work. The full list can be found with the original articles.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Teleneurology for Suspected Stroke Speeds Treatment
, new research showed.
“This preliminary evidence supports adopting teleneurology prenotification as a best practice within health systems that have telestroke capabilities,” said study investigator Mark McDonald, MD, a neurologist at TeleSpecialists, Fort Myers, Florida.
The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Best Practices
The impact of emergency medical services prenotification, which refers to paramedics alerting receiving hospital emergency departments (EDs) of a suspected stroke on the way for appropriate preparations to be made, is well-defined, said Dr. McDonald.
“What we’re proposing as a best practice is not only should the ED or ED provider be aware, but there needs to be a system in place for standardizing communication to the neurology team so they’re aware, too.”
Prenotification allows a neurologist to “get on the screen to begin coordinating with the ED team to adequately prepare for the possibility of thrombolytic treatment,” he added.
Currently, teleneurology prenotification, he said, is variable and its benefits unclear.
Dr. McDonald said “his organization, TeleSpecialists, maintains a large detailed medical records database for emergency-related, teleneurology, and other cases. For stroke, it recommends 15 best practices” for facilities including prenotification of teleneurology.
Other best practices include evaluating and administering thrombolysis in the CT imaging suite, a preassembled stroke kit that includes antihypertensives and thrombolytic agents, ensuring a weigh bed is available to determine the exact dose of thrombolysis treatment, and implementing “mock” stroke alerts, said Dr. McDonald.
From the database, researchers extracted acute telestroke consultations seen in the ED in 103 facilities in 15 states. Facilities that did not adhere to the 14 best practices other than teleneurologist prenotification were excluded from the analysis.
Of 9290 patients included in the study, 731 were treated with thrombolysis at prenotification facilities (median age, 69 years; median National Institutes of Health Stroke Score [NIHSS], 8) and 31 were treated at facilities without prenotification (median age, 63 years; median NIHSS score, 4). The thrombolytic treatment rate was 8.5% at prenotification facilities versus 4.8% at facilities without prenotification — a difference that was statistically significant.
Prenotification facilities had a significantly shorter median door-to-needle (DTN) time than those without such a process at 35 versus 43 minutes. In addition, there was a statistically significant difference in the percentage of patients with times less than 60 minutes at approximately 88% at prenotification facilities versus about 68% at the facilities without prenotification.
Case-Level Analysis
However, just because a facility adheres to teleneurology prenotification as a whole, doesn’t mean it occurs in every case. Researchers explored the impact of teleneurology prenotification at the case level rather than the facility level.
“That gave us a bit more insight into the real impact because it’s not just being at a facility with the best practice; it’s actually working case by case to see whether it happened or not and that’s where we get the most compelling findings,” said Dr. McDonald.
Of 761 treatment cases, there was prenotification to the neurology team in 401 cases. In 360 cases, prenotification did not occur.
The median DTN time was 29 minutes in the group with actual prenotification vs 41.5 minutes in the group without actual prenotification, a difference that was statistically significant, Dr. McDonald said.
As for treatment within 30 minutes of arrival, 50.4% of patients in the teleneurology prenotification group versus 18.9% in the no prenotification group — a statistically significant difference.
DTN time of less than 30 minutes is increasingly used as a target. “Being treated within this time frame improves outcomes and reduces length of hospital stay,” said Dr. McDonald.
The prenotification group also had a statistically significant higher percentage of treatment within 60 minutes of hospital arrival (93.5% vs 80%).
These new findings should help convince health and telestroke systems that teleneurology prenotification is worth implementing. “We want to achieve consensus on this as a best practice,” said Dr. McDonald.
Prenotification, he added, “coordinates the process and eliminates unnecessary and time-consuming steps.”
Dr. McDonald plans to prospectively study prenotification by collecting data on a facility before and after implementing a prenotification process.
Compelling Evidence
Commenting on the research, David L. Tirschwell, MD, Harborview Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Seattle, who cochaired the AAN session featuring the research, said the study provides compelling evidence that teleneurologist prenotification improves DTN time.
“Prenotifications are often standard of care in many healthcare settings and should likely be considered a best practice. When possible, extending such prenotification to a teleconsultant would make sense, and these preliminary data support that approach.”
However, more details are needed “to consider whether the intervention is possibly generalizable to other telestroke practices across the United States,” said Dr. Tirschwell.
Dr. McDonald reported receiving personal compensation for serving as a consultant for Syntrillo Inc. and has stock in Syntrillo Inc. Dr. Tirschwell reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research showed.
“This preliminary evidence supports adopting teleneurology prenotification as a best practice within health systems that have telestroke capabilities,” said study investigator Mark McDonald, MD, a neurologist at TeleSpecialists, Fort Myers, Florida.
The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Best Practices
The impact of emergency medical services prenotification, which refers to paramedics alerting receiving hospital emergency departments (EDs) of a suspected stroke on the way for appropriate preparations to be made, is well-defined, said Dr. McDonald.
“What we’re proposing as a best practice is not only should the ED or ED provider be aware, but there needs to be a system in place for standardizing communication to the neurology team so they’re aware, too.”
Prenotification allows a neurologist to “get on the screen to begin coordinating with the ED team to adequately prepare for the possibility of thrombolytic treatment,” he added.
Currently, teleneurology prenotification, he said, is variable and its benefits unclear.
Dr. McDonald said “his organization, TeleSpecialists, maintains a large detailed medical records database for emergency-related, teleneurology, and other cases. For stroke, it recommends 15 best practices” for facilities including prenotification of teleneurology.
Other best practices include evaluating and administering thrombolysis in the CT imaging suite, a preassembled stroke kit that includes antihypertensives and thrombolytic agents, ensuring a weigh bed is available to determine the exact dose of thrombolysis treatment, and implementing “mock” stroke alerts, said Dr. McDonald.
From the database, researchers extracted acute telestroke consultations seen in the ED in 103 facilities in 15 states. Facilities that did not adhere to the 14 best practices other than teleneurologist prenotification were excluded from the analysis.
Of 9290 patients included in the study, 731 were treated with thrombolysis at prenotification facilities (median age, 69 years; median National Institutes of Health Stroke Score [NIHSS], 8) and 31 were treated at facilities without prenotification (median age, 63 years; median NIHSS score, 4). The thrombolytic treatment rate was 8.5% at prenotification facilities versus 4.8% at facilities without prenotification — a difference that was statistically significant.
Prenotification facilities had a significantly shorter median door-to-needle (DTN) time than those without such a process at 35 versus 43 minutes. In addition, there was a statistically significant difference in the percentage of patients with times less than 60 minutes at approximately 88% at prenotification facilities versus about 68% at the facilities without prenotification.
Case-Level Analysis
However, just because a facility adheres to teleneurology prenotification as a whole, doesn’t mean it occurs in every case. Researchers explored the impact of teleneurology prenotification at the case level rather than the facility level.
“That gave us a bit more insight into the real impact because it’s not just being at a facility with the best practice; it’s actually working case by case to see whether it happened or not and that’s where we get the most compelling findings,” said Dr. McDonald.
Of 761 treatment cases, there was prenotification to the neurology team in 401 cases. In 360 cases, prenotification did not occur.
The median DTN time was 29 minutes in the group with actual prenotification vs 41.5 minutes in the group without actual prenotification, a difference that was statistically significant, Dr. McDonald said.
As for treatment within 30 minutes of arrival, 50.4% of patients in the teleneurology prenotification group versus 18.9% in the no prenotification group — a statistically significant difference.
DTN time of less than 30 minutes is increasingly used as a target. “Being treated within this time frame improves outcomes and reduces length of hospital stay,” said Dr. McDonald.
The prenotification group also had a statistically significant higher percentage of treatment within 60 minutes of hospital arrival (93.5% vs 80%).
These new findings should help convince health and telestroke systems that teleneurology prenotification is worth implementing. “We want to achieve consensus on this as a best practice,” said Dr. McDonald.
Prenotification, he added, “coordinates the process and eliminates unnecessary and time-consuming steps.”
Dr. McDonald plans to prospectively study prenotification by collecting data on a facility before and after implementing a prenotification process.
Compelling Evidence
Commenting on the research, David L. Tirschwell, MD, Harborview Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Seattle, who cochaired the AAN session featuring the research, said the study provides compelling evidence that teleneurologist prenotification improves DTN time.
“Prenotifications are often standard of care in many healthcare settings and should likely be considered a best practice. When possible, extending such prenotification to a teleconsultant would make sense, and these preliminary data support that approach.”
However, more details are needed “to consider whether the intervention is possibly generalizable to other telestroke practices across the United States,” said Dr. Tirschwell.
Dr. McDonald reported receiving personal compensation for serving as a consultant for Syntrillo Inc. and has stock in Syntrillo Inc. Dr. Tirschwell reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research showed.
“This preliminary evidence supports adopting teleneurology prenotification as a best practice within health systems that have telestroke capabilities,” said study investigator Mark McDonald, MD, a neurologist at TeleSpecialists, Fort Myers, Florida.
The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Best Practices
The impact of emergency medical services prenotification, which refers to paramedics alerting receiving hospital emergency departments (EDs) of a suspected stroke on the way for appropriate preparations to be made, is well-defined, said Dr. McDonald.
“What we’re proposing as a best practice is not only should the ED or ED provider be aware, but there needs to be a system in place for standardizing communication to the neurology team so they’re aware, too.”
Prenotification allows a neurologist to “get on the screen to begin coordinating with the ED team to adequately prepare for the possibility of thrombolytic treatment,” he added.
Currently, teleneurology prenotification, he said, is variable and its benefits unclear.
Dr. McDonald said “his organization, TeleSpecialists, maintains a large detailed medical records database for emergency-related, teleneurology, and other cases. For stroke, it recommends 15 best practices” for facilities including prenotification of teleneurology.
Other best practices include evaluating and administering thrombolysis in the CT imaging suite, a preassembled stroke kit that includes antihypertensives and thrombolytic agents, ensuring a weigh bed is available to determine the exact dose of thrombolysis treatment, and implementing “mock” stroke alerts, said Dr. McDonald.
From the database, researchers extracted acute telestroke consultations seen in the ED in 103 facilities in 15 states. Facilities that did not adhere to the 14 best practices other than teleneurologist prenotification were excluded from the analysis.
Of 9290 patients included in the study, 731 were treated with thrombolysis at prenotification facilities (median age, 69 years; median National Institutes of Health Stroke Score [NIHSS], 8) and 31 were treated at facilities without prenotification (median age, 63 years; median NIHSS score, 4). The thrombolytic treatment rate was 8.5% at prenotification facilities versus 4.8% at facilities without prenotification — a difference that was statistically significant.
Prenotification facilities had a significantly shorter median door-to-needle (DTN) time than those without such a process at 35 versus 43 minutes. In addition, there was a statistically significant difference in the percentage of patients with times less than 60 minutes at approximately 88% at prenotification facilities versus about 68% at the facilities without prenotification.
Case-Level Analysis
However, just because a facility adheres to teleneurology prenotification as a whole, doesn’t mean it occurs in every case. Researchers explored the impact of teleneurology prenotification at the case level rather than the facility level.
“That gave us a bit more insight into the real impact because it’s not just being at a facility with the best practice; it’s actually working case by case to see whether it happened or not and that’s where we get the most compelling findings,” said Dr. McDonald.
Of 761 treatment cases, there was prenotification to the neurology team in 401 cases. In 360 cases, prenotification did not occur.
The median DTN time was 29 minutes in the group with actual prenotification vs 41.5 minutes in the group without actual prenotification, a difference that was statistically significant, Dr. McDonald said.
As for treatment within 30 minutes of arrival, 50.4% of patients in the teleneurology prenotification group versus 18.9% in the no prenotification group — a statistically significant difference.
DTN time of less than 30 minutes is increasingly used as a target. “Being treated within this time frame improves outcomes and reduces length of hospital stay,” said Dr. McDonald.
The prenotification group also had a statistically significant higher percentage of treatment within 60 minutes of hospital arrival (93.5% vs 80%).
These new findings should help convince health and telestroke systems that teleneurology prenotification is worth implementing. “We want to achieve consensus on this as a best practice,” said Dr. McDonald.
Prenotification, he added, “coordinates the process and eliminates unnecessary and time-consuming steps.”
Dr. McDonald plans to prospectively study prenotification by collecting data on a facility before and after implementing a prenotification process.
Compelling Evidence
Commenting on the research, David L. Tirschwell, MD, Harborview Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Seattle, who cochaired the AAN session featuring the research, said the study provides compelling evidence that teleneurologist prenotification improves DTN time.
“Prenotifications are often standard of care in many healthcare settings and should likely be considered a best practice. When possible, extending such prenotification to a teleconsultant would make sense, and these preliminary data support that approach.”
However, more details are needed “to consider whether the intervention is possibly generalizable to other telestroke practices across the United States,” said Dr. Tirschwell.
Dr. McDonald reported receiving personal compensation for serving as a consultant for Syntrillo Inc. and has stock in Syntrillo Inc. Dr. Tirschwell reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAN 2024
Which Emergencies Are Genuine Emergencies?
WIESBADEN, GERMANY — Crowded waiting rooms, long wait times, irritable patients, and aggression toward nursing staff and doctors are increasingly the reality in German emergency rooms. Clearly, emergencies belong in the emergency room. However, “In about half of all patients in the emergency room, there is no urgent medical emergency,” Norbert Schütz, MD, director of geriatrics and rheumatology at Helios Dr. Horst Schmidt Hospital in Wiesbaden, Germany, said at a press conference for the 130th Annual Meeting of the German Society of Internal Medicine (DGIM).
“In our daily medical practice, we repeatedly experience people either accessing our emergency departments and ambulances too quickly or lingering at home for too long when they have severe symptoms,” said Dr. Schütz, who organized the Patient Day during the Internist Congress.
DGIM Educates Patients
What is an emergency? “I think the public is quite well informed about conditions associated with loss of consciousness, severe pain, chest pain, or paralysis: Think stroke or heart attack. This is undoubtedly a success of recent years. The difficulty arises with everything in between. For instance, should I go to the hospital with severe headaches?” asked Dr. Schütz.
When is a patient a case for the emergency room, the physician on-call service, or the general practitioner? At the Patient Day in Wiesbaden, DGIM aims to educate and train interested parties with a dedicated lecture. The focus is on recognizing an emergency, specifically emergencies in children and mental illnesses.
“Our Patient Day aims to contribute to making the right decisions. We want to inform, answer questions, and alleviate fears,” said Dr. Schütz. Interested parties can refresh their emergency knowledge, tour ambulances, and have the equipment explained. The public also has the opportunity to learn about resuscitation techniques theoretically and practically.
“Should, for whatever reason, the general practitioner not be reachable, the physician on-call service can be reached,” said Dr. Schütz. It may happen, however, that neither the general practitioner nor the on-call physician is immediately available.
What Are Emergencies?
In cases of severe health impairment, urgency is required, and a severe emergency should be assumed in the following cases:
- Chest pain
- Circulatory disorder
- Disorders of consciousness
- Breathing difficulties
- Sudden weakness or numbness/paralysis
- Severe bleeding
- Allergic shock
“In such cases, the emergency departments of the hospitals are available around the clock, and if necessary, an emergency doctor should be present during transportation to the hospital,” said Dr. Schütz.
Classifying emergencies is challenging, especially with children. “Children often find it difficult to clearly categorize or describe symptoms,” said Dr. Schütz. A situation is critical if, for example, the child’s breathing or consciousness is impaired.
Mental emergencies pose a particular challenge for patients and relatives because the patient and relatives are often overwhelmed by the situation. If there are suicidal thoughts, the patient should present him- or herself immediately to an emergency room.
“Patients who come to the emergency room because they cannot get appointments with their general practitioner or specialist, for whatever reason, are no emergency. We also see this in the emergency room from time to time,” said Dr. Schütz. Emergency rooms are not intended for this purpose. “And generally, these are not emergencies.”
Four of 10 Cases
The number of patients in emergency rooms has steadily increased in recent years. Statistically, only 4 out of 10 cases are genuine emergencies, as detailed surveys of patients in the emergency rooms of northern German hospitals have shown.
In the PiNo Nord cross-sectional study, Martin Scherer, MD, of University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf in Hamburg, Germany, and his team examined the reasons why patients visit the emergency room. They interviewed 1175 patients in five hospitals and documented the medical diagnoses. Patients classified as “immediately” or “very urgently” in need of treatment were excluded.
The surveyed patients were on average 41.8 years old, 52.9% were men, and 54.7% of the patients indicated a low urgency of treatment. About 41% of the patients visited the emergency room on their own initiative, 17% stated they were referred or entrusted by their general practitioner, and 8% were referred by a specialist in the emergency room.
