The Hospitalist

Among direct oral anticoagulants, apixaban (Eliquis) has shown fewer stroke events and bleeding than warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation, according to results of an updated comparative effectiveness review.

Dabigatran (Pradaxa), by contrast, has shown reductions in stroke events but a similar rate of bleeding events compared to warfarin, according to the report from the Duke Evidence-based Practice Center, Durham, N.C.

Rivaroxaban (Xarelto), meanwhile, is “similar in both benefits and harms with warfarin” in evidence to date, investigators wrote in the report, which was prepared for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).

Finally, edoxaban (Savaysa) is “most likely similar” to warfarin with respect to preventing stroke or systemic embolism, with less risk for major bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke, investigators wrote in a summary of their findings on the AHRQ website.

“Effectiveness of these direct oral anticoagulants as compared to one another however is limited by the lack of randomized studies directly comparing their safety and effectiveness,” concluded investigators, led by Gillian D. Sanders, PhD, of Duke University.

The 612-page report details a systematic review based on 320 articles representing 185 unique studies. The review was designed to update a 2013 AHRQ report that evaluated evidence not only for treatment options to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, but also for tools used to predict risk of stroke or bleeding.

In the 2013 report, investigators concluded that the newer anticoagulants showed “early promise” in reducing stroke and bleeding events compared with warfarin.

That earlier report said that CHA₂ and CHA₂DS₂-VASc had the best evidence to support prediction of stroke events, while HAS-BLED provided the best discrimination of bleeding risk.

The updated report adds the ABC stroke risk score as a tool that, along with CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc, has the “best evidence” predicting thromboembolic risk, authors said.

Imaging tools, on the other hand, still need more evidence supporting their use to predict thromboembolic risk, Dr. Sanders and colleagues said in their report.

The literature review, which covered the January 2000 through February 2018, turned up 61 studies relevant to predicting thromboembolic risk, 38 on bleeding risk, and 117 on preventing thromboembolic events with anticoagulation therapies, antiplatelet therapies, or procedures.

Direct oral anticoagulants were evaluated in randomized clinical trials that were “often very large, of good quality, and considered definitive in the field,” Dr. Sanders and colleagues wrote in their report.

However, these trials were constrained to comparing direct oral anticoagulants with warfarin or aspirin, and have not involved head-to-head comparison among the newer agents, they added.

“Based on these trials though, clinical leaders and professional societies have determined that these newer agents are better than the prior lone treatment of warfarin in terms of stroke prevention, side effects, and risk of bleeding,” they said in the published report.
 

SOURCE: Sanders GD, et al. 2018 Oct 30. AHRQ Publication No. 18(19)-EHC018-EF.
 

Among direct oral anticoagulants, apixaban (Eliquis) has shown fewer stroke events and bleeding than warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation, according to results of an updated comparative effectiveness review.

Dabigatran (Pradaxa), by contrast, has shown reductions in stroke events but a similar rate of bleeding events compared to warfarin, according to the report from the Duke Evidence-based Practice Center, Durham, N.C.

Rivaroxaban (Xarelto), meanwhile, is “similar in both benefits and harms with warfarin” in evidence to date, investigators wrote in the report, which was prepared for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).

Finally, edoxaban (Savaysa) is “most likely similar” to warfarin with respect to preventing stroke or systemic embolism, with less risk for major bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke, investigators wrote in a summary of their findings on the AHRQ website.

“Effectiveness of these direct oral anticoagulants as compared to one another however is limited by the lack of randomized studies directly comparing their safety and effectiveness,” concluded investigators, led by Gillian D. Sanders, PhD, of Duke University.

The 612-page report details a systematic review based on 320 articles representing 185 unique studies. The review was designed to update a 2013 AHRQ report that evaluated evidence not only for treatment options to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, but also for tools used to predict risk of stroke or bleeding.

In the 2013 report, investigators concluded that the newer anticoagulants showed “early promise” in reducing stroke and bleeding events compared with warfarin.

That earlier report said that CHA₂ and CHA₂DS₂-VASc had the best evidence to support prediction of stroke events, while HAS-BLED provided the best discrimination of bleeding risk.

The updated report adds the ABC stroke risk score as a tool that, along with CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc, has the “best evidence” predicting thromboembolic risk, authors said.

Imaging tools, on the other hand, still need more evidence supporting their use to predict thromboembolic risk, Dr. Sanders and colleagues said in their report.

The literature review, which covered the January 2000 through February 2018, turned up 61 studies relevant to predicting thromboembolic risk, 38 on bleeding risk, and 117 on preventing thromboembolic events with anticoagulation therapies, antiplatelet therapies, or procedures.

Direct oral anticoagulants were evaluated in randomized clinical trials that were “often very large, of good quality, and considered definitive in the field,” Dr. Sanders and colleagues wrote in their report.

However, these trials were constrained to comparing direct oral anticoagulants with warfarin or aspirin, and have not involved head-to-head comparison among the newer agents, they added.

“Based on these trials though, clinical leaders and professional societies have determined that these newer agents are better than the prior lone treatment of warfarin in terms of stroke prevention, side effects, and risk of bleeding,” they said in the published report.
 

SOURCE: Sanders GD, et al. 2018 Oct 30. AHRQ Publication No. 18(19)-EHC018-EF.
 

Among direct oral anticoagulants, apixaban (Eliquis) has shown fewer stroke events and bleeding than warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation, according to results of an updated comparative effectiveness review.

Dabigatran (Pradaxa), by contrast, has shown reductions in stroke events but a similar rate of bleeding events compared to warfarin, according to the report from the Duke Evidence-based Practice Center, Durham, N.C.

Rivaroxaban (Xarelto), meanwhile, is “similar in both benefits and harms with warfarin” in evidence to date, investigators wrote in the report, which was prepared for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).

Finally, edoxaban (Savaysa) is “most likely similar” to warfarin with respect to preventing stroke or systemic embolism, with less risk for major bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke, investigators wrote in a summary of their findings on the AHRQ website.

“Effectiveness of these direct oral anticoagulants as compared to one another however is limited by the lack of randomized studies directly comparing their safety and effectiveness,” concluded investigators, led by Gillian D. Sanders, PhD, of Duke University.

The 612-page report details a systematic review based on 320 articles representing 185 unique studies. The review was designed to update a 2013 AHRQ report that evaluated evidence not only for treatment options to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, but also for tools used to predict risk of stroke or bleeding.

In the 2013 report, investigators concluded that the newer anticoagulants showed “early promise” in reducing stroke and bleeding events compared with warfarin.

That earlier report said that CHA₂ and CHA₂DS₂-VASc had the best evidence to support prediction of stroke events, while HAS-BLED provided the best discrimination of bleeding risk.

The updated report adds the ABC stroke risk score as a tool that, along with CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc, has the “best evidence” predicting thromboembolic risk, authors said.

Imaging tools, on the other hand, still need more evidence supporting their use to predict thromboembolic risk, Dr. Sanders and colleagues said in their report.

