February is National Cancer Prevention Month. With approximately 4.8 million new cases and 3.4 million deaths worldwide annually, GI cancers represent roughly a quarter of the global cancer incidence and over a third of all cancer-related deaths, according to one study.

In this month’s issue of GI & Hepatology News, we feature timely content relevant to prevention and early detection of GI cancers, which remains a central focus of our clinical and endoscopic practice as gastroenterologists. This includes important studies that demonstrate the value of upper endoscopy in reducing GI cancer mortality, illustrate the potential promise of artificial intelligence in improving early detection of gastric cancer, and link adenoma detection rate to long-term survival in patients who undergo CRC screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy. We also report on a focused update from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on colorectal cancer, which thoughtfully reviews the data supporting a shift in the age of initiation of average-risk CRC screening from 50 to 45 years.

On the policy front, AGA and its partners have worked tirelessly for many years to eliminate financial barriers to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening through national advocacy efforts. These efforts resulted in closure of the so-called Medicare “colonoscopy loophole” through legislation included in the COVID-19 relief bill – as a result, out-of-pocket costs for patients undergoing a screening colonoscopy that results in polypectomy are disallowed as of January 2022. The Biden Administration recently issued guidance in January in response to multisociety advocacy efforts: Private insurers must provide coverage without cost sharing for a follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based CRC screening test for plan or policy years starting on or after May 31, 2022. Removing these financial barriers to care is particularly critical to efforts to improve CRC screening rates among medically underserved communities.

These achievements highlight the power of physician advocacy in inspiring policy changes that directly improve the health and well-being of our patients. I encourage you to visit the AGA website to learn how you can contribute to ongoing advocacy efforts.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor in Chief

February is National Cancer Prevention Month. With approximately 4.8 million new cases and 3.4 million deaths worldwide annually, GI cancers represent roughly a quarter of the global cancer incidence and over a third of all cancer-related deaths, according to one study.

In this month’s issue of GI & Hepatology News, we feature timely content relevant to prevention and early detection of GI cancers, which remains a central focus of our clinical and endoscopic practice as gastroenterologists. This includes important studies that demonstrate the value of upper endoscopy in reducing GI cancer mortality, illustrate the potential promise of artificial intelligence in improving early detection of gastric cancer, and link adenoma detection rate to long-term survival in patients who undergo CRC screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy. We also report on a focused update from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on colorectal cancer, which thoughtfully reviews the data supporting a shift in the age of initiation of average-risk CRC screening from 50 to 45 years.

On the policy front, AGA and its partners have worked tirelessly for many years to eliminate financial barriers to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening through national advocacy efforts. These efforts resulted in closure of the so-called Medicare “colonoscopy loophole” through legislation included in the COVID-19 relief bill – as a result, out-of-pocket costs for patients undergoing a screening colonoscopy that results in polypectomy are disallowed as of January 2022. The Biden Administration recently issued guidance in January in response to multisociety advocacy efforts: Private insurers must provide coverage without cost sharing for a follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based CRC screening test for plan or policy years starting on or after May 31, 2022. Removing these financial barriers to care is particularly critical to efforts to improve CRC screening rates among medically underserved communities.

These achievements highlight the power of physician advocacy in inspiring policy changes that directly improve the health and well-being of our patients. I encourage you to visit the AGA website to learn how you can contribute to ongoing advocacy efforts.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor in Chief

February is National Cancer Prevention Month. With approximately 4.8 million new cases and 3.4 million deaths worldwide annually, GI cancers represent roughly a quarter of the global cancer incidence and over a third of all cancer-related deaths, according to one study.

In this month’s issue of GI & Hepatology News, we feature timely content relevant to prevention and early detection of GI cancers, which remains a central focus of our clinical and endoscopic practice as gastroenterologists. This includes important studies that demonstrate the value of upper endoscopy in reducing GI cancer mortality, illustrate the potential promise of artificial intelligence in improving early detection of gastric cancer, and link adenoma detection rate to long-term survival in patients who undergo CRC screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy. We also report on a focused update from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on colorectal cancer, which thoughtfully reviews the data supporting a shift in the age of initiation of average-risk CRC screening from 50 to 45 years.

On the policy front, AGA and its partners have worked tirelessly for many years to eliminate financial barriers to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening through national advocacy efforts. These efforts resulted in closure of the so-called Medicare “colonoscopy loophole” through legislation included in the COVID-19 relief bill – as a result, out-of-pocket costs for patients undergoing a screening colonoscopy that results in polypectomy are disallowed as of January 2022. The Biden Administration recently issued guidance in January in response to multisociety advocacy efforts: Private insurers must provide coverage without cost sharing for a follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based CRC screening test for plan or policy years starting on or after May 31, 2022. Removing these financial barriers to care is particularly critical to efforts to improve CRC screening rates among medically underserved communities.

These achievements highlight the power of physician advocacy in inspiring policy changes that directly improve the health and well-being of our patients. I encourage you to visit the AGA website to learn how you can contribute to ongoing advocacy efforts.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor in Chief

Dear colleagues,

I’m thrilled to introduce the first edition of The New Gastroenterologist in 2022! The onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic continues, and as physicians, we are exhausted. The past year brought glimpses of normalcy, but these were ultimately eclipsed by the precipitous surge of the very contagious Omicron variant, once again overwhelming health systems and threatening our daily routines. We will keep on, doing our best to protect our patients and our families, with the hope for an eventual transition ‘from pandemic to endemic.’

Due to the pandemic, telemedicine has now been firmly cemented as a cornerstone of clinical care, which Dr. Naresh Gunaratnam (Huron Gastroenterology, Ann Arbor, Mich.) discusses in our DHPA Private Practice Perspectives article for the quarter. Telemedicine boasts many benefits and while it will never be adopted entirely in lieu of in-person visits, it is a tool that should remain an option for years to come in the appropriate subset of patients.

Dear colleagues,

I’m thrilled to introduce the first edition of The New Gastroenterologist in 2022! The onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic continues, and as physicians, we are exhausted. The past year brought glimpses of normalcy, but these were ultimately eclipsed by the precipitous surge of the very contagious Omicron variant, once again overwhelming health systems and threatening our daily routines. We will keep on, doing our best to protect our patients and our families, with the hope for an eventual transition ‘from pandemic to endemic.’

Due to the pandemic, telemedicine has now been firmly cemented as a cornerstone of clinical care, which Dr. Naresh Gunaratnam (Huron Gastroenterology, Ann Arbor, Mich.) discusses in our DHPA Private Practice Perspectives article for the quarter. Telemedicine boasts many benefits and while it will never be adopted entirely in lieu of in-person visits, it is a tool that should remain an option for years to come in the appropriate subset of patients.

Dear colleagues,

I’m thrilled to introduce the first edition of The New Gastroenterologist in 2022! The onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic continues, and as physicians, we are exhausted. The past year brought glimpses of normalcy, but these were ultimately eclipsed by the precipitous surge of the very contagious Omicron variant, once again overwhelming health systems and threatening our daily routines. We will keep on, doing our best to protect our patients and our families, with the hope for an eventual transition ‘from pandemic to endemic.’

Due to the pandemic, telemedicine has now been firmly cemented as a cornerstone of clinical care, which Dr. Naresh Gunaratnam (Huron Gastroenterology, Ann Arbor, Mich.) discusses in our DHPA Private Practice Perspectives article for the quarter. Telemedicine boasts many benefits and while it will never be adopted entirely in lieu of in-person visits, it is a tool that should remain an option for years to come in the appropriate subset of patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic is now associated with the highest number of excess deaths worldwide since the 1918 flu pandemic, sometimes known as the “Spanish flu.”

Excess mortality is a way of quantifying the impact of a pandemic, based on overall mortality from nonpandemic periods. Mortality data over long periods of time are not available for many countries, but Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain have accumulated death count data for an uninterrupted period of more than 100 years.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Kaspar Staub, PhD, of the University of Zurich led a team of researchers in reviewing data on monthly excess deaths from all causes for Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain for 2020 to 2021. Dr. Staub and colleagues also compared these numbers to other pandemic and nonpandemic periods since the end of the 19th century. The starting years were 1877 for Switzerland, 1851 for Sweden, and 1908 for Spain.

The researchers collected data for monthly all-cause deaths from the statistical offices of each country and determined excess mortality by comparing these numbers to population size and age structure.

They found that 2020 showed the highest number of excess deaths since 1918, with relative excess of deaths of 12.5% in Switzerland, 8.5% in Sweden, and 17.3 % in Spain.

To put it another way, the number of excess deaths per 100,000 people was 100 for Switzerland, 75 for Sweden, and 155 for Spain.

“Our findings suggest that the pandemic led to the second-largest mortality disaster driven by a viral infection in more than 100 years in the three countries we studied, second only to the 1918 influenza pandemic,” the researchers wrote.

They explained that the excess mortality for the year 1918 was six to seven times higher than the 2020 numbers, but that the 2020 numbers might have been higher without the strong public health interventions taken worldwide to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Early estimates suggest that vaccination prevented approximately 470,000 deaths in persons aged 60 years or older across 33 European countries between December 2019 and November 2021,” they wrote. However, because the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, “a more conclusive assessment will have to wait,” they added.

The 2020 numbers also were higher than most mortality rates since 1918, including peak years of previous influenza pandemics that occurred in 1957, 1968, 1977, and, most recently, the swine flu pandemic of 2009 which was caused by a novel strain of the H1N1 influenza virus.

The study findings had some limitations. For example, only three countries were included. Also, monthly death numbers according to sex, age, and cause of death were available only for the past 60 years, and data from years before the 20th century may not be reliable, the researchers said.

The new study does not account for the long-term effects of patients suffering from long COVID, they noted.

Study findings support strong public health response

“With the COVID-19 pandemic ongoing, this study reinforces the historic magnitude of the problem in terms of mortality and could add to the justification for ongoing public health measures such as vaccination drives and vaccine mandates to curb deaths,” said Suman Pal, MD, an internal medicine physician at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.

“The results are surprising because when we view the rapid advancement in medical science over the last few decades, which have led to a decline in mortality from many previously fatal diseases, the scale of excess mortality from COVID-19 seems to have offset many such gains in the past 2 years.”

Prior studies of United States mortality data have estimated that excess deaths in the United States in 2020 exceeded the deaths attributed to COVID-19, said Dr. Pal. “The findings of this study could help clinicians in their discussion of the need for COVID-19 prevention measures with their patients” and inform discussions between doctors and patients about prevention strategies, he explained.

“Emphasizing that this pandemic is the second-largest cause of death due to a viral infection in a century could help patients understand the need for public health measures that may be viewed as unprecedented, such as government-imposed lockdowns, contact tracing, mask requirements, restrictions on travel, and vaccine mandates,” Dr. Pal noted. Better understanding of the evidence behind such measures may decrease the public’s resistance to following them, he added.As for additional research, “region-specific analysis of excess deaths may help estimate the impact of COVID-19 better, especially in regions where data reporting may be unreliable.”

Dr. F. Perry Wilson's take on study

“All-cause mortality is a key metric to assess the impact of the pandemic, because each death is treated equally,” said F. Perry Wilson, MD, of Yale University, in an interview. “With this type of analysis, there is no vague definition of a death from COVID or with COVID,” he explained. “A death is a death, and more deaths than expected is, of course, a bad thing. These analyses give a high-level view of the true human cost of the pandemic,” he said.

Yale School of Medicine

Dr. Wilson said he was not surprised by the findings. “There have been multiple studies, across multiple countries including the United States, which show similar findings—that observed deaths during this pandemic are substantially higher than expected,” he said. The current study findings are unique in that they compare the current pandemic to death rates in a nearly unbroken chain into the last century using data that only a few countries can provide, he noted. 

The mortality data are “quite similar to what we see in the United States, with the exception that Spain was particularly hard-hit in the first COVID-19 wave in April 2020, said Dr. Wilson. By contrast, “the U.S. had substantially more excess deaths in the recent Delta wave, presumably due to lower vaccination uptake,” he added.

The current study is important for clinicians and their patients, said Dr. Wilson. “Data like these can help cut through some of the misinformation, such as the idea that only people who would have died anyway die of COVID, or that COVID is not severe,” he emphasized. “Overall death data are quite clear that far more people, millions more people, died over the last 22 months than could possibly be explained except by a global-level mortality event,” he said. 

“One thing this study reminds us of is the value of high-quality data,” said Dr. Wilson. “Few countries have near complete vital statistics records on their entire populations and these can be so crucial to understand the true impact of pandemics and other disasters,” he explained. Of course, mortality data also serve as a reminder “that COVID is a serious disease: a once-in-a-century (we hope) pandemic,” he added.

The current study showed that excess death rates were similar, but not the same, from country to country, Dr. Wilson noted. “Moving forward, we need to learn what factors, from vaccination to social distancing strategies,” saved lives around the world,” he said. 

The study was supported by the Foundation for Research in Science and the Humanities at the University of Zurich, the Swiss National Science Foundation, and the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The researchers, Dr. Pal, and Dr. Wilson had no financial conflicts.

*This article was updated on 2/1/2022.

The COVID-19 pandemic is now associated with the highest number of excess deaths worldwide since the 1918 flu pandemic, sometimes known as the “Spanish flu.”

Excess mortality is a way of quantifying the impact of a pandemic, based on overall mortality from nonpandemic periods. Mortality data over long periods of time are not available for many countries, but Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain have accumulated death count data for an uninterrupted period of more than 100 years.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Kaspar Staub, PhD, of the University of Zurich led a team of researchers in reviewing data on monthly excess deaths from all causes for Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain for 2020 to 2021. Dr. Staub and colleagues also compared these numbers to other pandemic and nonpandemic periods since the end of the 19th century. The starting years were 1877 for Switzerland, 1851 for Sweden, and 1908 for Spain.

The researchers collected data for monthly all-cause deaths from the statistical offices of each country and determined excess mortality by comparing these numbers to population size and age structure.

They found that 2020 showed the highest number of excess deaths since 1918, with relative excess of deaths of 12.5% in Switzerland, 8.5% in Sweden, and 17.3 % in Spain.

To put it another way, the number of excess deaths per 100,000 people was 100 for Switzerland, 75 for Sweden, and 155 for Spain.

“Our findings suggest that the pandemic led to the second-largest mortality disaster driven by a viral infection in more than 100 years in the three countries we studied, second only to the 1918 influenza pandemic,” the researchers wrote.