The strongest predictors for low subjective treatment urgency were musculoskeletal trauma (odds ratio [OR], 2.18), skin afflictions (OR, 2.15), and the unavailability of an open general practitioner’s office (OR, 1.70).
According to Dr. Scherer and his colleagues, the reasons for visiting an emergency room are diverse and can be based on the perceived structural conditions and individual patient preferences in addition to the urgency of the health problem.
This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
WIESBADEN, GERMANY — Crowded waiting rooms, long wait times, irritable patients, and aggression toward nursing staff and doctors are increasingly the reality in German emergency rooms. Clearly, emergencies belong in the emergency room. However, “In about half of all patients in the emergency room, there is no urgent medical emergency,” Norbert Schütz, MD, director of geriatrics and rheumatology at Helios Dr. Horst Schmidt Hospital in Wiesbaden, Germany, said at a press conference for the 130th Annual Meeting of the German Society of Internal Medicine (DGIM).
“In our daily medical practice, we repeatedly experience people either accessing our emergency departments and ambulances too quickly or lingering at home for too long when they have severe symptoms,” said Dr. Schütz, who organized the Patient Day during the Internist Congress.
DGIM Educates Patients
What is an emergency? “I think the public is quite well informed about conditions associated with loss of consciousness, severe pain, chest pain, or paralysis: Think stroke or heart attack. This is undoubtedly a success of recent years. The difficulty arises with everything in between. For instance, should I go to the hospital with severe headaches?” asked Dr. Schütz.
When is a patient a case for the emergency room, the physician on-call service, or the general practitioner? At the Patient Day in Wiesbaden, DGIM aims to educate and train interested parties with a dedicated lecture. The focus is on recognizing an emergency, specifically emergencies in children and mental illnesses.
“Our Patient Day aims to contribute to making the right decisions. We want to inform, answer questions, and alleviate fears,” said Dr. Schütz. Interested parties can refresh their emergency knowledge, tour ambulances, and have the equipment explained. The public also has the opportunity to learn about resuscitation techniques theoretically and practically.
“Should, for whatever reason, the general practitioner not be reachable, the physician on-call service can be reached,” said Dr. Schütz. It may happen, however, that neither the general practitioner nor the on-call physician is immediately available.
What Are Emergencies?
In cases of severe health impairment, urgency is required, and a severe emergency should be assumed in the following cases:
- Chest pain
- Circulatory disorder
- Disorders of consciousness
- Breathing difficulties
- Sudden weakness or numbness/paralysis
- Severe bleeding
- Allergic shock
“In such cases, the emergency departments of the hospitals are available around the clock, and if necessary, an emergency doctor should be present during transportation to the hospital,” said Dr. Schütz.
Classifying emergencies is challenging, especially with children. “Children often find it difficult to clearly categorize or describe symptoms,” said Dr. Schütz. A situation is critical if, for example, the child’s breathing or consciousness is impaired.
Mental emergencies pose a particular challenge for patients and relatives because the patient and relatives are often overwhelmed by the situation. If there are suicidal thoughts, the patient should present him- or herself immediately to an emergency room.
“Patients who come to the emergency room because they cannot get appointments with their general practitioner or specialist, for whatever reason, are no emergency. We also see this in the emergency room from time to time,” said Dr. Schütz. Emergency rooms are not intended for this purpose. “And generally, these are not emergencies.”
Four of 10 Cases
The number of patients in emergency rooms has steadily increased in recent years. Statistically, only 4 out of 10 cases are genuine emergencies, as detailed surveys of patients in the emergency rooms of northern German hospitals have shown.
In the PiNo Nord cross-sectional study, Martin Scherer, MD, of University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf in Hamburg, Germany, and his team examined the reasons why patients visit the emergency room. They interviewed 1175 patients in five hospitals and documented the medical diagnoses. Patients classified as “immediately” or “very urgently” in need of treatment were excluded.
The surveyed patients were on average 41.8 years old, 52.9% were men, and 54.7% of the patients indicated a low urgency of treatment. About 41% of the patients visited the emergency room on their own initiative, 17% stated they were referred or entrusted by their general practitioner, and 8% were referred by a specialist in the emergency room.
The strongest predictors for low subjective treatment urgency were musculoskeletal trauma (odds ratio [OR], 2.18), skin afflictions (OR, 2.15), and the unavailability of an open general practitioner’s office (OR, 1.70).
According to Dr. Scherer and his colleagues, the reasons for visiting an emergency room are diverse and can be based on the perceived structural conditions and individual patient preferences in addition to the urgency of the health problem.
This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
WIESBADEN, GERMANY — Crowded waiting rooms, long wait times, irritable patients, and aggression toward nursing staff and doctors are increasingly the reality in German emergency rooms. Clearly, emergencies belong in the emergency room. However, “In about half of all patients in the emergency room, there is no urgent medical emergency,” Norbert Schütz, MD, director of geriatrics and rheumatology at Helios Dr. Horst Schmidt Hospital in Wiesbaden, Germany, said at a press conference for the 130th Annual Meeting of the German Society of Internal Medicine (DGIM).
“In our daily medical practice, we repeatedly experience people either accessing our emergency departments and ambulances too quickly or lingering at home for too long when they have severe symptoms,” said Dr. Schütz, who organized the Patient Day during the Internist Congress.
DGIM Educates Patients
What is an emergency? “I think the public is quite well informed about conditions associated with loss of consciousness, severe pain, chest pain, or paralysis: Think stroke or heart attack. This is undoubtedly a success of recent years. The difficulty arises with everything in between. For instance, should I go to the hospital with severe headaches?” asked Dr. Schütz.
When is a patient a case for the emergency room, the physician on-call service, or the general practitioner? At the Patient Day in Wiesbaden, DGIM aims to educate and train interested parties with a dedicated lecture. The focus is on recognizing an emergency, specifically emergencies in children and mental illnesses.
“Our Patient Day aims to contribute to making the right decisions. We want to inform, answer questions, and alleviate fears,” said Dr. Schütz. Interested parties can refresh their emergency knowledge, tour ambulances, and have the equipment explained. The public also has the opportunity to learn about resuscitation techniques theoretically and practically.
“Should, for whatever reason, the general practitioner not be reachable, the physician on-call service can be reached,” said Dr. Schütz. It may happen, however, that neither the general practitioner nor the on-call physician is immediately available.
What Are Emergencies?
In cases of severe health impairment, urgency is required, and a severe emergency should be assumed in the following cases:
- Chest pain
- Circulatory disorder
- Disorders of consciousness
- Breathing difficulties
- Sudden weakness or numbness/paralysis
- Severe bleeding
- Allergic shock
“In such cases, the emergency departments of the hospitals are available around the clock, and if necessary, an emergency doctor should be present during transportation to the hospital,” said Dr. Schütz.
Classifying emergencies is challenging, especially with children. “Children often find it difficult to clearly categorize or describe symptoms,” said Dr. Schütz. A situation is critical if, for example, the child’s breathing or consciousness is impaired.
Mental emergencies pose a particular challenge for patients and relatives because the patient and relatives are often overwhelmed by the situation. If there are suicidal thoughts, the patient should present him- or herself immediately to an emergency room.
“Patients who come to the emergency room because they cannot get appointments with their general practitioner or specialist, for whatever reason, are no emergency. We also see this in the emergency room from time to time,” said Dr. Schütz. Emergency rooms are not intended for this purpose. “And generally, these are not emergencies.”
Four of 10 Cases
The number of patients in emergency rooms has steadily increased in recent years. Statistically, only 4 out of 10 cases are genuine emergencies, as detailed surveys of patients in the emergency rooms of northern German hospitals have shown.
In the PiNo Nord cross-sectional study, Martin Scherer, MD, of University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf in Hamburg, Germany, and his team examined the reasons why patients visit the emergency room. They interviewed 1175 patients in five hospitals and documented the medical diagnoses. Patients classified as “immediately” or “very urgently” in need of treatment were excluded.
The surveyed patients were on average 41.8 years old, 52.9% were men, and 54.7% of the patients indicated a low urgency of treatment. About 41% of the patients visited the emergency room on their own initiative, 17% stated they were referred or entrusted by their general practitioner, and 8% were referred by a specialist in the emergency room.
The strongest predictors for low subjective treatment urgency were musculoskeletal trauma (odds ratio [OR], 2.18), skin afflictions (OR, 2.15), and the unavailability of an open general practitioner’s office (OR, 1.70).
According to Dr. Scherer and his colleagues, the reasons for visiting an emergency room are diverse and can be based on the perceived structural conditions and individual patient preferences in addition to the urgency of the health problem.
This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Tension, Other Headache Types Robustly Linked to Attempted, Completed Suicide
DENVER – , results of a large study suggest.
The risk for suicide attempt was four times higher in people with trigeminal and autonomic cephalalgias (TAC), and the risk for completed suicide was double among those with posttraumatic headache compared with individuals with no headache.
The retrospective analysis included data on more than 100,000 headache patients from a Danish registry.
“The results suggest there’s a unique risk among headache patients for attempted and completed suicide,” lead investigator Holly Elser, MD, MPH, PhD, resident, Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where the findings were presented. “This really underscores the potential importance of complementary psychiatric evaluation and treatment for individuals diagnosed with headache.”
Underestimated Problem
Headache disorders affect about half of working-age adults and are among the leading causes of productivity loss, absence from work, and disability.
Prior research suggests headache disorders often co-occur with psychiatric illness including depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and even attempted suicide.
However, previous studies that showed an increased risk for attempted suicide in patients with headache relied heavily on survey data and mostly focused on patients with migraine. There was little information on other headache types and on the risk for completed suicide.
Researchers used Danish registries to identify 64,057 patients with migraine, 40,160 with tension-type headache (TTH), 5743 with TAC, and 4253 with posttraumatic headache, all diagnosed from 1995 to 2019.
Some 5.8% of those with migraine, 6.3% with TAC, 7.2% with TTH, and 7.2% with posttraumatic headache, had a mood disorder (depression and anxiety combined) at baseline.
Those without a headache diagnosis were matched 5:1 to those with a headache diagnosis by sex and birth year.
Across all headache disorders, baseline prevalence of mood disorder was higher among those with headache versus population-matched controls. Dr. Elser emphasized that these are people diagnosed with a mood disorder in the inpatient, emergency department, or outpatient specialist clinic setting, “which means we are almost certainly underestimating the true burden of mood symptoms in our cohort,” she said.
Researchers identified attempted suicides using diagnostic codes. For completed suicide, they determined whether those who attempted suicide died within 30 days of the attempt.
For each headache type, investigators examined both the absolute and relative risk for attempted and completed suicides and estimated the risk at intervals of 5, 10, and 20 years after initial headache diagnosis.
Robust Link
The “power of this study is that we asked a simple, but important question, and answered it with simple, but appropriate, methodologic techniques,” Dr. Elser said.
The estimated risk differences (RDs) for attempted suicide were strongest for TAC and posttraumatic headache and for longer follow-ups. The RDs for completed suicide were largely the same but of a smaller magnitude and were “relatively less precise,” reflecting the “rarity of this outcome,” said Dr. Elser.
After adjusting for sex, age, education, income, comorbidities, and baseline medical and psychiatric diagnoses, researchers found the strongest association or attempted suicide was among those with TAC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 4.25; 95% CI, 2.85-6.33).
“A hazard ratio of 4 is enormous” for this type of comparison, Dr. Elser noted.
For completed suicide, the strongest association was with posttraumatic headache (aHR, 2.19; 95% CI, 0.78-6.16).
The study revealed a robust association with attempted and completed suicide across all headache types, including TTH, noted Dr. Elser. The link between tension headaches and suicide “was the most striking finding to me because I think of that as sort of a benign and common headache disorder,” she said.
The was an observational study, so “it’s not clear whether headache is playing an etiological role in the relationship with suicide,” she said. “It’s possible there are common shared risk factors or confounders that explain the relationship in full or in part that aren’t accounted for in this study.”
Ask About Mood
The results underscore the need for psychiatric evaluations in patients with a headache disorder. “For me, this is just going to make me that much more likely to ask my patients about their mood when I see them in clinic,” Dr. Elser said.
After asking patients with headache about their mood and stress at home and at work, physicians should have a “low threshold to refer to a behavioral health provider,” she added.
Future research should aim to better understand the link between headache and suicide risk, with a focus on the mechanisms behind low- and high-risk subgroups, said Dr. Elser.
A limitation of the study was that headache diagnoses were based on inpatient, emergency department, and outpatient specialist visits but not on visits to primary care practitioners. The study didn’t include information on headache severity or frequency and included only people who sought treatment for their headaches.
Though it’s unlikely the results “are perfectly generalizable” with respect to other geographical or cultural contexts, “I don’t think this relationship is unique to Denmark based on the literature to date,” Dr. Elser said.
Commenting on the study, session co-chair Todd J. Schwedt, MD, professor of neurology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, and president-elect of the American Headache Society, noted that the study offers important findings “that demonstrate the enormous negative impact that headaches can exert.”
It’s “a strong reminder” that clinicians should assess the mental health of their patients with headaches and offer treatment when appropriate, he said.
The study received support from Aarhus University. No relevant conflicts of interest were reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DENVER – , results of a large study suggest.
The risk for suicide attempt was four times higher in people with trigeminal and autonomic cephalalgias (TAC), and the risk for completed suicide was double among those with posttraumatic headache compared with individuals with no headache.
The retrospective analysis included data on more than 100,000 headache patients from a Danish registry.
“The results suggest there’s a unique risk among headache patients for attempted and completed suicide,” lead investigator Holly Elser, MD, MPH, PhD, resident, Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where the findings were presented. “This really underscores the potential importance of complementary psychiatric evaluation and treatment for individuals diagnosed with headache.”
Underestimated Problem
Headache disorders affect about half of working-age adults and are among the leading causes of productivity loss, absence from work, and disability.
Prior research suggests headache disorders often co-occur with psychiatric illness including depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and even attempted suicide.
However, previous studies that showed an increased risk for attempted suicide in patients with headache relied heavily on survey data and mostly focused on patients with migraine. There was little information on other headache types and on the risk for completed suicide.
Researchers used Danish registries to identify 64,057 patients with migraine, 40,160 with tension-type headache (TTH), 5743 with TAC, and 4253 with posttraumatic headache, all diagnosed from 1995 to 2019.
Some 5.8% of those with migraine, 6.3% with TAC, 7.2% with TTH, and 7.2% with posttraumatic headache, had a mood disorder (depression and anxiety combined) at baseline.
Those without a headache diagnosis were matched 5:1 to those with a headache diagnosis by sex and birth year.
Across all headache disorders, baseline prevalence of mood disorder was higher among those with headache versus population-matched controls. Dr. Elser emphasized that these are people diagnosed with a mood disorder in the inpatient, emergency department, or outpatient specialist clinic setting, “which means we are almost certainly underestimating the true burden of mood symptoms in our cohort,” she said.
Researchers identified attempted suicides using diagnostic codes. For completed suicide, they determined whether those who attempted suicide died within 30 days of the attempt.
For each headache type, investigators examined both the absolute and relative risk for attempted and completed suicides and estimated the risk at intervals of 5, 10, and 20 years after initial headache diagnosis.
Robust Link
The “power of this study is that we asked a simple, but important question, and answered it with simple, but appropriate, methodologic techniques,” Dr. Elser said.
The estimated risk differences (RDs) for attempted suicide were strongest for TAC and posttraumatic headache and for longer follow-ups. The RDs for completed suicide were largely the same but of a smaller magnitude and were “relatively less precise,” reflecting the “rarity of this outcome,” said Dr. Elser.
After adjusting for sex, age, education, income, comorbidities, and baseline medical and psychiatric diagnoses, researchers found the strongest association or attempted suicide was among those with TAC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 4.25; 95% CI, 2.85-6.33).
“A hazard ratio of 4 is enormous” for this type of comparison, Dr. Elser noted.
For completed suicide, the strongest association was with posttraumatic headache (aHR, 2.19; 95% CI, 0.78-6.16).
The study revealed a robust association with attempted and completed suicide across all headache types, including TTH, noted Dr. Elser. The link between tension headaches and suicide “was the most striking finding to me because I think of that as sort of a benign and common headache disorder,” she said.
The was an observational study, so “it’s not clear whether headache is playing an etiological role in the relationship with suicide,” she said. “It’s possible there are common shared risk factors or confounders that explain the relationship in full or in part that aren’t accounted for in this study.”
Ask About Mood
The results underscore the need for psychiatric evaluations in patients with a headache disorder. “For me, this is just going to make me that much more likely to ask my patients about their mood when I see them in clinic,” Dr. Elser said.
After asking patients with headache about their mood and stress at home and at work, physicians should have a “low threshold to refer to a behavioral health provider,” she added.
Future research should aim to better understand the link between headache and suicide risk, with a focus on the mechanisms behind low- and high-risk subgroups, said Dr. Elser.