The literature review, which covered the January 2000 through February 2018, turned up 61 studies relevant to predicting thromboembolic risk, 38 on bleeding risk, and 117 on preventing thromboembolic events with anticoagulation therapies, antiplatelet therapies, or procedures.

Direct oral anticoagulants were evaluated in randomized clinical trials that were “often very large, of good quality, and considered definitive in the field,” Dr. Sanders and colleagues wrote in their report.

However, these trials were constrained to comparing direct oral anticoagulants with warfarin or aspirin, and have not involved head-to-head comparison among the newer agents, they added.

“Based on these trials though, clinical leaders and professional societies have determined that these newer agents are better than the prior lone treatment of warfarin in terms of stroke prevention, side effects, and risk of bleeding,” they said in the published report.
 

SOURCE: Sanders GD, et al. 2018 Oct 30. AHRQ Publication No. 18(19)-EHC018-EF.
 

Tighter glucose control while minimizing the risk of severe hypoglycemia is associated with lower mortality among critically ill cardiac patents, new research suggests.

©Thinkstock

Researchers reported in CHEST on the outcomes of a multicenter retrospective cohort study in 1,809 adults in cardiac ICUs. Patients were treated either to a blood glucose target of 80-110 mg/dL or 90-140 mg/dL, based on the clinician’s preference, but using a computerized ICU insulin infusion protocol that the authors said had resulted in low rates of severe hypoglycemia.

The study found patients treated to the 80-110 mg/dL blood glucose target had a significantly lower unadjusted 30-day mortality compared to patients treated to the 90-140 mg/dL target (4.3% vs. 9.2%; P less than .001). The lower mortality in the lower target group was evident among both diabetic (4.7% vs. 12.9%; P less than .001) and nondiabetic patients (4.1% vs. 7.4%; P = .02).

Researchers also saw that unadjusted 30-day mortality increased with increasing median glucose levels; 5.5% in patients with a blood glucose of 70-110 mg/dL, 8.3% mortality in those with blood glucose levels of 141-180 mg/dL, and 25% in those with a blood glucose level higher than 180 mg/dL.

Patients treated to the 80-110 mg/dL blood glucose target were more likely to experience an episode of moderate hypoglycemia, compared with those in the higher target group (18.6% vs. 8.3%; P less than .001). However, the rates of severe hypoglycemia were low in both groups, and the difference between the low and high target groups did not reach statistical significance (1.16% vs. 0.35%; P = .051).

The authors did note that patients whose blood glucose dropped below 60 mg/dL showed increased mortality, regardless of what target they was set for them. The 30-day unadjusted mortality in these patients was 15%, compared with 5.2% for patients in either group who did not experience a blood glucose level below 60 mg/dL.

“Our results further the discussion about the appropriate BG [blood glucose] target in the critically ill because they suggest that the BG target and severe hypoglycemia effects can be separated,” wrote Andrew M. Hersh, MD, of the division of pulmonary and critical care at San Antonio Military Medical Center, and his coauthors.

But they said the large differences in mortality seen between the two treatment targets should be interpreted with caution, as it was difficult to attribute that difference solely to an 18 mg/dL difference in blood glucose treatment targets.

“While we attempted to capture factors that influenced clinician choice, and while our model successfully achieved balance, suggesting that residual confounding was minimized, we suspect that some of the mortality signal may be attributable to residual confounding,” they wrote.

Another explanation could be that hypoglycemia was an ‘epiphenomenon’ of multiorgan failure, as some studies have found that both spontaneous and iatrogenic hypoglycemia were independently associated with mortality. “However, given the very-low rates of severe hypoglycemia found in both groups it is unlikely that this was a main driver of the mortality difference found,” the investigators wrote.

The majority of patients in the study had been admitted to the hospital for chest pain or acute coronary syndrome (43.3%), while 31.9% were admitted for cardiothoracic surgery, 6.8% for heart failure including cardiogenic shock, and 6% for vascular surgery.

The authors commented that a safe and reliable protocol for intensive insulin therapy, with high clinician compliance, could be the key to realizing its benefits, and could be aided by recent advances such as closed-loop insulin delivery systems.

They also stressed that their results did not support a rejection of current guidelines and instead called for large randomized, clinical trials to find a balance between benefits and harms of intensive insulin therapy.

“Instead our analysis suggests that trials such as NICE-SUGAR, and the conclusion they drew, may have been accurate only in the setting of technologies, which led to high rates of severe hypoglycemia.”

No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Hersh AM et al. CHEST. 2018 Nov;154(5):1044-51.

Tighter glucose control while minimizing the risk of severe hypoglycemia is associated with lower mortality among critically ill cardiac patents, new research suggests.

©Thinkstock

Researchers reported in CHEST on the outcomes of a multicenter retrospective cohort study in 1,809 adults in cardiac ICUs. Patients were treated either to a blood glucose target of 80-110 mg/dL or 90-140 mg/dL, based on the clinician’s preference, but using a computerized ICU insulin infusion protocol that the authors said had resulted in low rates of severe hypoglycemia.

The study found patients treated to the 80-110 mg/dL blood glucose target had a significantly lower unadjusted 30-day mortality compared to patients treated to the 90-140 mg/dL target (4.3% vs. 9.2%; P less than .001). The lower mortality in the lower target group was evident among both diabetic (4.7% vs. 12.9%; P less than .001) and nondiabetic patients (4.1% vs. 7.4%; P = .02).

Researchers also saw that unadjusted 30-day mortality increased with increasing median glucose levels; 5.5% in patients with a blood glucose of 70-110 mg/dL, 8.3% mortality in those with blood glucose levels of 141-180 mg/dL, and 25% in those with a blood glucose level higher than 180 mg/dL.

Patients treated to the 80-110 mg/dL blood glucose target were more likely to experience an episode of moderate hypoglycemia, compared with those in the higher target group (18.6% vs. 8.3%; P less than .001). However, the rates of severe hypoglycemia were low in both groups, and the difference between the low and high target groups did not reach statistical significance (1.16% vs. 0.35%; P = .051).

The authors did note that patients whose blood glucose dropped below 60 mg/dL showed increased mortality, regardless of what target they was set for them. The 30-day unadjusted mortality in these patients was 15%, compared with 5.2% for patients in either group who did not experience a blood glucose level below 60 mg/dL.

“Our results further the discussion about the appropriate BG [blood glucose] target in the critically ill because they suggest that the BG target and severe hypoglycemia effects can be separated,” wrote Andrew M. Hersh, MD, of the division of pulmonary and critical care at San Antonio Military Medical Center, and his coauthors.

But they said the large differences in mortality seen between the two treatment targets should be interpreted with caution, as it was difficult to attribute that difference solely to an 18 mg/dL difference in blood glucose treatment targets.

“While we attempted to capture factors that influenced clinician choice, and while our model successfully achieved balance, suggesting that residual confounding was minimized, we suspect that some of the mortality signal may be attributable to residual confounding,” they wrote.