They explained that the excess mortality for the year 1918 was six to seven times higher than the 2020 numbers, but that the 2020 numbers might have been higher without the strong public health interventions taken worldwide to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Early estimates suggest that vaccination prevented approximately 470,000 deaths in persons aged 60 years or older across 33 European countries between December 2019 and November 2021,” they wrote. However, because the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, “a more conclusive assessment will have to wait,” they added.

The 2020 numbers also were higher than most mortality rates since 1918, including peak years of previous influenza pandemics that occurred in 1957, 1968, 1977, and, most recently, the swine flu pandemic of 2009 which was caused by a novel strain of the H1N1 influenza virus.

The study findings had some limitations. For example, only three countries were included. Also, monthly death numbers according to sex, age, and cause of death were available only for the past 60 years, and data from years before the 20th century may not be reliable, the researchers said.

The new study does not account for the long-term effects of patients suffering from long COVID, they noted.

Study findings support strong public health response

“With the COVID-19 pandemic ongoing, this study reinforces the historic magnitude of the problem in terms of mortality and could add to the justification for ongoing public health measures such as vaccination drives and vaccine mandates to curb deaths,” said Suman Pal, MD, an internal medicine physician at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.

“The results are surprising because when we view the rapid advancement in medical science over the last few decades, which have led to a decline in mortality from many previously fatal diseases, the scale of excess mortality from COVID-19 seems to have offset many such gains in the past 2 years.”

Prior studies of United States mortality data have estimated that excess deaths in the United States in 2020 exceeded the deaths attributed to COVID-19, said Dr. Pal. “The findings of this study could help clinicians in their discussion of the need for COVID-19 prevention measures with their patients” and inform discussions between doctors and patients about prevention strategies, he explained.

“Emphasizing that this pandemic is the second-largest cause of death due to a viral infection in a century could help patients understand the need for public health measures that may be viewed as unprecedented, such as government-imposed lockdowns, contact tracing, mask requirements, restrictions on travel, and vaccine mandates,” Dr. Pal noted. Better understanding of the evidence behind such measures may decrease the public’s resistance to following them, he added.As for additional research, “region-specific analysis of excess deaths may help estimate the impact of COVID-19 better, especially in regions where data reporting may be unreliable.”

Dr. F. Perry Wilson's take on study

“All-cause mortality is a key metric to assess the impact of the pandemic, because each death is treated equally,” said F. Perry Wilson, MD, of Yale University, in an interview. “With this type of analysis, there is no vague definition of a death from COVID or with COVID,” he explained. “A death is a death, and more deaths than expected is, of course, a bad thing. These analyses give a high-level view of the true human cost of the pandemic,” he said.

Yale School of Medicine

Dr. Wilson said he was not surprised by the findings. “There have been multiple studies, across multiple countries including the United States, which show similar findings—that observed deaths during this pandemic are substantially higher than expected,” he said. The current study findings are unique in that they compare the current pandemic to death rates in a nearly unbroken chain into the last century using data that only a few countries can provide, he noted. 

The mortality data are “quite similar to what we see in the United States, with the exception that Spain was particularly hard-hit in the first COVID-19 wave in April 2020, said Dr. Wilson. By contrast, “the U.S. had substantially more excess deaths in the recent Delta wave, presumably due to lower vaccination uptake,” he added.

The current study is important for clinicians and their patients, said Dr. Wilson. “Data like these can help cut through some of the misinformation, such as the idea that only people who would have died anyway die of COVID, or that COVID is not severe,” he emphasized. “Overall death data are quite clear that far more people, millions more people, died over the last 22 months than could possibly be explained except by a global-level mortality event,” he said. 

“One thing this study reminds us of is the value of high-quality data,” said Dr. Wilson. “Few countries have near complete vital statistics records on their entire populations and these can be so crucial to understand the true impact of pandemics and other disasters,” he explained. Of course, mortality data also serve as a reminder “that COVID is a serious disease: a once-in-a-century (we hope) pandemic,” he added.

The current study showed that excess death rates were similar, but not the same, from country to country, Dr. Wilson noted. “Moving forward, we need to learn what factors, from vaccination to social distancing strategies,” saved lives around the world,” he said. 

The study was supported by the Foundation for Research in Science and the Humanities at the University of Zurich, the Swiss National Science Foundation, and the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The researchers, Dr. Pal, and Dr. Wilson had no financial conflicts.

*This article was updated on 2/1/2022.

The COVID-19 pandemic is now associated with the highest number of excess deaths worldwide since the 1918 flu pandemic, sometimes known as the “Spanish flu.”

Excess mortality is a way of quantifying the impact of a pandemic, based on overall mortality from nonpandemic periods. Mortality data over long periods of time are not available for many countries, but Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain have accumulated death count data for an uninterrupted period of more than 100 years.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Kaspar Staub, PhD, of the University of Zurich led a team of researchers in reviewing data on monthly excess deaths from all causes for Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain for 2020 to 2021. Dr. Staub and colleagues also compared these numbers to other pandemic and nonpandemic periods since the end of the 19th century. The starting years were 1877 for Switzerland, 1851 for Sweden, and 1908 for Spain.

The researchers collected data for monthly all-cause deaths from the statistical offices of each country and determined excess mortality by comparing these numbers to population size and age structure.

They found that 2020 showed the highest number of excess deaths since 1918, with relative excess of deaths of 12.5% in Switzerland, 8.5% in Sweden, and 17.3 % in Spain.

To put it another way, the number of excess deaths per 100,000 people was 100 for Switzerland, 75 for Sweden, and 155 for Spain.

“Our findings suggest that the pandemic led to the second-largest mortality disaster driven by a viral infection in more than 100 years in the three countries we studied, second only to the 1918 influenza pandemic,” the researchers wrote.

They explained that the excess mortality for the year 1918 was six to seven times higher than the 2020 numbers, but that the 2020 numbers might have been higher without the strong public health interventions taken worldwide to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Early estimates suggest that vaccination prevented approximately 470,000 deaths in persons aged 60 years or older across 33 European countries between December 2019 and November 2021,” they wrote. However, because the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, “a more conclusive assessment will have to wait,” they added.

The 2020 numbers also were higher than most mortality rates since 1918, including peak years of previous influenza pandemics that occurred in 1957, 1968, 1977, and, most recently, the swine flu pandemic of 2009 which was caused by a novel strain of the H1N1 influenza virus.

The study findings had some limitations. For example, only three countries were included. Also, monthly death numbers according to sex, age, and cause of death were available only for the past 60 years, and data from years before the 20th century may not be reliable, the researchers said.

The new study does not account for the long-term effects of patients suffering from long COVID, they noted.

Study findings support strong public health response

“With the COVID-19 pandemic ongoing, this study reinforces the historic magnitude of the problem in terms of mortality and could add to the justification for ongoing public health measures such as vaccination drives and vaccine mandates to curb deaths,” said Suman Pal, MD, an internal medicine physician at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.

“The results are surprising because when we view the rapid advancement in medical science over the last few decades, which have led to a decline in mortality from many previously fatal diseases, the scale of excess mortality from COVID-19 seems to have offset many such gains in the past 2 years.”

Prior studies of United States mortality data have estimated that excess deaths in the United States in 2020 exceeded the deaths attributed to COVID-19, said Dr. Pal. “The findings of this study could help clinicians in their discussion of the need for COVID-19 prevention measures with their patients” and inform discussions between doctors and patients about prevention strategies, he explained.

“Emphasizing that this pandemic is the second-largest cause of death due to a viral infection in a century could help patients understand the need for public health measures that may be viewed as unprecedented, such as government-imposed lockdowns, contact tracing, mask requirements, restrictions on travel, and vaccine mandates,” Dr. Pal noted. Better understanding of the evidence behind such measures may decrease the public’s resistance to following them, he added.As for additional research, “region-specific analysis of excess deaths may help estimate the impact of COVID-19 better, especially in regions where data reporting may be unreliable.”

Dr. F. Perry Wilson's take on study

“All-cause mortality is a key metric to assess the impact of the pandemic, because each death is treated equally,” said F. Perry Wilson, MD, of Yale University, in an interview. “With this type of analysis, there is no vague definition of a death from COVID or with COVID,” he explained. “A death is a death, and more deaths than expected is, of course, a bad thing. These analyses give a high-level view of the true human cost of the pandemic,” he said.

Yale School of Medicine

Dr. Wilson said he was not surprised by the findings. “There have been multiple studies, across multiple countries including the United States, which show similar findings—that observed deaths during this pandemic are substantially higher than expected,” he said. The current study findings are unique in that they compare the current pandemic to death rates in a nearly unbroken chain into the last century using data that only a few countries can provide, he noted. 

The mortality data are “quite similar to what we see in the United States, with the exception that Spain was particularly hard-hit in the first COVID-19 wave in April 2020, said Dr. Wilson. By contrast, “the U.S. had substantially more excess deaths in the recent Delta wave, presumably due to lower vaccination uptake,” he added.

The current study is important for clinicians and their patients, said Dr. Wilson. “Data like these can help cut through some of the misinformation, such as the idea that only people who would have died anyway die of COVID, or that COVID is not severe,” he emphasized. “Overall death data are quite clear that far more people, millions more people, died over the last 22 months than could possibly be explained except by a global-level mortality event,” he said. 

“One thing this study reminds us of is the value of high-quality data,” said Dr. Wilson. “Few countries have near complete vital statistics records on their entire populations and these can be so crucial to understand the true impact of pandemics and other disasters,” he explained. Of course, mortality data also serve as a reminder “that COVID is a serious disease: a once-in-a-century (we hope) pandemic,” he added.

The current study showed that excess death rates were similar, but not the same, from country to country, Dr. Wilson noted. “Moving forward, we need to learn what factors, from vaccination to social distancing strategies,” saved lives around the world,” he said. 

The study was supported by the Foundation for Research in Science and the Humanities at the University of Zurich, the Swiss National Science Foundation, and the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The researchers, Dr. Pal, and Dr. Wilson had no financial conflicts.

*This article was updated on 2/1/2022.

Q2. Correct answer: B. He should undergo surveillance colonoscopy now and annually thereafter. 
 
Rationale  
PSC diagnosis is the most consistent risk factor for colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Other identified risk factors include endoscopic extent of the disease (pancolitis), duration of the disease (more than 8 years), age at diagnosis (young), presence of pseudopolyps, and family history of CRC. The current guidelines recommend first surveillance colonoscopy 8-10 years after the diagnosis of ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease that involves more than one-third of the colon with subsequent surveillance intervals at 1-3 years. However, for patients with a concomitant diagnosis of PSC, the recommendation is to initiate surveillance as soon as the coexisting diagnosis is established, with annual surveillance colonoscopy thereafter.  
High-dose UDCA (more than 28 mg/kg/day) is not recommended in patients with PSC because it was linked to adverse outcomes in this population including decompensated cirrhosis, death, and increased risk of colorectal neoplasia. On the other hand, low-dose UDCA may improve laboratory markers of cholestasis, but with no clear impact on survival or long-term outcomes, its role for chemoprophylaxis in colorectal cancer is still controversial.  
Yearly MRCP is recommended to screen for cholangiocarcinoma.  
 
References  
Lindor KD et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 May;110(5):646-59; quiz 660.  
Lopez A et al. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. Feb-Apr 2018;32-33:103-109.

Q2. Correct answer: B. He should undergo surveillance colonoscopy now and annually thereafter. 
 
Rationale  
PSC diagnosis is the most consistent risk factor for colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Other identified risk factors include endoscopic extent of the disease (pancolitis), duration of the disease (more than 8 years), age at diagnosis (young), presence of pseudopolyps, and family history of CRC. The current guidelines recommend first surveillance colonoscopy 8-10 years after the diagnosis of ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease that involves more than one-third of the colon with subsequent surveillance intervals at 1-3 years. However, for patients with a concomitant diagnosis of PSC, the recommendation is to initiate surveillance as soon as the coexisting diagnosis is established, with annual surveillance colonoscopy thereafter.  
High-dose UDCA (more than 28 mg/kg/day) is not recommended in patients with PSC because it was linked to adverse outcomes in this population including decompensated cirrhosis, death, and increased risk of colorectal neoplasia. On the other hand, low-dose UDCA may improve laboratory markers of cholestasis, but with no clear impact on survival or long-term outcomes, its role for chemoprophylaxis in colorectal cancer is still controversial.  
Yearly MRCP is recommended to screen for cholangiocarcinoma.  
 
References  
Lindor KD et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 May;110(5):646-59; quiz 660.  
Lopez A et al. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. Feb-Apr 2018;32-33:103-109.

Q2. Correct answer: B. He should undergo surveillance colonoscopy now and annually thereafter. 
 
Rationale  
PSC diagnosis is the most consistent risk factor for colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Other identified risk factors include endoscopic extent of the disease (pancolitis), duration of the disease (more than 8 years), age at diagnosis (young), presence of pseudopolyps, and family history of CRC. The current guidelines recommend first surveillance colonoscopy 8-10 years after the diagnosis of ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease that involves more than one-third of the colon with subsequent surveillance intervals at 1-3 years. However, for patients with a concomitant diagnosis of PSC, the recommendation is to initiate surveillance as soon as the coexisting diagnosis is established, with annual surveillance colonoscopy thereafter.  
High-dose UDCA (more than 28 mg/kg/day) is not recommended in patients with PSC because it was linked to adverse outcomes in this population including decompensated cirrhosis, death, and increased risk of colorectal neoplasia. On the other hand, low-dose UDCA may improve laboratory markers of cholestasis, but with no clear impact on survival or long-term outcomes, its role for chemoprophylaxis in colorectal cancer is still controversial.  
Yearly MRCP is recommended to screen for cholangiocarcinoma.  
 
References  
Lindor KD et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 May;110(5):646-59; quiz 660.  
Lopez A et al. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. Feb-Apr 2018;32-33:103-109.

Q1. Correct answer: E. Emergent angiography 
 
Rationale  
This patient presents with a massive lower GI hemorrhage. After a brisk upper GI bleed was ruled-out with esophagogastroduodenoscopy, the patient continued to hemorrhage and remained hemodynamically unstable. In the setting of a patient with ongoing massive lower GI bleeding who has been ruled out for an upper GI bleed (negative upper endoscopy) and who continues to have hemodynamic instability despite resuscitation, emergent angiography should be pursued in an effort localize and control bleeding.  
Answer A is incorrect because an INR less than 2.5 does not require reversal prior to attempts at hemostasis. Answers B and C are incorrect because, given the patient's altered mental status and hemodynamic changes, she is unlikely to tolerate a bowel preparation and urgent colonoscopy. Also, there is no role for an unprepped colonoscopy in lower GI bleeding due to low yield and poor visualization. Answer D is incorrect because a nuclear-tagged red blood cell scan should be reserved for a patient who is hemodynamically stable.  
 