A limitation of the study was that headache diagnoses were based on inpatient, emergency department, and outpatient specialist visits but not on visits to primary care practitioners. The study didn’t include information on headache severity or frequency and included only people who sought treatment for their headaches.
Though it’s unlikely the results “are perfectly generalizable” with respect to other geographical or cultural contexts, “I don’t think this relationship is unique to Denmark based on the literature to date,” Dr. Elser said.
Commenting on the study, session co-chair Todd J. Schwedt, MD, professor of neurology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, and president-elect of the American Headache Society, noted that the study offers important findings “that demonstrate the enormous negative impact that headaches can exert.”
It’s “a strong reminder” that clinicians should assess the mental health of their patients with headaches and offer treatment when appropriate, he said.
The study received support from Aarhus University. No relevant conflicts of interest were reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DENVER – , results of a large study suggest.
The risk for suicide attempt was four times higher in people with trigeminal and autonomic cephalalgias (TAC), and the risk for completed suicide was double among those with posttraumatic headache compared with individuals with no headache.
The retrospective analysis included data on more than 100,000 headache patients from a Danish registry.
“The results suggest there’s a unique risk among headache patients for attempted and completed suicide,” lead investigator Holly Elser, MD, MPH, PhD, resident, Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where the findings were presented. “This really underscores the potential importance of complementary psychiatric evaluation and treatment for individuals diagnosed with headache.”
Underestimated Problem
Headache disorders affect about half of working-age adults and are among the leading causes of productivity loss, absence from work, and disability.
Prior research suggests headache disorders often co-occur with psychiatric illness including depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and even attempted suicide.
However, previous studies that showed an increased risk for attempted suicide in patients with headache relied heavily on survey data and mostly focused on patients with migraine. There was little information on other headache types and on the risk for completed suicide.
Researchers used Danish registries to identify 64,057 patients with migraine, 40,160 with tension-type headache (TTH), 5743 with TAC, and 4253 with posttraumatic headache, all diagnosed from 1995 to 2019.
Some 5.8% of those with migraine, 6.3% with TAC, 7.2% with TTH, and 7.2% with posttraumatic headache, had a mood disorder (depression and anxiety combined) at baseline.
Those without a headache diagnosis were matched 5:1 to those with a headache diagnosis by sex and birth year.
Across all headache disorders, baseline prevalence of mood disorder was higher among those with headache versus population-matched controls. Dr. Elser emphasized that these are people diagnosed with a mood disorder in the inpatient, emergency department, or outpatient specialist clinic setting, “which means we are almost certainly underestimating the true burden of mood symptoms in our cohort,” she said.
Researchers identified attempted suicides using diagnostic codes. For completed suicide, they determined whether those who attempted suicide died within 30 days of the attempt.
For each headache type, investigators examined both the absolute and relative risk for attempted and completed suicides and estimated the risk at intervals of 5, 10, and 20 years after initial headache diagnosis.
Robust Link
The “power of this study is that we asked a simple, but important question, and answered it with simple, but appropriate, methodologic techniques,” Dr. Elser said.
The estimated risk differences (RDs) for attempted suicide were strongest for TAC and posttraumatic headache and for longer follow-ups. The RDs for completed suicide were largely the same but of a smaller magnitude and were “relatively less precise,” reflecting the “rarity of this outcome,” said Dr. Elser.
After adjusting for sex, age, education, income, comorbidities, and baseline medical and psychiatric diagnoses, researchers found the strongest association or attempted suicide was among those with TAC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 4.25; 95% CI, 2.85-6.33).
“A hazard ratio of 4 is enormous” for this type of comparison, Dr. Elser noted.
For completed suicide, the strongest association was with posttraumatic headache (aHR, 2.19; 95% CI, 0.78-6.16).
The study revealed a robust association with attempted and completed suicide across all headache types, including TTH, noted Dr. Elser. The link between tension headaches and suicide “was the most striking finding to me because I think of that as sort of a benign and common headache disorder,” she said.
The was an observational study, so “it’s not clear whether headache is playing an etiological role in the relationship with suicide,” she said. “It’s possible there are common shared risk factors or confounders that explain the relationship in full or in part that aren’t accounted for in this study.”
Ask About Mood
The results underscore the need for psychiatric evaluations in patients with a headache disorder. “For me, this is just going to make me that much more likely to ask my patients about their mood when I see them in clinic,” Dr. Elser said.
After asking patients with headache about their mood and stress at home and at work, physicians should have a “low threshold to refer to a behavioral health provider,” she added.
Future research should aim to better understand the link between headache and suicide risk, with a focus on the mechanisms behind low- and high-risk subgroups, said Dr. Elser.
A limitation of the study was that headache diagnoses were based on inpatient, emergency department, and outpatient specialist visits but not on visits to primary care practitioners. The study didn’t include information on headache severity or frequency and included only people who sought treatment for their headaches.
Though it’s unlikely the results “are perfectly generalizable” with respect to other geographical or cultural contexts, “I don’t think this relationship is unique to Denmark based on the literature to date,” Dr. Elser said.
Commenting on the study, session co-chair Todd J. Schwedt, MD, professor of neurology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, and president-elect of the American Headache Society, noted that the study offers important findings “that demonstrate the enormous negative impact that headaches can exert.”
It’s “a strong reminder” that clinicians should assess the mental health of their patients with headaches and offer treatment when appropriate, he said.
The study received support from Aarhus University. No relevant conflicts of interest were reported.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAN 2024
Telestroke Outcomes Rival Traditional Care
These studies set the stage for larger studies comparing outcomes and efficiency of various telemedicine and transport models and gauging stakeholder satisfaction, authors said.
Surprising Results
In a single-site retrospective comparison of 252 patients with acute stroke assessed under an in-house telestroke protocol and 2437 assessed in person, telestroke provided statistically significant advantages in the following areas:
- Door-to-imaging times (median: 38 minutes vs 44)
- Rates of intravenous (18.2% vs 8.6%) and mechanical (10.4% vs 5.1%) treatment
- Length of stay (median: 6 days vs 8)
- Symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation rate (1.1% vs 5.1%)
- Mortality (6.7% vs 11.1%)
The better metrics observed in the telestroke group were especially surprising, said lead author Rodrigo Meirelles Massaud, MD, because the same team of neurologists conducted both types of evaluations. “This consistency ensures that the quality and expertise of medical care were maintained across both groups,” said Dr. Massaud, a neurologist at the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein in São Paulo, Brazil. The study appeared online in Frontiers in Neurology.
The findings also counter the preconceived notion that distance medicine could be inferior because of the inability to conduct direct physical examinations and the potential for communication failures, he said. The telestroke group’s younger average age (63.5 years vs 69.5 years) and lower initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores — 2 versus 3 — might explain the disparity, Dr. Massaud added, because both factors augur improved outcomes.
Conversely, the authors wrote that the in-person group’s lower median door-to-groin puncture time in ischemic stroke (103.5 minutes vs 151.5 for telemedicine) likely resulted from the need to transport patients from satellite facilities to a hub hospital with neurologists on continuous standby. After adjustment for initial NIHSS score and age, both groups achieved similar percentages of patients with modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 0-2 at discharge: 58.5% for in-person evaluation versus 61.9% for telemedicine (P = .028).
Acute Ischemic Stroke
In another study, a systematic review that included 7396 thrombolysed patients with acute ischemic stroke, odds ratios (ORs) revealed no significant differences between telestroke and in-person care for the percentage of mRS scores 0-2 at discharge (1.06; P = .5), 90-day mortality (OR, 1.16; P = .17), and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR, 0.99; P = .93). The study appeared in the March International Journal of Stroke.
The lack of significant differences between telestroke and in-person care regarding mortality and mRS scores of 0-2 (which defines a good outcome) surprised researchers, said lead author Ahmed Mohamed, who is completing a master of health sciences degree in medical physiology at the University of Toronto Temerty Faculty of Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
“When we were starting this project,” he said, “we thought that telemedicine would probably take longer than conventional treatment.” And waiting longer for treatment — especially for patients with acute ischemic stroke — leads to worse outcomes. “However,” Mr. Mohamed said, “that wasn’t the case.” Additional measures that showed no significant differences included rates of intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (ivtPA) use and endovascular mechanical thrombectomy.
Telestroke Expansion
Authors of a study that analyzed the impact of expanding telestroke coverage beyond community ERs credited many postexpansion improvements to the addition of advanced practice providers (APPs). ProMedica Stroke Network, Toledo, Ohio, added seven APPs in June 2020 to provide two-way audiovisual inpatient stroke and TIA consultations and follow-ups at 19 spoke facilities supported by vascular neurologists at the hub comprehensive stroke center (CSC).
Revamping the TS workflow resulted in a threefold increase in TS cart utilization, a 31% decrease in transfers to the CSC, and a higher home discharge rate from spoke hospitals than from the CSC (57.38% versus 52.8%, respectively). Diagnostic sensitivity also improved, with overall decreases in stroke and TIA diagnosis of 11.5% and 39.8%, respectively, and a 12.9% increase in identification of stroke mimics. The study was published in the March Annals of Neurology.
Future Directions
All three author groups called for larger, more granular follow-up studies. Mr. Mohamed said that the 7396-patient review of 33 studies does not show whether video consultations with neurologists produce better outcomes than phone calls, for example, or whether utilizing different telestroke modalities such as a third-party telemedicine service provides better outcomes than other methods. Additionally, authors wrote, future research should compare telestroke versus non-telestroke patient transport models to optimize treatment plans and outcomes and validate potential advantages and disadvantages of telemedicine for patients with acute ischemic stroke.
“There is also a need to understand the long-term outcomes of patients treated via telestroke versus in-person care,” said Dr. Massaud. Future studies could include randomized, controlled trials comparing telestroke to traditional care in various settings with larger sample sizes, he said. “Additionally, research into the cost-effectiveness of telestroke services, patient satisfaction, and the impact of telestroke on different subtypes of stroke could provide a more comprehensive understanding of its benefits and limitations.”
Dr. Massaud and Mr. Mohamed reported no relevant financial interests. Authors of all three studies reported no funding sources or potential conflicts of interest.
These studies set the stage for larger studies comparing outcomes and efficiency of various telemedicine and transport models and gauging stakeholder satisfaction, authors said.
Surprising Results
In a single-site retrospective comparison of 252 patients with acute stroke assessed under an in-house telestroke protocol and 2437 assessed in person, telestroke provided statistically significant advantages in the following areas:
- Door-to-imaging times (median: 38 minutes vs 44)
- Rates of intravenous (18.2% vs 8.6%) and mechanical (10.4% vs 5.1%) treatment
- Length of stay (median: 6 days vs 8)
- Symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation rate (1.1% vs 5.1%)
- Mortality (6.7% vs 11.1%)
The better metrics observed in the telestroke group were especially surprising, said lead author Rodrigo Meirelles Massaud, MD, because the same team of neurologists conducted both types of evaluations. “This consistency ensures that the quality and expertise of medical care were maintained across both groups,” said Dr. Massaud, a neurologist at the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein in São Paulo, Brazil. The study appeared online in Frontiers in Neurology.
The findings also counter the preconceived notion that distance medicine could be inferior because of the inability to conduct direct physical examinations and the potential for communication failures, he said. The telestroke group’s younger average age (63.5 years vs 69.5 years) and lower initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores — 2 versus 3 — might explain the disparity, Dr. Massaud added, because both factors augur improved outcomes.
Conversely, the authors wrote that the in-person group’s lower median door-to-groin puncture time in ischemic stroke (103.5 minutes vs 151.5 for telemedicine) likely resulted from the need to transport patients from satellite facilities to a hub hospital with neurologists on continuous standby. After adjustment for initial NIHSS score and age, both groups achieved similar percentages of patients with modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 0-2 at discharge: 58.5% for in-person evaluation versus 61.9% for telemedicine (P = .028).
Acute Ischemic Stroke
In another study, a systematic review that included 7396 thrombolysed patients with acute ischemic stroke, odds ratios (ORs) revealed no significant differences between telestroke and in-person care for the percentage of mRS scores 0-2 at discharge (1.06; P = .5), 90-day mortality (OR, 1.16; P = .17), and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR, 0.99; P = .93). The study appeared in the March International Journal of Stroke.
The lack of significant differences between telestroke and in-person care regarding mortality and mRS scores of 0-2 (which defines a good outcome) surprised researchers, said lead author Ahmed Mohamed, who is completing a master of health sciences degree in medical physiology at the University of Toronto Temerty Faculty of Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
“When we were starting this project,” he said, “we thought that telemedicine would probably take longer than conventional treatment.” And waiting longer for treatment — especially for patients with acute ischemic stroke — leads to worse outcomes. “However,” Mr. Mohamed said, “that wasn’t the case.” Additional measures that showed no significant differences included rates of intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (ivtPA) use and endovascular mechanical thrombectomy.
Telestroke Expansion
Authors of a study that analyzed the impact of expanding telestroke coverage beyond community ERs credited many postexpansion improvements to the addition of advanced practice providers (APPs). ProMedica Stroke Network, Toledo, Ohio, added seven APPs in June 2020 to provide two-way audiovisual inpatient stroke and TIA consultations and follow-ups at 19 spoke facilities supported by vascular neurologists at the hub comprehensive stroke center (CSC).
Revamping the TS workflow resulted in a threefold increase in TS cart utilization, a 31% decrease in transfers to the CSC, and a higher home discharge rate from spoke hospitals than from the CSC (57.38% versus 52.8%, respectively). Diagnostic sensitivity also improved, with overall decreases in stroke and TIA diagnosis of 11.5% and 39.8%, respectively, and a 12.9% increase in identification of stroke mimics. The study was published in the March Annals of Neurology.
Future Directions
All three author groups called for larger, more granular follow-up studies. Mr. Mohamed said that the 7396-patient review of 33 studies does not show whether video consultations with neurologists produce better outcomes than phone calls, for example, or whether utilizing different telestroke modalities such as a third-party telemedicine service provides better outcomes than other methods. Additionally, authors wrote, future research should compare telestroke versus non-telestroke patient transport models to optimize treatment plans and outcomes and validate potential advantages and disadvantages of telemedicine for patients with acute ischemic stroke.
“There is also a need to understand the long-term outcomes of patients treated via telestroke versus in-person care,” said Dr. Massaud. Future studies could include randomized, controlled trials comparing telestroke to traditional care in various settings with larger sample sizes, he said. “Additionally, research into the cost-effectiveness of telestroke services, patient satisfaction, and the impact of telestroke on different subtypes of stroke could provide a more comprehensive understanding of its benefits and limitations.”
Dr. Massaud and Mr. Mohamed reported no relevant financial interests. Authors of all three studies reported no funding sources or potential conflicts of interest.
These studies set the stage for larger studies comparing outcomes and efficiency of various telemedicine and transport models and gauging stakeholder satisfaction, authors said.
Surprising Results
In a single-site retrospective comparison of 252 patients with acute stroke assessed under an in-house telestroke protocol and 2437 assessed in person, telestroke provided statistically significant advantages in the following areas:
- Door-to-imaging times (median: 38 minutes vs 44)
- Rates of intravenous (18.2% vs 8.6%) and mechanical (10.4% vs 5.1%) treatment
- Length of stay (median: 6 days vs 8)
- Symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation rate (1.1% vs 5.1%)
- Mortality (6.7% vs 11.1%)
The better metrics observed in the telestroke group were especially surprising, said lead author Rodrigo Meirelles Massaud, MD, because the same team of neurologists conducted both types of evaluations. “This consistency ensures that the quality and expertise of medical care were maintained across both groups,” said Dr. Massaud, a neurologist at the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein in São Paulo, Brazil. The study appeared online in Frontiers in Neurology.
The findings also counter the preconceived notion that distance medicine could be inferior because of the inability to conduct direct physical examinations and the potential for communication failures, he said. The telestroke group’s younger average age (63.5 years vs 69.5 years) and lower initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores — 2 versus 3 — might explain the disparity, Dr. Massaud added, because both factors augur improved outcomes.
Conversely, the authors wrote that the in-person group’s lower median door-to-groin puncture time in ischemic stroke (103.5 minutes vs 151.5 for telemedicine) likely resulted from the need to transport patients from satellite facilities to a hub hospital with neurologists on continuous standby. After adjustment for initial NIHSS score and age, both groups achieved similar percentages of patients with modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 0-2 at discharge: 58.5% for in-person evaluation versus 61.9% for telemedicine (P = .028).
Acute Ischemic Stroke
In another study, a systematic review that included 7396 thrombolysed patients with acute ischemic stroke, odds ratios (ORs) revealed no significant differences between telestroke and in-person care for the percentage of mRS scores 0-2 at discharge (1.06; P = .5), 90-day mortality (OR, 1.16; P = .17), and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR, 0.99; P = .93). The study appeared in the March International Journal of Stroke.