Another explanation could be that hypoglycemia was an ‘epiphenomenon’ of multiorgan failure, as some studies have found that both spontaneous and iatrogenic hypoglycemia were independently associated with mortality. “However, given the very-low rates of severe hypoglycemia found in both groups it is unlikely that this was a main driver of the mortality difference found,” the investigators wrote.

The majority of patients in the study had been admitted to the hospital for chest pain or acute coronary syndrome (43.3%), while 31.9% were admitted for cardiothoracic surgery, 6.8% for heart failure including cardiogenic shock, and 6% for vascular surgery.

The authors commented that a safe and reliable protocol for intensive insulin therapy, with high clinician compliance, could be the key to realizing its benefits, and could be aided by recent advances such as closed-loop insulin delivery systems.

They also stressed that their results did not support a rejection of current guidelines and instead called for large randomized, clinical trials to find a balance between benefits and harms of intensive insulin therapy.

“Instead our analysis suggests that trials such as NICE-SUGAR, and the conclusion they drew, may have been accurate only in the setting of technologies, which led to high rates of severe hypoglycemia.”

No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Hersh AM et al. CHEST. 2018 Nov;154(5):1044-51.

Tighter glucose control while minimizing the risk of severe hypoglycemia is associated with lower mortality among critically ill cardiac patents, new research suggests.

©Thinkstock

Researchers reported in CHEST on the outcomes of a multicenter retrospective cohort study in 1,809 adults in cardiac ICUs. Patients were treated either to a blood glucose target of 80-110 mg/dL or 90-140 mg/dL, based on the clinician’s preference, but using a computerized ICU insulin infusion protocol that the authors said had resulted in low rates of severe hypoglycemia.

The study found patients treated to the 80-110 mg/dL blood glucose target had a significantly lower unadjusted 30-day mortality compared to patients treated to the 90-140 mg/dL target (4.3% vs. 9.2%; P less than .001). The lower mortality in the lower target group was evident among both diabetic (4.7% vs. 12.9%; P less than .001) and nondiabetic patients (4.1% vs. 7.4%; P = .02).

Researchers also saw that unadjusted 30-day mortality increased with increasing median glucose levels; 5.5% in patients with a blood glucose of 70-110 mg/dL, 8.3% mortality in those with blood glucose levels of 141-180 mg/dL, and 25% in those with a blood glucose level higher than 180 mg/dL.

Patients treated to the 80-110 mg/dL blood glucose target were more likely to experience an episode of moderate hypoglycemia, compared with those in the higher target group (18.6% vs. 8.3%; P less than .001). However, the rates of severe hypoglycemia were low in both groups, and the difference between the low and high target groups did not reach statistical significance (1.16% vs. 0.35%; P = .051).

The authors did note that patients whose blood glucose dropped below 60 mg/dL showed increased mortality, regardless of what target they was set for them. The 30-day unadjusted mortality in these patients was 15%, compared with 5.2% for patients in either group who did not experience a blood glucose level below 60 mg/dL.

“Our results further the discussion about the appropriate BG [blood glucose] target in the critically ill because they suggest that the BG target and severe hypoglycemia effects can be separated,” wrote Andrew M. Hersh, MD, of the division of pulmonary and critical care at San Antonio Military Medical Center, and his coauthors.

But they said the large differences in mortality seen between the two treatment targets should be interpreted with caution, as it was difficult to attribute that difference solely to an 18 mg/dL difference in blood glucose treatment targets.

“While we attempted to capture factors that influenced clinician choice, and while our model successfully achieved balance, suggesting that residual confounding was minimized, we suspect that some of the mortality signal may be attributable to residual confounding,” they wrote.

Another explanation could be that hypoglycemia was an ‘epiphenomenon’ of multiorgan failure, as some studies have found that both spontaneous and iatrogenic hypoglycemia were independently associated with mortality. “However, given the very-low rates of severe hypoglycemia found in both groups it is unlikely that this was a main driver of the mortality difference found,” the investigators wrote.

The majority of patients in the study had been admitted to the hospital for chest pain or acute coronary syndrome (43.3%), while 31.9% were admitted for cardiothoracic surgery, 6.8% for heart failure including cardiogenic shock, and 6% for vascular surgery.

The authors commented that a safe and reliable protocol for intensive insulin therapy, with high clinician compliance, could be the key to realizing its benefits, and could be aided by recent advances such as closed-loop insulin delivery systems.

They also stressed that their results did not support a rejection of current guidelines and instead called for large randomized, clinical trials to find a balance between benefits and harms of intensive insulin therapy.

“Instead our analysis suggests that trials such as NICE-SUGAR, and the conclusion they drew, may have been accurate only in the setting of technologies, which led to high rates of severe hypoglycemia.”

No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Hersh AM et al. CHEST. 2018 Nov;154(5):1044-51.

Background: An increasing body of literature suggests that hyperoxia may be harmful, yet liberal use of supplemental oxygen remains widespread.

Much like transfusion thresholds, more may not always be better when it comes to supplemental oxygen. Hospitalists should consider the harmful effects of hyperoxia when caring for patients on supplemental oxygen. Unfortunately, median blood oxygen saturation during therapy was not available for each group in this trial, so more research is needed to clearly define the upper limit of oxygen saturation at which harm outweighs benefit.

Bottom line: When compared to conservative oxygen administration, liberal oxygen therapy increases mortality in acutely ill adults.

Citation: Chu DK et al. Mortality and morbidity in acutely ill adults treated with liberal versus conservative oxygen therapy (IOTA): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2018;391:1693-705.

Dr. Metter is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, University of Colorado, Denver.

Background: An increasing body of literature suggests that hyperoxia may be harmful, yet liberal use of supplemental oxygen remains widespread.

Much like transfusion thresholds, more may not always be better when it comes to supplemental oxygen. Hospitalists should consider the harmful effects of hyperoxia when caring for patients on supplemental oxygen. Unfortunately, median blood oxygen saturation during therapy was not available for each group in this trial, so more research is needed to clearly define the upper limit of oxygen saturation at which harm outweighs benefit.

Bottom line: When compared to conservative oxygen administration, liberal oxygen therapy increases mortality in acutely ill adults.

Citation: Chu DK et al. Mortality and morbidity in acutely ill adults treated with liberal versus conservative oxygen therapy (IOTA): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2018;391:1693-705.

Dr. Metter is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, University of Colorado, Denver.

Background: An increasing body of literature suggests that hyperoxia may be harmful, yet liberal use of supplemental oxygen remains widespread.

Much like transfusion thresholds, more may not always be better when it comes to supplemental oxygen. Hospitalists should consider the harmful effects of hyperoxia when caring for patients on supplemental oxygen. Unfortunately, median blood oxygen saturation during therapy was not available for each group in this trial, so more research is needed to clearly define the upper limit of oxygen saturation at which harm outweighs benefit.

Bottom line: When compared to conservative oxygen administration, liberal oxygen therapy increases mortality in acutely ill adults.