Reference  
Strate LL, Gralnek IM. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016 Apr;111(4):459-74.

Q1. Correct answer: E. Emergent angiography 
 
Rationale  
This patient presents with a massive lower GI hemorrhage. After a brisk upper GI bleed was ruled-out with esophagogastroduodenoscopy, the patient continued to hemorrhage and remained hemodynamically unstable. In the setting of a patient with ongoing massive lower GI bleeding who has been ruled out for an upper GI bleed (negative upper endoscopy) and who continues to have hemodynamic instability despite resuscitation, emergent angiography should be pursued in an effort localize and control bleeding.  
Answer A is incorrect because an INR less than 2.5 does not require reversal prior to attempts at hemostasis. Answers B and C are incorrect because, given the patient's altered mental status and hemodynamic changes, she is unlikely to tolerate a bowel preparation and urgent colonoscopy. Also, there is no role for an unprepped colonoscopy in lower GI bleeding due to low yield and poor visualization. Answer D is incorrect because a nuclear-tagged red blood cell scan should be reserved for a patient who is hemodynamically stable.  
 
Reference  
Strate LL, Gralnek IM. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016 Apr;111(4):459-74.

Q1. Correct answer: E. Emergent angiography 
 
Rationale  
This patient presents with a massive lower GI hemorrhage. After a brisk upper GI bleed was ruled-out with esophagogastroduodenoscopy, the patient continued to hemorrhage and remained hemodynamically unstable. In the setting of a patient with ongoing massive lower GI bleeding who has been ruled out for an upper GI bleed (negative upper endoscopy) and who continues to have hemodynamic instability despite resuscitation, emergent angiography should be pursued in an effort localize and control bleeding.  
Answer A is incorrect because an INR less than 2.5 does not require reversal prior to attempts at hemostasis. Answers B and C are incorrect because, given the patient's altered mental status and hemodynamic changes, she is unlikely to tolerate a bowel preparation and urgent colonoscopy. Also, there is no role for an unprepped colonoscopy in lower GI bleeding due to low yield and poor visualization. Answer D is incorrect because a nuclear-tagged red blood cell scan should be reserved for a patient who is hemodynamically stable.  
 
Reference  
Strate LL, Gralnek IM. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016 Apr;111(4):459-74.

More than 80% of orthopedists and orthopedic surgeons report being named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Orthopedist Malpractice Report 2021.

Orthopedists ranked third among specialists most likely to be sued, surpassed only by plastic surgeons and general surgeons (both 83%). In comparison, just over half of physicians across all specialties (51%) reported being named in lawsuit. More than one-third of orthopedists (34%) said they had been individually named in a suit, whereas just 14% of all specialists were named individually.

More than half (54%) of orthopedists said they were sued over complications from treatment or surgery. The second-most common reason orthopedists were sued was poor outcome/disease progression (30%), followed by failure to diagnose/delayed diagnosis (21%), failure to treat/delayed treatment (13%), and abnormal injury (9%).

This new report was compiled from an online survey including more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. The survey was available from May 21 to Aug. 28, 2021, and included 250 orthopedists and orthopedic surgeons. Most respondents (62%) had practiced orthopedics for more than 25 years and 60% were aged 60 years or older.

Orthopedists tended to pay more for malpractice insurance than do other specialists. Less than one-third of orthopedists (31%) reported a premium under $20,000 per year, compared with 52% of all specialists. The most common premium for orthopedists was $30,000 or more (29%), whereas only 11% of all specialists reported paying a similar premium.

Nearly 9 out of 10 (89%) of orthopedists said they were “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” by the malpractice suit. In some of these cases, the physician never personally treated the patient. Wrote one respondent: “I was part of a group of physicians and got dragged into the suit.” The vast majority of orthopedists (82%) said the suit was not warranted, which was similar to responses for physicians as a whole (83%).

Most commonly, orthopedists said lawsuits were settled before trial (34%). The second-most common outcome was the judge and jury deciding in the respondent’s favor (16%), followed by the plaintiff voluntarily dismissing the suit prior to trial (8%), and the respondent being dismissed from the suit in the first few months (8%). Very few (2%) said the judge or jury ruled in the patient’s favor, and 9% of respondents said the case was ongoing.

Most orthopedists reported that cases lasted between 1 and 2 years (41%) and 29% said a lawsuit took 3-5 years. If the plaintiff did receive a monetary award, 42% of physicians reported paying under $100,000, and 30% paid less than $500,000. This is similar to reports from other specialties, though more patients in orthopedic cases received payments under $1 million, compared with other specialties (21% vs. 15%).

More than three-quarters of orthopedists (76%) said that the lawsuit did not negatively affect their career, and more than half (52%) said they did not undergo any attitude or career changes after the suit. More orthopedists than other specialists (31% vs. 24%) did say that they trusted patients less.

When asked if they would do anything differently, one-third (33%) of orthopedists said their actions would remain the same, compared with 43% of the general physician pool. One-quarter of orthopedists said they would have not taken on the patient in the first place, and 14% noted they would have referred to another physician.

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

More than 80% of orthopedists and orthopedic surgeons report being named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Orthopedist Malpractice Report 2021.

Orthopedists ranked third among specialists most likely to be sued, surpassed only by plastic surgeons and general surgeons (both 83%). In comparison, just over half of physicians across all specialties (51%) reported being named in lawsuit. More than one-third of orthopedists (34%) said they had been individually named in a suit, whereas just 14% of all specialists were named individually.

More than half (54%) of orthopedists said they were sued over complications from treatment or surgery. The second-most common reason orthopedists were sued was poor outcome/disease progression (30%), followed by failure to diagnose/delayed diagnosis (21%), failure to treat/delayed treatment (13%), and abnormal injury (9%).

This new report was compiled from an online survey including more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. The survey was available from May 21 to Aug. 28, 2021, and included 250 orthopedists and orthopedic surgeons. Most respondents (62%) had practiced orthopedics for more than 25 years and 60% were aged 60 years or older.

Orthopedists tended to pay more for malpractice insurance than do other specialists. Less than one-third of orthopedists (31%) reported a premium under $20,000 per year, compared with 52% of all specialists. The most common premium for orthopedists was $30,000 or more (29%), whereas only 11% of all specialists reported paying a similar premium.

Nearly 9 out of 10 (89%) of orthopedists said they were “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” by the malpractice suit. In some of these cases, the physician never personally treated the patient. Wrote one respondent: “I was part of a group of physicians and got dragged into the suit.” The vast majority of orthopedists (82%) said the suit was not warranted, which was similar to responses for physicians as a whole (83%).

Most commonly, orthopedists said lawsuits were settled before trial (34%). The second-most common outcome was the judge and jury deciding in the respondent’s favor (16%), followed by the plaintiff voluntarily dismissing the suit prior to trial (8%), and the respondent being dismissed from the suit in the first few months (8%). Very few (2%) said the judge or jury ruled in the patient’s favor, and 9% of respondents said the case was ongoing.

Most orthopedists reported that cases lasted between 1 and 2 years (41%) and 29% said a lawsuit took 3-5 years. If the plaintiff did receive a monetary award, 42% of physicians reported paying under $100,000, and 30% paid less than $500,000. This is similar to reports from other specialties, though more patients in orthopedic cases received payments under $1 million, compared with other specialties (21% vs. 15%).

More than three-quarters of orthopedists (76%) said that the lawsuit did not negatively affect their career, and more than half (52%) said they did not undergo any attitude or career changes after the suit. More orthopedists than other specialists (31% vs. 24%) did say that they trusted patients less.

When asked if they would do anything differently, one-third (33%) of orthopedists said their actions would remain the same, compared with 43% of the general physician pool. One-quarter of orthopedists said they would have not taken on the patient in the first place, and 14% noted they would have referred to another physician.

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

More than 80% of orthopedists and orthopedic surgeons report being named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Orthopedist Malpractice Report 2021.

Orthopedists ranked third among specialists most likely to be sued, surpassed only by plastic surgeons and general surgeons (both 83%). In comparison, just over half of physicians across all specialties (51%) reported being named in lawsuit. More than one-third of orthopedists (34%) said they had been individually named in a suit, whereas just 14% of all specialists were named individually.

More than half (54%) of orthopedists said they were sued over complications from treatment or surgery. The second-most common reason orthopedists were sued was poor outcome/disease progression (30%), followed by failure to diagnose/delayed diagnosis (21%), failure to treat/delayed treatment (13%), and abnormal injury (9%).

This new report was compiled from an online survey including more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. The survey was available from May 21 to Aug. 28, 2021, and included 250 orthopedists and orthopedic surgeons. Most respondents (62%) had practiced orthopedics for more than 25 years and 60% were aged 60 years or older.

Orthopedists tended to pay more for malpractice insurance than do other specialists. Less than one-third of orthopedists (31%) reported a premium under $20,000 per year, compared with 52% of all specialists. The most common premium for orthopedists was $30,000 or more (29%), whereas only 11% of all specialists reported paying a similar premium.

Nearly 9 out of 10 (89%) of orthopedists said they were “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” by the malpractice suit. In some of these cases, the physician never personally treated the patient. Wrote one respondent: “I was part of a group of physicians and got dragged into the suit.” The vast majority of orthopedists (82%) said the suit was not warranted, which was similar to responses for physicians as a whole (83%).

Most commonly, orthopedists said lawsuits were settled before trial (34%). The second-most common outcome was the judge and jury deciding in the respondent’s favor (16%), followed by the plaintiff voluntarily dismissing the suit prior to trial (8%), and the respondent being dismissed from the suit in the first few months (8%). Very few (2%) said the judge or jury ruled in the patient’s favor, and 9% of respondents said the case was ongoing.

Most orthopedists reported that cases lasted between 1 and 2 years (41%) and 29% said a lawsuit took 3-5 years. If the plaintiff did receive a monetary award, 42% of physicians reported paying under $100,000, and 30% paid less than $500,000. This is similar to reports from other specialties, though more patients in orthopedic cases received payments under $1 million, compared with other specialties (21% vs. 15%).

More than three-quarters of orthopedists (76%) said that the lawsuit did not negatively affect their career, and more than half (52%) said they did not undergo any attitude or career changes after the suit. More orthopedists than other specialists (31% vs. 24%) did say that they trusted patients less.

When asked if they would do anything differently, one-third (33%) of orthopedists said their actions would remain the same, compared with 43% of the general physician pool. One-quarter of orthopedists said they would have not taken on the patient in the first place, and 14% noted they would have referred to another physician.

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

In June 2017, Betty Balikagala, MD, PhD, traveled to a hospital in Gulu District, in northern Uganda. It was the rainy season: a peak time for malaria transmission. Dr. Balikagala, a researcher at Juntendo University in Japan, was back in her home country to hunt for mutations in the parasite that causes the disease.

For about 4 weeks, Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues collected blood from infected patients as they were treated with a powerful cocktail of antimalarial drugs. After initial analysis, the team then shipped their samples – glass slides smeared with blood, and filter papers with blood spots – back to Japan.

In their lab at Juntendo University, they looked for traces of malaria in the blood slides, which they had prepared by drawing blood from patients every few hours. In previous years, Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues had observed the drugs efficiently clearing the infection. This time, though, the parasite lingered in some patients. “We were very surprised when we first did the parasite reading for 2017, and we noticed that there were some patients who had delayed clearance,” recalled Dr. Balikagala. “For me, it was a shock.”

Malaria kills more than half a million people per year, most of them small children. Still, between 2000 and 2020, according to the World Health Organization, interventions prevented around 10.6 million malaria deaths, mostly in Africa. Bed nets and insecticides were responsible for most of the progress. But a fairly large number of lives were also saved by a new kind of antimalarial treatment: artemisinin-based combination therapies, or ACTs, that replaced older drugs such as chloroquine.

Used as a first-line treatment, ACTs have averted a significant number of malaria deaths since their introduction in the early 2000s. ACTs pair a derivative of the drug artemisinin with one of five partner drugs or drug combinations. Delivered together, the fast-acting artemisinin component wipes out most of the parasites within a few days, and the longer-acting partner drug clears out the stragglers.

ACTs quickly became a mainstay in malaria treatment. But in 2009, researchers observed signs of resistance to artemisinin along the Thailand-Cambodia border. The artemisinin component failed to clear the parasite quickly, which meant that the partner drug had to pick up that load, creating favorable conditions for partner drug resistance, too. The Greater Mekong Subregion now experiences high rates of multidrug resistance. Scientists have feared that the spread of such resistance to Africa, which accounts for more than 90% of global malaria cases, would be disastrous.

Now, in a pair of reports published last year, scientists have confirmed the emergence of artemisinin resistance in Africa. One study, published in April, reported that ACTs had failed to work quickly for more than 10% of participants at two sites in Rwanda. The prevalence of artemisinin resistance mutations was also higher than detected in previous reports.

In September, Dr. Balikagala’s team published the report from Uganda, which also identified mutations associated with artemisinin resistance. Alarmingly, the resistant malaria parasites had risen from 3.9% of cases in 2015 to nearly 20% in 2019. Genetic analysis shows that the resistance mutations in Rwanda and Uganda have emerged independently.

The latest malaria report from the WHO, published in December, also noted worrying signs of artemisinin resistance in the Horn of Africa, on the eastern side of the continent. No peer-reviewed studies confirming such resistance have been published.

So far, the ACTs still work. But in an experimental setting, as drug resistance sets in, it can lengthen treatment by 3 or 4 days. That may not sound like much, said Timothy Wells, PhD, chief scientific officer of the nonprofit Medicines for Malaria Venture. But “the more days of therapy you need,” he said, “then the more there is the risk that people don’t finish their course of therapy.” Dropping a treatment course midway exposes the parasites to the drug, but doesn’t clear all of them, potentially leaving behind survivors with a higher chance of being drug resistant. “That’s really bad news, because then that sets up a perfect storm for creating more resistance,” said Dr. Wells.