The lack of significant differences between telestroke and in-person care regarding mortality and mRS scores of 0-2 (which defines a good outcome) surprised researchers, said lead author Ahmed Mohamed, who is completing a master of health sciences degree in medical physiology at the University of Toronto Temerty Faculty of Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
“When we were starting this project,” he said, “we thought that telemedicine would probably take longer than conventional treatment.” And waiting longer for treatment — especially for patients with acute ischemic stroke — leads to worse outcomes. “However,” Mr. Mohamed said, “that wasn’t the case.” Additional measures that showed no significant differences included rates of intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (ivtPA) use and endovascular mechanical thrombectomy.
Telestroke Expansion
Authors of a study that analyzed the impact of expanding telestroke coverage beyond community ERs credited many postexpansion improvements to the addition of advanced practice providers (APPs). ProMedica Stroke Network, Toledo, Ohio, added seven APPs in June 2020 to provide two-way audiovisual inpatient stroke and TIA consultations and follow-ups at 19 spoke facilities supported by vascular neurologists at the hub comprehensive stroke center (CSC).
Revamping the TS workflow resulted in a threefold increase in TS cart utilization, a 31% decrease in transfers to the CSC, and a higher home discharge rate from spoke hospitals than from the CSC (57.38% versus 52.8%, respectively). Diagnostic sensitivity also improved, with overall decreases in stroke and TIA diagnosis of 11.5% and 39.8%, respectively, and a 12.9% increase in identification of stroke mimics. The study was published in the March Annals of Neurology.
Future Directions
All three author groups called for larger, more granular follow-up studies. Mr. Mohamed said that the 7396-patient review of 33 studies does not show whether video consultations with neurologists produce better outcomes than phone calls, for example, or whether utilizing different telestroke modalities such as a third-party telemedicine service provides better outcomes than other methods. Additionally, authors wrote, future research should compare telestroke versus non-telestroke patient transport models to optimize treatment plans and outcomes and validate potential advantages and disadvantages of telemedicine for patients with acute ischemic stroke.
“There is also a need to understand the long-term outcomes of patients treated via telestroke versus in-person care,” said Dr. Massaud. Future studies could include randomized, controlled trials comparing telestroke to traditional care in various settings with larger sample sizes, he said. “Additionally, research into the cost-effectiveness of telestroke services, patient satisfaction, and the impact of telestroke on different subtypes of stroke could provide a more comprehensive understanding of its benefits and limitations.”
Dr. Massaud and Mr. Mohamed reported no relevant financial interests. Authors of all three studies reported no funding sources or potential conflicts of interest.
FROM FRONTIERS IN NEUROLOGY, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STROKE, AND ANNALS OF NEUROLOGY
Adding Antithrombotic to tPA Does Not Improve Stroke Outcome
PHOENIX — , results of new research show.
“Ultimately, we found no benefit for either medication added to standard-of-care thrombolysis in terms of improving stroke outcomes,” said lead study author Opeolu M. Adeoye, MD, professor of emergency medicine and department chair, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
The results were surprising and disappointing for Dr. Adeoye. “We went into the trial hopeful and thinking we would be able to benefit patients in reducing disability from stroke,” he said.
The Multi-Arm Optimization of Stroke Thrombolysis (MOST) trial was stopped early because of futility following recommendations from the data and safety monitoring board.
The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
A thrombolytic drug alone doesn’t help all patients, particularly those with larger clots. “Clots can open; they can reform; they can re-occlude, etc.,” said another author, Andrew D. Barreto, MD, associate professor, Department of Neurology, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. “The thought was that adding additional medications that thin the blood, like argatroban or eptifibatide, would amplify the effects of the clot-busting drug.”
Indeed, this approach has had success in cardiology in terms of blood vessel opening, said Dr. Adeoye, adding that some preclinical data suggest that antithrombotic drugs may be neuroprotective.
Six phase 2 studies going back over a dozen years suggested that these drugs are safe in stroke patients. Although these studies weren’t powered for efficacy, “we did see a signal that adding them would be better than just the clot-busting drug alone.” These findings prompted the current phase 3 trial, said Dr. Barreto.
The three-arm, single-blind MOST trial included 514 adult patients with acute ischemic stroke and a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 6 or greater at 57 US centers. In the study cohort the mean age was about 68 years, 70% White/25% Black, and with about equal numbers of female and male patients.
All received standard stroke care including thrombolysis within 3 hours of symptom onset. Initially, researchers used intravenous alteplase (0.9 mg/kg), but as the standard of care changed over time, they began using tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg).
Study patients were also randomly assigned to receive placebo or either argatroban (100 mcg/kg bolus followed by 3 mcg/kg per minute for 12 hours) or eptifibatide (135 mcg/kg bolus followed by 0.75 mcg/kg/min infusion for 2 hours). These treatments were initiated within 75 minutes of thrombolysis.
Two Different Mechanisms
The drugs have different mechanisms of action. Argatroban is an anticoagulant, a direct inhibitor of thrombin, while the antiplatelet eptifibatide blocks the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor and was specifically developed to ensure rapid inhibition of platelet aggregation.
Patients could also receive endovascular thrombectomy as part of their usual care. In this study, about 44% of patients received this treatment.
The primary endpoint was 90-day utility weighted modified Rankin Scale (uw-mRS) scores, where the worst outcome is 0 and the best outcome is 10.
The study used a response-adaptive randomization design, where the randomization switches from a drug that doesn’t appear to have a chance of working to the arm more likely to be beneficial.
Of the 514 patients, the analysis included 228 in the placebo, 59 in the argatroban, and 227 in eptifibatide groups. Of the total, 421 completed the study.
The mean 90-day uw-mRS was 6.8 in the placebo group, 5.2 in the argatroban group, and 6.3 in the eptifibatide group.
The probability of argatroban being better than placebo was 0.2%; the probability of eptifibatide being better than placebo was 0.9%. The futility threshold was enrollment of 500 and less than a 20% chance of benefit, thus the decision to stop the trial.
In all subgroup analyses, which looked at age, stroke severity, the two thrombolytic drugs, and use of endovascular therapy, “we didn’t really see much of a signal that would suggest that’s the group we would need to be testing further,” said Dr. Barreto.
No Increased ICH Risk
The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours of randomization. The researchers found no significant increase in rates of this outcome.
The argatroban cohort had significantly lower odds of favorable outcomes compared with placebo, noted Dr. Adeoye. For example, it had more all-cause deaths, although none were related to the study drug.
Speculating on why the intervention didn’t work, Dr. Barreto pointed to changes in standard of care between the earlier trials and the current one, including the incorporation of endovascular therapy and switch to tenecteplase.
Although the results were disappointing, Dr. Adeoye sees a bright side. “What we’re very proud of, and excited about, is the fact that we have a definitive answer on these two drugs, and we did it in one trial as opposed to sequential, separate ongoing trials.”
But he stressed that more work needs to be done, especially given that even with endovascular therapy, half of stroke patients don’t achieve independence.
“In this trial, we established that argatroban and eptifibatide added to thrombolysis did not work, but that doesn’t address the fact that we need to continue to see what we can do to improve the total proportion of stroke patients who, after our treatments, are functionally independent 90 days after the stroke.”
Down the Rabbit Hole
Commenting on the research, Larry B. Goldstein, MD, professor and chair, Department of Neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, praised the study’s adaptive design, noted that the hypothesis the study was based on was “reasonable” given the concern about additional thromboses, and found the results useful.
“The goal is not only to see what works but also what doesn’t work so we don’t go down that rabbit hole.”
He also pointed out that because the two blood-thinning drugs studied have very different mechanisms of action, it’s unlikely that another antithrombotic would add benefit to thrombolysis, “but you never say never.”
Dr. Adeoye and Dr. Barreto report research funding from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Adeoye also reports an executive role, receiving royalties/being a patent beneficiary, Sense Diagnostics, Inc. Dr. Goldstein has no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHOENIX — , results of new research show.
“Ultimately, we found no benefit for either medication added to standard-of-care thrombolysis in terms of improving stroke outcomes,” said lead study author Opeolu M. Adeoye, MD, professor of emergency medicine and department chair, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
The results were surprising and disappointing for Dr. Adeoye. “We went into the trial hopeful and thinking we would be able to benefit patients in reducing disability from stroke,” he said.
The Multi-Arm Optimization of Stroke Thrombolysis (MOST) trial was stopped early because of futility following recommendations from the data and safety monitoring board.
The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
A thrombolytic drug alone doesn’t help all patients, particularly those with larger clots. “Clots can open; they can reform; they can re-occlude, etc.,” said another author, Andrew D. Barreto, MD, associate professor, Department of Neurology, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. “The thought was that adding additional medications that thin the blood, like argatroban or eptifibatide, would amplify the effects of the clot-busting drug.”
Indeed, this approach has had success in cardiology in terms of blood vessel opening, said Dr. Adeoye, adding that some preclinical data suggest that antithrombotic drugs may be neuroprotective.
Six phase 2 studies going back over a dozen years suggested that these drugs are safe in stroke patients. Although these studies weren’t powered for efficacy, “we did see a signal that adding them would be better than just the clot-busting drug alone.” These findings prompted the current phase 3 trial, said Dr. Barreto.
The three-arm, single-blind MOST trial included 514 adult patients with acute ischemic stroke and a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 6 or greater at 57 US centers. In the study cohort the mean age was about 68 years, 70% White/25% Black, and with about equal numbers of female and male patients.
All received standard stroke care including thrombolysis within 3 hours of symptom onset. Initially, researchers used intravenous alteplase (0.9 mg/kg), but as the standard of care changed over time, they began using tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg).
Study patients were also randomly assigned to receive placebo or either argatroban (100 mcg/kg bolus followed by 3 mcg/kg per minute for 12 hours) or eptifibatide (135 mcg/kg bolus followed by 0.75 mcg/kg/min infusion for 2 hours). These treatments were initiated within 75 minutes of thrombolysis.
Two Different Mechanisms
The drugs have different mechanisms of action. Argatroban is an anticoagulant, a direct inhibitor of thrombin, while the antiplatelet eptifibatide blocks the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor and was specifically developed to ensure rapid inhibition of platelet aggregation.
Patients could also receive endovascular thrombectomy as part of their usual care. In this study, about 44% of patients received this treatment.
The primary endpoint was 90-day utility weighted modified Rankin Scale (uw-mRS) scores, where the worst outcome is 0 and the best outcome is 10.
The study used a response-adaptive randomization design, where the randomization switches from a drug that doesn’t appear to have a chance of working to the arm more likely to be beneficial.
Of the 514 patients, the analysis included 228 in the placebo, 59 in the argatroban, and 227 in eptifibatide groups. Of the total, 421 completed the study.
The mean 90-day uw-mRS was 6.8 in the placebo group, 5.2 in the argatroban group, and 6.3 in the eptifibatide group.
The probability of argatroban being better than placebo was 0.2%; the probability of eptifibatide being better than placebo was 0.9%. The futility threshold was enrollment of 500 and less than a 20% chance of benefit, thus the decision to stop the trial.
In all subgroup analyses, which looked at age, stroke severity, the two thrombolytic drugs, and use of endovascular therapy, “we didn’t really see much of a signal that would suggest that’s the group we would need to be testing further,” said Dr. Barreto.
No Increased ICH Risk
The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours of randomization. The researchers found no significant increase in rates of this outcome.
The argatroban cohort had significantly lower odds of favorable outcomes compared with placebo, noted Dr. Adeoye. For example, it had more all-cause deaths, although none were related to the study drug.
Speculating on why the intervention didn’t work, Dr. Barreto pointed to changes in standard of care between the earlier trials and the current one, including the incorporation of endovascular therapy and switch to tenecteplase.
Although the results were disappointing, Dr. Adeoye sees a bright side. “What we’re very proud of, and excited about, is the fact that we have a definitive answer on these two drugs, and we did it in one trial as opposed to sequential, separate ongoing trials.”
But he stressed that more work needs to be done, especially given that even with endovascular therapy, half of stroke patients don’t achieve independence.
“In this trial, we established that argatroban and eptifibatide added to thrombolysis did not work, but that doesn’t address the fact that we need to continue to see what we can do to improve the total proportion of stroke patients who, after our treatments, are functionally independent 90 days after the stroke.”
Down the Rabbit Hole
Commenting on the research, Larry B. Goldstein, MD, professor and chair, Department of Neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, praised the study’s adaptive design, noted that the hypothesis the study was based on was “reasonable” given the concern about additional thromboses, and found the results useful.
“The goal is not only to see what works but also what doesn’t work so we don’t go down that rabbit hole.”
He also pointed out that because the two blood-thinning drugs studied have very different mechanisms of action, it’s unlikely that another antithrombotic would add benefit to thrombolysis, “but you never say never.”
Dr. Adeoye and Dr. Barreto report research funding from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Adeoye also reports an executive role, receiving royalties/being a patent beneficiary, Sense Diagnostics, Inc. Dr. Goldstein has no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHOENIX — , results of new research show.
“Ultimately, we found no benefit for either medication added to standard-of-care thrombolysis in terms of improving stroke outcomes,” said lead study author Opeolu M. Adeoye, MD, professor of emergency medicine and department chair, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
The results were surprising and disappointing for Dr. Adeoye. “We went into the trial hopeful and thinking we would be able to benefit patients in reducing disability from stroke,” he said.
The Multi-Arm Optimization of Stroke Thrombolysis (MOST) trial was stopped early because of futility following recommendations from the data and safety monitoring board.
The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
A thrombolytic drug alone doesn’t help all patients, particularly those with larger clots. “Clots can open; they can reform; they can re-occlude, etc.,” said another author, Andrew D. Barreto, MD, associate professor, Department of Neurology, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. “The thought was that adding additional medications that thin the blood, like argatroban or eptifibatide, would amplify the effects of the clot-busting drug.”
Indeed, this approach has had success in cardiology in terms of blood vessel opening, said Dr. Adeoye, adding that some preclinical data suggest that antithrombotic drugs may be neuroprotective.
Six phase 2 studies going back over a dozen years suggested that these drugs are safe in stroke patients. Although these studies weren’t powered for efficacy, “we did see a signal that adding them would be better than just the clot-busting drug alone.” These findings prompted the current phase 3 trial, said Dr. Barreto.
The three-arm, single-blind MOST trial included 514 adult patients with acute ischemic stroke and a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 6 or greater at 57 US centers. In the study cohort the mean age was about 68 years, 70% White/25% Black, and with about equal numbers of female and male patients.
All received standard stroke care including thrombolysis within 3 hours of symptom onset. Initially, researchers used intravenous alteplase (0.9 mg/kg), but as the standard of care changed over time, they began using tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg).
Study patients were also randomly assigned to receive placebo or either argatroban (100 mcg/kg bolus followed by 3 mcg/kg per minute for 12 hours) or eptifibatide (135 mcg/kg bolus followed by 0.75 mcg/kg/min infusion for 2 hours). These treatments were initiated within 75 minutes of thrombolysis.
Two Different Mechanisms
The drugs have different mechanisms of action. Argatroban is an anticoagulant, a direct inhibitor of thrombin, while the antiplatelet eptifibatide blocks the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor and was specifically developed to ensure rapid inhibition of platelet aggregation.
Patients could also receive endovascular thrombectomy as part of their usual care. In this study, about 44% of patients received this treatment.
The primary endpoint was 90-day utility weighted modified Rankin Scale (uw-mRS) scores, where the worst outcome is 0 and the best outcome is 10.
The study used a response-adaptive randomization design, where the randomization switches from a drug that doesn’t appear to have a chance of working to the arm more likely to be beneficial.
Of the 514 patients, the analysis included 228 in the placebo, 59 in the argatroban, and 227 in eptifibatide groups. Of the total, 421 completed the study.
The mean 90-day uw-mRS was 6.8 in the placebo group, 5.2 in the argatroban group, and 6.3 in the eptifibatide group.
The probability of argatroban being better than placebo was 0.2%; the probability of eptifibatide being better than placebo was 0.9%. The futility threshold was enrollment of 500 and less than a 20% chance of benefit, thus the decision to stop the trial.
In all subgroup analyses, which looked at age, stroke severity, the two thrombolytic drugs, and use of endovascular therapy, “we didn’t really see much of a signal that would suggest that’s the group we would need to be testing further,” said Dr. Barreto.
No Increased ICH Risk
The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours of randomization. The researchers found no significant increase in rates of this outcome.
The argatroban cohort had significantly lower odds of favorable outcomes compared with placebo, noted Dr. Adeoye. For example, it had more all-cause deaths, although none were related to the study drug.