Citation: Chu DK et al. Mortality and morbidity in acutely ill adults treated with liberal versus conservative oxygen therapy (IOTA): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2018;391:1693-705.

Dr. Metter is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, University of Colorado, Denver.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted 510(k) clearance for PixCell Medical’s HemoScreen, a portable hematology analyzer is used to perform a complete blood count at the point of care.

HemoScreen requires a single drop of blood and uses disposable cartridges that provide automatic sample preparation.

HemoScreen can analyze 20 standard complete blood count parameters and produces results within 5 minutes.

Study results suggested that HemoScreen provides results comparable to those of another hematology analyzer, Sysmex XE-2100 (J Clin Pathol. 2016 Aug;69[8]:720-5).

“The HemoScreen delivers lab accurate results,” Avishay Bransky, PhD, CEO of PixCell, said in a statement.

HemoScreen “would be especially useful” in physicians’ offices, emergency rooms, intensive care units, oncology clinics, and remote locations, he added.

HemoScreen makes use of a technology called viscoelastic focusing, which employs microfluidics and machine vision algorithms to analyze cells.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has granted 510(k) clearance for PixCell Medical’s HemoScreen, a portable hematology analyzer is used to perform a complete blood count at the point of care.

HemoScreen requires a single drop of blood and uses disposable cartridges that provide automatic sample preparation.

HemoScreen can analyze 20 standard complete blood count parameters and produces results within 5 minutes.

Study results suggested that HemoScreen provides results comparable to those of another hematology analyzer, Sysmex XE-2100 (J Clin Pathol. 2016 Aug;69[8]:720-5).

“The HemoScreen delivers lab accurate results,” Avishay Bransky, PhD, CEO of PixCell, said in a statement.

HemoScreen “would be especially useful” in physicians’ offices, emergency rooms, intensive care units, oncology clinics, and remote locations, he added.

HemoScreen makes use of a technology called viscoelastic focusing, which employs microfluidics and machine vision algorithms to analyze cells.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has granted 510(k) clearance for PixCell Medical’s HemoScreen, a portable hematology analyzer is used to perform a complete blood count at the point of care.

HemoScreen requires a single drop of blood and uses disposable cartridges that provide automatic sample preparation.

HemoScreen can analyze 20 standard complete blood count parameters and produces results within 5 minutes.

Study results suggested that HemoScreen provides results comparable to those of another hematology analyzer, Sysmex XE-2100 (J Clin Pathol. 2016 Aug;69[8]:720-5).

“The HemoScreen delivers lab accurate results,” Avishay Bransky, PhD, CEO of PixCell, said in a statement.

HemoScreen “would be especially useful” in physicians’ offices, emergency rooms, intensive care units, oncology clinics, and remote locations, he added.

HemoScreen makes use of a technology called viscoelastic focusing, which employs microfluidics and machine vision algorithms to analyze cells.

[email protected]

Clinical question: Does surgical repair of hip fractures in nursing home residents with advanced dementia reduce adverse outcomes?

Background: Hip fractures are common in the advanced dementia nursing home population. The benefit of surgical repair is unclear in this population given significant baseline functional disability and limited life expectancy.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Medicare claims data set.

Dr. Abramowicz is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, University of Colorado, Denver.

Clinical question: Does surgical repair of hip fractures in nursing home residents with advanced dementia reduce adverse outcomes?

Background: Hip fractures are common in the advanced dementia nursing home population. The benefit of surgical repair is unclear in this population given significant baseline functional disability and limited life expectancy.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Medicare claims data set.

Dr. Abramowicz is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, University of Colorado, Denver.

Clinical question: Does surgical repair of hip fractures in nursing home residents with advanced dementia reduce adverse outcomes?

Background: Hip fractures are common in the advanced dementia nursing home population. The benefit of surgical repair is unclear in this population given significant baseline functional disability and limited life expectancy.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Medicare claims data set.

Dr. Abramowicz is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, University of Colorado, Denver.

Clinical question: Does B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) have prognostic value outside of heart failure (HF) patients?

Background: BNP levels are influenced by both cardiac and extracardiac stimuli and thus might have prognostic value outside of the traditional use to guide therapy for HF patients.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study of the Vanderbilt electronic health record.

Setting: Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Synopsis: The study evaluated 30,487 patients with at least two BNP values for 2002-2015. Within this cohort, 62% of patients did not have a HF diagnosis. Risk of death was elevated in all patients regardless of HF status as BNP values rose. An increase from the 25th to 75th percentile in BNP value was associated with an increased risk of death in non-HF patients (hazard ratio, 2.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.99-2.2). Additionally, in a multivariate analysis BNP was the strongest predictor of death, compared with traditional risk factors in both HF and non-HF patients. The main limitation to this study was the use of ICD codes for diagnosis of HF.

Bottom line: BNP has predictive value for risk of death in non-HF patients; as BNP levels rise, regardless of HF status, so does risk of death.



Citation: York MK et al. B-type natriuretic peptide levels and mortality in patients with and without heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May 15;71(19):2079-88.

Dr. Abramowicz is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, University of Colorado, Denver.

Clinical question: Does B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) have prognostic value outside of heart failure (HF) patients?

Background: BNP levels are influenced by both cardiac and extracardiac stimuli and thus might have prognostic value outside of the traditional use to guide therapy for HF patients.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study of the Vanderbilt electronic health record.

Setting: Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Synopsis: The study evaluated 30,487 patients with at least two BNP values for 2002-2015. Within this cohort, 62% of patients did not have a HF diagnosis. Risk of death was elevated in all patients regardless of HF status as BNP values rose. An increase from the 25th to 75th percentile in BNP value was associated with an increased risk of death in non-HF patients (hazard ratio, 2.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.99-2.2). Additionally, in a multivariate analysis BNP was the strongest predictor of death, compared with traditional risk factors in both HF and non-HF patients. The main limitation to this study was the use of ICD codes for diagnosis of HF.

Bottom line: BNP has predictive value for risk of death in non-HF patients; as BNP levels rise, regardless of HF status, so does risk of death.



Citation: York MK et al. B-type natriuretic peptide levels and mortality in patients with and without heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May 15;71(19):2079-88.

Dr. Abramowicz is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, University of Colorado, Denver.

Clinical question: Does B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) have prognostic value outside of heart failure (HF) patients?

Background: BNP levels are influenced by both cardiac and extracardiac stimuli and thus might have prognostic value outside of the traditional use to guide therapy for HF patients.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study of the Vanderbilt electronic health record.

Setting: Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Synopsis: The study evaluated 30,487 patients with at least two BNP values for 2002-2015. Within this cohort, 62% of patients did not have a HF diagnosis. Risk of death was elevated in all patients regardless of HF status as BNP values rose. An increase from the 25th to 75th percentile in BNP value was associated with an increased risk of death in non-HF patients (hazard ratio, 2.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.99-2.2). Additionally, in a multivariate analysis BNP was the strongest predictor of death, compared with traditional risk factors in both HF and non-HF patients. The main limitation to this study was the use of ICD codes for diagnosis of HF.