The reports from Uganda and Rwanda have yielded a grim consensus: “We are going to see more and more of such independent emergence,” said Pascal Ringwald, MD, PhD, coordinator at the director’s office for the WHO Global Malaria Program. “This is exactly what we saw in the Greater Mekong.” Luckily, Dr. Wells said, switching to other ACTs helped to combat resistance when it was detected there, avoiding the need for prolonged treatment.

A new malaria vaccine, which recently received the go-ahead from the WHO, may eventually help reduce the number of infections, but its rollout won’t have any significant impact on drug resistance. As for new drugs, even the most promising candidate in the pipeline would take at least 4 years to become widely available.

That leaves public health workers in Africa with only one solid option: Track and surveil resistance to artemisinin and its partner drugs. Effective surveillance systems, experts say, need to ramp up quickly and widely across the continent.

But most experts say that surveillance on the continent is patchy. Indeed, there is considerable uncertainty about how widespread antimalarial resistance already is in sub-Saharan Africa – and disagreement over how to interpret initial reports of emerging partner drug resistance in some countries.

“Our current systems are not as good as they should be,” said Philip Rosenthal, MD, a malaria researcher at the University of California, San Francisco. The new reports of artemisinin resistance, he added, “can be seen as a wake-up call to improve surveillance.”

Malaria drugs have failed before. In the early 20th century, chloroquine helped beat back the pathogen worldwide. Then, about a decade after World War II, resistance to chloroquine surfaced along the Thailand-Cambodia border.

By the 1970s, chloroquine-resistant malaria had spread across India and into Africa, where it killed millions, many of them children. “In retrospect, we know that chloroquine was used for many years after there was a huge resistance problem,” said Dr. Rosenthal. “This probably led to millions of excess deaths that could have been avoided if we were using other drugs.”

The scurry to find new drugs yielded artemisinin. Used by Chinese herbalists some 2,000 years ago to treat malaria-like symptoms, artemisinin was rediscovered in the 1970s by biomedical researchers in China, and its use became widespread in the 2000s.

Haunted by the failure of chloroquine, though, researchers have remained on the lookout for signs that the malaria parasite is evolving to resist artemisinin or its partner drugs. The gold-standard method is a therapeutic efficacy study, which involves closely monitoring infected patients as they are treated with antimalarial drugs, to see how well the drugs perform and if there are any signs of resistance.

The WHO recommends conducting these studies at several sites in a country every 2 years. But “each country interprets that with their capability,” said Philippe Guérin, MD, PhD, director of the WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network at the University of Oxford, England. Efficacy studies are slow, costly, and labor intensive. Also, “you don’t get a very good geographical representation,” said Dr. Guérin, because you can do a new clinical trial in only so many places at a time.

To get around the problems associated with efficacy studies, researchers also turn to molecular surveillance. Researchers draw a few drops of blood from an infected individual onto a filter paper, then scan it in the laboratory for certain genetic mutations associated with resistance. The technique is relatively easy and cheap.

With these kinds of surveillance data, policymakers can choose which drugs to use in a particular region. Moreover, early detection of resistance can prompt health authorities to take actions to limit the spread of resistance, including more aggressive screening and treatment campaigns, and expanded efforts to control the mosquitoes that spread malaria.

In practice, though, this warning system is frayed. “There is really no organized surveillance system for the continent,” said Dr. Rosenthal. “Surveillance is haphazard.”

In countries lacking a robust health care system or mired in political instability, experts say, resistance could be spreading undetected. For example, the border of South Sudan is just 60 miles from the site in northern Uganda where Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues confirmed resistance to artemisinin. “Because of the security issues and the refugee-weakened system, there is no surveillance that tells us what is happening in South Sudan,” said Dr. Guérin. The same applies in some parts of the nearby Democratic Republic of the Congo, he added.

In the past, regional antimalarial networks, such as the now defunct East African Network for Monitoring of Antimalarial Treatment, have addressed some surveillance gaps. These networks can help standardize protocols and coordinate surveillance efforts. But such networks have suffered from recent lapses in donor funding. The East African network “will be awakened,” Dr. Balikagala predicted, as concerns about artemisinin-resistant malaria grow.

In southern Africa, eight countries have come together to form the Elimination Eight Initiative, a coalition to facilitate malaria elimination efforts across national borders, which may help jump-start surveillance efforts there.

Dr. Ringwald said drug resistance is a priority for him and his WHO colleagues. At a malaria policy advisory committee meeting last fall, he said, the issue was “high on the agenda.” However, when pressed for answers on how the WHO plans to combat drug resistance in Africa, Dr. Ringwald emailed Undark an excerpt from the organization’s 2021 World Malaria Report. The report states that the WHO will “work with countries to develop a regional plan for a coordinated response,” but does not lay out any specifics on that response plan. The Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, part of the African Union, did not respond to requests for comment on its plans to bolster surveillance.

“There is an ethical obligation to researchers, and to people responsible for surveillance, that if you pick up these problems, share them as quickly as possible, react to them as strongly as possible,” said Karen Barnes, a clinical pharmacologist at the University of Cape Town who cochairs the South African Malaria Elimination Committee. “And try very, very hard” to make sure “that it’s not going to be the same as when we had chloroquine resistance in Africa.”

In absence of more robust surveillance, reports have also identified worrying – but, some scientists say, inconclusive – signs of partner drug resistance.

A series of four studies conducted between 2013 and 2019 at several sites in Angola found the efficacy of artemether-lumefantrine – the most widely used ACT in Africa – had dropped below 90%, the WHO threshold for acceptable malaria treatment. Peer-reviewed studies from Burkina Faso and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have reported similar results.

The studies have not found genes associated with artemisinin resistance, suggesting that the partner drug, lumefantrine, might be faltering. But several malaria researchers told Undark they were skeptical of the studies’ methods and viewed the results as preliminary. “I would have preferred that we look at data with a standardized protocol and exclude any confounding factors like poor microscopy or analytical method,” said Dr. Ringwald.

Mateusz Plucinski, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Malaria Branch who participated in the Angola research, defended the findings. “The persistence of artemether-lumefantrine efficacy near or under 90% in Angola likely suggests that there is likely a true signal of decreased susceptibility of parasites to this drug,” he wrote in an email to this news organization. In response to the data, Angolan health officials have begun using a different ACT.

For now, it’s unclear how bad the situation is in Africa – or what the years ahead could bring. The research community and the authorities are “at the level of just watching and seeing what happens at this stage,” said Leann Tilley, PhD, a biochemist at the University of Melbourne who researches antimalarial resistance. But experts say that if artemisinin resistance does flare up and starts impinging on the partner drug, policymakers might need to consider changing to a different ACT, or even deploy triple ACTs, with two partner drugs.

Some experts are hopeful that artemisinin resistance will spread more slowly in Africa than it has in southeast Asia. But if high-grade resistance to artemisinin and partner drugs were to arise, it would put Africa in a bind. There are no immediate replacements for ACTs at the moment. The Medicines for Malaria Venture drug pipeline has about 30 molecules that show promise in preliminary testing, and about 15 molecules that are undergoing clinical trials for efficacy and safety, said Dr. Wells. But even the drugs that are at the end of the pipeline will take about 5-6 years from approval by regulatory authorities to be incorporated into WHO guidelines, he noted – if they make it through trials at all.

Dr. Wells cited one promising compound, from the drug maker Novartis, that recently performed well in early clinical trials. Still, Dr. Wells said, the drug won’t be ready to be deployed in Africa until around 2026.

Funds for malaria control and elimination programs remain limited, and scientists worry that, between COVID-19 and the malaria vaccine rollout, attention and resources for conducting surveillance and drug resistance work might dry up. “I really hope that those that do have resources available will understand that investing in Africa’s response to artemisinin resistance today, preferably yesterday, is probably one of the best places that they can put their money,” said Barnes.

The annals of malaria have shown time and again that once resistance emerges, it spreads widely and imperils progress against the deadly disease. For Africa, the writing is on the wall, she said. The bigger question, she asked, is this: “Are we capable of learning from history?”

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

In June 2017, Betty Balikagala, MD, PhD, traveled to a hospital in Gulu District, in northern Uganda. It was the rainy season: a peak time for malaria transmission. Dr. Balikagala, a researcher at Juntendo University in Japan, was back in her home country to hunt for mutations in the parasite that causes the disease.

For about 4 weeks, Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues collected blood from infected patients as they were treated with a powerful cocktail of antimalarial drugs. After initial analysis, the team then shipped their samples – glass slides smeared with blood, and filter papers with blood spots – back to Japan.

In their lab at Juntendo University, they looked for traces of malaria in the blood slides, which they had prepared by drawing blood from patients every few hours. In previous years, Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues had observed the drugs efficiently clearing the infection. This time, though, the parasite lingered in some patients. “We were very surprised when we first did the parasite reading for 2017, and we noticed that there were some patients who had delayed clearance,” recalled Dr. Balikagala. “For me, it was a shock.”

Malaria kills more than half a million people per year, most of them small children. Still, between 2000 and 2020, according to the World Health Organization, interventions prevented around 10.6 million malaria deaths, mostly in Africa. Bed nets and insecticides were responsible for most of the progress. But a fairly large number of lives were also saved by a new kind of antimalarial treatment: artemisinin-based combination therapies, or ACTs, that replaced older drugs such as chloroquine.

Used as a first-line treatment, ACTs have averted a significant number of malaria deaths since their introduction in the early 2000s. ACTs pair a derivative of the drug artemisinin with one of five partner drugs or drug combinations. Delivered together, the fast-acting artemisinin component wipes out most of the parasites within a few days, and the longer-acting partner drug clears out the stragglers.

ACTs quickly became a mainstay in malaria treatment. But in 2009, researchers observed signs of resistance to artemisinin along the Thailand-Cambodia border. The artemisinin component failed to clear the parasite quickly, which meant that the partner drug had to pick up that load, creating favorable conditions for partner drug resistance, too. The Greater Mekong Subregion now experiences high rates of multidrug resistance. Scientists have feared that the spread of such resistance to Africa, which accounts for more than 90% of global malaria cases, would be disastrous.

Now, in a pair of reports published last year, scientists have confirmed the emergence of artemisinin resistance in Africa. One study, published in April, reported that ACTs had failed to work quickly for more than 10% of participants at two sites in Rwanda. The prevalence of artemisinin resistance mutations was also higher than detected in previous reports.

In September, Dr. Balikagala’s team published the report from Uganda, which also identified mutations associated with artemisinin resistance. Alarmingly, the resistant malaria parasites had risen from 3.9% of cases in 2015 to nearly 20% in 2019. Genetic analysis shows that the resistance mutations in Rwanda and Uganda have emerged independently.

The latest malaria report from the WHO, published in December, also noted worrying signs of artemisinin resistance in the Horn of Africa, on the eastern side of the continent. No peer-reviewed studies confirming such resistance have been published.

So far, the ACTs still work. But in an experimental setting, as drug resistance sets in, it can lengthen treatment by 3 or 4 days. That may not sound like much, said Timothy Wells, PhD, chief scientific officer of the nonprofit Medicines for Malaria Venture. But “the more days of therapy you need,” he said, “then the more there is the risk that people don’t finish their course of therapy.” Dropping a treatment course midway exposes the parasites to the drug, but doesn’t clear all of them, potentially leaving behind survivors with a higher chance of being drug resistant. “That’s really bad news, because then that sets up a perfect storm for creating more resistance,” said Dr. Wells.

The reports from Uganda and Rwanda have yielded a grim consensus: “We are going to see more and more of such independent emergence,” said Pascal Ringwald, MD, PhD, coordinator at the director’s office for the WHO Global Malaria Program. “This is exactly what we saw in the Greater Mekong.” Luckily, Dr. Wells said, switching to other ACTs helped to combat resistance when it was detected there, avoiding the need for prolonged treatment.

A new malaria vaccine, which recently received the go-ahead from the WHO, may eventually help reduce the number of infections, but its rollout won’t have any significant impact on drug resistance. As for new drugs, even the most promising candidate in the pipeline would take at least 4 years to become widely available.

That leaves public health workers in Africa with only one solid option: Track and surveil resistance to artemisinin and its partner drugs. Effective surveillance systems, experts say, need to ramp up quickly and widely across the continent.

But most experts say that surveillance on the continent is patchy. Indeed, there is considerable uncertainty about how widespread antimalarial resistance already is in sub-Saharan Africa – and disagreement over how to interpret initial reports of emerging partner drug resistance in some countries.

“Our current systems are not as good as they should be,” said Philip Rosenthal, MD, a malaria researcher at the University of California, San Francisco. The new reports of artemisinin resistance, he added, “can be seen as a wake-up call to improve surveillance.”

Malaria drugs have failed before. In the early 20th century, chloroquine helped beat back the pathogen worldwide. Then, about a decade after World War II, resistance to chloroquine surfaced along the Thailand-Cambodia border.

By the 1970s, chloroquine-resistant malaria had spread across India and into Africa, where it killed millions, many of them children. “In retrospect, we know that chloroquine was used for many years after there was a huge resistance problem,” said Dr. Rosenthal. “This probably led to millions of excess deaths that could have been avoided if we were using other drugs.”

The scurry to find new drugs yielded artemisinin. Used by Chinese herbalists some 2,000 years ago to treat malaria-like symptoms, artemisinin was rediscovered in the 1970s by biomedical researchers in China, and its use became widespread in the 2000s.

Haunted by the failure of chloroquine, though, researchers have remained on the lookout for signs that the malaria parasite is evolving to resist artemisinin or its partner drugs. The gold-standard method is a therapeutic efficacy study, which involves closely monitoring infected patients as they are treated with antimalarial drugs, to see how well the drugs perform and if there are any signs of resistance.

The WHO recommends conducting these studies at several sites in a country every 2 years. But “each country interprets that with their capability,” said Philippe Guérin, MD, PhD, director of the WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network at the University of Oxford, England. Efficacy studies are slow, costly, and labor intensive. Also, “you don’t get a very good geographical representation,” said Dr. Guérin, because you can do a new clinical trial in only so many places at a time.

To get around the problems associated with efficacy studies, researchers also turn to molecular surveillance. Researchers draw a few drops of blood from an infected individual onto a filter paper, then scan it in the laboratory for certain genetic mutations associated with resistance. The technique is relatively easy and cheap.

With these kinds of surveillance data, policymakers can choose which drugs to use in a particular region. Moreover, early detection of resistance can prompt health authorities to take actions to limit the spread of resistance, including more aggressive screening and treatment campaigns, and expanded efforts to control the mosquitoes that spread malaria.