Speculating on why the intervention didn’t work, Dr. Barreto pointed to changes in standard of care between the earlier trials and the current one, including the incorporation of endovascular therapy and switch to tenecteplase.
Although the results were disappointing, Dr. Adeoye sees a bright side. “What we’re very proud of, and excited about, is the fact that we have a definitive answer on these two drugs, and we did it in one trial as opposed to sequential, separate ongoing trials.”
But he stressed that more work needs to be done, especially given that even with endovascular therapy, half of stroke patients don’t achieve independence.
“In this trial, we established that argatroban and eptifibatide added to thrombolysis did not work, but that doesn’t address the fact that we need to continue to see what we can do to improve the total proportion of stroke patients who, after our treatments, are functionally independent 90 days after the stroke.”
Down the Rabbit Hole
Commenting on the research, Larry B. Goldstein, MD, professor and chair, Department of Neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, praised the study’s adaptive design, noted that the hypothesis the study was based on was “reasonable” given the concern about additional thromboses, and found the results useful.
“The goal is not only to see what works but also what doesn’t work so we don’t go down that rabbit hole.”
He also pointed out that because the two blood-thinning drugs studied have very different mechanisms of action, it’s unlikely that another antithrombotic would add benefit to thrombolysis, “but you never say never.”
Dr. Adeoye and Dr. Barreto report research funding from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Adeoye also reports an executive role, receiving royalties/being a patent beneficiary, Sense Diagnostics, Inc. Dr. Goldstein has no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISC 2024
Expanded Window of Stroke Thrombectomy With Simpler Imaging
PHOENIX — Thrombectomy is generally beneficial for patients from a low-income population who have a large vessel occlusion stroke presenting in the later time window and who can be identified as suitable for treatment without the need for advanced and costly imaging, a new Brazilian trial has shown.
“The RESILIENT-Extend trial is the first major study of thrombectomy in the late time window (8-24 h) conducted outside first-world countries and shows the procedure also has benefit in a lower socioeconomic status population without the need for costly imaging equipment,” said lead investigator Raul G. Nogueira, MD.
“The trial expands the treatment window for thrombectomy globally with simplified selection criteria based on non-contrast CT, potentially altering current guidelines,” Dr. Nogueira said.
However, there were some caveats that need to be considered; in particular, a lack of benefit with thrombectomy in older patients (over 68 years of age), which Dr. Nogueira believes is a reflection of the particular population enrolled in this study. Specifically, he suggested that older age in this low socioeconomic status population is a surrogate for frailty, and the study may have identified frailty as a factor that correlates with reduced or lack of benefit of thrombectomy.
Dr. Nogueira, who is a professor of neurology and neurosurgery at the University of Pittsburgh, and Sheila Martins, MD, a professor of neurology at Hospital de Clinicas Porto Alegre in Brazil, presented the RESILIENT-Extend results at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Dr. Nogueira explained that the lack of available advanced imaging techniques is a major challenge for implementing endovascular therapy in an extended time window, especially in lower-income countries.
“Our main objective was to see if we could remove the need for advanced imaging to select patients with large vessel occlusion stroke in the late time window (8-24 h) for thrombectomy,” he said. “In this way, our trial overlaps somewhat with the MR CLEAN-LATE Trial conducted in the Netherlands, although the two trials were conducted in very different socioeconomic populations.”
The RESILIENT-Extend trial was conducted in the public health service of Brazil and involved a different population of people than have been included in other thrombectomy trials, which have mostly been conducted in first-world countries.
“The public health system in Brazil is not well-resourced and tends to care for patients at lower socioeconomic levels. These patients are fundamentally different from the average patients in the first-world recruited into most other thrombectomy trials,” Dr. Nogueira noted.
The trial enrolled 245 patients with a large vessel occlusion stroke within 8-24 hours of last known well. Patients were included who had a mismatch between the clinical severity as shown by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score and the stroke burden on imaging as measured by ASPECTS scores.
They had to have relatively high NIHSS scores (8 or more) showing more severe strokes but also a high ASPECTS score (5-10) excluding patients with large areas of ischemic brain. There was also a sliding scale that adjusted for age to avoid enrolling elderly patients with large strokes.
These patients were identified exclusively using non-contrast CT and CT angiography imaging.
The median age of patients included was 62-63 years. Dr. Nogueira pointed out that patients were slightly younger than seen in other thrombectomy trials, perhaps because in lower-middle-income countries strokes occur at a younger age. They also have a higher case fatality rate.
The median baseline NIHSS score was 16, and the median ASPECTS score was 7-8.
The median time to treatment was 12.5 hours, which is similar to other late window thrombectomy trials.
Conflicting Results on Shift Analysis
The primary outcome was a shift analysis of the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) disability score at 90 days.
This showed a bidirectional result, with thrombectomy increasing the chances of a good or excellent outcome (mRS, 0-3), but there was also a nonsignificant increased risk for a bad outcome (mRS, 5-6).
“This bidirectional result prevents a common odds ratio from being calculated, so the primary endpoint is not applicable,” Dr. Nogueira reported.
The researchers therefore used the secondary outcomes as the main results of the study.
These showed that the number of patients achieving a good outcome (mRS, 0-2) was significantly increased with thrombectomy (25% vs. 14%, adjusted odds ratio, 2.56; P = .012).
The number of patients achieving an excellent outcome (mRS, 0-1) was also significantly increased.
But these increases in good outcomes came at the cost of some patients having an increased risk for severe disability or death (mRS, 5-6).
The odds ratio for an mRS of 0-4 versus 5-6 was 0.71, and for an mRS of 0-5 versus 6, the odds ratio was 0.58. Both these results were nonsignificant.
Another anomaly in the RESILIENT-Extend trial was the observation of no benefit of thrombectomy seen in older patients.
“In general, trials of thrombectomy in the first world have shown a greater treatment effect in older patients, but this was not seen in our trial, where older patients (over 68 years) did not derive any benefit from the procedure,” Dr. Nogueira noted.
A similar observation was also seen in the first RESILIENT trial in patients treated within 8 hours of stroke onset, which was also conducted in Brazil, leading to the suggestion that it is related to the patient population included.
“In the Brazilian public health service, older patients are very vulnerable and frail. They are different to older patients in first world countries. It appears they may be too fragile to withstand the thrombectomy process,” Dr. Nogueira said.
Frailty: A Ceiling Effect?
Results from the two RESILIENT trials give a word of caution to the thrombectomy field, Dr. Nogueira said.
“This procedure was initially thought suitable only for patients with small core strokes, but we now have a series of trials showing benefit of thrombectomy in large core strokes as well,” Dr. Nogueira said. “We have started to believe that this intervention will benefit almost all patients with large vessel occlusion stroke everywhere around the world, but our data suggest that we have to consider the specific populations that we are serving and that factors such as socioeconomic status and frailty have to be taken into account.
“Both the RESILIENT trials have shown that thrombectomy does not appear to be suitable for older patients, over 68-70 years of age, in the public health service in Brazil,” he noted. “In this population, a patient aged 70 can be quite different to a patient of the same age in a first-world country. I think in our population, an age of over 68-70 is a surrogate for frailty, which will not be the case in first-world countries. In this regard, I think we have found a ceiling effect for benefit of thrombectomy, which is frailty.”
Dr. Nogueira speculated that the bidirectional effect on the mRS shift analysis may also have been caused by the frailty of some of the patients.
“What the results may be showing is that for most of the population, there is a benefit of thrombectomy, but for some patients, possibly the most frail, then the procedure can be too overwhelming for them. But the suggestion of harm was not significant, so this observation could have also just been the play of chance,” he added.
Interpreting the Findings
Commenting on the RESILIENT-Extend study results, Michael Hill, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Calgary, Canada, pointed out that there was an absolute benefit of 11.1% on the mRS of 0-2 outcome but a similar signal of harm, with a 10.2% increase in mortality in the thrombectomy group, although that was not statistically significant.
“This signal of harm appears not to be due to an increase in intracranial hemorrhage or procedural mishap,” he said. “It is unclear why there were more deaths; the overall trial numbers are small enough that this could be a chance finding.”
Dr. Hill also noted that the absolute proportion of patients achieving an independent functional outcome was 50% less than in the DAWN trial of thrombectomy in the extended window. “This tells us that the patients selected for inclusion into RESILIENT-Extend were physiologically different from those in DAWN,” he said.
Also commenting on the study, Amrou Sarraj, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center–Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, said: “The RESILIENT-Extend investigators should be congratulated for the successful conduct of the trial and providing evidence of benefit of thrombectomy procedure with simplified neuroimaging protocol using CT and CTA in resource-limited settings. These findings will help support extending the access to thrombectomy in areas without availability of advanced imaging.”
He said the bidirectional effect on the primary endpoint and the positive interaction between age and thrombectomy treatment effect warranted further investigation.
The RESILIENT-Extend trial was sponsored by the Brazilian Ministry of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHOENIX — Thrombectomy is generally beneficial for patients from a low-income population who have a large vessel occlusion stroke presenting in the later time window and who can be identified as suitable for treatment without the need for advanced and costly imaging, a new Brazilian trial has shown.
“The RESILIENT-Extend trial is the first major study of thrombectomy in the late time window (8-24 h) conducted outside first-world countries and shows the procedure also has benefit in a lower socioeconomic status population without the need for costly imaging equipment,” said lead investigator Raul G. Nogueira, MD.
“The trial expands the treatment window for thrombectomy globally with simplified selection criteria based on non-contrast CT, potentially altering current guidelines,” Dr. Nogueira said.
However, there were some caveats that need to be considered; in particular, a lack of benefit with thrombectomy in older patients (over 68 years of age), which Dr. Nogueira believes is a reflection of the particular population enrolled in this study. Specifically, he suggested that older age in this low socioeconomic status population is a surrogate for frailty, and the study may have identified frailty as a factor that correlates with reduced or lack of benefit of thrombectomy.
Dr. Nogueira, who is a professor of neurology and neurosurgery at the University of Pittsburgh, and Sheila Martins, MD, a professor of neurology at Hospital de Clinicas Porto Alegre in Brazil, presented the RESILIENT-Extend results at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Dr. Nogueira explained that the lack of available advanced imaging techniques is a major challenge for implementing endovascular therapy in an extended time window, especially in lower-income countries.
“Our main objective was to see if we could remove the need for advanced imaging to select patients with large vessel occlusion stroke in the late time window (8-24 h) for thrombectomy,” he said. “In this way, our trial overlaps somewhat with the MR CLEAN-LATE Trial conducted in the Netherlands, although the two trials were conducted in very different socioeconomic populations.”
The RESILIENT-Extend trial was conducted in the public health service of Brazil and involved a different population of people than have been included in other thrombectomy trials, which have mostly been conducted in first-world countries.
“The public health system in Brazil is not well-resourced and tends to care for patients at lower socioeconomic levels. These patients are fundamentally different from the average patients in the first-world recruited into most other thrombectomy trials,” Dr. Nogueira noted.
The trial enrolled 245 patients with a large vessel occlusion stroke within 8-24 hours of last known well. Patients were included who had a mismatch between the clinical severity as shown by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score and the stroke burden on imaging as measured by ASPECTS scores.
They had to have relatively high NIHSS scores (8 or more) showing more severe strokes but also a high ASPECTS score (5-10) excluding patients with large areas of ischemic brain. There was also a sliding scale that adjusted for age to avoid enrolling elderly patients with large strokes.
These patients were identified exclusively using non-contrast CT and CT angiography imaging.
The median age of patients included was 62-63 years. Dr. Nogueira pointed out that patients were slightly younger than seen in other thrombectomy trials, perhaps because in lower-middle-income countries strokes occur at a younger age. They also have a higher case fatality rate.
The median baseline NIHSS score was 16, and the median ASPECTS score was 7-8.
The median time to treatment was 12.5 hours, which is similar to other late window thrombectomy trials.
Conflicting Results on Shift Analysis
The primary outcome was a shift analysis of the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) disability score at 90 days.
This showed a bidirectional result, with thrombectomy increasing the chances of a good or excellent outcome (mRS, 0-3), but there was also a nonsignificant increased risk for a bad outcome (mRS, 5-6).
“This bidirectional result prevents a common odds ratio from being calculated, so the primary endpoint is not applicable,” Dr. Nogueira reported.
The researchers therefore used the secondary outcomes as the main results of the study.
These showed that the number of patients achieving a good outcome (mRS, 0-2) was significantly increased with thrombectomy (25% vs. 14%, adjusted odds ratio, 2.56; P = .012).
The number of patients achieving an excellent outcome (mRS, 0-1) was also significantly increased.
But these increases in good outcomes came at the cost of some patients having an increased risk for severe disability or death (mRS, 5-6).
The odds ratio for an mRS of 0-4 versus 5-6 was 0.71, and for an mRS of 0-5 versus 6, the odds ratio was 0.58. Both these results were nonsignificant.
Another anomaly in the RESILIENT-Extend trial was the observation of no benefit of thrombectomy seen in older patients.
“In general, trials of thrombectomy in the first world have shown a greater treatment effect in older patients, but this was not seen in our trial, where older patients (over 68 years) did not derive any benefit from the procedure,” Dr. Nogueira noted.
A similar observation was also seen in the first RESILIENT trial in patients treated within 8 hours of stroke onset, which was also conducted in Brazil, leading to the suggestion that it is related to the patient population included.
“In the Brazilian public health service, older patients are very vulnerable and frail. They are different to older patients in first world countries. It appears they may be too fragile to withstand the thrombectomy process,” Dr. Nogueira said.
Frailty: A Ceiling Effect?
Results from the two RESILIENT trials give a word of caution to the thrombectomy field, Dr. Nogueira said.
“This procedure was initially thought suitable only for patients with small core strokes, but we now have a series of trials showing benefit of thrombectomy in large core strokes as well,” Dr. Nogueira said. “We have started to believe that this intervention will benefit almost all patients with large vessel occlusion stroke everywhere around the world, but our data suggest that we have to consider the specific populations that we are serving and that factors such as socioeconomic status and frailty have to be taken into account.
“Both the RESILIENT trials have shown that thrombectomy does not appear to be suitable for older patients, over 68-70 years of age, in the public health service in Brazil,” he noted. “In this population, a patient aged 70 can be quite different to a patient of the same age in a first-world country. I think in our population, an age of over 68-70 is a surrogate for frailty, which will not be the case in first-world countries. In this regard, I think we have found a ceiling effect for benefit of thrombectomy, which is frailty.”
Dr. Nogueira speculated that the bidirectional effect on the mRS shift analysis may also have been caused by the frailty of some of the patients.
“What the results may be showing is that for most of the population, there is a benefit of thrombectomy, but for some patients, possibly the most frail, then the procedure can be too overwhelming for them. But the suggestion of harm was not significant, so this observation could have also just been the play of chance,” he added.
Interpreting the Findings
Commenting on the RESILIENT-Extend study results, Michael Hill, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Calgary, Canada, pointed out that there was an absolute benefit of 11.1% on the mRS of 0-2 outcome but a similar signal of harm, with a 10.2% increase in mortality in the thrombectomy group, although that was not statistically significant.
“This signal of harm appears not to be due to an increase in intracranial hemorrhage or procedural mishap,” he said. “It is unclear why there were more deaths; the overall trial numbers are small enough that this could be a chance finding.”
Dr. Hill also noted that the absolute proportion of patients achieving an independent functional outcome was 50% less than in the DAWN trial of thrombectomy in the extended window. “This tells us that the patients selected for inclusion into RESILIENT-Extend were physiologically different from those in DAWN,” he said.
Also commenting on the study, Amrou Sarraj, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center–Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, said: “The RESILIENT-Extend investigators should be congratulated for the successful conduct of the trial and providing evidence of benefit of thrombectomy procedure with simplified neuroimaging protocol using CT and CTA in resource-limited settings. These findings will help support extending the access to thrombectomy in areas without availability of advanced imaging.”
He said the bidirectional effect on the primary endpoint and the positive interaction between age and thrombectomy treatment effect warranted further investigation.
The RESILIENT-Extend trial was sponsored by the Brazilian Ministry of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHOENIX — Thrombectomy is generally beneficial for patients from a low-income population who have a large vessel occlusion stroke presenting in the later time window and who can be identified as suitable for treatment without the need for advanced and costly imaging, a new Brazilian trial has shown.
“The RESILIENT-Extend trial is the first major study of thrombectomy in the late time window (8-24 h) conducted outside first-world countries and shows the procedure also has benefit in a lower socioeconomic status population without the need for costly imaging equipment,” said lead investigator Raul G. Nogueira, MD.
“The trial expands the treatment window for thrombectomy globally with simplified selection criteria based on non-contrast CT, potentially altering current guidelines,” Dr. Nogueira said.