Bottom line: BNP has predictive value for risk of death in non-HF patients; as BNP levels rise, regardless of HF status, so does risk of death.



Citation: York MK et al. B-type natriuretic peptide levels and mortality in patients with and without heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May 15;71(19):2079-88.

Dr. Abramowicz is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, University of Colorado, Denver.

The timing of the Food and Drug Administration’s Nov. 2 approval of the medication Dsuvia, a sublingual formulation of the synthetic opioid sufentanil, is interesting – to say the least. Dsuvia is a powerful pain medication, said to be 10 times more potent than fentanyl and 1,000 times more potent than morphine. The medication, developed by AcelRx Pharmaceuticals for use in medically supervised settings, has an indication for moderate to severe pain, and is packaged in single-dose applicators.

The chairperson of the FDA’s Anesthetic and Analgesics Drug Product Advisory Committee, Raeford E. Brown Jr., MD, a professor of pediatric anesthesia at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, could not be present Oct. 12 at the committee vote recommending approval. With the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, Dr. Brown wrote a letter to FDA leaders detailing concerns about the new formulation of sufentanil.

“It is my observation,” Dr. Brown wrote, “that once the FDA approves an opioid compound, there are no safeguards as to the population that will be exposed, the postmarketing analysis of prescribing behavior, or the ongoing analysis of the risks of the drug to the general population relative to its benefit to the public health. Briefly stated, for all of the opioids that have been marketed in the last 10 years, there has not been sufficient demonstration of safety, nor has there been postmarketing assessment of who is taking the drug, how often prescribing is inappropriate, and whether there was ever a reason to risk the health of the general population by having one more opioid on the market.”

Dr. Brown went on to detail his concerns about sufentanil. In the intravenous formulation, the medication has been in use for more than two decades.

“It is so potent that abusers of this intravenous formulation often die when they inject the first dose; I have witnessed this in resuscitating physicians, medical students, technicians, and other health care providers, some successfully, as a part of my duties as a clinician in a major academic medical center. Because it is so potent, the dosing volume, whether in the IV formulation or the sublingual form, can be quite small. It is thus an extremely divertible drug, and I predict that we will encounter diversion, abuse, and death within the early months of its availability on the market.”

The letter finishes by criticizing the fact that the full Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee was not invited to the Oct. 12 meeting, and finally, about the ease of diversion among health care professionals – and anesthesiologists in particular.

Meanwhile, Scott Gottlieb, MD, commissioner of the FDA, posted a lengthy explanation on the organization’s website on Nov. 2, after the vote. In his statement on the agency’s approval of Dsuvia and the FDA’s future consideration of new opioids, Dr. Gottlieb explains: “To address concerns about the potential risks associated with Dsuvia, this product will have strong limitations on its use. It can’t be dispensed to patients for home use and should not be used for more than 72 hours. And it should only be administered by a health care provider using a single-dose applicator. That means it won’t be available at retail pharmacies for patients to take home. These measures to restrict the use of this product only within a supervised health care setting, and not for home use, are important steps to help prevent misuse and abuse of Dsuvia, as well reduce the potential for diversion. Because of the risks of addiction, abuse, and misuse with opioids, Dsuvia also is to be reserved for use in patients for whom alternative pain treatment options have not been tolerated, or are not expected to be tolerated, where existing treatment options have not provided adequate analgesia, or where these alternatives are not expected to provide adequate analgesia.”

In addition to the statement posted on the FDA’s website, Dr. Gottlieb made the approval of Dsuvia the topic of his weekly #SundayTweetorial on Nov. 4. In this venue, Dr. Gottlieb posts tweets on a single topic. On both Twitter and the FDA website, he noted that a major factor in the approval of Dsuvia was advantages it might convey for pain control to soldiers on the battlefield, where oral medications might take time to work and intravenous access might not be possible.

One tweet read: “Whether there’s a need for another powerful opioid in the throes of a massive crisis of addiction is a critical question. As a public health agency, we have an obligation to address this question for patients with pain, for the addiction crisis, for innovators, for all Americans.”

Another tweet stated, “While Dsuvia brings another highly potent opioid to market it fulfills a limited, unmet medical need in treating our nation’s soldiers on the battlefield. That’s why the Pentagon worked closely with the sponsor on developing Dsuvia. FDA committed to prioritize needs of our troops.”

Given our national overdose crisis, and issues of addiction with our soldiers and veterans, one has to wonder if the improvements afforded in pain control by Dsuvia will be worth the trade-off in possible deaths from misdirected use of a very potent agent. And while the new opioid may have been geared toward unmet military needs, Dsuvia will be available for use in civilian medical facilities as well.

There is some irony to the idea that a pharmaceutical company would continue to develop opioids when there is so much need for nonaddictive agents for pain control and so much pressure on physicians to limit access of opiates to pain patients. We are left to stand by and watch as yet another potent opioid preparation is introduced.
 

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016), and assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

The timing of the Food and Drug Administration’s Nov. 2 approval of the medication Dsuvia, a sublingual formulation of the synthetic opioid sufentanil, is interesting – to say the least. Dsuvia is a powerful pain medication, said to be 10 times more potent than fentanyl and 1,000 times more potent than morphine. The medication, developed by AcelRx Pharmaceuticals for use in medically supervised settings, has an indication for moderate to severe pain, and is packaged in single-dose applicators.

The chairperson of the FDA’s Anesthetic and Analgesics Drug Product Advisory Committee, Raeford E. Brown Jr., MD, a professor of pediatric anesthesia at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, could not be present Oct. 12 at the committee vote recommending approval. With the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, Dr. Brown wrote a letter to FDA leaders detailing concerns about the new formulation of sufentanil.

“It is my observation,” Dr. Brown wrote, “that once the FDA approves an opioid compound, there are no safeguards as to the population that will be exposed, the postmarketing analysis of prescribing behavior, or the ongoing analysis of the risks of the drug to the general population relative to its benefit to the public health. Briefly stated, for all of the opioids that have been marketed in the last 10 years, there has not been sufficient demonstration of safety, nor has there been postmarketing assessment of who is taking the drug, how often prescribing is inappropriate, and whether there was ever a reason to risk the health of the general population by having one more opioid on the market.”

Dr. Brown went on to detail his concerns about sufentanil. In the intravenous formulation, the medication has been in use for more than two decades.

“It is so potent that abusers of this intravenous formulation often die when they inject the first dose; I have witnessed this in resuscitating physicians, medical students, technicians, and other health care providers, some successfully, as a part of my duties as a clinician in a major academic medical center. Because it is so potent, the dosing volume, whether in the IV formulation or the sublingual form, can be quite small. It is thus an extremely divertible drug, and I predict that we will encounter diversion, abuse, and death within the early months of its availability on the market.”

The letter finishes by criticizing the fact that the full Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee was not invited to the Oct. 12 meeting, and finally, about the ease of diversion among health care professionals – and anesthesiologists in particular.