In practice, though, this warning system is frayed. “There is really no organized surveillance system for the continent,” said Dr. Rosenthal. “Surveillance is haphazard.”

In countries lacking a robust health care system or mired in political instability, experts say, resistance could be spreading undetected. For example, the border of South Sudan is just 60 miles from the site in northern Uganda where Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues confirmed resistance to artemisinin. “Because of the security issues and the refugee-weakened system, there is no surveillance that tells us what is happening in South Sudan,” said Dr. Guérin. The same applies in some parts of the nearby Democratic Republic of the Congo, he added.

In the past, regional antimalarial networks, such as the now defunct East African Network for Monitoring of Antimalarial Treatment, have addressed some surveillance gaps. These networks can help standardize protocols and coordinate surveillance efforts. But such networks have suffered from recent lapses in donor funding. The East African network “will be awakened,” Dr. Balikagala predicted, as concerns about artemisinin-resistant malaria grow.

In southern Africa, eight countries have come together to form the Elimination Eight Initiative, a coalition to facilitate malaria elimination efforts across national borders, which may help jump-start surveillance efforts there.

Dr. Ringwald said drug resistance is a priority for him and his WHO colleagues. At a malaria policy advisory committee meeting last fall, he said, the issue was “high on the agenda.” However, when pressed for answers on how the WHO plans to combat drug resistance in Africa, Dr. Ringwald emailed Undark an excerpt from the organization’s 2021 World Malaria Report. The report states that the WHO will “work with countries to develop a regional plan for a coordinated response,” but does not lay out any specifics on that response plan. The Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, part of the African Union, did not respond to requests for comment on its plans to bolster surveillance.

“There is an ethical obligation to researchers, and to people responsible for surveillance, that if you pick up these problems, share them as quickly as possible, react to them as strongly as possible,” said Karen Barnes, a clinical pharmacologist at the University of Cape Town who cochairs the South African Malaria Elimination Committee. “And try very, very hard” to make sure “that it’s not going to be the same as when we had chloroquine resistance in Africa.”

In absence of more robust surveillance, reports have also identified worrying – but, some scientists say, inconclusive – signs of partner drug resistance.

A series of four studies conducted between 2013 and 2019 at several sites in Angola found the efficacy of artemether-lumefantrine – the most widely used ACT in Africa – had dropped below 90%, the WHO threshold for acceptable malaria treatment. Peer-reviewed studies from Burkina Faso and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have reported similar results.

The studies have not found genes associated with artemisinin resistance, suggesting that the partner drug, lumefantrine, might be faltering. But several malaria researchers told Undark they were skeptical of the studies’ methods and viewed the results as preliminary. “I would have preferred that we look at data with a standardized protocol and exclude any confounding factors like poor microscopy or analytical method,” said Dr. Ringwald.

Mateusz Plucinski, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Malaria Branch who participated in the Angola research, defended the findings. “The persistence of artemether-lumefantrine efficacy near or under 90% in Angola likely suggests that there is likely a true signal of decreased susceptibility of parasites to this drug,” he wrote in an email to this news organization. In response to the data, Angolan health officials have begun using a different ACT.

For now, it’s unclear how bad the situation is in Africa – or what the years ahead could bring. The research community and the authorities are “at the level of just watching and seeing what happens at this stage,” said Leann Tilley, PhD, a biochemist at the University of Melbourne who researches antimalarial resistance. But experts say that if artemisinin resistance does flare up and starts impinging on the partner drug, policymakers might need to consider changing to a different ACT, or even deploy triple ACTs, with two partner drugs.

Some experts are hopeful that artemisinin resistance will spread more slowly in Africa than it has in southeast Asia. But if high-grade resistance to artemisinin and partner drugs were to arise, it would put Africa in a bind. There are no immediate replacements for ACTs at the moment. The Medicines for Malaria Venture drug pipeline has about 30 molecules that show promise in preliminary testing, and about 15 molecules that are undergoing clinical trials for efficacy and safety, said Dr. Wells. But even the drugs that are at the end of the pipeline will take about 5-6 years from approval by regulatory authorities to be incorporated into WHO guidelines, he noted – if they make it through trials at all.

Dr. Wells cited one promising compound, from the drug maker Novartis, that recently performed well in early clinical trials. Still, Dr. Wells said, the drug won’t be ready to be deployed in Africa until around 2026.

Funds for malaria control and elimination programs remain limited, and scientists worry that, between COVID-19 and the malaria vaccine rollout, attention and resources for conducting surveillance and drug resistance work might dry up. “I really hope that those that do have resources available will understand that investing in Africa’s response to artemisinin resistance today, preferably yesterday, is probably one of the best places that they can put their money,” said Barnes.

The annals of malaria have shown time and again that once resistance emerges, it spreads widely and imperils progress against the deadly disease. For Africa, the writing is on the wall, she said. The bigger question, she asked, is this: “Are we capable of learning from history?”

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

In June 2017, Betty Balikagala, MD, PhD, traveled to a hospital in Gulu District, in northern Uganda. It was the rainy season: a peak time for malaria transmission. Dr. Balikagala, a researcher at Juntendo University in Japan, was back in her home country to hunt for mutations in the parasite that causes the disease.

For about 4 weeks, Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues collected blood from infected patients as they were treated with a powerful cocktail of antimalarial drugs. After initial analysis, the team then shipped their samples – glass slides smeared with blood, and filter papers with blood spots – back to Japan.

In their lab at Juntendo University, they looked for traces of malaria in the blood slides, which they had prepared by drawing blood from patients every few hours. In previous years, Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues had observed the drugs efficiently clearing the infection. This time, though, the parasite lingered in some patients. “We were very surprised when we first did the parasite reading for 2017, and we noticed that there were some patients who had delayed clearance,” recalled Dr. Balikagala. “For me, it was a shock.”

Malaria kills more than half a million people per year, most of them small children. Still, between 2000 and 2020, according to the World Health Organization, interventions prevented around 10.6 million malaria deaths, mostly in Africa. Bed nets and insecticides were responsible for most of the progress. But a fairly large number of lives were also saved by a new kind of antimalarial treatment: artemisinin-based combination therapies, or ACTs, that replaced older drugs such as chloroquine.

Used as a first-line treatment, ACTs have averted a significant number of malaria deaths since their introduction in the early 2000s. ACTs pair a derivative of the drug artemisinin with one of five partner drugs or drug combinations. Delivered together, the fast-acting artemisinin component wipes out most of the parasites within a few days, and the longer-acting partner drug clears out the stragglers.

ACTs quickly became a mainstay in malaria treatment. But in 2009, researchers observed signs of resistance to artemisinin along the Thailand-Cambodia border. The artemisinin component failed to clear the parasite quickly, which meant that the partner drug had to pick up that load, creating favorable conditions for partner drug resistance, too. The Greater Mekong Subregion now experiences high rates of multidrug resistance. Scientists have feared that the spread of such resistance to Africa, which accounts for more than 90% of global malaria cases, would be disastrous.

Now, in a pair of reports published last year, scientists have confirmed the emergence of artemisinin resistance in Africa. One study, published in April, reported that ACTs had failed to work quickly for more than 10% of participants at two sites in Rwanda. The prevalence of artemisinin resistance mutations was also higher than detected in previous reports.

In September, Dr. Balikagala’s team published the report from Uganda, which also identified mutations associated with artemisinin resistance. Alarmingly, the resistant malaria parasites had risen from 3.9% of cases in 2015 to nearly 20% in 2019. Genetic analysis shows that the resistance mutations in Rwanda and Uganda have emerged independently.

The latest malaria report from the WHO, published in December, also noted worrying signs of artemisinin resistance in the Horn of Africa, on the eastern side of the continent. No peer-reviewed studies confirming such resistance have been published.

So far, the ACTs still work. But in an experimental setting, as drug resistance sets in, it can lengthen treatment by 3 or 4 days. That may not sound like much, said Timothy Wells, PhD, chief scientific officer of the nonprofit Medicines for Malaria Venture. But “the more days of therapy you need,” he said, “then the more there is the risk that people don’t finish their course of therapy.” Dropping a treatment course midway exposes the parasites to the drug, but doesn’t clear all of them, potentially leaving behind survivors with a higher chance of being drug resistant. “That’s really bad news, because then that sets up a perfect storm for creating more resistance,” said Dr. Wells.

The reports from Uganda and Rwanda have yielded a grim consensus: “We are going to see more and more of such independent emergence,” said Pascal Ringwald, MD, PhD, coordinator at the director’s office for the WHO Global Malaria Program. “This is exactly what we saw in the Greater Mekong.” Luckily, Dr. Wells said, switching to other ACTs helped to combat resistance when it was detected there, avoiding the need for prolonged treatment.

A new malaria vaccine, which recently received the go-ahead from the WHO, may eventually help reduce the number of infections, but its rollout won’t have any significant impact on drug resistance. As for new drugs, even the most promising candidate in the pipeline would take at least 4 years to become widely available.

That leaves public health workers in Africa with only one solid option: Track and surveil resistance to artemisinin and its partner drugs. Effective surveillance systems, experts say, need to ramp up quickly and widely across the continent.

But most experts say that surveillance on the continent is patchy. Indeed, there is considerable uncertainty about how widespread antimalarial resistance already is in sub-Saharan Africa – and disagreement over how to interpret initial reports of emerging partner drug resistance in some countries.

“Our current systems are not as good as they should be,” said Philip Rosenthal, MD, a malaria researcher at the University of California, San Francisco. The new reports of artemisinin resistance, he added, “can be seen as a wake-up call to improve surveillance.”

Malaria drugs have failed before. In the early 20th century, chloroquine helped beat back the pathogen worldwide. Then, about a decade after World War II, resistance to chloroquine surfaced along the Thailand-Cambodia border.

By the 1970s, chloroquine-resistant malaria had spread across India and into Africa, where it killed millions, many of them children. “In retrospect, we know that chloroquine was used for many years after there was a huge resistance problem,” said Dr. Rosenthal. “This probably led to millions of excess deaths that could have been avoided if we were using other drugs.”

The scurry to find new drugs yielded artemisinin. Used by Chinese herbalists some 2,000 years ago to treat malaria-like symptoms, artemisinin was rediscovered in the 1970s by biomedical researchers in China, and its use became widespread in the 2000s.

Haunted by the failure of chloroquine, though, researchers have remained on the lookout for signs that the malaria parasite is evolving to resist artemisinin or its partner drugs. The gold-standard method is a therapeutic efficacy study, which involves closely monitoring infected patients as they are treated with antimalarial drugs, to see how well the drugs perform and if there are any signs of resistance.

The WHO recommends conducting these studies at several sites in a country every 2 years. But “each country interprets that with their capability,” said Philippe Guérin, MD, PhD, director of the WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network at the University of Oxford, England. Efficacy studies are slow, costly, and labor intensive. Also, “you don’t get a very good geographical representation,” said Dr. Guérin, because you can do a new clinical trial in only so many places at a time.

To get around the problems associated with efficacy studies, researchers also turn to molecular surveillance. Researchers draw a few drops of blood from an infected individual onto a filter paper, then scan it in the laboratory for certain genetic mutations associated with resistance. The technique is relatively easy and cheap.

With these kinds of surveillance data, policymakers can choose which drugs to use in a particular region. Moreover, early detection of resistance can prompt health authorities to take actions to limit the spread of resistance, including more aggressive screening and treatment campaigns, and expanded efforts to control the mosquitoes that spread malaria.

In practice, though, this warning system is frayed. “There is really no organized surveillance system for the continent,” said Dr. Rosenthal. “Surveillance is haphazard.”

In countries lacking a robust health care system or mired in political instability, experts say, resistance could be spreading undetected. For example, the border of South Sudan is just 60 miles from the site in northern Uganda where Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues confirmed resistance to artemisinin. “Because of the security issues and the refugee-weakened system, there is no surveillance that tells us what is happening in South Sudan,” said Dr. Guérin. The same applies in some parts of the nearby Democratic Republic of the Congo, he added.

In the past, regional antimalarial networks, such as the now defunct East African Network for Monitoring of Antimalarial Treatment, have addressed some surveillance gaps. These networks can help standardize protocols and coordinate surveillance efforts. But such networks have suffered from recent lapses in donor funding. The East African network “will be awakened,” Dr. Balikagala predicted, as concerns about artemisinin-resistant malaria grow.

In southern Africa, eight countries have come together to form the Elimination Eight Initiative, a coalition to facilitate malaria elimination efforts across national borders, which may help jump-start surveillance efforts there.

Dr. Ringwald said drug resistance is a priority for him and his WHO colleagues. At a malaria policy advisory committee meeting last fall, he said, the issue was “high on the agenda.” However, when pressed for answers on how the WHO plans to combat drug resistance in Africa, Dr. Ringwald emailed Undark an excerpt from the organization’s 2021 World Malaria Report. The report states that the WHO will “work with countries to develop a regional plan for a coordinated response,” but does not lay out any specifics on that response plan. The Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, part of the African Union, did not respond to requests for comment on its plans to bolster surveillance.

“There is an ethical obligation to researchers, and to people responsible for surveillance, that if you pick up these problems, share them as quickly as possible, react to them as strongly as possible,” said Karen Barnes, a clinical pharmacologist at the University of Cape Town who cochairs the South African Malaria Elimination Committee. “And try very, very hard” to make sure “that it’s not going to be the same as when we had chloroquine resistance in Africa.”

In absence of more robust surveillance, reports have also identified worrying – but, some scientists say, inconclusive – signs of partner drug resistance.

A series of four studies conducted between 2013 and 2019 at several sites in Angola found the efficacy of artemether-lumefantrine – the most widely used ACT in Africa – had dropped below 90%, the WHO threshold for acceptable malaria treatment. Peer-reviewed studies from Burkina Faso and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have reported similar results.

The studies have not found genes associated with artemisinin resistance, suggesting that the partner drug, lumefantrine, might be faltering. But several malaria researchers told Undark they were skeptical of the studies’ methods and viewed the results as preliminary. “I would have preferred that we look at data with a standardized protocol and exclude any confounding factors like poor microscopy or analytical method,” said Dr. Ringwald.

Mateusz Plucinski, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Malaria Branch who participated in the Angola research, defended the findings. “The persistence of artemether-lumefantrine efficacy near or under 90% in Angola likely suggests that there is likely a true signal of decreased susceptibility of parasites to this drug,” he wrote in an email to this news organization. In response to the data, Angolan health officials have begun using a different ACT.