However, there were some caveats that need to be considered; in particular, a lack of benefit with thrombectomy in older patients (over 68 years of age), which Dr. Nogueira believes is a reflection of the particular population enrolled in this study. Specifically, he suggested that older age in this low socioeconomic status population is a surrogate for frailty, and the study may have identified frailty as a factor that correlates with reduced or lack of benefit of thrombectomy.
Dr. Nogueira, who is a professor of neurology and neurosurgery at the University of Pittsburgh, and Sheila Martins, MD, a professor of neurology at Hospital de Clinicas Porto Alegre in Brazil, presented the RESILIENT-Extend results at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Dr. Nogueira explained that the lack of available advanced imaging techniques is a major challenge for implementing endovascular therapy in an extended time window, especially in lower-income countries.
“Our main objective was to see if we could remove the need for advanced imaging to select patients with large vessel occlusion stroke in the late time window (8-24 h) for thrombectomy,” he said. “In this way, our trial overlaps somewhat with the MR CLEAN-LATE Trial conducted in the Netherlands, although the two trials were conducted in very different socioeconomic populations.”
The RESILIENT-Extend trial was conducted in the public health service of Brazil and involved a different population of people than have been included in other thrombectomy trials, which have mostly been conducted in first-world countries.
“The public health system in Brazil is not well-resourced and tends to care for patients at lower socioeconomic levels. These patients are fundamentally different from the average patients in the first-world recruited into most other thrombectomy trials,” Dr. Nogueira noted.
The trial enrolled 245 patients with a large vessel occlusion stroke within 8-24 hours of last known well. Patients were included who had a mismatch between the clinical severity as shown by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score and the stroke burden on imaging as measured by ASPECTS scores.
They had to have relatively high NIHSS scores (8 or more) showing more severe strokes but also a high ASPECTS score (5-10) excluding patients with large areas of ischemic brain. There was also a sliding scale that adjusted for age to avoid enrolling elderly patients with large strokes.
These patients were identified exclusively using non-contrast CT and CT angiography imaging.
The median age of patients included was 62-63 years. Dr. Nogueira pointed out that patients were slightly younger than seen in other thrombectomy trials, perhaps because in lower-middle-income countries strokes occur at a younger age. They also have a higher case fatality rate.
The median baseline NIHSS score was 16, and the median ASPECTS score was 7-8.
The median time to treatment was 12.5 hours, which is similar to other late window thrombectomy trials.
Conflicting Results on Shift Analysis
The primary outcome was a shift analysis of the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) disability score at 90 days.
This showed a bidirectional result, with thrombectomy increasing the chances of a good or excellent outcome (mRS, 0-3), but there was also a nonsignificant increased risk for a bad outcome (mRS, 5-6).
“This bidirectional result prevents a common odds ratio from being calculated, so the primary endpoint is not applicable,” Dr. Nogueira reported.
The researchers therefore used the secondary outcomes as the main results of the study.
These showed that the number of patients achieving a good outcome (mRS, 0-2) was significantly increased with thrombectomy (25% vs. 14%, adjusted odds ratio, 2.56; P = .012).
The number of patients achieving an excellent outcome (mRS, 0-1) was also significantly increased.
But these increases in good outcomes came at the cost of some patients having an increased risk for severe disability or death (mRS, 5-6).
The odds ratio for an mRS of 0-4 versus 5-6 was 0.71, and for an mRS of 0-5 versus 6, the odds ratio was 0.58. Both these results were nonsignificant.
Another anomaly in the RESILIENT-Extend trial was the observation of no benefit of thrombectomy seen in older patients.
“In general, trials of thrombectomy in the first world have shown a greater treatment effect in older patients, but this was not seen in our trial, where older patients (over 68 years) did not derive any benefit from the procedure,” Dr. Nogueira noted.
A similar observation was also seen in the first RESILIENT trial in patients treated within 8 hours of stroke onset, which was also conducted in Brazil, leading to the suggestion that it is related to the patient population included.
“In the Brazilian public health service, older patients are very vulnerable and frail. They are different to older patients in first world countries. It appears they may be too fragile to withstand the thrombectomy process,” Dr. Nogueira said.
Frailty: A Ceiling Effect?
Results from the two RESILIENT trials give a word of caution to the thrombectomy field, Dr. Nogueira said.
“This procedure was initially thought suitable only for patients with small core strokes, but we now have a series of trials showing benefit of thrombectomy in large core strokes as well,” Dr. Nogueira said. “We have started to believe that this intervention will benefit almost all patients with large vessel occlusion stroke everywhere around the world, but our data suggest that we have to consider the specific populations that we are serving and that factors such as socioeconomic status and frailty have to be taken into account.
“Both the RESILIENT trials have shown that thrombectomy does not appear to be suitable for older patients, over 68-70 years of age, in the public health service in Brazil,” he noted. “In this population, a patient aged 70 can be quite different to a patient of the same age in a first-world country. I think in our population, an age of over 68-70 is a surrogate for frailty, which will not be the case in first-world countries. In this regard, I think we have found a ceiling effect for benefit of thrombectomy, which is frailty.”
Dr. Nogueira speculated that the bidirectional effect on the mRS shift analysis may also have been caused by the frailty of some of the patients.
“What the results may be showing is that for most of the population, there is a benefit of thrombectomy, but for some patients, possibly the most frail, then the procedure can be too overwhelming for them. But the suggestion of harm was not significant, so this observation could have also just been the play of chance,” he added.
Interpreting the Findings
Commenting on the RESILIENT-Extend study results, Michael Hill, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Calgary, Canada, pointed out that there was an absolute benefit of 11.1% on the mRS of 0-2 outcome but a similar signal of harm, with a 10.2% increase in mortality in the thrombectomy group, although that was not statistically significant.
“This signal of harm appears not to be due to an increase in intracranial hemorrhage or procedural mishap,” he said. “It is unclear why there were more deaths; the overall trial numbers are small enough that this could be a chance finding.”
Dr. Hill also noted that the absolute proportion of patients achieving an independent functional outcome was 50% less than in the DAWN trial of thrombectomy in the extended window. “This tells us that the patients selected for inclusion into RESILIENT-Extend were physiologically different from those in DAWN,” he said.
Also commenting on the study, Amrou Sarraj, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center–Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, said: “The RESILIENT-Extend investigators should be congratulated for the successful conduct of the trial and providing evidence of benefit of thrombectomy procedure with simplified neuroimaging protocol using CT and CTA in resource-limited settings. These findings will help support extending the access to thrombectomy in areas without availability of advanced imaging.”
He said the bidirectional effect on the primary endpoint and the positive interaction between age and thrombectomy treatment effect warranted further investigation.
The RESILIENT-Extend trial was sponsored by the Brazilian Ministry of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
From ISC 2004
New Criteria Identify Sepsis in Children With Infection
New criteria for pediatric sepsis, based on a novel score that predicts mortality in children with suspected or confirmed infection, perform better than existing organ dysfunction scores and criteria and have the potential to improve clinical care globally, researchers say.
Current pediatric-specific criteria for sepsis were published in 2005, based on expert opinion. In 2016, sepsis was redefined for adults as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, as opposed to an earlier focus on systemic inflammation. But the paradigm-shifting changes were not extended to children (< 18 years, but not newborns), setting the stage for the new initiative.
The new criteria, and their development and validation, were published in JAMA and presented the same day at the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s 2024 Critical Care Congress in Phoenix, Arizona.
International Consensus
“The new criteria we derived are based on data from electronic health records and analysis of more than 3 million pediatric healthcare encounters from 10 hospitals around the world, including in low-resource settings,” L. Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD, MBI, a critical care physician at the Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, told this news organization.
Dr. Sanchez-Pinto co-led the data group of the international expert task force convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) to develop and validate the criteria, which are based on evidence from an international survey, systematic review and meta-analysis, a newly created organ dysfunction score (Phoenix Sepsis Score), and sites on four continents.
Based on the findings, the task force now suggests that pediatric sepsis be defined by a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points in children with suspected infection, which indicates potentially life-threatening dysfunction of the respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological systems. Septic shock is defined as sepsis with at least 1 cardiovascular point in the score.
Disparities Across Settings
To derive and validate the new criteria across differently resourced settings, the researchers conducted a multicenter, international, retrospective cohort study involving 10 health systems in the United States, Colombia, Bangladesh, China, and Kenya, 3 of which were used as external validation sites.
Data were collected from pediatric emergency and inpatient encounters from 2010 to 2019. The development set comprised 3,049,699 children, and the external validation set included 581,317.
Stacked regression models to predict mortality in children with suspected infection were derived and validated using the best-performing organ dysfunction subscores from eight existing scores.
The final model was then translated into the integer-based Phoenix Sepsis Score and used to establish binary criteria for sepsis and septic shock.
Among 172,984 children with suspected infection in the first 24 hours (development set; 1.2% mortality), a four-organ-system model performed best. The Phoenix Sepsis Score — the integer version of the model — had areas under the precision recall curve of 0.23 to 0.38, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.71 to 0.92 to predict mortality in the validation sets.
A Phoenix Sepsis Score of 2 points or higher in children with suspected infection as criteria for sepsis, plus 1 or more cardiovascular points as criteria for septic shock, resulted in a higher positive predictive value and higher or similar sensitivity compared with the 2005 International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference criteria across differently resourced settings.
Specifically, children with a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points had in-hospital mortality of 7.1% in higher-resource settings and 28.5% in lower-resource settings — more than 8 times that of children with suspected infection not meeting these criteria.
Mortality also was higher in children who had organ dysfunction in at least one of four organ systems — respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological — that was not the primary site of infection.
Children with septic shock, indicated by at least 1 cardiovascular point in the Phoenix Sepsis Score, had severe hypotension for age, blood lactate exceeding 5 mmol/L, or need for vasoactive medication. These children had an in-hospital mortality rate of 10.8% in higher-resource settings and 33.5% in lower-resource settings.
A Better Score
Given the findings, the task force recommends that “the former criteria based on systemic inflammatory response syndrome should not be used to diagnose sepsis in children [and] the former term severe sepsis should no longer be used because sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction associated with infection and is thus indicative of a severe disease state.”
The task force cautions that although the four organs in the Phoenix Sepsis Score are most commonly involved in sepsis, “this does not diminish the crucial importance of the assessment and management of other organ dysfunction.”
Furthermore, they emphasize that the Phoenix score was designed to identify sepsis in children, not to screen children at risk for developing sepsis or early identification of children with suspected sepsis.
Additional Considerations
In related editorials, commentators noted some caveats and concerns with regard to the study design and the new criteria.
Roberto Jabornisky, MD, PhD, of National University of the Northeast, Corrientes, Argentina, and colleagues pointed out that “all the low-resource validation sites were institutions with electronic health records and most had PICUs [pediatric intensive care units], which does not adequately reflect conditions in most low-resource settings. These factors introduce a distinct bias favoring a ‘PICU-based consensus,’ potentially limiting the generalizability and adoption of the new criteria by health care practitioners in non-PICU and nonhospital settings responsible for recognizing and managing children with sepsis.” The editorialists called for additional prospective validation in differently resourced settings, especially those with the highest disease burdens.
“Until then,” they wrote, “it is essential to refrain from considering these criteria as an inflexible directive governing medical interventions for pediatric sepsis. No definition can fully substitute for the clinical judgment of an experienced, vigilant clinician caring for an unwell child.”
Erin F. Carlton, MD, MSc of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues added in a separate editorial, “The Phoenix criteria identify a sicker subset of patients than prior SIRS [systemic inflammatory response syndrome]-based criteria. Some may worry this higher threshold could delay management of patients not meeting sepsis criteria. Just as patients with chest pain and a troponin leak warrant monitoring and treatment (but are not prioritized for immediate heart catheterization), patients with infection need monitoring and treatment. Improvements in care should thus be judged not only by improved outcomes among patients with sepsis but also by decreased progression to sepsis among patients with infection.”
The International Consensus Criteria paper was supported by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Tellen C. Bennett, MD, MS, and Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD. Data for the Kenya site were collected with support of the Wellcome Trust to the Kenya Major Overseas Programme. Dr. Jabornisky reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Carlton reported serving on the Pediatric Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guideline committee and receiving grant support from the NIH.
New criteria for pediatric sepsis, based on a novel score that predicts mortality in children with suspected or confirmed infection, perform better than existing organ dysfunction scores and criteria and have the potential to improve clinical care globally, researchers say.
Current pediatric-specific criteria for sepsis were published in 2005, based on expert opinion. In 2016, sepsis was redefined for adults as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, as opposed to an earlier focus on systemic inflammation. But the paradigm-shifting changes were not extended to children (< 18 years, but not newborns), setting the stage for the new initiative.
The new criteria, and their development and validation, were published in JAMA and presented the same day at the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s 2024 Critical Care Congress in Phoenix, Arizona.
International Consensus
“The new criteria we derived are based on data from electronic health records and analysis of more than 3 million pediatric healthcare encounters from 10 hospitals around the world, including in low-resource settings,” L. Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD, MBI, a critical care physician at the Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, told this news organization.
Dr. Sanchez-Pinto co-led the data group of the international expert task force convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) to develop and validate the criteria, which are based on evidence from an international survey, systematic review and meta-analysis, a newly created organ dysfunction score (Phoenix Sepsis Score), and sites on four continents.
Based on the findings, the task force now suggests that pediatric sepsis be defined by a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points in children with suspected infection, which indicates potentially life-threatening dysfunction of the respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological systems. Septic shock is defined as sepsis with at least 1 cardiovascular point in the score.
Disparities Across Settings
To derive and validate the new criteria across differently resourced settings, the researchers conducted a multicenter, international, retrospective cohort study involving 10 health systems in the United States, Colombia, Bangladesh, China, and Kenya, 3 of which were used as external validation sites.
Data were collected from pediatric emergency and inpatient encounters from 2010 to 2019. The development set comprised 3,049,699 children, and the external validation set included 581,317.
Stacked regression models to predict mortality in children with suspected infection were derived and validated using the best-performing organ dysfunction subscores from eight existing scores.
The final model was then translated into the integer-based Phoenix Sepsis Score and used to establish binary criteria for sepsis and septic shock.
Among 172,984 children with suspected infection in the first 24 hours (development set; 1.2% mortality), a four-organ-system model performed best. The Phoenix Sepsis Score — the integer version of the model — had areas under the precision recall curve of 0.23 to 0.38, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.71 to 0.92 to predict mortality in the validation sets.
A Phoenix Sepsis Score of 2 points or higher in children with suspected infection as criteria for sepsis, plus 1 or more cardiovascular points as criteria for septic shock, resulted in a higher positive predictive value and higher or similar sensitivity compared with the 2005 International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference criteria across differently resourced settings.
Specifically, children with a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points had in-hospital mortality of 7.1% in higher-resource settings and 28.5% in lower-resource settings — more than 8 times that of children with suspected infection not meeting these criteria.
Mortality also was higher in children who had organ dysfunction in at least one of four organ systems — respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological — that was not the primary site of infection.
Children with septic shock, indicated by at least 1 cardiovascular point in the Phoenix Sepsis Score, had severe hypotension for age, blood lactate exceeding 5 mmol/L, or need for vasoactive medication. These children had an in-hospital mortality rate of 10.8% in higher-resource settings and 33.5% in lower-resource settings.
A Better Score
Given the findings, the task force recommends that “the former criteria based on systemic inflammatory response syndrome should not be used to diagnose sepsis in children [and] the former term severe sepsis should no longer be used because sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction associated with infection and is thus indicative of a severe disease state.”
The task force cautions that although the four organs in the Phoenix Sepsis Score are most commonly involved in sepsis, “this does not diminish the crucial importance of the assessment and management of other organ dysfunction.”
Furthermore, they emphasize that the Phoenix score was designed to identify sepsis in children, not to screen children at risk for developing sepsis or early identification of children with suspected sepsis.
Additional Considerations
In related editorials, commentators noted some caveats and concerns with regard to the study design and the new criteria.
Roberto Jabornisky, MD, PhD, of National University of the Northeast, Corrientes, Argentina, and colleagues pointed out that “all the low-resource validation sites were institutions with electronic health records and most had PICUs [pediatric intensive care units], which does not adequately reflect conditions in most low-resource settings. These factors introduce a distinct bias favoring a ‘PICU-based consensus,’ potentially limiting the generalizability and adoption of the new criteria by health care practitioners in non-PICU and nonhospital settings responsible for recognizing and managing children with sepsis.” The editorialists called for additional prospective validation in differently resourced settings, especially those with the highest disease burdens.
“Until then,” they wrote, “it is essential to refrain from considering these criteria as an inflexible directive governing medical interventions for pediatric sepsis. No definition can fully substitute for the clinical judgment of an experienced, vigilant clinician caring for an unwell child.”