Meanwhile, Scott Gottlieb, MD, commissioner of the FDA, posted a lengthy explanation on the organization’s website on Nov. 2, after the vote. In his statement on the agency’s approval of Dsuvia and the FDA’s future consideration of new opioids, Dr. Gottlieb explains: “To address concerns about the potential risks associated with Dsuvia, this product will have strong limitations on its use. It can’t be dispensed to patients for home use and should not be used for more than 72 hours. And it should only be administered by a health care provider using a single-dose applicator. That means it won’t be available at retail pharmacies for patients to take home. These measures to restrict the use of this product only within a supervised health care setting, and not for home use, are important steps to help prevent misuse and abuse of Dsuvia, as well reduce the potential for diversion. Because of the risks of addiction, abuse, and misuse with opioids, Dsuvia also is to be reserved for use in patients for whom alternative pain treatment options have not been tolerated, or are not expected to be tolerated, where existing treatment options have not provided adequate analgesia, or where these alternatives are not expected to provide adequate analgesia.”

In addition to the statement posted on the FDA’s website, Dr. Gottlieb made the approval of Dsuvia the topic of his weekly #SundayTweetorial on Nov. 4. In this venue, Dr. Gottlieb posts tweets on a single topic. On both Twitter and the FDA website, he noted that a major factor in the approval of Dsuvia was advantages it might convey for pain control to soldiers on the battlefield, where oral medications might take time to work and intravenous access might not be possible.

One tweet read: “Whether there’s a need for another powerful opioid in the throes of a massive crisis of addiction is a critical question. As a public health agency, we have an obligation to address this question for patients with pain, for the addiction crisis, for innovators, for all Americans.”

Another tweet stated, “While Dsuvia brings another highly potent opioid to market it fulfills a limited, unmet medical need in treating our nation’s soldiers on the battlefield. That’s why the Pentagon worked closely with the sponsor on developing Dsuvia. FDA committed to prioritize needs of our troops.”

Given our national overdose crisis, and issues of addiction with our soldiers and veterans, one has to wonder if the improvements afforded in pain control by Dsuvia will be worth the trade-off in possible deaths from misdirected use of a very potent agent. And while the new opioid may have been geared toward unmet military needs, Dsuvia will be available for use in civilian medical facilities as well.

There is some irony to the idea that a pharmaceutical company would continue to develop opioids when there is so much need for nonaddictive agents for pain control and so much pressure on physicians to limit access of opiates to pain patients. We are left to stand by and watch as yet another potent opioid preparation is introduced.
 

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016), and assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

The timing of the Food and Drug Administration’s Nov. 2 approval of the medication Dsuvia, a sublingual formulation of the synthetic opioid sufentanil, is interesting – to say the least. Dsuvia is a powerful pain medication, said to be 10 times more potent than fentanyl and 1,000 times more potent than morphine. The medication, developed by AcelRx Pharmaceuticals for use in medically supervised settings, has an indication for moderate to severe pain, and is packaged in single-dose applicators.

The chairperson of the FDA’s Anesthetic and Analgesics Drug Product Advisory Committee, Raeford E. Brown Jr., MD, a professor of pediatric anesthesia at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, could not be present Oct. 12 at the committee vote recommending approval. With the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, Dr. Brown wrote a letter to FDA leaders detailing concerns about the new formulation of sufentanil.

“It is my observation,” Dr. Brown wrote, “that once the FDA approves an opioid compound, there are no safeguards as to the population that will be exposed, the postmarketing analysis of prescribing behavior, or the ongoing analysis of the risks of the drug to the general population relative to its benefit to the public health. Briefly stated, for all of the opioids that have been marketed in the last 10 years, there has not been sufficient demonstration of safety, nor has there been postmarketing assessment of who is taking the drug, how often prescribing is inappropriate, and whether there was ever a reason to risk the health of the general population by having one more opioid on the market.”

Dr. Brown went on to detail his concerns about sufentanil. In the intravenous formulation, the medication has been in use for more than two decades.

“It is so potent that abusers of this intravenous formulation often die when they inject the first dose; I have witnessed this in resuscitating physicians, medical students, technicians, and other health care providers, some successfully, as a part of my duties as a clinician in a major academic medical center. Because it is so potent, the dosing volume, whether in the IV formulation or the sublingual form, can be quite small. It is thus an extremely divertible drug, and I predict that we will encounter diversion, abuse, and death within the early months of its availability on the market.”

The letter finishes by criticizing the fact that the full Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee was not invited to the Oct. 12 meeting, and finally, about the ease of diversion among health care professionals – and anesthesiologists in particular.

Meanwhile, Scott Gottlieb, MD, commissioner of the FDA, posted a lengthy explanation on the organization’s website on Nov. 2, after the vote. In his statement on the agency’s approval of Dsuvia and the FDA’s future consideration of new opioids, Dr. Gottlieb explains: “To address concerns about the potential risks associated with Dsuvia, this product will have strong limitations on its use. It can’t be dispensed to patients for home use and should not be used for more than 72 hours. And it should only be administered by a health care provider using a single-dose applicator. That means it won’t be available at retail pharmacies for patients to take home. These measures to restrict the use of this product only within a supervised health care setting, and not for home use, are important steps to help prevent misuse and abuse of Dsuvia, as well reduce the potential for diversion. Because of the risks of addiction, abuse, and misuse with opioids, Dsuvia also is to be reserved for use in patients for whom alternative pain treatment options have not been tolerated, or are not expected to be tolerated, where existing treatment options have not provided adequate analgesia, or where these alternatives are not expected to provide adequate analgesia.”

In addition to the statement posted on the FDA’s website, Dr. Gottlieb made the approval of Dsuvia the topic of his weekly #SundayTweetorial on Nov. 4. In this venue, Dr. Gottlieb posts tweets on a single topic. On both Twitter and the FDA website, he noted that a major factor in the approval of Dsuvia was advantages it might convey for pain control to soldiers on the battlefield, where oral medications might take time to work and intravenous access might not be possible.

One tweet read: “Whether there’s a need for another powerful opioid in the throes of a massive crisis of addiction is a critical question. As a public health agency, we have an obligation to address this question for patients with pain, for the addiction crisis, for innovators, for all Americans.”

Another tweet stated, “While Dsuvia brings another highly potent opioid to market it fulfills a limited, unmet medical need in treating our nation’s soldiers on the battlefield. That’s why the Pentagon worked closely with the sponsor on developing Dsuvia. FDA committed to prioritize needs of our troops.”

Given our national overdose crisis, and issues of addiction with our soldiers and veterans, one has to wonder if the improvements afforded in pain control by Dsuvia will be worth the trade-off in possible deaths from misdirected use of a very potent agent. And while the new opioid may have been geared toward unmet military needs, Dsuvia will be available for use in civilian medical facilities as well.

There is some irony to the idea that a pharmaceutical company would continue to develop opioids when there is so much need for nonaddictive agents for pain control and so much pressure on physicians to limit access of opiates to pain patients. We are left to stand by and watch as yet another potent opioid preparation is introduced.
 

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016), and assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Financial conflicts are often underreported by authors of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in several specialties including oncology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology, according to a pair of research letters published in JAMA Internal Medicine. The Institute of Medicine recommends that guideline authors include no more than 50% individuals with financial conflicts.

In one research letter, Rishad Khan, BSc, of the University of Toronto in Ontario and his colleagues reviewed data on undeclared financial conflicts of interest among authors of guidelines related to high-revenue medications.

The researchers identified CPGs via the National Guideline Clearinghouse and selected 18 CPGs for 10 high-revenue medications published between 2013 and 2017. Financial conflicts of interest were based on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments.

Of the 160 authors involved in the various guidelines, 79 (49.4%) disclosed a payment in the CPG or supplemental materials, and 50 (31.3%) disclosed payments from companies marketing 1 of the 10 high-revenue medications in the related guidelines.

Another 41 authors (25.6%) received but did not disclose payments from companies marketing 1 of the 10 high-revenue medications in CPGs.

Overall, 91 authors (56.9%) were found to have financial conflicts of interest that involved 1 of the 10 high-revenue medications, and “the median value of undeclared payments from companies marketing 1 of the 10 high-revenue medications recommended in the CPGs was $522 (interquartile range, $0-$40,444) from two companies,” the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including “potential inaccuracies in CMS-OP reporting, which are rarely corrected, and lack of generalizability outside the United States” and by the limited time frame for data collection, which may have led to underestimation of conflicts for the guidelines, the researchers noted. In addition, “we did not have access to guideline voting records and thus did not know when conflicted panel members recommended against a medication or recused themselves from voting,” they said.

Mr. Khan disclosed research funding from AbbVie and Ferring Pharmaceuticals.

SOURCE: Combs T et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Oct 29. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4730. Khan R et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Oct 29. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.5106.

Financial conflicts are often underreported by authors of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in several specialties including oncology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology, according to a pair of research letters published in JAMA Internal Medicine. The Institute of Medicine recommends that guideline authors include no more than 50% individuals with financial conflicts.

In one research letter, Rishad Khan, BSc, of the University of Toronto in Ontario and his colleagues reviewed data on undeclared financial conflicts of interest among authors of guidelines related to high-revenue medications.

The researchers identified CPGs via the National Guideline Clearinghouse and selected 18 CPGs for 10 high-revenue medications published between 2013 and 2017. Financial conflicts of interest were based on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments.

Of the 160 authors involved in the various guidelines, 79 (49.4%) disclosed a payment in the CPG or supplemental materials, and 50 (31.3%) disclosed payments from companies marketing 1 of the 10 high-revenue medications in the related guidelines.

Another 41 authors (25.6%) received but did not disclose payments from companies marketing 1 of the 10 high-revenue medications in CPGs.

Overall, 91 authors (56.9%) were found to have financial conflicts of interest that involved 1 of the 10 high-revenue medications, and “the median value of undeclared payments from companies marketing 1 of the 10 high-revenue medications recommended in the CPGs was $522 (interquartile range, $0-$40,444) from two companies,” the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including “potential inaccuracies in CMS-OP reporting, which are rarely corrected, and lack of generalizability outside the United States” and by the limited time frame for data collection, which may have led to underestimation of conflicts for the guidelines, the researchers noted. In addition, “we did not have access to guideline voting records and thus did not know when conflicted panel members recommended against a medication or recused themselves from voting,” they said.

Mr. Khan disclosed research funding from AbbVie and Ferring Pharmaceuticals.

SOURCE: Combs T et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Oct 29. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4730. Khan R et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Oct 29. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.5106.

Financial conflicts are often underreported by authors of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in several specialties including oncology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology, according to a pair of research letters published in JAMA Internal Medicine. The Institute of Medicine recommends that guideline authors include no more than 50% individuals with financial conflicts.

In one research letter, Rishad Khan, BSc, of the University of Toronto in Ontario and his colleagues reviewed data on undeclared financial conflicts of interest among authors of guidelines related to high-revenue medications.

The researchers identified CPGs via the National Guideline Clearinghouse and selected 18 CPGs for 10 high-revenue medications published between 2013 and 2017. Financial conflicts of interest were based on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments.

Of the 160 authors involved in the various guidelines, 79 (49.4%) disclosed a payment in the CPG or supplemental materials, and 50 (31.3%) disclosed payments from companies marketing 1 of the 10 high-revenue medications in the related guidelines.

Another 41 authors (25.6%) received but did not disclose payments from companies marketing 1 of the 10 high-revenue medications in CPGs.

Overall, 91 authors (56.9%) were found to have financial conflicts of interest that involved 1 of the 10 high-revenue medications, and “the median value of undeclared payments from companies marketing 1 of the 10 high-revenue medications recommended in the CPGs was $522 (interquartile range, $0-$40,444) from two companies,” the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including “potential inaccuracies in CMS-OP reporting, which are rarely corrected, and lack of generalizability outside the United States” and by the limited time frame for data collection, which may have led to underestimation of conflicts for the guidelines, the researchers noted. In addition, “we did not have access to guideline voting records and thus did not know when conflicted panel members recommended against a medication or recused themselves from voting,” they said.

Mr. Khan disclosed research funding from AbbVie and Ferring Pharmaceuticals.

SOURCE: Combs T et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Oct 29. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4730. Khan R et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Oct 29. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.5106.

In 2015, 75% of U.S. hospitals with more than 50 beds had palliative care programs – a sharp increase from the 25% that had palliative care in 2000.

“The rapid adoption of this high-value program, which is voluntary and runs counter to the dominant culture in U.S. hospitals, was catalyzed by tens of millions of dollars in philanthropic support for innovation, dissemination, and professionalization in the palliative care field,” according to research published in Health Affairs.
 

Reference

Cassel JB et al. Palliative care leadership centers are key to the diffusion of palliative care innovation. Health Aff. 2018 Feb. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1122.

In 2015, 75% of U.S. hospitals with more than 50 beds had palliative care programs – a sharp increase from the 25% that had palliative care in 2000.

“The rapid adoption of this high-value program, which is voluntary and runs counter to the dominant culture in U.S. hospitals, was catalyzed by tens of millions of dollars in philanthropic support for innovation, dissemination, and professionalization in the palliative care field,” according to research published in Health Affairs.
 

Reference

Cassel JB et al. Palliative care leadership centers are key to the diffusion of palliative care innovation. Health Aff. 2018 Feb. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1122.

In 2015, 75% of U.S. hospitals with more than 50 beds had palliative care programs – a sharp increase from the 25% that had palliative care in 2000.

“The rapid adoption of this high-value program, which is voluntary and runs counter to the dominant culture in U.S. hospitals, was catalyzed by tens of millions of dollars in philanthropic support for innovation, dissemination, and professionalization in the palliative care field,” according to research published in Health Affairs.
 

Reference

Cassel JB et al. Palliative care leadership centers are key to the diffusion of palliative care innovation. Health Aff. 2018 Feb. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1122.

The Food and Drug Administration on Nov. 2 approved sufentanil (Dsuvia) for managing acute pain in adult patients in certified, medically supervised health care settings.

Sufentanil, an opioid analgesic manufactured by AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, was approved as a 30-mcg sublingual tablet. The efficacy of Dsuvia was shown in a randomized, clinical trial where patients who received the drug demonstrated significantly greater pain relief after both 15 minutes and 12 hours, compared with placebo.

“As a single-dose, noninvasive medication with a rapid reduction in pain intensity, Dsuvia represents an important alternative for health care providers to offer patients for acute pain management,” David Leiman, MD, of the department of surgery at the University of Texas, Houston, said in the AcelRx press statement.

FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, commented on the approval amid concerns expressed by some, such as the advocacy group Public Citizen, that the drug is “more than 1,000 times more potent than morphine,” and that approval could lead to diversion and abuse – particularly in light of the U.S. opioid epidemic.

In his statement, Dr. Gottlieb identified one broad, significant issue. “Why do we need an oral formulation of sufentanil – a more potent form of fentanyl that’s been approved for intravenous and epidural use in the U.S. since 1984 – on the market?”

In particular, he focused on the needs of the military. The Department of Defense has taken interest in sufentanil as it fulfills a small but specific battlefield need, namely as a means of pain relief in battlefield situations where soldiers cannot swallow oral medication and access to intravenous medication is limited.

Dr. Gottlieb made clear that sufentanil was meant only to be taken in controlled settings and will have strong limitations on its use. It cannot be prescribed for home use, and treatment should be limited to 72 hours. It can only be delivered by health care professionals using a single-dose applicator and will not be available in pharmacies. It is only to be used in patients who have not tolerated or are expected not to tolerate alternative methods of pain management.

“The FDA has implemented a REMS [Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy] that reflects the potential risks associated with this product and mandates that Dsuvia will only be made available for use in a certified medically supervised heath care setting, including its use on the battlefield,” Dr. Gottlieb said.

However, he recognized that the debate runs deeper than how the FDA should mitigate risk over a new drug, and “as a public health agency, we have an obligation to address this question openly and directly. As a physician and regulator, I won’t bypass legitimate questions and concerns related to our role in addressing the opioid crisis,” he said.

Find Dr. Gottlieb’s full statement on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration on Nov. 2 approved sufentanil (Dsuvia) for managing acute pain in adult patients in certified, medically supervised health care settings.

Sufentanil, an opioid analgesic manufactured by AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, was approved as a 30-mcg sublingual tablet. The efficacy of Dsuvia was shown in a randomized, clinical trial where patients who received the drug demonstrated significantly greater pain relief after both 15 minutes and 12 hours, compared with placebo.

“As a single-dose, noninvasive medication with a rapid reduction in pain intensity, Dsuvia represents an important alternative for health care providers to offer patients for acute pain management,” David Leiman, MD, of the department of surgery at the University of Texas, Houston, said in the AcelRx press statement.

FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, commented on the approval amid concerns expressed by some, such as the advocacy group Public Citizen, that the drug is “more than 1,000 times more potent than morphine,” and that approval could lead to diversion and abuse – particularly in light of the U.S. opioid epidemic.

In his statement, Dr. Gottlieb identified one broad, significant issue. “Why do we need an oral formulation of sufentanil – a more potent form of fentanyl that’s been approved for intravenous and epidural use in the U.S. since 1984 – on the market?”

In particular, he focused on the needs of the military. The Department of Defense has taken interest in sufentanil as it fulfills a small but specific battlefield need, namely as a means of pain relief in battlefield situations where soldiers cannot swallow oral medication and access to intravenous medication is limited.

Dr. Gottlieb made clear that sufentanil was meant only to be taken in controlled settings and will have strong limitations on its use. It cannot be prescribed for home use, and treatment should be limited to 72 hours. It can only be delivered by health care professionals using a single-dose applicator and will not be available in pharmacies. It is only to be used in patients who have not tolerated or are expected not to tolerate alternative methods of pain management.

“The FDA has implemented a REMS [Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy] that reflects the potential risks associated with this product and mandates that Dsuvia will only be made available for use in a certified medically supervised heath care setting, including its use on the battlefield,” Dr. Gottlieb said.

However, he recognized that the debate runs deeper than how the FDA should mitigate risk over a new drug, and “as a public health agency, we have an obligation to address this question openly and directly. As a physician and regulator, I won’t bypass legitimate questions and concerns related to our role in addressing the opioid crisis,” he said.

Find Dr. Gottlieb’s full statement on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration on Nov. 2 approved sufentanil (Dsuvia) for managing acute pain in adult patients in certified, medically supervised health care settings.

Sufentanil, an opioid analgesic manufactured by AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, was approved as a 30-mcg sublingual tablet. The efficacy of Dsuvia was shown in a randomized, clinical trial where patients who received the drug demonstrated significantly greater pain relief after both 15 minutes and 12 hours, compared with placebo.

“As a single-dose, noninvasive medication with a rapid reduction in pain intensity, Dsuvia represents an important alternative for health care providers to offer patients for acute pain management,” David Leiman, MD, of the department of surgery at the University of Texas, Houston, said in the AcelRx press statement.

FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, commented on the approval amid concerns expressed by some, such as the advocacy group Public Citizen, that the drug is “more than 1,000 times more potent than morphine,” and that approval could lead to diversion and abuse – particularly in light of the U.S. opioid epidemic.

In his statement, Dr. Gottlieb identified one broad, significant issue. “Why do we need an oral formulation of sufentanil – a more potent form of fentanyl that’s been approved for intravenous and epidural use in the U.S. since 1984 – on the market?”

In particular, he focused on the needs of the military. The Department of Defense has taken interest in sufentanil as it fulfills a small but specific battlefield need, namely as a means of pain relief in battlefield situations where soldiers cannot swallow oral medication and access to intravenous medication is limited.

Dr. Gottlieb made clear that sufentanil was meant only to be taken in controlled settings and will have strong limitations on its use. It cannot be prescribed for home use, and treatment should be limited to 72 hours. It can only be delivered by health care professionals using a single-dose applicator and will not be available in pharmacies. It is only to be used in patients who have not tolerated or are expected not to tolerate alternative methods of pain management.

“The FDA has implemented a REMS [Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy] that reflects the potential risks associated with this product and mandates that Dsuvia will only be made available for use in a certified medically supervised heath care setting, including its use on the battlefield,” Dr. Gottlieb said.

However, he recognized that the debate runs deeper than how the FDA should mitigate risk over a new drug, and “as a public health agency, we have an obligation to address this question openly and directly. As a physician and regulator, I won’t bypass legitimate questions and concerns related to our role in addressing the opioid crisis,” he said.

Find Dr. Gottlieb’s full statement on the FDA website.

[email protected]