For now, it’s unclear how bad the situation is in Africa – or what the years ahead could bring. The research community and the authorities are “at the level of just watching and seeing what happens at this stage,” said Leann Tilley, PhD, a biochemist at the University of Melbourne who researches antimalarial resistance. But experts say that if artemisinin resistance does flare up and starts impinging on the partner drug, policymakers might need to consider changing to a different ACT, or even deploy triple ACTs, with two partner drugs.

Some experts are hopeful that artemisinin resistance will spread more slowly in Africa than it has in southeast Asia. But if high-grade resistance to artemisinin and partner drugs were to arise, it would put Africa in a bind. There are no immediate replacements for ACTs at the moment. The Medicines for Malaria Venture drug pipeline has about 30 molecules that show promise in preliminary testing, and about 15 molecules that are undergoing clinical trials for efficacy and safety, said Dr. Wells. But even the drugs that are at the end of the pipeline will take about 5-6 years from approval by regulatory authorities to be incorporated into WHO guidelines, he noted – if they make it through trials at all.

Dr. Wells cited one promising compound, from the drug maker Novartis, that recently performed well in early clinical trials. Still, Dr. Wells said, the drug won’t be ready to be deployed in Africa until around 2026.

Funds for malaria control and elimination programs remain limited, and scientists worry that, between COVID-19 and the malaria vaccine rollout, attention and resources for conducting surveillance and drug resistance work might dry up. “I really hope that those that do have resources available will understand that investing in Africa’s response to artemisinin resistance today, preferably yesterday, is probably one of the best places that they can put their money,” said Barnes.

The annals of malaria have shown time and again that once resistance emerges, it spreads widely and imperils progress against the deadly disease. For Africa, the writing is on the wall, she said. The bigger question, she asked, is this: “Are we capable of learning from history?”

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

Fifteen years ago, Mrs. Smith was hospitalized for a dural sinus thrombosis.

This is a scary enough diagnosis as it is, but with the miracle of modern medicine she did great. She still checks in with me every year or so, but hasn’t had any recurrence.

Three years ago she tripped over her dog (amazing how often that seems to happen) and broke her arm. She landed in the hospital and needed orthopedic surgery, so they consulted me about the safety of getting her off the antiplatelet agent she was taking since stopping Coumadin.

When I arrived someone had already written an admitting note, which included a past history of “subdural hematoma, maintained on daily aspirin.”

Where this error came from, I don’t know. When I asked Mrs. Smith, she was quite clear on her correct diagnosis, and said she’d given it to the person who admitted her. So I dictated a consult, and typed it into my progress note each day. My notes made it clear that she’d had a dural sinus thrombosis and not a subdural hematoma.

This isn’t just nitpicking, obviously. They’re entirely different disorders. While the point may not be critical to her needing wrist surgery, these are medical records, and medical records need to be as accurate as possible for this, and future hospital stays and for physicians to be aware of.

I signed off after a few days and didn’t think much of it until I was faxed a copy of her discharge summary. Which listed “subdural hematoma, maintained on daily aspirin.”

Apparently no one read my notes. Not that I’m really surprised.

We’re now 3 years later. As do many patients of her age, Mrs. Smith has landed in the hospital a few times since then. COVID, syncope, another fall. In each one of them the “subdural hematoma, maintained on daily aspirin” shows up.

At the most recent incident, the hospital’s neurologist called and asked me why I was treating a subdural hematoma with aspirin, then said Mrs. Smith had told him it was a dural sinus thrombosis. I said she was right, and he said “that makes more sense” and that he’d put it in his note.

He did, but it didn’t change anything. The discharge summary still listed “subdural hematoma, maintained on daily aspirin.”

At some point resistance is futile.

The stupidity of the whole thing is frustrating, as is knowing that it’s not just Mrs. Smith. The same scenario of incorrect history and medications is propagated from visit to visit. Taking a history is too time consuming for some. It’s easier to just read off, or cut and paste, a previous note. In cases where the patient can’t give a history I understand this. But when they can it’s just being too rushed – or lazy – to care.

It’s easy to blame EMRs as the culprits. Bashing them is fashionable. But in this case I can’t. They make it easier, but it’s nothing new. I remember a night almost 30 years ago when I was doing an admission at the Phoenix VA. When I picked up the most recent volume of the patient’s old chart to look at labs, the previous H&P said “see old chart.”

The problem is human nature. Not the computer.

But in this field the fallout can be serious – the wrong precautions taken, or medication given, based on a nonexistent contraindication. In medicine the stakes are high. Our decisions are only as good as the information we base them on, and if that information is wrong ...

Shortcuts have consequences.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Fifteen years ago, Mrs. Smith was hospitalized for a dural sinus thrombosis.

This is a scary enough diagnosis as it is, but with the miracle of modern medicine she did great. She still checks in with me every year or so, but hasn’t had any recurrence.

Three years ago she tripped over her dog (amazing how often that seems to happen) and broke her arm. She landed in the hospital and needed orthopedic surgery, so they consulted me about the safety of getting her off the antiplatelet agent she was taking since stopping Coumadin.

When I arrived someone had already written an admitting note, which included a past history of “subdural hematoma, maintained on daily aspirin.”

Where this error came from, I don’t know. When I asked Mrs. Smith, she was quite clear on her correct diagnosis, and said she’d given it to the person who admitted her. So I dictated a consult, and typed it into my progress note each day. My notes made it clear that she’d had a dural sinus thrombosis and not a subdural hematoma.

This isn’t just nitpicking, obviously. They’re entirely different disorders. While the point may not be critical to her needing wrist surgery, these are medical records, and medical records need to be as accurate as possible for this, and future hospital stays and for physicians to be aware of.

I signed off after a few days and didn’t think much of it until I was faxed a copy of her discharge summary. Which listed “subdural hematoma, maintained on daily aspirin.”

Apparently no one read my notes. Not that I’m really surprised.

We’re now 3 years later. As do many patients of her age, Mrs. Smith has landed in the hospital a few times since then. COVID, syncope, another fall. In each one of them the “subdural hematoma, maintained on daily aspirin” shows up.

At the most recent incident, the hospital’s neurologist called and asked me why I was treating a subdural hematoma with aspirin, then said Mrs. Smith had told him it was a dural sinus thrombosis. I said she was right, and he said “that makes more sense” and that he’d put it in his note.

He did, but it didn’t change anything. The discharge summary still listed “subdural hematoma, maintained on daily aspirin.”

At some point resistance is futile.

The stupidity of the whole thing is frustrating, as is knowing that it’s not just Mrs. Smith. The same scenario of incorrect history and medications is propagated from visit to visit. Taking a history is too time consuming for some. It’s easier to just read off, or cut and paste, a previous note. In cases where the patient can’t give a history I understand this. But when they can it’s just being too rushed – or lazy – to care.

It’s easy to blame EMRs as the culprits. Bashing them is fashionable. But in this case I can’t. They make it easier, but it’s nothing new. I remember a night almost 30 years ago when I was doing an admission at the Phoenix VA. When I picked up the most recent volume of the patient’s old chart to look at labs, the previous H&P said “see old chart.”

The problem is human nature. Not the computer.

But in this field the fallout can be serious – the wrong precautions taken, or medication given, based on a nonexistent contraindication. In medicine the stakes are high. Our decisions are only as good as the information we base them on, and if that information is wrong ...

Shortcuts have consequences.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Fifteen years ago, Mrs. Smith was hospitalized for a dural sinus thrombosis.

This is a scary enough diagnosis as it is, but with the miracle of modern medicine she did great. She still checks in with me every year or so, but hasn’t had any recurrence.

Three years ago she tripped over her dog (amazing how often that seems to happen) and broke her arm. She landed in the hospital and needed orthopedic surgery, so they consulted me about the safety of getting her off the antiplatelet agent she was taking since stopping Coumadin.

When I arrived someone had already written an admitting note, which included a past history of “subdural hematoma, maintained on daily aspirin.”

Where this error came from, I don’t know. When I asked Mrs. Smith, she was quite clear on her correct diagnosis, and said she’d given it to the person who admitted her. So I dictated a consult, and typed it into my progress note each day. My notes made it clear that she’d had a dural sinus thrombosis and not a subdural hematoma.

This isn’t just nitpicking, obviously. They’re entirely different disorders. While the point may not be critical to her needing wrist surgery, these are medical records, and medical records need to be as accurate as possible for this, and future hospital stays and for physicians to be aware of.

I signed off after a few days and didn’t think much of it until I was faxed a copy of her discharge summary. Which listed “subdural hematoma, maintained on daily aspirin.”

Apparently no one read my notes. Not that I’m really surprised.

We’re now 3 years later. As do many patients of her age, Mrs. Smith has landed in the hospital a few times since then. COVID, syncope, another fall. In each one of them the “subdural hematoma, maintained on daily aspirin” shows up.

At the most recent incident, the hospital’s neurologist called and asked me why I was treating a subdural hematoma with aspirin, then said Mrs. Smith had told him it was a dural sinus thrombosis. I said she was right, and he said “that makes more sense” and that he’d put it in his note.

He did, but it didn’t change anything. The discharge summary still listed “subdural hematoma, maintained on daily aspirin.”

At some point resistance is futile.

The stupidity of the whole thing is frustrating, as is knowing that it’s not just Mrs. Smith. The same scenario of incorrect history and medications is propagated from visit to visit. Taking a history is too time consuming for some. It’s easier to just read off, or cut and paste, a previous note. In cases where the patient can’t give a history I understand this. But when they can it’s just being too rushed – or lazy – to care.

It’s easy to blame EMRs as the culprits. Bashing them is fashionable. But in this case I can’t. They make it easier, but it’s nothing new. I remember a night almost 30 years ago when I was doing an admission at the Phoenix VA. When I picked up the most recent volume of the patient’s old chart to look at labs, the previous H&P said “see old chart.”

The problem is human nature. Not the computer.

But in this field the fallout can be serious – the wrong precautions taken, or medication given, based on a nonexistent contraindication. In medicine the stakes are high. Our decisions are only as good as the information we base them on, and if that information is wrong ...

Shortcuts have consequences.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

High plasma concentrations of buprenorphine may reduce fentanyl-induced respiratory depression, new research suggests.

The primary endpoint measure in a small “proof of principal” pharmacology study was effect of escalating fentanyl dosing on respiratory depression by way of decreased isohypercapnic minute ventilation (VE) – or volume of gas inhaled or exhaled per minute from the lungs.

sdominick/iStock/Getty Images

Results showed the maximum decrease in highest-dose fentanyl-induced VE was almost 50% less for opioid-tolerant patients receiving a 2.0 ng/mL concentration of steady-state plasma buprenorphine than when receiving matching placebo.

Risk for apnea requiring stimulation after fentanyl dosing was also significantly lower with buprenorphine.

“Even though the study is small, a lot of data were collected which will allow us to very accurately predict which plasma concentrations, and therefore drug doses, are needed to protect people adequately in practice,” study coinvestigator Geert Jan Groeneveld, MD, PhD, neurologist and clinical pharmacologist at the Centre for Human Drug Research, Leiden, the Netherlands, and professor of clinical neuropharmacology at Leiden University Medical Center, told this news organization.

He added the “beautiful results” were in line with what the researchers expected and although further research is needed, the study provides a lot of useful information for clinicians.

“I think this is an approach that works, and this study makes that clear,” Dr. Groeneveld added.

The findings were published online Jan. 27, 2022, in PLoS One.
 

High death rate from synthetic opioids

A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted that, between June 2020 and June 2021, there were more than 100,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States. Of these, more than 73,000 were attributed to opioids and more than 60,000 to synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

Most opioid-related overdose deaths in the United States are attributable to synthetic opioids “that can unexpectedly cause respiratory depression by being ingested as a substitute for heroin or with [other] drugs,” Indivior noted in a press release.

Buprenorphine is a partial agonist that “binds with high affinity to mu-opioid receptors but displays partial respiratory depression effects,” the investigators wrote.

As reported by this news organization, the Food and Drug Administration approved buprenorphine extended release (Sublocade, Indivior) in 2017 as the first once-monthly injection for the treatment of opioid use disorder.

In the current study, which was conducted in Leiden, the Netherlands, the investigators used continuous intravenous buprenorphine in order to “mimic” the sustained plasma concentrations of the drug that can be delivered with the long-acting injectable, noted Christian Heidbreder, PhD, chief scientific officer at Indivior.

“This was an experimental medicine study, whereby we used intravenous buprenorphine to really understand the interaction with escalating doses of fentanyl” on respiratory depression, he told this news organization.
 

Two-part, two-period study

In part A, period one of the two-period crossover study, 14 healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to receive for 360 minutes continuous infusion of 0.02 or 0.05 mg/70 kg per hour of buprenorphine to target plasma concentrations of 0.2 or 0.5 ng/mL, respectively, or matching placebo. In the second period, participants received the alternative infusion – either placebo or the active drug.

In part B, eight opioid-tolerant patients who had used high-dose opioids for at least 3 months prior received a higher infusion rate of 0.1, 0.2, or 0.5 mg/70 kg per hour to target plasma concentrations of 1, 2, or 5 ng/mL, respectively.

The 2 ng/mL “is a very important threshold for us” and the result from several previous experiments, Dr. Heidbreder noted. So the investigators targeted that concentration as well as one below and one “much higher” in the current study.

“Because tolerance to opioid effects is poorly characterized in patients receiving long-term opioids, opioid-tolerant participants in part B had a fixed treatment sequence, receiving placebo infusion plus fentanyl challenges in period 1 to optimize the fentanyl dose escalation before buprenorphine and fentanyl were coadministered in period 2,” the investigators reported.

All participants received up to four escalating doses of intravenous fentanyl after reaching target buprenorphine plasma concentrations.

For healthy volunteers, the planned fentanyl doses were 0.075, 0.15, 0.25, and 0.35 mg/70 kg. For the opioid-tolerant patients, the doses were 0.25, 0.35, 0.5, and 0.7 mg/70 kg.

The infusions began after baseline VE had stabilized at 20 plus or minus 2 L/min, which is about four times above normal resting VE.
 

First clinical evidence?

Results showed fentanyl-induced adverse changes in VE were less at higher concentrations of buprenorphine plasma.

Opioid-tolerant patients receiving the 2.0 ng/mL concentration of buprenorphine had a 33.7% decrease in highest dose fentanyl-induced VE versus an 82.3% decrease when receiving placebo.