Erin F. Carlton, MD, MSc of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues added in a separate editorial, “The Phoenix criteria identify a sicker subset of patients than prior SIRS [systemic inflammatory response syndrome]-based criteria. Some may worry this higher threshold could delay management of patients not meeting sepsis criteria. Just as patients with chest pain and a troponin leak warrant monitoring and treatment (but are not prioritized for immediate heart catheterization), patients with infection need monitoring and treatment. Improvements in care should thus be judged not only by improved outcomes among patients with sepsis but also by decreased progression to sepsis among patients with infection.”
The International Consensus Criteria paper was supported by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Tellen C. Bennett, MD, MS, and Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD. Data for the Kenya site were collected with support of the Wellcome Trust to the Kenya Major Overseas Programme. Dr. Jabornisky reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Carlton reported serving on the Pediatric Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guideline committee and receiving grant support from the NIH.
New criteria for pediatric sepsis, based on a novel score that predicts mortality in children with suspected or confirmed infection, perform better than existing organ dysfunction scores and criteria and have the potential to improve clinical care globally, researchers say.
Current pediatric-specific criteria for sepsis were published in 2005, based on expert opinion. In 2016, sepsis was redefined for adults as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, as opposed to an earlier focus on systemic inflammation. But the paradigm-shifting changes were not extended to children (< 18 years, but not newborns), setting the stage for the new initiative.
The new criteria, and their development and validation, were published in JAMA and presented the same day at the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s 2024 Critical Care Congress in Phoenix, Arizona.
International Consensus
“The new criteria we derived are based on data from electronic health records and analysis of more than 3 million pediatric healthcare encounters from 10 hospitals around the world, including in low-resource settings,” L. Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD, MBI, a critical care physician at the Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, told this news organization.
Dr. Sanchez-Pinto co-led the data group of the international expert task force convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) to develop and validate the criteria, which are based on evidence from an international survey, systematic review and meta-analysis, a newly created organ dysfunction score (Phoenix Sepsis Score), and sites on four continents.
Based on the findings, the task force now suggests that pediatric sepsis be defined by a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points in children with suspected infection, which indicates potentially life-threatening dysfunction of the respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological systems. Septic shock is defined as sepsis with at least 1 cardiovascular point in the score.
Disparities Across Settings
To derive and validate the new criteria across differently resourced settings, the researchers conducted a multicenter, international, retrospective cohort study involving 10 health systems in the United States, Colombia, Bangladesh, China, and Kenya, 3 of which were used as external validation sites.
Data were collected from pediatric emergency and inpatient encounters from 2010 to 2019. The development set comprised 3,049,699 children, and the external validation set included 581,317.
Stacked regression models to predict mortality in children with suspected infection were derived and validated using the best-performing organ dysfunction subscores from eight existing scores.
The final model was then translated into the integer-based Phoenix Sepsis Score and used to establish binary criteria for sepsis and septic shock.
Among 172,984 children with suspected infection in the first 24 hours (development set; 1.2% mortality), a four-organ-system model performed best. The Phoenix Sepsis Score — the integer version of the model — had areas under the precision recall curve of 0.23 to 0.38, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.71 to 0.92 to predict mortality in the validation sets.
A Phoenix Sepsis Score of 2 points or higher in children with suspected infection as criteria for sepsis, plus 1 or more cardiovascular points as criteria for septic shock, resulted in a higher positive predictive value and higher or similar sensitivity compared with the 2005 International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference criteria across differently resourced settings.
Specifically, children with a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points had in-hospital mortality of 7.1% in higher-resource settings and 28.5% in lower-resource settings — more than 8 times that of children with suspected infection not meeting these criteria.
Mortality also was higher in children who had organ dysfunction in at least one of four organ systems — respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological — that was not the primary site of infection.
Children with septic shock, indicated by at least 1 cardiovascular point in the Phoenix Sepsis Score, had severe hypotension for age, blood lactate exceeding 5 mmol/L, or need for vasoactive medication. These children had an in-hospital mortality rate of 10.8% in higher-resource settings and 33.5% in lower-resource settings.
A Better Score
Given the findings, the task force recommends that “the former criteria based on systemic inflammatory response syndrome should not be used to diagnose sepsis in children [and] the former term severe sepsis should no longer be used because sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction associated with infection and is thus indicative of a severe disease state.”
The task force cautions that although the four organs in the Phoenix Sepsis Score are most commonly involved in sepsis, “this does not diminish the crucial importance of the assessment and management of other organ dysfunction.”
Furthermore, they emphasize that the Phoenix score was designed to identify sepsis in children, not to screen children at risk for developing sepsis or early identification of children with suspected sepsis.
Additional Considerations
In related editorials, commentators noted some caveats and concerns with regard to the study design and the new criteria.
Roberto Jabornisky, MD, PhD, of National University of the Northeast, Corrientes, Argentina, and colleagues pointed out that “all the low-resource validation sites were institutions with electronic health records and most had PICUs [pediatric intensive care units], which does not adequately reflect conditions in most low-resource settings. These factors introduce a distinct bias favoring a ‘PICU-based consensus,’ potentially limiting the generalizability and adoption of the new criteria by health care practitioners in non-PICU and nonhospital settings responsible for recognizing and managing children with sepsis.” The editorialists called for additional prospective validation in differently resourced settings, especially those with the highest disease burdens.
“Until then,” they wrote, “it is essential to refrain from considering these criteria as an inflexible directive governing medical interventions for pediatric sepsis. No definition can fully substitute for the clinical judgment of an experienced, vigilant clinician caring for an unwell child.”
Erin F. Carlton, MD, MSc of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues added in a separate editorial, “The Phoenix criteria identify a sicker subset of patients than prior SIRS [systemic inflammatory response syndrome]-based criteria. Some may worry this higher threshold could delay management of patients not meeting sepsis criteria. Just as patients with chest pain and a troponin leak warrant monitoring and treatment (but are not prioritized for immediate heart catheterization), patients with infection need monitoring and treatment. Improvements in care should thus be judged not only by improved outcomes among patients with sepsis but also by decreased progression to sepsis among patients with infection.”
The International Consensus Criteria paper was supported by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Tellen C. Bennett, MD, MS, and Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD. Data for the Kenya site were collected with support of the Wellcome Trust to the Kenya Major Overseas Programme. Dr. Jabornisky reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Carlton reported serving on the Pediatric Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guideline committee and receiving grant support from the NIH.
FROM JAMA
Doctors in 2 More States May Qualify for Student Loan Forgiveness
, possibly bringing much-needed relief to those with cumbersome debt loads after repayments resumed last month. However, the timing is critical, as some doctors may need to consolidate their loans by December 31 to remain eligible.
Updated guidelines for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF) took effect in July, expanding the number of potential borrowers who could have their federal student loan balances wiped clean after working full time in a government or nonprofit role and making 120 monthly loan payments.
But loan forgiveness also hinges on having the correct employment type and requires applicants to be a “direct hire” of the organization. State laws in California and Texas prohibit nonprofit hospitals and health care entities from directly hiring physicians — a loophole that has barred doctors in those locations from applying.
Both states’ medical and hospital associations worked with the US Department of Education (DOE) to offer an exception. California and Texas physicians can now satisfy the employment type condition by having a written contract or medical staff privileges with a nonprofit hospital or facility, even if the physician is part of a for-profit sole proprietorship, partnership, or medical group.
Eligible loans cannot be in default and must have been received through the Direct Loan Program, which includes Parent PLUS loans. Doctors with non-qualifying student loans, such as Federal Family Education Loans, can become PSLF-eligible and have past time worked counted toward the requirements if they consolidate into a direct loan by December 31.
The California Medical Association (CMA) has an online guide to help doctors and employers navigate the new rules.
The change comes just in time because California and Texas need to expand their physician workforces by tens of thousands over the next decade. “This program will allow us to retain and recruit new physicians to our states to address our growing physician shortages and access to care challenges for the patients who need us most,” Texas Medical Association president Rick W. Snyder II, MD, said in a statement.
Physicians should use the PSLF Help Tool to complete the forgiveness application, said Ashley Harrington, senior advisor at the DOE. During a free on-demand webinar hosted by CMA, she said the form has been streamlined and will ask applicants to list the nonprofit entity where they provide care, its employer identification number, the length of time worked there, and the average hours worked per week. The employer must sign to certify the physician’s reported hours.
Ideally, physicians should submit a PSLF form annually or each time they change jobs, but they can also wait until the end of the 10 years to submit the form, said Ms. Harrington.
With the average medical education loan debt exceeding $200,000, CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD, said the rule will ensure low-income and minority students can consider medical careers.
California family medicine physician Ashley Paydar, DO, said that she has already applied for PSLF and found the process relatively easy. While she awaits final approval, she’s planning for the future. “Loan forgiveness will allow me to do a fellowship and save for my children›s college so they can pursue higher education without the debt,” she said.
Still, employers have no legal obligation to certify physicians’ hours, and many may express hesitation as they try to understand the new guidelines, said Long Do, JD, partner at Athene Law in San Francisco and speaker during the webinar. He urged physicians to have patience when working through the application process.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, possibly bringing much-needed relief to those with cumbersome debt loads after repayments resumed last month. However, the timing is critical, as some doctors may need to consolidate their loans by December 31 to remain eligible.
Updated guidelines for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF) took effect in July, expanding the number of potential borrowers who could have their federal student loan balances wiped clean after working full time in a government or nonprofit role and making 120 monthly loan payments.
But loan forgiveness also hinges on having the correct employment type and requires applicants to be a “direct hire” of the organization. State laws in California and Texas prohibit nonprofit hospitals and health care entities from directly hiring physicians — a loophole that has barred doctors in those locations from applying.
Both states’ medical and hospital associations worked with the US Department of Education (DOE) to offer an exception. California and Texas physicians can now satisfy the employment type condition by having a written contract or medical staff privileges with a nonprofit hospital or facility, even if the physician is part of a for-profit sole proprietorship, partnership, or medical group.
Eligible loans cannot be in default and must have been received through the Direct Loan Program, which includes Parent PLUS loans. Doctors with non-qualifying student loans, such as Federal Family Education Loans, can become PSLF-eligible and have past time worked counted toward the requirements if they consolidate into a direct loan by December 31.
The California Medical Association (CMA) has an online guide to help doctors and employers navigate the new rules.
The change comes just in time because California and Texas need to expand their physician workforces by tens of thousands over the next decade. “This program will allow us to retain and recruit new physicians to our states to address our growing physician shortages and access to care challenges for the patients who need us most,” Texas Medical Association president Rick W. Snyder II, MD, said in a statement.
Physicians should use the PSLF Help Tool to complete the forgiveness application, said Ashley Harrington, senior advisor at the DOE. During a free on-demand webinar hosted by CMA, she said the form has been streamlined and will ask applicants to list the nonprofit entity where they provide care, its employer identification number, the length of time worked there, and the average hours worked per week. The employer must sign to certify the physician’s reported hours.
Ideally, physicians should submit a PSLF form annually or each time they change jobs, but they can also wait until the end of the 10 years to submit the form, said Ms. Harrington.
With the average medical education loan debt exceeding $200,000, CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD, said the rule will ensure low-income and minority students can consider medical careers.
California family medicine physician Ashley Paydar, DO, said that she has already applied for PSLF and found the process relatively easy. While she awaits final approval, she’s planning for the future. “Loan forgiveness will allow me to do a fellowship and save for my children›s college so they can pursue higher education without the debt,” she said.
Still, employers have no legal obligation to certify physicians’ hours, and many may express hesitation as they try to understand the new guidelines, said Long Do, JD, partner at Athene Law in San Francisco and speaker during the webinar. He urged physicians to have patience when working through the application process.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, possibly bringing much-needed relief to those with cumbersome debt loads after repayments resumed last month. However, the timing is critical, as some doctors may need to consolidate their loans by December 31 to remain eligible.
Updated guidelines for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF) took effect in July, expanding the number of potential borrowers who could have their federal student loan balances wiped clean after working full time in a government or nonprofit role and making 120 monthly loan payments.
But loan forgiveness also hinges on having the correct employment type and requires applicants to be a “direct hire” of the organization. State laws in California and Texas prohibit nonprofit hospitals and health care entities from directly hiring physicians — a loophole that has barred doctors in those locations from applying.
Both states’ medical and hospital associations worked with the US Department of Education (DOE) to offer an exception. California and Texas physicians can now satisfy the employment type condition by having a written contract or medical staff privileges with a nonprofit hospital or facility, even if the physician is part of a for-profit sole proprietorship, partnership, or medical group.
Eligible loans cannot be in default and must have been received through the Direct Loan Program, which includes Parent PLUS loans. Doctors with non-qualifying student loans, such as Federal Family Education Loans, can become PSLF-eligible and have past time worked counted toward the requirements if they consolidate into a direct loan by December 31.
The California Medical Association (CMA) has an online guide to help doctors and employers navigate the new rules.
The change comes just in time because California and Texas need to expand their physician workforces by tens of thousands over the next decade. “This program will allow us to retain and recruit new physicians to our states to address our growing physician shortages and access to care challenges for the patients who need us most,” Texas Medical Association president Rick W. Snyder II, MD, said in a statement.
Physicians should use the PSLF Help Tool to complete the forgiveness application, said Ashley Harrington, senior advisor at the DOE. During a free on-demand webinar hosted by CMA, she said the form has been streamlined and will ask applicants to list the nonprofit entity where they provide care, its employer identification number, the length of time worked there, and the average hours worked per week. The employer must sign to certify the physician’s reported hours.
Ideally, physicians should submit a PSLF form annually or each time they change jobs, but they can also wait until the end of the 10 years to submit the form, said Ms. Harrington.
With the average medical education loan debt exceeding $200,000, CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD, said the rule will ensure low-income and minority students can consider medical careers.
California family medicine physician Ashley Paydar, DO, said that she has already applied for PSLF and found the process relatively easy. While she awaits final approval, she’s planning for the future. “Loan forgiveness will allow me to do a fellowship and save for my children›s college so they can pursue higher education without the debt,” she said.
Still, employers have no legal obligation to certify physicians’ hours, and many may express hesitation as they try to understand the new guidelines, said Long Do, JD, partner at Athene Law in San Francisco and speaker during the webinar. He urged physicians to have patience when working through the application process.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Monoclonal Antibodies: A New Treatment for Long COVID?
A treatment used to treat acute COVID-19 infection has also been found to be effective against long COVID, a new small study has found. The research, which assessed the benefits of monoclonal antibodies, suggests relief may finally be ahead for millions of Americans with long COVID for whom treatment has remained elusive.
The study, published in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, found
“We were struck by how rapid and complete the remissions were,” said study coauthor Paul Pepe, MD, MPH, a professor of management, policy, and community health at the School of Public Health at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center. “We found that no matter how long the patients were sick for — whether it was 5, 8, or 18 months — within 5 days, they appeared to be completely cured.”
All three patients had been initially infected with COVID-19 early in the pandemic, in 2020 or the first half of 2021. They were given Regeneron either after a reinfection or exposure to COVID-19, as a preventative, at state-run COVID clinics in Florida.
“In each case, the infusions were given to help prevent their long COVID from worsening,” said Dr. Pepe.
The researchers collected medical histories for all three patients, asking about symptoms such as physical fatigue, exercise intolerance, chest pain, heart palpitations, shortness of breath, cognitive fatigue, and memory problems. They asked patients to rate symptoms pre-COVID (baseline), during the long COVID phase, post-vaccine, and finally a week after their monoclonal antibody treatment. They also interviewed family members.
They found that across the board, symptoms improved significantly and often completely vanished. Their loved ones corroborated these reports as well.
One of the patients, a 63-year-old Floridian woman, came down with a mild case of COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic in March 2020 that lasted about 2 weeks. But several weeks later, she developed extreme, debilitating fatigue, along with chest pain and shortness of breath.
“I was chasing my 6-pound Yorkie one day after she got loose, and I was struck with such intense chest pain I fell down,” the woman, asking not to be identified, said in an interview.
Her symptoms progressed to the point where she no longer felt safe babysitting her grandchildren or driving to the grocery store.
“My short-term memory was completely gone. I couldn’t even read more than a paragraph at a time,” she said.
When she was exposed to COVID-19 in October 2021, her doctor suggested Regeneron as a preventative. She agreed to it.
“I was terrified that a second round would leave me permanently disabled and stuck in bed for the rest of my life,” she said.
About 4 days after her monoclonal antibody treatment, she noticed that some of the brain fog that had persisted after COVID was lifting.
“By day 5, it felt almost like a heavy-weighted blanket had been lifted off of me,” she recalled. “I was able to take my dog for a walk and go to the grocery store. It felt like I had gone from 0 to 100. As quickly as I went downhill, I quickly went back up.”