In addition, fentanyl reduced VE up to 49% (95% confidence interval, 21%-76%) in opioid-tolerant patients in all buprenorphine concentration groups combined versus reducing VE up to 100% (95% CI, 68%-132%) during placebo infusion (P = .006).

In addition, buprenorphine was associated with a lower risk versus placebo for apnea requiring verbal stimulation after fentanyl dosing (odds ratio, 0.07; P = .001).

For the healthy volunteers, the first fentanyl bolus reduced VE by 26% for those at target buprenorphine concentration of 0.5 ng/mL versus 51% when receiving placebo (P = .001). The second bolus reduced VE by 47% versus 79%, respectively (P < .001).

“Discontinuations for apnea limited treatment comparisons beyond the second fentanyl injection,” the investigators reported.

Overall, the findings “provide the first clinical evidence that high sustained plasma concentrations of buprenorphine may protect against respiratory depression induced by potent opioids,” they added.

Additional research is now “warranted to assess the competitive interaction of buprenorphine and fentanyl (as well as other illicitly manufactured fentanyl analogs) as we continue to deepen our understanding of buprenorphine as an evidence-based treatment for patients struggling with opioid use disorder,” Dr. Heidbreder said in a press release.

It’s unclear whether the study’s findings are generalizable to other populations, said Dr. Heidbreder.

“So what we are going to do next is to see what is actually happening in a real world, much broader patient population; and for that we’ll be using [the injectable] Sublocade as the medication of choice,” said Dr. Heidbreder.

“Conceptually, we feel confident about these data, but now we need to demonstrate what is happening in the real world,” he added.

The study was funded by Indivior. Dr. Groeneveld has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Heidbreder is an employee of Indivior.

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

High plasma concentrations of buprenorphine may reduce fentanyl-induced respiratory depression, new research suggests.

The primary endpoint measure in a small “proof of principal” pharmacology study was effect of escalating fentanyl dosing on respiratory depression by way of decreased isohypercapnic minute ventilation (VE) – or volume of gas inhaled or exhaled per minute from the lungs.

sdominick/iStock/Getty Images

Results showed the maximum decrease in highest-dose fentanyl-induced VE was almost 50% less for opioid-tolerant patients receiving a 2.0 ng/mL concentration of steady-state plasma buprenorphine than when receiving matching placebo.

Risk for apnea requiring stimulation after fentanyl dosing was also significantly lower with buprenorphine.

“Even though the study is small, a lot of data were collected which will allow us to very accurately predict which plasma concentrations, and therefore drug doses, are needed to protect people adequately in practice,” study coinvestigator Geert Jan Groeneveld, MD, PhD, neurologist and clinical pharmacologist at the Centre for Human Drug Research, Leiden, the Netherlands, and professor of clinical neuropharmacology at Leiden University Medical Center, told this news organization.

He added the “beautiful results” were in line with what the researchers expected and although further research is needed, the study provides a lot of useful information for clinicians.

“I think this is an approach that works, and this study makes that clear,” Dr. Groeneveld added.

The findings were published online Jan. 27, 2022, in PLoS One.
 

High death rate from synthetic opioids

A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted that, between June 2020 and June 2021, there were more than 100,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States. Of these, more than 73,000 were attributed to opioids and more than 60,000 to synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

Most opioid-related overdose deaths in the United States are attributable to synthetic opioids “that can unexpectedly cause respiratory depression by being ingested as a substitute for heroin or with [other] drugs,” Indivior noted in a press release.

Buprenorphine is a partial agonist that “binds with high affinity to mu-opioid receptors but displays partial respiratory depression effects,” the investigators wrote.

As reported by this news organization, the Food and Drug Administration approved buprenorphine extended release (Sublocade, Indivior) in 2017 as the first once-monthly injection for the treatment of opioid use disorder.

In the current study, which was conducted in Leiden, the Netherlands, the investigators used continuous intravenous buprenorphine in order to “mimic” the sustained plasma concentrations of the drug that can be delivered with the long-acting injectable, noted Christian Heidbreder, PhD, chief scientific officer at Indivior.

“This was an experimental medicine study, whereby we used intravenous buprenorphine to really understand the interaction with escalating doses of fentanyl” on respiratory depression, he told this news organization.
 

Two-part, two-period study

In part A, period one of the two-period crossover study, 14 healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to receive for 360 minutes continuous infusion of 0.02 or 0.05 mg/70 kg per hour of buprenorphine to target plasma concentrations of 0.2 or 0.5 ng/mL, respectively, or matching placebo. In the second period, participants received the alternative infusion – either placebo or the active drug.

In part B, eight opioid-tolerant patients who had used high-dose opioids for at least 3 months prior received a higher infusion rate of 0.1, 0.2, or 0.5 mg/70 kg per hour to target plasma concentrations of 1, 2, or 5 ng/mL, respectively.

The 2 ng/mL “is a very important threshold for us” and the result from several previous experiments, Dr. Heidbreder noted. So the investigators targeted that concentration as well as one below and one “much higher” in the current study.

“Because tolerance to opioid effects is poorly characterized in patients receiving long-term opioids, opioid-tolerant participants in part B had a fixed treatment sequence, receiving placebo infusion plus fentanyl challenges in period 1 to optimize the fentanyl dose escalation before buprenorphine and fentanyl were coadministered in period 2,” the investigators reported.

All participants received up to four escalating doses of intravenous fentanyl after reaching target buprenorphine plasma concentrations.

For healthy volunteers, the planned fentanyl doses were 0.075, 0.15, 0.25, and 0.35 mg/70 kg. For the opioid-tolerant patients, the doses were 0.25, 0.35, 0.5, and 0.7 mg/70 kg.

The infusions began after baseline VE had stabilized at 20 plus or minus 2 L/min, which is about four times above normal resting VE.
 

First clinical evidence?

Results showed fentanyl-induced adverse changes in VE were less at higher concentrations of buprenorphine plasma.

Opioid-tolerant patients receiving the 2.0 ng/mL concentration of buprenorphine had a 33.7% decrease in highest dose fentanyl-induced VE versus an 82.3% decrease when receiving placebo.

In addition, fentanyl reduced VE up to 49% (95% confidence interval, 21%-76%) in opioid-tolerant patients in all buprenorphine concentration groups combined versus reducing VE up to 100% (95% CI, 68%-132%) during placebo infusion (P = .006).

In addition, buprenorphine was associated with a lower risk versus placebo for apnea requiring verbal stimulation after fentanyl dosing (odds ratio, 0.07; P = .001).

For the healthy volunteers, the first fentanyl bolus reduced VE by 26% for those at target buprenorphine concentration of 0.5 ng/mL versus 51% when receiving placebo (P = .001). The second bolus reduced VE by 47% versus 79%, respectively (P < .001).

“Discontinuations for apnea limited treatment comparisons beyond the second fentanyl injection,” the investigators reported.

Overall, the findings “provide the first clinical evidence that high sustained plasma concentrations of buprenorphine may protect against respiratory depression induced by potent opioids,” they added.

Additional research is now “warranted to assess the competitive interaction of buprenorphine and fentanyl (as well as other illicitly manufactured fentanyl analogs) as we continue to deepen our understanding of buprenorphine as an evidence-based treatment for patients struggling with opioid use disorder,” Dr. Heidbreder said in a press release.

It’s unclear whether the study’s findings are generalizable to other populations, said Dr. Heidbreder.

“So what we are going to do next is to see what is actually happening in a real world, much broader patient population; and for that we’ll be using [the injectable] Sublocade as the medication of choice,” said Dr. Heidbreder.

“Conceptually, we feel confident about these data, but now we need to demonstrate what is happening in the real world,” he added.

The study was funded by Indivior. Dr. Groeneveld has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Heidbreder is an employee of Indivior.

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

High plasma concentrations of buprenorphine may reduce fentanyl-induced respiratory depression, new research suggests.

The primary endpoint measure in a small “proof of principal” pharmacology study was effect of escalating fentanyl dosing on respiratory depression by way of decreased isohypercapnic minute ventilation (VE) – or volume of gas inhaled or exhaled per minute from the lungs.

sdominick/iStock/Getty Images

Results showed the maximum decrease in highest-dose fentanyl-induced VE was almost 50% less for opioid-tolerant patients receiving a 2.0 ng/mL concentration of steady-state plasma buprenorphine than when receiving matching placebo.

Risk for apnea requiring stimulation after fentanyl dosing was also significantly lower with buprenorphine.

“Even though the study is small, a lot of data were collected which will allow us to very accurately predict which plasma concentrations, and therefore drug doses, are needed to protect people adequately in practice,” study coinvestigator Geert Jan Groeneveld, MD, PhD, neurologist and clinical pharmacologist at the Centre for Human Drug Research, Leiden, the Netherlands, and professor of clinical neuropharmacology at Leiden University Medical Center, told this news organization.

He added the “beautiful results” were in line with what the researchers expected and although further research is needed, the study provides a lot of useful information for clinicians.

“I think this is an approach that works, and this study makes that clear,” Dr. Groeneveld added.

The findings were published online Jan. 27, 2022, in PLoS One.
 

High death rate from synthetic opioids

A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted that, between June 2020 and June 2021, there were more than 100,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States. Of these, more than 73,000 were attributed to opioids and more than 60,000 to synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

Most opioid-related overdose deaths in the United States are attributable to synthetic opioids “that can unexpectedly cause respiratory depression by being ingested as a substitute for heroin or with [other] drugs,” Indivior noted in a press release.

Buprenorphine is a partial agonist that “binds with high affinity to mu-opioid receptors but displays partial respiratory depression effects,” the investigators wrote.

As reported by this news organization, the Food and Drug Administration approved buprenorphine extended release (Sublocade, Indivior) in 2017 as the first once-monthly injection for the treatment of opioid use disorder.

In the current study, which was conducted in Leiden, the Netherlands, the investigators used continuous intravenous buprenorphine in order to “mimic” the sustained plasma concentrations of the drug that can be delivered with the long-acting injectable, noted Christian Heidbreder, PhD, chief scientific officer at Indivior.

“This was an experimental medicine study, whereby we used intravenous buprenorphine to really understand the interaction with escalating doses of fentanyl” on respiratory depression, he told this news organization.
 

Two-part, two-period study

In part A, period one of the two-period crossover study, 14 healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to receive for 360 minutes continuous infusion of 0.02 or 0.05 mg/70 kg per hour of buprenorphine to target plasma concentrations of 0.2 or 0.5 ng/mL, respectively, or matching placebo. In the second period, participants received the alternative infusion – either placebo or the active drug.

In part B, eight opioid-tolerant patients who had used high-dose opioids for at least 3 months prior received a higher infusion rate of 0.1, 0.2, or 0.5 mg/70 kg per hour to target plasma concentrations of 1, 2, or 5 ng/mL, respectively.

The 2 ng/mL “is a very important threshold for us” and the result from several previous experiments, Dr. Heidbreder noted. So the investigators targeted that concentration as well as one below and one “much higher” in the current study.

“Because tolerance to opioid effects is poorly characterized in patients receiving long-term opioids, opioid-tolerant participants in part B had a fixed treatment sequence, receiving placebo infusion plus fentanyl challenges in period 1 to optimize the fentanyl dose escalation before buprenorphine and fentanyl were coadministered in period 2,” the investigators reported.

All participants received up to four escalating doses of intravenous fentanyl after reaching target buprenorphine plasma concentrations.

For healthy volunteers, the planned fentanyl doses were 0.075, 0.15, 0.25, and 0.35 mg/70 kg. For the opioid-tolerant patients, the doses were 0.25, 0.35, 0.5, and 0.7 mg/70 kg.

The infusions began after baseline VE had stabilized at 20 plus or minus 2 L/min, which is about four times above normal resting VE.
 

First clinical evidence?

Results showed fentanyl-induced adverse changes in VE were less at higher concentrations of buprenorphine plasma.

Opioid-tolerant patients receiving the 2.0 ng/mL concentration of buprenorphine had a 33.7% decrease in highest dose fentanyl-induced VE versus an 82.3% decrease when receiving placebo.

In addition, fentanyl reduced VE up to 49% (95% confidence interval, 21%-76%) in opioid-tolerant patients in all buprenorphine concentration groups combined versus reducing VE up to 100% (95% CI, 68%-132%) during placebo infusion (P = .006).

In addition, buprenorphine was associated with a lower risk versus placebo for apnea requiring verbal stimulation after fentanyl dosing (odds ratio, 0.07; P = .001).

For the healthy volunteers, the first fentanyl bolus reduced VE by 26% for those at target buprenorphine concentration of 0.5 ng/mL versus 51% when receiving placebo (P = .001). The second bolus reduced VE by 47% versus 79%, respectively (P < .001).

“Discontinuations for apnea limited treatment comparisons beyond the second fentanyl injection,” the investigators reported.

Overall, the findings “provide the first clinical evidence that high sustained plasma concentrations of buprenorphine may protect against respiratory depression induced by potent opioids,” they added.

Additional research is now “warranted to assess the competitive interaction of buprenorphine and fentanyl (as well as other illicitly manufactured fentanyl analogs) as we continue to deepen our understanding of buprenorphine as an evidence-based treatment for patients struggling with opioid use disorder,” Dr. Heidbreder said in a press release.

It’s unclear whether the study’s findings are generalizable to other populations, said Dr. Heidbreder.

“So what we are going to do next is to see what is actually happening in a real world, much broader patient population; and for that we’ll be using [the injectable] Sublocade as the medication of choice,” said Dr. Heidbreder.

“Conceptually, we feel confident about these data, but now we need to demonstrate what is happening in the real world,” he added.

The study was funded by Indivior. Dr. Groeneveld has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Heidbreder is an employee of Indivior.

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

Young women appear to be at a higher risk of ischemic stroke than young men, according to a new systematic review of studies on this topic.

The review included 19 studies that reported on sex-specific stroke incidence among young adults and found that overall, in young adults aged 18-35 years, there were 44% more women with ischemic strokes than men.

This gap narrowed in the age group 35-45 years, for which there was conflicting evidence whether more men or women have ischemic strokes.

“An assertion that young women may be disproportionately at risk of ischemic stroke represents a significant departure from our current scientific understanding and may have important implications about the etiology of ischemic strokes in young adults,” the authors note.

“One of the take-home messages from this study is that stroke happens across the entire age spectrum, including young adults, even if they do not have traditional risk factors,” study coauthor Sharon N. Poisson, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, told this news organization.

“If a young person presents with focal neurological symptoms, the possibility of a stroke should not be discounted just because they may not fit the typical profile of a stroke patient. We need more education of the population that young people – including young women – can have a stroke and that fast action to call emergency services is critical,” she said.  

The study was published online Jan. 24 in the journal Stroke as part of a special “Go Red for Women” spotlight issue.

The researchers note that historically it has been believed that men have a higher incidence of stroke in every age group until very old age. However, recent evidence focused on the young adult age group has reported that there are more young women (ages 18-45) with ischemic strokes compared with young men, suggesting that young women may be disproportionately at risk compared with their male counterparts.

Pointing out that a better understanding of these sex differences is important in implementing strategies that can more effectively prevent and treat strokes in this age group, the researchers conducted the current review to synthesize the updated evidence.

They searched PubMed from January 2008 to July 2021 for relevant studies that were population-based and reported stroke incidence by sex or sex-specific incidence rate ratios of young adults age 45 and younger. Statistical synthesis was performed to estimate sex difference by age group (less than or equal to 35, 35-45 and less than or equal to 45 years) and stroke type.

They found 19 relevant studies, including three that reported on overlapping data, with a total of 69,793 young adults (33,775 women and 36,018 men).   

Nine studies did not show a statistically significant sex difference among young adults less than or equal to 45 years. Three studies found higher rates of ischemic stroke among men among young adults less than or equal to 30 to 35 years. Four studies showed more women with ischemic strokes among young adults less than or equal to 35 years.

Overall, there was an effect of a significantly higher incidence of ischemic stroke in women younger than age 35 years, with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.44. In the 35- to 45-year age group, there was a nonsignificant sex difference in the rate of ischemic stroke, with a slight trend toward a higher incidence in women (IRR, 1.08).

“In this study the sex difference was not clear in the 35-45 age group. But in the age group of over 45 years we know that men have a higher risk of stroke than women, which is probably related to a higher level of atherosclerotic risk factors,” Dr. Poisson commented.

“Interpreting data on stroke in young people is challenging, as stroke is not so common in this population,” she said. “Combining multiple studies helps, but this also introduces a lot of variability, so we need to interpret these results with some caution. However, this is certainly intriguing data and suggests that something interesting may be going on in young adults,” she added. “These observations give us an initial clue that we need to look further into this issue.”

The study did not look at the possible mechanisms behind the results, as the current data came from administrative datasets that are limited in terms of the information collected.  

But Dr. Poisson noted that the traditional risk factors for stroke are high blood pressure and the usual atherosclerotic factors such as high cholesterol.

“These are normally more common in men than in women, and myocardial infarction is more common in younger men than in younger women. But the observation that young women may have a higher risk of stroke than young men suggests that something different may be going on in the mechanism for stroke.” 

She pointed out that women have some unique risk factors for stroke, including oral contraceptive use, pregnancy, and the postpartum period, particularly pre-eclampsia during pregnancy. In addition, migraine, especially migraine with aura, is associated with an increased stroke risk, and migraine is more common in young women than in young men.  

“We don’t completely understand the role of these risk factors, but they may contribute to the results that we found,” Dr. Poisson commented. “The role of estrogen in stroke is complicated. While estrogen is generally thought to be protective against atherosclerotic risk factors, it also increases risk of clotting, so high estrogen states like pregnancy increase risk of stroke,” she added.  

To better understand what is happening, prospectively collected clinical data on younger patients who have had a stroke are needed. Some such studies are underway, but a concerted effort to do this in a large, multicenter registry would be desirable, Dr. Poisson said.

She noted that the presentation of a stroke in young people would be similar to that in the older population, with the most recent acronym to help recognize stroke symptoms being “BE FAST” – balance, eyes (vision), face (drooping), arm, speech (slurred), time (call emergency services quickly).

Call for more women in clinical trials

In an accompanying commentary, Cheryl Bushnell, MD, professor of neurology at Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and Moira Kapral, MD, professor in medicine and health policy at the University of Toronto, say these findings support the need for further study to understand and address the causes and risk factors of stroke in young women.

However, they point out that representation and reporting of women in clinical trials of acute stroke continues to be suboptimal, and they call for improved incorporation of sex and gender into study design, analysis, and interpretation, which they say is critical for producing research that is broadly generalizable and applicable to different populations. 

Coauthor Stacey L. Daugherty, MD, is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Poisson and Dr. Kapral have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bushnell reports ownership interest in Care Directions.

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

Young women appear to be at a higher risk of ischemic stroke than young men, according to a new systematic review of studies on this topic.

The review included 19 studies that reported on sex-specific stroke incidence among young adults and found that overall, in young adults aged 18-35 years, there were 44% more women with ischemic strokes than men.

This gap narrowed in the age group 35-45 years, for which there was conflicting evidence whether more men or women have ischemic strokes.

“An assertion that young women may be disproportionately at risk of ischemic stroke represents a significant departure from our current scientific understanding and may have important implications about the etiology of ischemic strokes in young adults,” the authors note.

“One of the take-home messages from this study is that stroke happens across the entire age spectrum, including young adults, even if they do not have traditional risk factors,” study coauthor Sharon N. Poisson, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, told this news organization.

“If a young person presents with focal neurological symptoms, the possibility of a stroke should not be discounted just because they may not fit the typical profile of a stroke patient. We need more education of the population that young people – including young women – can have a stroke and that fast action to call emergency services is critical,” she said.  

The study was published online Jan. 24 in the journal Stroke as part of a special “Go Red for Women” spotlight issue.

The researchers note that historically it has been believed that men have a higher incidence of stroke in every age group until very old age. However, recent evidence focused on the young adult age group has reported that there are more young women (ages 18-45) with ischemic strokes compared with young men, suggesting that young women may be disproportionately at risk compared with their male counterparts.

Pointing out that a better understanding of these sex differences is important in implementing strategies that can more effectively prevent and treat strokes in this age group, the researchers conducted the current review to synthesize the updated evidence.

They searched PubMed from January 2008 to July 2021 for relevant studies that were population-based and reported stroke incidence by sex or sex-specific incidence rate ratios of young adults age 45 and younger. Statistical synthesis was performed to estimate sex difference by age group (less than or equal to 35, 35-45 and less than or equal to 45 years) and stroke type.

They found 19 relevant studies, including three that reported on overlapping data, with a total of 69,793 young adults (33,775 women and 36,018 men).   

Nine studies did not show a statistically significant sex difference among young adults less than or equal to 45 years. Three studies found higher rates of ischemic stroke among men among young adults less than or equal to 30 to 35 years. Four studies showed more women with ischemic strokes among young adults less than or equal to 35 years.

Overall, there was an effect of a significantly higher incidence of ischemic stroke in women younger than age 35 years, with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.44. In the 35- to 45-year age group, there was a nonsignificant sex difference in the rate of ischemic stroke, with a slight trend toward a higher incidence in women (IRR, 1.08).

“In this study the sex difference was not clear in the 35-45 age group. But in the age group of over 45 years we know that men have a higher risk of stroke than women, which is probably related to a higher level of atherosclerotic risk factors,” Dr. Poisson commented.

“Interpreting data on stroke in young people is challenging, as stroke is not so common in this population,” she said. “Combining multiple studies helps, but this also introduces a lot of variability, so we need to interpret these results with some caution. However, this is certainly intriguing data and suggests that something interesting may be going on in young adults,” she added. “These observations give us an initial clue that we need to look further into this issue.”

The study did not look at the possible mechanisms behind the results, as the current data came from administrative datasets that are limited in terms of the information collected.  

But Dr. Poisson noted that the traditional risk factors for stroke are high blood pressure and the usual atherosclerotic factors such as high cholesterol.

“These are normally more common in men than in women, and myocardial infarction is more common in younger men than in younger women. But the observation that young women may have a higher risk of stroke than young men suggests that something different may be going on in the mechanism for stroke.” 

She pointed out that women have some unique risk factors for stroke, including oral contraceptive use, pregnancy, and the postpartum period, particularly pre-eclampsia during pregnancy. In addition, migraine, especially migraine with aura, is associated with an increased stroke risk, and migraine is more common in young women than in young men.  

“We don’t completely understand the role of these risk factors, but they may contribute to the results that we found,” Dr. Poisson commented. “The role of estrogen in stroke is complicated. While estrogen is generally thought to be protective against atherosclerotic risk factors, it also increases risk of clotting, so high estrogen states like pregnancy increase risk of stroke,” she added.  

To better understand what is happening, prospectively collected clinical data on younger patients who have had a stroke are needed. Some such studies are underway, but a concerted effort to do this in a large, multicenter registry would be desirable, Dr. Poisson said.

She noted that the presentation of a stroke in young people would be similar to that in the older population, with the most recent acronym to help recognize stroke symptoms being “BE FAST” – balance, eyes (vision), face (drooping), arm, speech (slurred), time (call emergency services quickly).

Call for more women in clinical trials

In an accompanying commentary, Cheryl Bushnell, MD, professor of neurology at Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and Moira Kapral, MD, professor in medicine and health policy at the University of Toronto, say these findings support the need for further study to understand and address the causes and risk factors of stroke in young women.

However, they point out that representation and reporting of women in clinical trials of acute stroke continues to be suboptimal, and they call for improved incorporation of sex and gender into study design, analysis, and interpretation, which they say is critical for producing research that is broadly generalizable and applicable to different populations. 

Coauthor Stacey L. Daugherty, MD, is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Poisson and Dr. Kapral have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bushnell reports ownership interest in Care Directions.

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

Young women appear to be at a higher risk of ischemic stroke than young men, according to a new systematic review of studies on this topic.

The review included 19 studies that reported on sex-specific stroke incidence among young adults and found that overall, in young adults aged 18-35 years, there were 44% more women with ischemic strokes than men.

This gap narrowed in the age group 35-45 years, for which there was conflicting evidence whether more men or women have ischemic strokes.

“An assertion that young women may be disproportionately at risk of ischemic stroke represents a significant departure from our current scientific understanding and may have important implications about the etiology of ischemic strokes in young adults,” the authors note.

“One of the take-home messages from this study is that stroke happens across the entire age spectrum, including young adults, even if they do not have traditional risk factors,” study coauthor Sharon N. Poisson, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, told this news organization.

“If a young person presents with focal neurological symptoms, the possibility of a stroke should not be discounted just because they may not fit the typical profile of a stroke patient. We need more education of the population that young people – including young women – can have a stroke and that fast action to call emergency services is critical,” she said.  

The study was published online Jan. 24 in the journal Stroke as part of a special “Go Red for Women” spotlight issue.

The researchers note that historically it has been believed that men have a higher incidence of stroke in every age group until very old age. However, recent evidence focused on the young adult age group has reported that there are more young women (ages 18-45) with ischemic strokes compared with young men, suggesting that young women may be disproportionately at risk compared with their male counterparts.

Pointing out that a better understanding of these sex differences is important in implementing strategies that can more effectively prevent and treat strokes in this age group, the researchers conducted the current review to synthesize the updated evidence.

They searched PubMed from January 2008 to July 2021 for relevant studies that were population-based and reported stroke incidence by sex or sex-specific incidence rate ratios of young adults age 45 and younger. Statistical synthesis was performed to estimate sex difference by age group (less than or equal to 35, 35-45 and less than or equal to 45 years) and stroke type.

They found 19 relevant studies, including three that reported on overlapping data, with a total of 69,793 young adults (33,775 women and 36,018 men).   

Nine studies did not show a statistically significant sex difference among young adults less than or equal to 45 years. Three studies found higher rates of ischemic stroke among men among young adults less than or equal to 30 to 35 years. Four studies showed more women with ischemic strokes among young adults less than or equal to 35 years.

Overall, there was an effect of a significantly higher incidence of ischemic stroke in women younger than age 35 years, with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.44. In the 35- to 45-year age group, there was a nonsignificant sex difference in the rate of ischemic stroke, with a slight trend toward a higher incidence in women (IRR, 1.08).

“In this study the sex difference was not clear in the 35-45 age group. But in the age group of over 45 years we know that men have a higher risk of stroke than women, which is probably related to a higher level of atherosclerotic risk factors,” Dr. Poisson commented.

“Interpreting data on stroke in young people is challenging, as stroke is not so common in this population,” she said. “Combining multiple studies helps, but this also introduces a lot of variability, so we need to interpret these results with some caution. However, this is certainly intriguing data and suggests that something interesting may be going on in young adults,” she added. “These observations give us an initial clue that we need to look further into this issue.”

The study did not look at the possible mechanisms behind the results, as the current data came from administrative datasets that are limited in terms of the information collected.  

But Dr. Poisson noted that the traditional risk factors for stroke are high blood pressure and the usual atherosclerotic factors such as high cholesterol.

“These are normally more common in men than in women, and myocardial infarction is more common in younger men than in younger women. But the observation that young women may have a higher risk of stroke than young men suggests that something different may be going on in the mechanism for stroke.” 

She pointed out that women have some unique risk factors for stroke, including oral contraceptive use, pregnancy, and the postpartum period, particularly pre-eclampsia during pregnancy. In addition, migraine, especially migraine with aura, is associated with an increased stroke risk, and migraine is more common in young women than in young men.  

“We don’t completely understand the role of these risk factors, but they may contribute to the results that we found,” Dr. Poisson commented. “The role of estrogen in stroke is complicated. While estrogen is generally thought to be protective against atherosclerotic risk factors, it also increases risk of clotting, so high estrogen states like pregnancy increase risk of stroke,” she added.  

To better understand what is happening, prospectively collected clinical data on younger patients who have had a stroke are needed. Some such studies are underway, but a concerted effort to do this in a large, multicenter registry would be desirable, Dr. Poisson said.

She noted that the presentation of a stroke in young people would be similar to that in the older population, with the most recent acronym to help recognize stroke symptoms being “BE FAST” – balance, eyes (vision), face (drooping), arm, speech (slurred), time (call emergency services quickly).

Call for more women in clinical trials

In an accompanying commentary, Cheryl Bushnell, MD, professor of neurology at Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and Moira Kapral, MD, professor in medicine and health policy at the University of Toronto, say these findings support the need for further study to understand and address the causes and risk factors of stroke in young women.

However, they point out that representation and reporting of women in clinical trials of acute stroke continues to be suboptimal, and they call for improved incorporation of sex and gender into study design, analysis, and interpretation, which they say is critical for producing research that is broadly generalizable and applicable to different populations. 

Coauthor Stacey L. Daugherty, MD, is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Poisson and Dr. Kapral have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bushnell reports ownership interest in Care Directions.

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