Reasons for Recovery
Researchers have come up with a few theories about why monoclonal antibodies may help treat long COVID, said study coauthor Aileen Marty, MD, professor of translational medicine at the Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine at Florida International University. Among them:
- It stimulates the body to fight off any residual virus. “We suspect that many of these patients simply have levels of virus that are so low they can’t be picked up by conventional testing,” said Dr. Marty. “The virus lingers in their body and causes long COVID symptoms. The monoclonal antibodies can zero in on them and knock them out.” This may also help explain why some patients with long COVID reported a temporary improvement of symptoms after their COVID-19 vaccination.
- It combats dysfunctional antibodies. Another theory is that people with long COVID have symptoms “not because of residual virus but because of junky antibodies,” said Dr. Marty. These antibodies go into overdrive and attack your own cells, which is what causes long COVID symptoms. “This may be why monoclonal antibodies work because they displace the dysfunctional antibodies that are attached to a patient’s cells,” she explained.
- Reactivation of other viruses. Long COVID is very similar to chronic fatigue syndrome, which is often thought to be triggered by reactivation of viruses like the Epstein-Barr virus, noted coauthor Nancy Klimas, MD, director of the Institute for Neuro-Immune Medicine at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale. “It may not explain all of the cases of long COVID, but it could make up a subgroup,” she said. It’s thought that the monoclonal antibodies may perhaps neutralize this reactivation.
Where Research Is Headed
While Regeneron worked well in all three patients, it may be because they developed long COVID from either the initial virus or from early variants like Alpha, Beta, and Delta, said Dr. Pepe. As a result, it’s unclear whether this treatment would work for patients who developed long COVID from newer strains like Omicron.
“What concerns me is I believe there may be many people walking around with mild long COVID from these strains who don’t realize it,” he said. “They may assume that if they have difficulty walking upstairs, or forget why they went into another room, that it’s age related.”
The next step, the researchers said, is to create a registry of volunteer patients with severe long COVID. Dr. Klimas plans to enroll 20 volunteers who were infected before September 2022 to see how they respond to another monoclonal antibody initially used to treat COVID-19, bebtelovimab. (Like Regeneron, bebtelovimab is no longer approved for use against COVID-19 by the US Food and Drug Administration because it is no longer effective against variants of the virus circulating today.)
As for patients who developed long COVID after September 2022, research is ongoing to see if they respond to other monoclonal antibodies that are in development. One such study is currently enrolling participants at the University of California San Francisco. The center is recruiting 30 patients with long COVID to try a monoclonal antibody developed by Aerium Therapeutics.
“They created an investigational monoclonal antibody to treat acute COVID, but it proved less effective against variants that emerged in late 2022,” said lead investigator Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine in the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases, and Global Medicine at the University of California San Francisco. The hope is it may still work to fight long COVID among patients infected with those variants.
In the meantime, the three patients with long COVID who responded to Regeneron have resumed life as they knew it pre-COVID. Although two subsequently became infected with COVID again, they recovered quickly and did not see symptoms return, something which, for them, seems nothing short of miraculous.
“I had prepared myself to be disabled for life,” said one of the patients, a 46-year-old Floridian woman who developed long COVID after an infection in January 2021. “I had crippling fatigue and dizziness so intense I felt like I was walking on a trampoline. My brain fog was so pronounced I had to write everything down constantly. Otherwise, I’d forget.”
When she became infected with COVID again in September 2021, “I thought I was going to die because I had no idea how I could possibly get worse,” she recalled. Her doctors recommended Regeneron infusion treatment. Forty-eight hours later, her symptoms improved significantly.
“I was able to go out to a cocktail party and dinner for the first time in months,” she said. “I would not have been able to do either of those things a week before.”
It’s also profoundly affected her husband, who had had to take over running the household and raising their five children, aged 11-22 years, for months.
“I can’t tell you how many school events and sports games I missed because I physically didn’t have the strength to get to them,” she noted. “To this day, my husband gets upset whenever we talk about that time. Long COVID literally took over all of our lives. It was devastating to me, but it’s just as devastating for loved ones, too. My family is just grateful to have me back.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A treatment used to treat acute COVID-19 infection has also been found to be effective against long COVID, a new small study has found. The research, which assessed the benefits of monoclonal antibodies, suggests relief may finally be ahead for millions of Americans with long COVID for whom treatment has remained elusive.
The study, published in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, found
“We were struck by how rapid and complete the remissions were,” said study coauthor Paul Pepe, MD, MPH, a professor of management, policy, and community health at the School of Public Health at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center. “We found that no matter how long the patients were sick for — whether it was 5, 8, or 18 months — within 5 days, they appeared to be completely cured.”
All three patients had been initially infected with COVID-19 early in the pandemic, in 2020 or the first half of 2021. They were given Regeneron either after a reinfection or exposure to COVID-19, as a preventative, at state-run COVID clinics in Florida.
“In each case, the infusions were given to help prevent their long COVID from worsening,” said Dr. Pepe.
The researchers collected medical histories for all three patients, asking about symptoms such as physical fatigue, exercise intolerance, chest pain, heart palpitations, shortness of breath, cognitive fatigue, and memory problems. They asked patients to rate symptoms pre-COVID (baseline), during the long COVID phase, post-vaccine, and finally a week after their monoclonal antibody treatment. They also interviewed family members.
They found that across the board, symptoms improved significantly and often completely vanished. Their loved ones corroborated these reports as well.
One of the patients, a 63-year-old Floridian woman, came down with a mild case of COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic in March 2020 that lasted about 2 weeks. But several weeks later, she developed extreme, debilitating fatigue, along with chest pain and shortness of breath.
“I was chasing my 6-pound Yorkie one day after she got loose, and I was struck with such intense chest pain I fell down,” the woman, asking not to be identified, said in an interview.
Her symptoms progressed to the point where she no longer felt safe babysitting her grandchildren or driving to the grocery store.
“My short-term memory was completely gone. I couldn’t even read more than a paragraph at a time,” she said.
When she was exposed to COVID-19 in October 2021, her doctor suggested Regeneron as a preventative. She agreed to it.
“I was terrified that a second round would leave me permanently disabled and stuck in bed for the rest of my life,” she said.
About 4 days after her monoclonal antibody treatment, she noticed that some of the brain fog that had persisted after COVID was lifting.
“By day 5, it felt almost like a heavy-weighted blanket had been lifted off of me,” she recalled. “I was able to take my dog for a walk and go to the grocery store. It felt like I had gone from 0 to 100. As quickly as I went downhill, I quickly went back up.”
Reasons for Recovery
Researchers have come up with a few theories about why monoclonal antibodies may help treat long COVID, said study coauthor Aileen Marty, MD, professor of translational medicine at the Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine at Florida International University. Among them:
- It stimulates the body to fight off any residual virus. “We suspect that many of these patients simply have levels of virus that are so low they can’t be picked up by conventional testing,” said Dr. Marty. “The virus lingers in their body and causes long COVID symptoms. The monoclonal antibodies can zero in on them and knock them out.” This may also help explain why some patients with long COVID reported a temporary improvement of symptoms after their COVID-19 vaccination.
- It combats dysfunctional antibodies. Another theory is that people with long COVID have symptoms “not because of residual virus but because of junky antibodies,” said Dr. Marty. These antibodies go into overdrive and attack your own cells, which is what causes long COVID symptoms. “This may be why monoclonal antibodies work because they displace the dysfunctional antibodies that are attached to a patient’s cells,” she explained.
- Reactivation of other viruses. Long COVID is very similar to chronic fatigue syndrome, which is often thought to be triggered by reactivation of viruses like the Epstein-Barr virus, noted coauthor Nancy Klimas, MD, director of the Institute for Neuro-Immune Medicine at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale. “It may not explain all of the cases of long COVID, but it could make up a subgroup,” she said. It’s thought that the monoclonal antibodies may perhaps neutralize this reactivation.
Where Research Is Headed
While Regeneron worked well in all three patients, it may be because they developed long COVID from either the initial virus or from early variants like Alpha, Beta, and Delta, said Dr. Pepe. As a result, it’s unclear whether this treatment would work for patients who developed long COVID from newer strains like Omicron.
“What concerns me is I believe there may be many people walking around with mild long COVID from these strains who don’t realize it,” he said. “They may assume that if they have difficulty walking upstairs, or forget why they went into another room, that it’s age related.”
The next step, the researchers said, is to create a registry of volunteer patients with severe long COVID. Dr. Klimas plans to enroll 20 volunteers who were infected before September 2022 to see how they respond to another monoclonal antibody initially used to treat COVID-19, bebtelovimab. (Like Regeneron, bebtelovimab is no longer approved for use against COVID-19 by the US Food and Drug Administration because it is no longer effective against variants of the virus circulating today.)
As for patients who developed long COVID after September 2022, research is ongoing to see if they respond to other monoclonal antibodies that are in development. One such study is currently enrolling participants at the University of California San Francisco. The center is recruiting 30 patients with long COVID to try a monoclonal antibody developed by Aerium Therapeutics.
“They created an investigational monoclonal antibody to treat acute COVID, but it proved less effective against variants that emerged in late 2022,” said lead investigator Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine in the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases, and Global Medicine at the University of California San Francisco. The hope is it may still work to fight long COVID among patients infected with those variants.
In the meantime, the three patients with long COVID who responded to Regeneron have resumed life as they knew it pre-COVID. Although two subsequently became infected with COVID again, they recovered quickly and did not see symptoms return, something which, for them, seems nothing short of miraculous.
“I had prepared myself to be disabled for life,” said one of the patients, a 46-year-old Floridian woman who developed long COVID after an infection in January 2021. “I had crippling fatigue and dizziness so intense I felt like I was walking on a trampoline. My brain fog was so pronounced I had to write everything down constantly. Otherwise, I’d forget.”
When she became infected with COVID again in September 2021, “I thought I was going to die because I had no idea how I could possibly get worse,” she recalled. Her doctors recommended Regeneron infusion treatment. Forty-eight hours later, her symptoms improved significantly.
“I was able to go out to a cocktail party and dinner for the first time in months,” she said. “I would not have been able to do either of those things a week before.”
It’s also profoundly affected her husband, who had had to take over running the household and raising their five children, aged 11-22 years, for months.
“I can’t tell you how many school events and sports games I missed because I physically didn’t have the strength to get to them,” she noted. “To this day, my husband gets upset whenever we talk about that time. Long COVID literally took over all of our lives. It was devastating to me, but it’s just as devastating for loved ones, too. My family is just grateful to have me back.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A treatment used to treat acute COVID-19 infection has also been found to be effective against long COVID, a new small study has found. The research, which assessed the benefits of monoclonal antibodies, suggests relief may finally be ahead for millions of Americans with long COVID for whom treatment has remained elusive.
The study, published in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, found
“We were struck by how rapid and complete the remissions were,” said study coauthor Paul Pepe, MD, MPH, a professor of management, policy, and community health at the School of Public Health at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center. “We found that no matter how long the patients were sick for — whether it was 5, 8, or 18 months — within 5 days, they appeared to be completely cured.”
All three patients had been initially infected with COVID-19 early in the pandemic, in 2020 or the first half of 2021. They were given Regeneron either after a reinfection or exposure to COVID-19, as a preventative, at state-run COVID clinics in Florida.
“In each case, the infusions were given to help prevent their long COVID from worsening,” said Dr. Pepe.
The researchers collected medical histories for all three patients, asking about symptoms such as physical fatigue, exercise intolerance, chest pain, heart palpitations, shortness of breath, cognitive fatigue, and memory problems. They asked patients to rate symptoms pre-COVID (baseline), during the long COVID phase, post-vaccine, and finally a week after their monoclonal antibody treatment. They also interviewed family members.
They found that across the board, symptoms improved significantly and often completely vanished. Their loved ones corroborated these reports as well.
One of the patients, a 63-year-old Floridian woman, came down with a mild case of COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic in March 2020 that lasted about 2 weeks. But several weeks later, she developed extreme, debilitating fatigue, along with chest pain and shortness of breath.
“I was chasing my 6-pound Yorkie one day after she got loose, and I was struck with such intense chest pain I fell down,” the woman, asking not to be identified, said in an interview.
Her symptoms progressed to the point where she no longer felt safe babysitting her grandchildren or driving to the grocery store.
“My short-term memory was completely gone. I couldn’t even read more than a paragraph at a time,” she said.
When she was exposed to COVID-19 in October 2021, her doctor suggested Regeneron as a preventative. She agreed to it.
“I was terrified that a second round would leave me permanently disabled and stuck in bed for the rest of my life,” she said.
About 4 days after her monoclonal antibody treatment, she noticed that some of the brain fog that had persisted after COVID was lifting.
“By day 5, it felt almost like a heavy-weighted blanket had been lifted off of me,” she recalled. “I was able to take my dog for a walk and go to the grocery store. It felt like I had gone from 0 to 100. As quickly as I went downhill, I quickly went back up.”
Reasons for Recovery
Researchers have come up with a few theories about why monoclonal antibodies may help treat long COVID, said study coauthor Aileen Marty, MD, professor of translational medicine at the Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine at Florida International University. Among them:
- It stimulates the body to fight off any residual virus. “We suspect that many of these patients simply have levels of virus that are so low they can’t be picked up by conventional testing,” said Dr. Marty. “The virus lingers in their body and causes long COVID symptoms. The monoclonal antibodies can zero in on them and knock them out.” This may also help explain why some patients with long COVID reported a temporary improvement of symptoms after their COVID-19 vaccination.
- It combats dysfunctional antibodies. Another theory is that people with long COVID have symptoms “not because of residual virus but because of junky antibodies,” said Dr. Marty. These antibodies go into overdrive and attack your own cells, which is what causes long COVID symptoms. “This may be why monoclonal antibodies work because they displace the dysfunctional antibodies that are attached to a patient’s cells,” she explained.
- Reactivation of other viruses. Long COVID is very similar to chronic fatigue syndrome, which is often thought to be triggered by reactivation of viruses like the Epstein-Barr virus, noted coauthor Nancy Klimas, MD, director of the Institute for Neuro-Immune Medicine at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale. “It may not explain all of the cases of long COVID, but it could make up a subgroup,” she said. It’s thought that the monoclonal antibodies may perhaps neutralize this reactivation.
Where Research Is Headed
While Regeneron worked well in all three patients, it may be because they developed long COVID from either the initial virus or from early variants like Alpha, Beta, and Delta, said Dr. Pepe. As a result, it’s unclear whether this treatment would work for patients who developed long COVID from newer strains like Omicron.
“What concerns me is I believe there may be many people walking around with mild long COVID from these strains who don’t realize it,” he said. “They may assume that if they have difficulty walking upstairs, or forget why they went into another room, that it’s age related.”
The next step, the researchers said, is to create a registry of volunteer patients with severe long COVID. Dr. Klimas plans to enroll 20 volunteers who were infected before September 2022 to see how they respond to another monoclonal antibody initially used to treat COVID-19, bebtelovimab. (Like Regeneron, bebtelovimab is no longer approved for use against COVID-19 by the US Food and Drug Administration because it is no longer effective against variants of the virus circulating today.)
As for patients who developed long COVID after September 2022, research is ongoing to see if they respond to other monoclonal antibodies that are in development. One such study is currently enrolling participants at the University of California San Francisco. The center is recruiting 30 patients with long COVID to try a monoclonal antibody developed by Aerium Therapeutics.
“They created an investigational monoclonal antibody to treat acute COVID, but it proved less effective against variants that emerged in late 2022,” said lead investigator Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine in the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases, and Global Medicine at the University of California San Francisco. The hope is it may still work to fight long COVID among patients infected with those variants.
In the meantime, the three patients with long COVID who responded to Regeneron have resumed life as they knew it pre-COVID. Although two subsequently became infected with COVID again, they recovered quickly and did not see symptoms return, something which, for them, seems nothing short of miraculous.
“I had prepared myself to be disabled for life,” said one of the patients, a 46-year-old Floridian woman who developed long COVID after an infection in January 2021. “I had crippling fatigue and dizziness so intense I felt like I was walking on a trampoline. My brain fog was so pronounced I had to write everything down constantly. Otherwise, I’d forget.”
When she became infected with COVID again in September 2021, “I thought I was going to die because I had no idea how I could possibly get worse,” she recalled. Her doctors recommended Regeneron infusion treatment. Forty-eight hours later, her symptoms improved significantly.
“I was able to go out to a cocktail party and dinner for the first time in months,” she said. “I would not have been able to do either of those things a week before.”
It’s also profoundly affected her husband, who had had to take over running the household and raising their five children, aged 11-22 years, for months.
“I can’t tell you how many school events and sports games I missed because I physically didn’t have the strength to get to them,” she noted. “To this day, my husband gets upset whenever we talk about that time. Long COVID literally took over all of our lives. It was devastating to me, but it’s just as devastating for loved ones, too. My family is just grateful to have me back.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINe