For patients with diabetic kidney disease, finerenone, an agent from a new class of selective, nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, led to significant reductions in combined adverse renal outcomes and in combined adverse cardiovascular outcomes in the pivotal FIDELIO-DKD trial.

And the safety results showed a good level of tolerability. The rate of hyperkalemia was higher with finerenone than with placebo, but the rate of drug discontinuations for elevated potassium was lower than that seen with spironolactone, a steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA).

“An ideal drug would cause no hyperkalemia, but the absolute risk we saw is a fraction of what we see with spironolactone in this vulnerable patient population,” said Rajiv Agarwal, MD, from Indiana in Indianapolis, during a press briefing.

After a median follow-up of 2.6 years, finerenone was associated with a 3.4% absolute reduction in the rate of combined adverse renal events, the study’s primary end point, which comprised kidney failure, renal death, and a drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 40% from baseline. This produced a significant relative risk reduction of 18%, with a number needed to treat of 32 to prevent one of these events, Dr. Agarwal reported at Kidney Week 2020. Findings from the FIDELIO-DKD trial were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Finerenone was also associated with an absolute 2.4% reduction in the rate of combined adverse cardiovascular events, the study’s “key secondary end point,” which included cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure. This translated into a significant relative risk reduction of 14% and a number needed to treat of 42 to prevent one of these events.

FIDELIO-DKD assessed 5,734 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease from more than 1,000 sites in 48 countries, including the United States, from 2015 to 2018. In the study cohort, average age was slightly more than 65 years, average baseline systolic blood pressure was 138 mm Hg, average duration of diabetes was nearly 17 years, average baseline glycated hemoglobin (A1c) was 7.7%, and fewer than 5% of patients were Black, 25% were Asian, and about 63% were White.
 

A suggestion of less severe hyperkalemia

Finerenone was well tolerated by the participants, and the findings suggest that it caused less clinically meaningful hyperkalemia than spironolactone, the most established and widely used MRA.

Like all MRA drugs, finerenone led to an increase in serum potassium in all patient subgroups – in this case 0.2 mmol/L – unlike placebo, said Dr. Agarwal.

The overall incidence of hyperkalemia was 16% in the 2,827 evaluable patients in the finerenone group and 8% in the 2,831 evaluable patients in the placebo group. Fewer than 10% of patients in the trial received a potassium-binding agent.

The rate of hyperkalemia leading to treatment discontinuation was higher in the finerenone group than in the placebo group (2.3% vs. 0.9%).

That 2.3% rate is 10 times lower than the 23.0% rate of hyperkalemia-related treatment discontinuation in patients who received spironolactone and no potassium-binding agent, said Dr. Agarwal, citing a previous study he was involved with.

He hypothesized that finerenone might cause less clinically meaningful hyperkalemia because it creates no active metabolites that linger in the body, whereas spironolactone produces active metabolites with a half life of about 1 week.

“The risk for hyperkalemia is clearly increased with finerenone compared with placebo, and in the absence of head-to-head studies, it’s hard to know how it compares with spironolactone or eplerenone [Inspra],” the other agents in the MRA class, said Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, from the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

“The rates of hyperkalemia observed in FIDELIO-DKD were overall comparable to what we would expect from eplerenone. But the rate of serious hyperkalemia was quite low with finerenone, which is reassuring,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.

And the adverse-effect profile showed that finerenone “is as safe as you could expect from an MRA,” said Janani Rangaswami, MD, from the Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia.

The rate of hyperkalemia should be interpreted in the context of the high risk the enrolled patients faced, given that they all had moderate to severe diabetic kidney disease with albuminuria and, in some cases, eGFR rates as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73m², she explained. In addition, all patients were on maximally tolerated treatment with either an angiotensin-converting–enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker to inhibit the renin angiotensin system (RAS).

“Considering this background, it’s a very acceptable adverse-event profile,” Dr. Rangaswami said in an interview.
 

Renal drugs that could work together

More than 99% of patients in FIDELIO-DKD were on an RAS inhibitor, but fewer than 5% were on a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor at baseline, and fewer than 10% started on this drug class during the course of the study.

Despite that, both Dr. Kosiborod and Dr. Rangaswami are enthusiastic about the prospect of using the three drugs in combination to maximize renal and cardiovascular benefits in FIDELIO-DKD–type patients. Recent results from the CREDENCE study of canagliflozin (Invokana) and from the DAPA-CKD study of dapagluflozin (Farxiga) have established SGLT2 inhibitors – at least those two – as key agents for patients with chronic kidney disease.

Dual treatment with an RAS inhibitor and an SGLT2 inhibitor is “clearly established” for patients with diabetic kidney disease, said Dr. Agarwal.

“After CREDENCE, DAPA-CKD, and now FIDELIO-DKD, we need to seriously consider triple therapy as the future of treatment for diabetic kidney disease to prevent both cardiovascular and kidney complications,” said Dr. Kosiborod. The approach will mimic the multidrug therapy that’s now standard for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). But he cautioned that this triple combination needs further testing.

“Triple therapy will be the standard of care” for patients with diabetic kidney disease, Dr. Rangaswami agreed, but she cautioned that she would not currently expand the target population for finerenone to patients without type 2 diabetes or to patients without the level of albuminuria required for entry into FIDELIO-DKD: at least 30 mg/g of creatinine per day. And patients with HFrEF were excluded from FIDELIO-DKD, so that limitation on finerenone use should remain for the time being, she added.

Dr. Rangaswami said she is optimistic about the potential efficacy of finerenone added to an SGLT2 inhibitor because of the likelihood that the two drug classes work in different but complementary ways. SGLT2 inhibitors seem to exert their renal protective effects largely through hemodynamic effects, whereas it is likely that finerenone exerts its effects largely as an anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic agent, she speculated. The FIDELIO-DKD results appear to rule out any major effect of finerenone on blood pressure lowering because average systolic pressure fell by only about 2 mm Hg in the treatment group.

“The benefits of finerenone for cardiorenal outcomes are substantial and clinically meaningful,” Dr. Kosiborod said. “We cannot assume that other MRAs, such as spironolactone, provide similar benefits,” he cautioned, but the results are “very good news for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. We now have another effective intervention with a different mechanism of action.”

FIDELIO-DKD was sponsored by Bayer, the company developing finerenone (BAY 94-8862). Dr. Agarwal has been a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer and from several other companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to Bayer and to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Jansse, Merck, and Vifor and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Rangaswami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

For patients with diabetic kidney disease, finerenone, an agent from a new class of selective, nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, led to significant reductions in combined adverse renal outcomes and in combined adverse cardiovascular outcomes in the pivotal FIDELIO-DKD trial.

And the safety results showed a good level of tolerability. The rate of hyperkalemia was higher with finerenone than with placebo, but the rate of drug discontinuations for elevated potassium was lower than that seen with spironolactone, a steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA).

“An ideal drug would cause no hyperkalemia, but the absolute risk we saw is a fraction of what we see with spironolactone in this vulnerable patient population,” said Rajiv Agarwal, MD, from Indiana in Indianapolis, during a press briefing.

After a median follow-up of 2.6 years, finerenone was associated with a 3.4% absolute reduction in the rate of combined adverse renal events, the study’s primary end point, which comprised kidney failure, renal death, and a drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 40% from baseline. This produced a significant relative risk reduction of 18%, with a number needed to treat of 32 to prevent one of these events, Dr. Agarwal reported at Kidney Week 2020. Findings from the FIDELIO-DKD trial were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Finerenone was also associated with an absolute 2.4% reduction in the rate of combined adverse cardiovascular events, the study’s “key secondary end point,” which included cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure. This translated into a significant relative risk reduction of 14% and a number needed to treat of 42 to prevent one of these events.

FIDELIO-DKD assessed 5,734 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease from more than 1,000 sites in 48 countries, including the United States, from 2015 to 2018. In the study cohort, average age was slightly more than 65 years, average baseline systolic blood pressure was 138 mm Hg, average duration of diabetes was nearly 17 years, average baseline glycated hemoglobin (A1c) was 7.7%, and fewer than 5% of patients were Black, 25% were Asian, and about 63% were White.
 

A suggestion of less severe hyperkalemia

Finerenone was well tolerated by the participants, and the findings suggest that it caused less clinically meaningful hyperkalemia than spironolactone, the most established and widely used MRA.

Like all MRA drugs, finerenone led to an increase in serum potassium in all patient subgroups – in this case 0.2 mmol/L – unlike placebo, said Dr. Agarwal.

The overall incidence of hyperkalemia was 16% in the 2,827 evaluable patients in the finerenone group and 8% in the 2,831 evaluable patients in the placebo group. Fewer than 10% of patients in the trial received a potassium-binding agent.

The rate of hyperkalemia leading to treatment discontinuation was higher in the finerenone group than in the placebo group (2.3% vs. 0.9%).

That 2.3% rate is 10 times lower than the 23.0% rate of hyperkalemia-related treatment discontinuation in patients who received spironolactone and no potassium-binding agent, said Dr. Agarwal, citing a previous study he was involved with.

He hypothesized that finerenone might cause less clinically meaningful hyperkalemia because it creates no active metabolites that linger in the body, whereas spironolactone produces active metabolites with a half life of about 1 week.

“The risk for hyperkalemia is clearly increased with finerenone compared with placebo, and in the absence of head-to-head studies, it’s hard to know how it compares with spironolactone or eplerenone [Inspra],” the other agents in the MRA class, said Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, from the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

“The rates of hyperkalemia observed in FIDELIO-DKD were overall comparable to what we would expect from eplerenone. But the rate of serious hyperkalemia was quite low with finerenone, which is reassuring,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.

And the adverse-effect profile showed that finerenone “is as safe as you could expect from an MRA,” said Janani Rangaswami, MD, from the Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia.

The rate of hyperkalemia should be interpreted in the context of the high risk the enrolled patients faced, given that they all had moderate to severe diabetic kidney disease with albuminuria and, in some cases, eGFR rates as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73m², she explained. In addition, all patients were on maximally tolerated treatment with either an angiotensin-converting–enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker to inhibit the renin angiotensin system (RAS).

“Considering this background, it’s a very acceptable adverse-event profile,” Dr. Rangaswami said in an interview.
 

Renal drugs that could work together

More than 99% of patients in FIDELIO-DKD were on an RAS inhibitor, but fewer than 5% were on a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor at baseline, and fewer than 10% started on this drug class during the course of the study.

Despite that, both Dr. Kosiborod and Dr. Rangaswami are enthusiastic about the prospect of using the three drugs in combination to maximize renal and cardiovascular benefits in FIDELIO-DKD–type patients. Recent results from the CREDENCE study of canagliflozin (Invokana) and from the DAPA-CKD study of dapagluflozin (Farxiga) have established SGLT2 inhibitors – at least those two – as key agents for patients with chronic kidney disease.

Dual treatment with an RAS inhibitor and an SGLT2 inhibitor is “clearly established” for patients with diabetic kidney disease, said Dr. Agarwal.

“After CREDENCE, DAPA-CKD, and now FIDELIO-DKD, we need to seriously consider triple therapy as the future of treatment for diabetic kidney disease to prevent both cardiovascular and kidney complications,” said Dr. Kosiborod. The approach will mimic the multidrug therapy that’s now standard for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). But he cautioned that this triple combination needs further testing.

“Triple therapy will be the standard of care” for patients with diabetic kidney disease, Dr. Rangaswami agreed, but she cautioned that she would not currently expand the target population for finerenone to patients without type 2 diabetes or to patients without the level of albuminuria required for entry into FIDELIO-DKD: at least 30 mg/g of creatinine per day. And patients with HFrEF were excluded from FIDELIO-DKD, so that limitation on finerenone use should remain for the time being, she added.

Dr. Rangaswami said she is optimistic about the potential efficacy of finerenone added to an SGLT2 inhibitor because of the likelihood that the two drug classes work in different but complementary ways. SGLT2 inhibitors seem to exert their renal protective effects largely through hemodynamic effects, whereas it is likely that finerenone exerts its effects largely as an anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic agent, she speculated. The FIDELIO-DKD results appear to rule out any major effect of finerenone on blood pressure lowering because average systolic pressure fell by only about 2 mm Hg in the treatment group.

“The benefits of finerenone for cardiorenal outcomes are substantial and clinically meaningful,” Dr. Kosiborod said. “We cannot assume that other MRAs, such as spironolactone, provide similar benefits,” he cautioned, but the results are “very good news for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. We now have another effective intervention with a different mechanism of action.”

FIDELIO-DKD was sponsored by Bayer, the company developing finerenone (BAY 94-8862). Dr. Agarwal has been a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer and from several other companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to Bayer and to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Jansse, Merck, and Vifor and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Rangaswami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

For patients with diabetic kidney disease, finerenone, an agent from a new class of selective, nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, led to significant reductions in combined adverse renal outcomes and in combined adverse cardiovascular outcomes in the pivotal FIDELIO-DKD trial.

And the safety results showed a good level of tolerability. The rate of hyperkalemia was higher with finerenone than with placebo, but the rate of drug discontinuations for elevated potassium was lower than that seen with spironolactone, a steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA).

“An ideal drug would cause no hyperkalemia, but the absolute risk we saw is a fraction of what we see with spironolactone in this vulnerable patient population,” said Rajiv Agarwal, MD, from Indiana in Indianapolis, during a press briefing.

After a median follow-up of 2.6 years, finerenone was associated with a 3.4% absolute reduction in the rate of combined adverse renal events, the study’s primary end point, which comprised kidney failure, renal death, and a drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 40% from baseline. This produced a significant relative risk reduction of 18%, with a number needed to treat of 32 to prevent one of these events, Dr. Agarwal reported at Kidney Week 2020. Findings from the FIDELIO-DKD trial were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Finerenone was also associated with an absolute 2.4% reduction in the rate of combined adverse cardiovascular events, the study’s “key secondary end point,” which included cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure. This translated into a significant relative risk reduction of 14% and a number needed to treat of 42 to prevent one of these events.

FIDELIO-DKD assessed 5,734 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease from more than 1,000 sites in 48 countries, including the United States, from 2015 to 2018. In the study cohort, average age was slightly more than 65 years, average baseline systolic blood pressure was 138 mm Hg, average duration of diabetes was nearly 17 years, average baseline glycated hemoglobin (A1c) was 7.7%, and fewer than 5% of patients were Black, 25% were Asian, and about 63% were White.
 

A suggestion of less severe hyperkalemia

Finerenone was well tolerated by the participants, and the findings suggest that it caused less clinically meaningful hyperkalemia than spironolactone, the most established and widely used MRA.

Like all MRA drugs, finerenone led to an increase in serum potassium in all patient subgroups – in this case 0.2 mmol/L – unlike placebo, said Dr. Agarwal.

The overall incidence of hyperkalemia was 16% in the 2,827 evaluable patients in the finerenone group and 8% in the 2,831 evaluable patients in the placebo group. Fewer than 10% of patients in the trial received a potassium-binding agent.

The rate of hyperkalemia leading to treatment discontinuation was higher in the finerenone group than in the placebo group (2.3% vs. 0.9%).

That 2.3% rate is 10 times lower than the 23.0% rate of hyperkalemia-related treatment discontinuation in patients who received spironolactone and no potassium-binding agent, said Dr. Agarwal, citing a previous study he was involved with.

He hypothesized that finerenone might cause less clinically meaningful hyperkalemia because it creates no active metabolites that linger in the body, whereas spironolactone produces active metabolites with a half life of about 1 week.

“The risk for hyperkalemia is clearly increased with finerenone compared with placebo, and in the absence of head-to-head studies, it’s hard to know how it compares with spironolactone or eplerenone [Inspra],” the other agents in the MRA class, said Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, from the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

“The rates of hyperkalemia observed in FIDELIO-DKD were overall comparable to what we would expect from eplerenone. But the rate of serious hyperkalemia was quite low with finerenone, which is reassuring,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.

And the adverse-effect profile showed that finerenone “is as safe as you could expect from an MRA,” said Janani Rangaswami, MD, from the Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia.

The rate of hyperkalemia should be interpreted in the context of the high risk the enrolled patients faced, given that they all had moderate to severe diabetic kidney disease with albuminuria and, in some cases, eGFR rates as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73m², she explained. In addition, all patients were on maximally tolerated treatment with either an angiotensin-converting–enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker to inhibit the renin angiotensin system (RAS).

“Considering this background, it’s a very acceptable adverse-event profile,” Dr. Rangaswami said in an interview.
 

Renal drugs that could work together

More than 99% of patients in FIDELIO-DKD were on an RAS inhibitor, but fewer than 5% were on a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor at baseline, and fewer than 10% started on this drug class during the course of the study.

Despite that, both Dr. Kosiborod and Dr. Rangaswami are enthusiastic about the prospect of using the three drugs in combination to maximize renal and cardiovascular benefits in FIDELIO-DKD–type patients. Recent results from the CREDENCE study of canagliflozin (Invokana) and from the DAPA-CKD study of dapagluflozin (Farxiga) have established SGLT2 inhibitors – at least those two – as key agents for patients with chronic kidney disease.

Dual treatment with an RAS inhibitor and an SGLT2 inhibitor is “clearly established” for patients with diabetic kidney disease, said Dr. Agarwal.

“After CREDENCE, DAPA-CKD, and now FIDELIO-DKD, we need to seriously consider triple therapy as the future of treatment for diabetic kidney disease to prevent both cardiovascular and kidney complications,” said Dr. Kosiborod. The approach will mimic the multidrug therapy that’s now standard for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). But he cautioned that this triple combination needs further testing.

“Triple therapy will be the standard of care” for patients with diabetic kidney disease, Dr. Rangaswami agreed, but she cautioned that she would not currently expand the target population for finerenone to patients without type 2 diabetes or to patients without the level of albuminuria required for entry into FIDELIO-DKD: at least 30 mg/g of creatinine per day. And patients with HFrEF were excluded from FIDELIO-DKD, so that limitation on finerenone use should remain for the time being, she added.

Dr. Rangaswami said she is optimistic about the potential efficacy of finerenone added to an SGLT2 inhibitor because of the likelihood that the two drug classes work in different but complementary ways. SGLT2 inhibitors seem to exert their renal protective effects largely through hemodynamic effects, whereas it is likely that finerenone exerts its effects largely as an anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic agent, she speculated. The FIDELIO-DKD results appear to rule out any major effect of finerenone on blood pressure lowering because average systolic pressure fell by only about 2 mm Hg in the treatment group.

“The benefits of finerenone for cardiorenal outcomes are substantial and clinically meaningful,” Dr. Kosiborod said. “We cannot assume that other MRAs, such as spironolactone, provide similar benefits,” he cautioned, but the results are “very good news for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. We now have another effective intervention with a different mechanism of action.”

FIDELIO-DKD was sponsored by Bayer, the company developing finerenone (BAY 94-8862). Dr. Agarwal has been a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer and from several other companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to Bayer and to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Jansse, Merck, and Vifor and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Rangaswami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A new formulation of an existing antibacterial agent and a potential therapeutic approach to a challenging clinical problem were the focus of a session on potentially practice-changing clinical trials in antimicrobial therapy presented during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

“I know it has been a big year for viral disease of course, with COVID, but there has been some really good work that has gone on in the bacterial space, and of course as those of you who are on service know, you may have your fair share of COVID patients, but these are infections that we still deal with on a daily basis,” said Michael Satlin, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.

He combed through studies published during the previous 12 months in leading medical journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA network publications, Lancet Infectious Diseases, Lancet Respiratory Medicine, Clinical Infectious Diseases, and Clinical Microbiology and Infection, looking for randomized trials of interventions to treat bacterial infections, and selecting those most likely to change practice of U.S. infectious diseases practitioners.

He excluded meta-analyses, post hoc analyses, evaluations of diagnostic tests, stewardship, or any studies presented previously at IDWeek.

Two of the trials he highlighted are described here.
 

Fosfomycin for injection

In the United States, fosfomycin, the only antibiotic in its class, is currently available only in an oral sachet formulation (Monurol), “and typically we’ve only given this for patients with cystitis because we know that we don’t achieve significant levels [of drug] in the kidney or in the bloodstream for other types of infections,” Dr. Satlin said.

In Europe, however fosfomycin for injection (ZTI-01) has been available for several years.

“There’s been a lot of interest in fosfomycin because it has a different mechanism of action from other agents. It’s an epoxide antibiotic that inhibits early peptidoglycan synthesis by binding to MurA,” he explained.

The phase 2/3 randomized ZEUS trial compared ZTI-01 with piperacillin/tazobactam (pip/taz) for treatment of complicated urinary tract infection (UTI) including acute pyelonephritis.

A total of 465 hospitalized adults with suspected or microbiologically confirmed complicated UTI or acute pyelonephritis were randomized to 6 g of ZTI-01 every 8 hours or 4.5 g of intravenous pip/taz every 8 hours for a fixed 7-day course with no oral switch; patients with concomitant bacteremia (about 9% of the study population) could receive the assigned therapy for up to 14 days.

The primary endpoint of noninferiority of ZTI-01 was met and clinical cure rates were high and similar between the treatments, at approximately 91% each. Treatment-emergent adverse events, including hypokalemia and elevated serum aminotransferases, were mostly mild and transient.

The hypokalemia seen in the trial may be attributable to the high salt load of fosfomycin relative to pip/taz, Dr. Satlin said.

“How might this change your practice? Well, if IV fosfomycin is ever FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approved – and my understanding is that the delays have been more related to manufacturing than scientific quality of data – it could potentially be an alternative to beta-lactams and fluoroquinolones” and has activity against most extend spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Enterobacteriaceae, he said.

Fosfomycin susceptibility testing is challenging, however, with no Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) or FDA breakpoints for Enterobacterales other than Escherichia coli, and there are questions about the step-down therapy.

“Do you just give a 3-gram sachet chaser when they walk out the door? Do you switch to another agent? I think that needs to be worked out,” he said.
 

Inhaled amikacin

“We know that some IV antibiotics, particularly for resistant organisms, may not achieve sufficient concentrations in the lung to treat pneumonia. We know that inhaled antibiotics can give a lot of concentration of that drug right at the at the site of infection, but we don’t really have [randomized controlled trial] data to see whether it really helps,” Dr. Satlin said.

The INHALE trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled superiority trial to see whether adding inhaled amikacin to IV standard-of-care antibiotics could improve outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients with gram-negative pneumonia.

The investigators enrolled 725 adults who were receiving mechanical ventilation for pneumonia, 45% of who had ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Of the total cohort, 508 patients analyzed for efficacy had gram-negative pathogens, including 32% with Pseudomonas aeurginosa, 29% with Acinetobacter baumannii, 30% with E. coli, and the remainder with Klebsiella pneumoniae.

Patients were randomized to standard-of-care intravenous antibiotics plus either inhaled amikacin 400 mg twice daily for 10 days or inhaled saline placebo.

“Of note, the median standard-of-care antibiotics in this study was 18 days, which is certainly longer than what our guidelines recommend.”

There was no significant difference between study arms in the primary endpoint of survival at days 28-32 for all patients who had received at least one dose of study drug, were infected with a gram-negative pathogen, and an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score of at 10 or higher at diagnosis. The respective survival rates for the inhaled amikacin and placebo groups were 75% and 77%. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events or serious treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between the two treatment arms.

“No matter how you sliced and diced it – days of mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU stay – essentially they looked the same. Even for [extensively drug resistant] pathogens where you might expect that you’d see the benefit of inhaled amikacin, they didn’t really see a mortality benefit in this study,” Dr. Satlin said.

The study is practice changing, he said “because I think inhaled aminoglycosides should not be routinely added to the standard of care IV antibiotics for pneumonia in ventilated patients,” he said.

It’s still unclear whether inhaled aminoglycosides might play a role in the treatment of select patients infected with organisms resistant to all beta-lactams and fluoroquinolones, he added.
 

Tempting strategy

“Adding inhaled antibiotics is a tempting strategy for treatment of ventilated pneumonia, which often has poor outcomes,” commented Thomas Holland, MD, a hospitalist and infectious disease specialist at Duke University Hospital in Durham, N.C. “This is valuable and practical information as clinicians choose antibiotics regimens for this difficult-to-treat syndrome,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Holland comoderated the session in which Dr. Satlin presented the study findings and opinions.

No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Satlin reported consulting for Shionogi and Achaogen and research grants from Allergan, Merck, and BioFire Diagnostics. Dr. Holland disclosed consulting fees and other material support from Basilea Pharmaceutica, Genetech, Karius and Theravance.

A new formulation of an existing antibacterial agent and a potential therapeutic approach to a challenging clinical problem were the focus of a session on potentially practice-changing clinical trials in antimicrobial therapy presented during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

“I know it has been a big year for viral disease of course, with COVID, but there has been some really good work that has gone on in the bacterial space, and of course as those of you who are on service know, you may have your fair share of COVID patients, but these are infections that we still deal with on a daily basis,” said Michael Satlin, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.

He combed through studies published during the previous 12 months in leading medical journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA network publications, Lancet Infectious Diseases, Lancet Respiratory Medicine, Clinical Infectious Diseases, and Clinical Microbiology and Infection, looking for randomized trials of interventions to treat bacterial infections, and selecting those most likely to change practice of U.S. infectious diseases practitioners.

He excluded meta-analyses, post hoc analyses, evaluations of diagnostic tests, stewardship, or any studies presented previously at IDWeek.

Two of the trials he highlighted are described here.
 

Fosfomycin for injection

In the United States, fosfomycin, the only antibiotic in its class, is currently available only in an oral sachet formulation (Monurol), “and typically we’ve only given this for patients with cystitis because we know that we don’t achieve significant levels [of drug] in the kidney or in the bloodstream for other types of infections,” Dr. Satlin said.

In Europe, however fosfomycin for injection (ZTI-01) has been available for several years.

“There’s been a lot of interest in fosfomycin because it has a different mechanism of action from other agents. It’s an epoxide antibiotic that inhibits early peptidoglycan synthesis by binding to MurA,” he explained.

The phase 2/3 randomized ZEUS trial compared ZTI-01 with piperacillin/tazobactam (pip/taz) for treatment of complicated urinary tract infection (UTI) including acute pyelonephritis.

A total of 465 hospitalized adults with suspected or microbiologically confirmed complicated UTI or acute pyelonephritis were randomized to 6 g of ZTI-01 every 8 hours or 4.5 g of intravenous pip/taz every 8 hours for a fixed 7-day course with no oral switch; patients with concomitant bacteremia (about 9% of the study population) could receive the assigned therapy for up to 14 days.

The primary endpoint of noninferiority of ZTI-01 was met and clinical cure rates were high and similar between the treatments, at approximately 91% each. Treatment-emergent adverse events, including hypokalemia and elevated serum aminotransferases, were mostly mild and transient.

The hypokalemia seen in the trial may be attributable to the high salt load of fosfomycin relative to pip/taz, Dr. Satlin said.

“How might this change your practice? Well, if IV fosfomycin is ever FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approved – and my understanding is that the delays have been more related to manufacturing than scientific quality of data – it could potentially be an alternative to beta-lactams and fluoroquinolones” and has activity against most extend spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Enterobacteriaceae, he said.

Fosfomycin susceptibility testing is challenging, however, with no Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) or FDA breakpoints for Enterobacterales other than Escherichia coli, and there are questions about the step-down therapy.

“Do you just give a 3-gram sachet chaser when they walk out the door? Do you switch to another agent? I think that needs to be worked out,” he said.
 

Inhaled amikacin

“We know that some IV antibiotics, particularly for resistant organisms, may not achieve sufficient concentrations in the lung to treat pneumonia. We know that inhaled antibiotics can give a lot of concentration of that drug right at the at the site of infection, but we don’t really have [randomized controlled trial] data to see whether it really helps,” Dr. Satlin said.

The INHALE trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled superiority trial to see whether adding inhaled amikacin to IV standard-of-care antibiotics could improve outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients with gram-negative pneumonia.

The investigators enrolled 725 adults who were receiving mechanical ventilation for pneumonia, 45% of who had ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Of the total cohort, 508 patients analyzed for efficacy had gram-negative pathogens, including 32% with Pseudomonas aeurginosa, 29% with Acinetobacter baumannii, 30% with E. coli, and the remainder with Klebsiella pneumoniae.

Patients were randomized to standard-of-care intravenous antibiotics plus either inhaled amikacin 400 mg twice daily for 10 days or inhaled saline placebo.

“Of note, the median standard-of-care antibiotics in this study was 18 days, which is certainly longer than what our guidelines recommend.”

There was no significant difference between study arms in the primary endpoint of survival at days 28-32 for all patients who had received at least one dose of study drug, were infected with a gram-negative pathogen, and an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score of at 10 or higher at diagnosis. The respective survival rates for the inhaled amikacin and placebo groups were 75% and 77%. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events or serious treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between the two treatment arms.

“No matter how you sliced and diced it – days of mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU stay – essentially they looked the same. Even for [extensively drug resistant] pathogens where you might expect that you’d see the benefit of inhaled amikacin, they didn’t really see a mortality benefit in this study,” Dr. Satlin said.

The study is practice changing, he said “because I think inhaled aminoglycosides should not be routinely added to the standard of care IV antibiotics for pneumonia in ventilated patients,” he said.

It’s still unclear whether inhaled aminoglycosides might play a role in the treatment of select patients infected with organisms resistant to all beta-lactams and fluoroquinolones, he added.
 

Tempting strategy

“Adding inhaled antibiotics is a tempting strategy for treatment of ventilated pneumonia, which often has poor outcomes,” commented Thomas Holland, MD, a hospitalist and infectious disease specialist at Duke University Hospital in Durham, N.C. “This is valuable and practical information as clinicians choose antibiotics regimens for this difficult-to-treat syndrome,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Holland comoderated the session in which Dr. Satlin presented the study findings and opinions.

No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Satlin reported consulting for Shionogi and Achaogen and research grants from Allergan, Merck, and BioFire Diagnostics. Dr. Holland disclosed consulting fees and other material support from Basilea Pharmaceutica, Genetech, Karius and Theravance.

A new formulation of an existing antibacterial agent and a potential therapeutic approach to a challenging clinical problem were the focus of a session on potentially practice-changing clinical trials in antimicrobial therapy presented during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

“I know it has been a big year for viral disease of course, with COVID, but there has been some really good work that has gone on in the bacterial space, and of course as those of you who are on service know, you may have your fair share of COVID patients, but these are infections that we still deal with on a daily basis,” said Michael Satlin, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.

He combed through studies published during the previous 12 months in leading medical journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA network publications, Lancet Infectious Diseases, Lancet Respiratory Medicine, Clinical Infectious Diseases, and Clinical Microbiology and Infection, looking for randomized trials of interventions to treat bacterial infections, and selecting those most likely to change practice of U.S. infectious diseases practitioners.

He excluded meta-analyses, post hoc analyses, evaluations of diagnostic tests, stewardship, or any studies presented previously at IDWeek.

Two of the trials he highlighted are described here.
 

Fosfomycin for injection

In the United States, fosfomycin, the only antibiotic in its class, is currently available only in an oral sachet formulation (Monurol), “and typically we’ve only given this for patients with cystitis because we know that we don’t achieve significant levels [of drug] in the kidney or in the bloodstream for other types of infections,” Dr. Satlin said.

In Europe, however fosfomycin for injection (ZTI-01) has been available for several years.

“There’s been a lot of interest in fosfomycin because it has a different mechanism of action from other agents. It’s an epoxide antibiotic that inhibits early peptidoglycan synthesis by binding to MurA,” he explained.

The phase 2/3 randomized ZEUS trial compared ZTI-01 with piperacillin/tazobactam (pip/taz) for treatment of complicated urinary tract infection (UTI) including acute pyelonephritis.

A total of 465 hospitalized adults with suspected or microbiologically confirmed complicated UTI or acute pyelonephritis were randomized to 6 g of ZTI-01 every 8 hours or 4.5 g of intravenous pip/taz every 8 hours for a fixed 7-day course with no oral switch; patients with concomitant bacteremia (about 9% of the study population) could receive the assigned therapy for up to 14 days.

The primary endpoint of noninferiority of ZTI-01 was met and clinical cure rates were high and similar between the treatments, at approximately 91% each. Treatment-emergent adverse events, including hypokalemia and elevated serum aminotransferases, were mostly mild and transient.

The hypokalemia seen in the trial may be attributable to the high salt load of fosfomycin relative to pip/taz, Dr. Satlin said.

“How might this change your practice? Well, if IV fosfomycin is ever FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approved – and my understanding is that the delays have been more related to manufacturing than scientific quality of data – it could potentially be an alternative to beta-lactams and fluoroquinolones” and has activity against most extend spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Enterobacteriaceae, he said.

Fosfomycin susceptibility testing is challenging, however, with no Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) or FDA breakpoints for Enterobacterales other than Escherichia coli, and there are questions about the step-down therapy.

“Do you just give a 3-gram sachet chaser when they walk out the door? Do you switch to another agent? I think that needs to be worked out,” he said.
 

Inhaled amikacin

“We know that some IV antibiotics, particularly for resistant organisms, may not achieve sufficient concentrations in the lung to treat pneumonia. We know that inhaled antibiotics can give a lot of concentration of that drug right at the at the site of infection, but we don’t really have [randomized controlled trial] data to see whether it really helps,” Dr. Satlin said.

The INHALE trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled superiority trial to see whether adding inhaled amikacin to IV standard-of-care antibiotics could improve outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients with gram-negative pneumonia.

The investigators enrolled 725 adults who were receiving mechanical ventilation for pneumonia, 45% of who had ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Of the total cohort, 508 patients analyzed for efficacy had gram-negative pathogens, including 32% with Pseudomonas aeurginosa, 29% with Acinetobacter baumannii, 30% with E. coli, and the remainder with Klebsiella pneumoniae.

Patients were randomized to standard-of-care intravenous antibiotics plus either inhaled amikacin 400 mg twice daily for 10 days or inhaled saline placebo.

“Of note, the median standard-of-care antibiotics in this study was 18 days, which is certainly longer than what our guidelines recommend.”

There was no significant difference between study arms in the primary endpoint of survival at days 28-32 for all patients who had received at least one dose of study drug, were infected with a gram-negative pathogen, and an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score of at 10 or higher at diagnosis. The respective survival rates for the inhaled amikacin and placebo groups were 75% and 77%. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events or serious treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between the two treatment arms.

“No matter how you sliced and diced it – days of mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU stay – essentially they looked the same. Even for [extensively drug resistant] pathogens where you might expect that you’d see the benefit of inhaled amikacin, they didn’t really see a mortality benefit in this study,” Dr. Satlin said.

The study is practice changing, he said “because I think inhaled aminoglycosides should not be routinely added to the standard of care IV antibiotics for pneumonia in ventilated patients,” he said.

It’s still unclear whether inhaled aminoglycosides might play a role in the treatment of select patients infected with organisms resistant to all beta-lactams and fluoroquinolones, he added.
 

Tempting strategy

“Adding inhaled antibiotics is a tempting strategy for treatment of ventilated pneumonia, which often has poor outcomes,” commented Thomas Holland, MD, a hospitalist and infectious disease specialist at Duke University Hospital in Durham, N.C. “This is valuable and practical information as clinicians choose antibiotics regimens for this difficult-to-treat syndrome,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Holland comoderated the session in which Dr. Satlin presented the study findings and opinions.

No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Satlin reported consulting for Shionogi and Achaogen and research grants from Allergan, Merck, and BioFire Diagnostics. Dr. Holland disclosed consulting fees and other material support from Basilea Pharmaceutica, Genetech, Karius and Theravance.

The patient was given a diagnosis of prurigo pigmentosa based on the characteristic pruritic rash that had developed after the patient started a strict ketogenic diet.

Prurigo pigmentosa is a benign, pruritic rash that most commonly presents with erythematous or hyperpigmented, symmetrically distributed urticarial papules and plaques on the chest and back. Females represent approximately 70% of cases with a predominant age range of 11 to 30. It more commonly is seen in people of Asian descent.

While the pathophysiology remains unknown, the rash most commonly occurs in association with diabetes, ketosis, and more recently with ketogenic diets. Despite occurring in only a fraction of patients on the ketogenic diet, the characteristic presentation has led to the alternative name of the “keto rash” in online nutritional forums and blogs.

The diagnosis is made clinically, so the appearance of a symmetric pruritic, hyperpigmented rash on the chest and back should prompt the physician to ask about any recent changes in diet. Laboratory analysis is unnecessary, as a complete blood count, basic metabolic panel, and liver function panel are almost always normal.

Other conditions can mimic prurigo pigmentosa such as urticaria, irritant contact dermatitis, confluent and reticulated papillomatosis, and pityriasis rosea.

Primary treatment includes resumption of a normal diet. This often leads to rapid resolution of pruritis. Residual hyperpigmentation may take months to fade. If additional treatment is required, minocycline 100 to 200 mg/d has been reported most effective, likely due to its anti-inflammatory properties. Topical corticosteroids and oral antihistamines provide symptomatic relief in some patients.

This patient had resolution of the pruritis and urticarial lesions within 2 days of resuming a normal diet; however, residual asymptomatic hyperpigmentation persisted. A retrial of the ketogenic diet initiated a flare of the rash in the same distribution. It rapidly resolved with carbohydrate intake.

‌

This case was adapted from: Croom D, Barlow T, Landers JT. Pruritic rash on chest and back. J Fam Pract. 2019;68:113-114,116

The patient was given a diagnosis of prurigo pigmentosa based on the characteristic pruritic rash that had developed after the patient started a strict ketogenic diet.

Prurigo pigmentosa is a benign, pruritic rash that most commonly presents with erythematous or hyperpigmented, symmetrically distributed urticarial papules and plaques on the chest and back. Females represent approximately 70% of cases with a predominant age range of 11 to 30. It more commonly is seen in people of Asian descent.

While the pathophysiology remains unknown, the rash most commonly occurs in association with diabetes, ketosis, and more recently with ketogenic diets. Despite occurring in only a fraction of patients on the ketogenic diet, the characteristic presentation has led to the alternative name of the “keto rash” in online nutritional forums and blogs.

The diagnosis is made clinically, so the appearance of a symmetric pruritic, hyperpigmented rash on the chest and back should prompt the physician to ask about any recent changes in diet. Laboratory analysis is unnecessary, as a complete blood count, basic metabolic panel, and liver function panel are almost always normal.

Other conditions can mimic prurigo pigmentosa such as urticaria, irritant contact dermatitis, confluent and reticulated papillomatosis, and pityriasis rosea.

Primary treatment includes resumption of a normal diet. This often leads to rapid resolution of pruritis. Residual hyperpigmentation may take months to fade. If additional treatment is required, minocycline 100 to 200 mg/d has been reported most effective, likely due to its anti-inflammatory properties. Topical corticosteroids and oral antihistamines provide symptomatic relief in some patients.

This patient had resolution of the pruritis and urticarial lesions within 2 days of resuming a normal diet; however, residual asymptomatic hyperpigmentation persisted. A retrial of the ketogenic diet initiated a flare of the rash in the same distribution. It rapidly resolved with carbohydrate intake.

‌

This case was adapted from: Croom D, Barlow T, Landers JT. Pruritic rash on chest and back. J Fam Pract. 2019;68:113-114,116

The patient was given a diagnosis of prurigo pigmentosa based on the characteristic pruritic rash that had developed after the patient started a strict ketogenic diet.

Prurigo pigmentosa is a benign, pruritic rash that most commonly presents with erythematous or hyperpigmented, symmetrically distributed urticarial papules and plaques on the chest and back. Females represent approximately 70% of cases with a predominant age range of 11 to 30. It more commonly is seen in people of Asian descent.

While the pathophysiology remains unknown, the rash most commonly occurs in association with diabetes, ketosis, and more recently with ketogenic diets. Despite occurring in only a fraction of patients on the ketogenic diet, the characteristic presentation has led to the alternative name of the “keto rash” in online nutritional forums and blogs.

The diagnosis is made clinically, so the appearance of a symmetric pruritic, hyperpigmented rash on the chest and back should prompt the physician to ask about any recent changes in diet. Laboratory analysis is unnecessary, as a complete blood count, basic metabolic panel, and liver function panel are almost always normal.

Other conditions can mimic prurigo pigmentosa such as urticaria, irritant contact dermatitis, confluent and reticulated papillomatosis, and pityriasis rosea.

Primary treatment includes resumption of a normal diet. This often leads to rapid resolution of pruritis. Residual hyperpigmentation may take months to fade. If additional treatment is required, minocycline 100 to 200 mg/d has been reported most effective, likely due to its anti-inflammatory properties. Topical corticosteroids and oral antihistamines provide symptomatic relief in some patients.

This patient had resolution of the pruritis and urticarial lesions within 2 days of resuming a normal diet; however, residual asymptomatic hyperpigmentation persisted. A retrial of the ketogenic diet initiated a flare of the rash in the same distribution. It rapidly resolved with carbohydrate intake.

‌

This case was adapted from: Croom D, Barlow T, Landers JT. Pruritic rash on chest and back. J Fam Pract. 2019;68:113-114,116

Tocilizumab (Actemra/RoActemra) was not found to have any clear role as a treatment for COVID-19 in four new studies.

Three randomized controlled trials showed that the drug either had no benefit or only a modest one, contradicting a large retrospective study that had hinted at a more robust effect.

“This is not a blockbuster,” said David Cennimo, MD, an infectious disease expert at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey. “This is not something that’s going to revolutionize our treatment of COVID-19.”

But some researchers still regard these studies as showing evidence that the drug benefits certain patients with severe inflammation.

The immune response to SARS-CoV-2 includes elevated levels of the cytokine interleukin-6 (IL-6). In some patients, this response becomes a nonspecific inflammation, a “cytokine storm,” involving edema and inflammatory cell infiltration in the lungs. These cases are among the most severe.

Dexamethasone has proved effective in controlling this inflammation in some patients. Researchers have theorized that a more targeted suppression of IL-6 could be even more effective or work in cases that don’t respond to dexamethasone.

A recombinant monoclonal antibody, tocilizumab blocks IL-6 receptors. It is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with rheumatologic disorders and cytokine release syndrome induced by chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy.

Current National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines recommend against the use of tocilizumab as a treatment for COVID-19, despite earlier observational studies that suggested the drug might help patients with moderate to severe disease. Controlled trials were lacking until now.

The most hopeful results in this batch came from the CORIMUNO-19 platform of open-label, randomized controlled trials of immune modulatory treatments for moderate or severe COVID-19 in France.

Published in JAMA Internal Medicine , the trial recruited patients from nine French hospitals. Patients were eligible if they required at least 3 L/min of oxygen without ventilation or admission to the intensive care unit.

The investigators randomly assigned 64 patients to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg body weight intravenously plus usual care and 67 patients to usual care alone. Usual care included antibiotic agents, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, vasopressor support, and anticoagulants.

After 4 days, the investigators scored patients on the World Health Organization 10-point Clinical Progression Scale. Twelve of the patients who received tocilizumab scored higher than 5 vs 19 of the patients in the usual care group, with higher scores indicating clinical deterioration.

After 14 days, 24% of the patients taking tocilizumab required either noninvasive ventilation or mechanical ventilation or had died, vs 36% in the usual care group (median posterior hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 90% credible interval, 0.33 – 1.00).

“We reduced the risk of dying or requiring mechanical ventilation, so for me, the study was positive,” said Olivier Hermine, MD, PhD, a professor of hematology at Paris Descartes University in Paris, France.

However, there was no difference in mortality at 28 days. Hermine hopes to have longer-term outcomes soon, he told Medscape Medical News.

A second randomized controlled trial, also published in JAMA Internal Medicine , provided less hope. In this RCT-TCZ-COVID-19 Study Group trial, conducted at 24 Italian centers, patients were enrolled if their partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO₂/FiO₂) ratios were between 200 and 300 mm Hg and if their inflammatory phenotypes were defined by fever and elevated C-reactive protein level.

The investigators randomly assigned 60 patients to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg within 8 hours of randomization, followed by a second dose after 12 hours. They assigned 66 patients to a control group that received supportive care until clinical worsening, at which point patients could receive tocilizumab as a rescue therapy.

Of the patients who received tocilizumab, 28.3% showed clinical worsening within 14 days, compared to 27.0% in the control group (rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.59 – 1.86). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the proportion admitted to intensive care. The researchers stopped the trial prematurely because tocilizumab did not seem to be making a difference.

The BACC Bay Tocilizumab Trial was conducted at seven Boston hospitals. The results, which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine, were also discouraging.

In that trial, enrolled patients met two sets of parameters. First, the patients had at least one of the following signs: C-reactive protein level higher than 50 mg/L, ferritin level higher than 500 ng/mL, D-dimer level higher than 1000 ng/mL, or a lactate dehydrogenase level higher than 250 U/L. Second, the patients had to have at least two of the following signs: body temperature >38° C, pulmonary infiltrates, or the need for supplemental oxygen to maintain an oxygen saturation greater than 92%.

The investigators randomly assigned 161 patients to receive intravenous tocilizumab 8 mg/kg up to 800 mg and 81 to receive a placebo.

They didn’t find a statistically significant difference between the groups. The hazard ratio for intubation or death in the tocilizumab group as compared with the placebo group was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.38 – 1.81; P = .64). The hazard ratio for disease worsening was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.59 – 2.10; P = .73). At 14 days, the conditions of 18.0% of the patients who received tocilizumab and 14.9% of the patients who received the placebo worsened.

In contrast to these randomized trials, STOP-COVID, a retrospective analysis of 3924 patients, also published in JAMA Internal Medicine, found that the risk for death was lower for patients treated with tocilizumab compared with those not treated with tocilizumab (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56 – 0.92) over a median follow-up period of 27 days.

Also on the bright side, none of the new studies showed significant adverse reactions to tocilizumab.

More randomized clinical trials are underway. In press releases announcing topline data, Roche reported mostly negative results in its phase 3 COVACTA trial but noted a 44% reduction in the risk for progression to death or ventilation in its phase 3 IMPACTA trial. Roche did not comment on the ethnicity of its COVACTA patients; it said IMPACTA enrolled a majority of Hispanic patients and included large representations of Native American and Black patients.
 

Results don’t support routine use

Commenting on the new studies, editorialists in both JAMA Internal Medicine and The New England Journal of Medicine concluded that the tocilizumab results were not strong enough to support routine use.

“My take-home point from looking at all of these together is that, even if it does help, it’s most likely in a small subset of the population and/or a small effect,” Cennimo told Medscape Medical News.

But the NIH recommendation against tocilizumab goes too far, argued Cristina Mussini, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia in Italy, who is a coauthor of a cohort study of tocilizumab and served on the CORIMUNO-19 Data Safety and Monitoring Board.

“I really think it’s too early to recommend against it because at least two clinical trials showed protection against mechanical ventilation and death,” she said.

She prescribes tocilizumab for patients who have not been helped by dexamethasone. “It’s just a rescue drug,” she told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not something you use for everybody, but it’s the only weapon we have now when the patient is really going to the intensive care unit.”

The BACC Bay Tocilizumab Trial was funded by Genentech/Roche. Genentech/Roche provided the drug for the CORIMUNO and RCT-TCZ-COVID-19 trials. The STOP-COVID study was supported by grants from the NIH and by the Frankel Cardiovascular Center COVID-19: Impact Research Ignitor. Cennimo, Hermine, and Mussini have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Tocilizumab (Actemra/RoActemra) was not found to have any clear role as a treatment for COVID-19 in four new studies.

Three randomized controlled trials showed that the drug either had no benefit or only a modest one, contradicting a large retrospective study that had hinted at a more robust effect.

“This is not a blockbuster,” said David Cennimo, MD, an infectious disease expert at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey. “This is not something that’s going to revolutionize our treatment of COVID-19.”

But some researchers still regard these studies as showing evidence that the drug benefits certain patients with severe inflammation.

The immune response to SARS-CoV-2 includes elevated levels of the cytokine interleukin-6 (IL-6). In some patients, this response becomes a nonspecific inflammation, a “cytokine storm,” involving edema and inflammatory cell infiltration in the lungs. These cases are among the most severe.

Dexamethasone has proved effective in controlling this inflammation in some patients. Researchers have theorized that a more targeted suppression of IL-6 could be even more effective or work in cases that don’t respond to dexamethasone.

A recombinant monoclonal antibody, tocilizumab blocks IL-6 receptors. It is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with rheumatologic disorders and cytokine release syndrome induced by chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy.

Current National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines recommend against the use of tocilizumab as a treatment for COVID-19, despite earlier observational studies that suggested the drug might help patients with moderate to severe disease. Controlled trials were lacking until now.

The most hopeful results in this batch came from the CORIMUNO-19 platform of open-label, randomized controlled trials of immune modulatory treatments for moderate or severe COVID-19 in France.

Published in JAMA Internal Medicine , the trial recruited patients from nine French hospitals. Patients were eligible if they required at least 3 L/min of oxygen without ventilation or admission to the intensive care unit.

The investigators randomly assigned 64 patients to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg body weight intravenously plus usual care and 67 patients to usual care alone. Usual care included antibiotic agents, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, vasopressor support, and anticoagulants.

After 4 days, the investigators scored patients on the World Health Organization 10-point Clinical Progression Scale. Twelve of the patients who received tocilizumab scored higher than 5 vs 19 of the patients in the usual care group, with higher scores indicating clinical deterioration.

After 14 days, 24% of the patients taking tocilizumab required either noninvasive ventilation or mechanical ventilation or had died, vs 36% in the usual care group (median posterior hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 90% credible interval, 0.33 – 1.00).

“We reduced the risk of dying or requiring mechanical ventilation, so for me, the study was positive,” said Olivier Hermine, MD, PhD, a professor of hematology at Paris Descartes University in Paris, France.

However, there was no difference in mortality at 28 days. Hermine hopes to have longer-term outcomes soon, he told Medscape Medical News.

A second randomized controlled trial, also published in JAMA Internal Medicine , provided less hope. In this RCT-TCZ-COVID-19 Study Group trial, conducted at 24 Italian centers, patients were enrolled if their partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO₂/FiO₂) ratios were between 200 and 300 mm Hg and if their inflammatory phenotypes were defined by fever and elevated C-reactive protein level.

The investigators randomly assigned 60 patients to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg within 8 hours of randomization, followed by a second dose after 12 hours. They assigned 66 patients to a control group that received supportive care until clinical worsening, at which point patients could receive tocilizumab as a rescue therapy.

Of the patients who received tocilizumab, 28.3% showed clinical worsening within 14 days, compared to 27.0% in the control group (rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.59 – 1.86). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the proportion admitted to intensive care. The researchers stopped the trial prematurely because tocilizumab did not seem to be making a difference.

The BACC Bay Tocilizumab Trial was conducted at seven Boston hospitals. The results, which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine, were also discouraging.

In that trial, enrolled patients met two sets of parameters. First, the patients had at least one of the following signs: C-reactive protein level higher than 50 mg/L, ferritin level higher than 500 ng/mL, D-dimer level higher than 1000 ng/mL, or a lactate dehydrogenase level higher than 250 U/L. Second, the patients had to have at least two of the following signs: body temperature >38° C, pulmonary infiltrates, or the need for supplemental oxygen to maintain an oxygen saturation greater than 92%.

The investigators randomly assigned 161 patients to receive intravenous tocilizumab 8 mg/kg up to 800 mg and 81 to receive a placebo.

They didn’t find a statistically significant difference between the groups. The hazard ratio for intubation or death in the tocilizumab group as compared with the placebo group was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.38 – 1.81; P = .64). The hazard ratio for disease worsening was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.59 – 2.10; P = .73). At 14 days, the conditions of 18.0% of the patients who received tocilizumab and 14.9% of the patients who received the placebo worsened.

In contrast to these randomized trials, STOP-COVID, a retrospective analysis of 3924 patients, also published in JAMA Internal Medicine, found that the risk for death was lower for patients treated with tocilizumab compared with those not treated with tocilizumab (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56 – 0.92) over a median follow-up period of 27 days.

Also on the bright side, none of the new studies showed significant adverse reactions to tocilizumab.

More randomized clinical trials are underway. In press releases announcing topline data, Roche reported mostly negative results in its phase 3 COVACTA trial but noted a 44% reduction in the risk for progression to death or ventilation in its phase 3 IMPACTA trial. Roche did not comment on the ethnicity of its COVACTA patients; it said IMPACTA enrolled a majority of Hispanic patients and included large representations of Native American and Black patients.
 

Results don’t support routine use

Commenting on the new studies, editorialists in both JAMA Internal Medicine and The New England Journal of Medicine concluded that the tocilizumab results were not strong enough to support routine use.

“My take-home point from looking at all of these together is that, even if it does help, it’s most likely in a small subset of the population and/or a small effect,” Cennimo told Medscape Medical News.

But the NIH recommendation against tocilizumab goes too far, argued Cristina Mussini, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia in Italy, who is a coauthor of a cohort study of tocilizumab and served on the CORIMUNO-19 Data Safety and Monitoring Board.

“I really think it’s too early to recommend against it because at least two clinical trials showed protection against mechanical ventilation and death,” she said.

She prescribes tocilizumab for patients who have not been helped by dexamethasone. “It’s just a rescue drug,” she told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not something you use for everybody, but it’s the only weapon we have now when the patient is really going to the intensive care unit.”

The BACC Bay Tocilizumab Trial was funded by Genentech/Roche. Genentech/Roche provided the drug for the CORIMUNO and RCT-TCZ-COVID-19 trials. The STOP-COVID study was supported by grants from the NIH and by the Frankel Cardiovascular Center COVID-19: Impact Research Ignitor. Cennimo, Hermine, and Mussini have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Tocilizumab (Actemra/RoActemra) was not found to have any clear role as a treatment for COVID-19 in four new studies.

Three randomized controlled trials showed that the drug either had no benefit or only a modest one, contradicting a large retrospective study that had hinted at a more robust effect.

“This is not a blockbuster,” said David Cennimo, MD, an infectious disease expert at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey. “This is not something that’s going to revolutionize our treatment of COVID-19.”

But some researchers still regard these studies as showing evidence that the drug benefits certain patients with severe inflammation.

The immune response to SARS-CoV-2 includes elevated levels of the cytokine interleukin-6 (IL-6). In some patients, this response becomes a nonspecific inflammation, a “cytokine storm,” involving edema and inflammatory cell infiltration in the lungs. These cases are among the most severe.

Dexamethasone has proved effective in controlling this inflammation in some patients. Researchers have theorized that a more targeted suppression of IL-6 could be even more effective or work in cases that don’t respond to dexamethasone.

A recombinant monoclonal antibody, tocilizumab blocks IL-6 receptors. It is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with rheumatologic disorders and cytokine release syndrome induced by chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy.

Current National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines recommend against the use of tocilizumab as a treatment for COVID-19, despite earlier observational studies that suggested the drug might help patients with moderate to severe disease. Controlled trials were lacking until now.

The most hopeful results in this batch came from the CORIMUNO-19 platform of open-label, randomized controlled trials of immune modulatory treatments for moderate or severe COVID-19 in France.

Published in JAMA Internal Medicine , the trial recruited patients from nine French hospitals. Patients were eligible if they required at least 3 L/min of oxygen without ventilation or admission to the intensive care unit.

The investigators randomly assigned 64 patients to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg body weight intravenously plus usual care and 67 patients to usual care alone. Usual care included antibiotic agents, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, vasopressor support, and anticoagulants.

After 4 days, the investigators scored patients on the World Health Organization 10-point Clinical Progression Scale. Twelve of the patients who received tocilizumab scored higher than 5 vs 19 of the patients in the usual care group, with higher scores indicating clinical deterioration.

After 14 days, 24% of the patients taking tocilizumab required either noninvasive ventilation or mechanical ventilation or had died, vs 36% in the usual care group (median posterior hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 90% credible interval, 0.33 – 1.00).

“We reduced the risk of dying or requiring mechanical ventilation, so for me, the study was positive,” said Olivier Hermine, MD, PhD, a professor of hematology at Paris Descartes University in Paris, France.

However, there was no difference in mortality at 28 days. Hermine hopes to have longer-term outcomes soon, he told Medscape Medical News.

A second randomized controlled trial, also published in JAMA Internal Medicine , provided less hope. In this RCT-TCZ-COVID-19 Study Group trial, conducted at 24 Italian centers, patients were enrolled if their partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO₂/FiO₂) ratios were between 200 and 300 mm Hg and if their inflammatory phenotypes were defined by fever and elevated C-reactive protein level.

The investigators randomly assigned 60 patients to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg within 8 hours of randomization, followed by a second dose after 12 hours. They assigned 66 patients to a control group that received supportive care until clinical worsening, at which point patients could receive tocilizumab as a rescue therapy.

Of the patients who received tocilizumab, 28.3% showed clinical worsening within 14 days, compared to 27.0% in the control group (rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.59 – 1.86). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the proportion admitted to intensive care. The researchers stopped the trial prematurely because tocilizumab did not seem to be making a difference.

The BACC Bay Tocilizumab Trial was conducted at seven Boston hospitals. The results, which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine, were also discouraging.

In that trial, enrolled patients met two sets of parameters. First, the patients had at least one of the following signs: C-reactive protein level higher than 50 mg/L, ferritin level higher than 500 ng/mL, D-dimer level higher than 1000 ng/mL, or a lactate dehydrogenase level higher than 250 U/L. Second, the patients had to have at least two of the following signs: body temperature >38° C, pulmonary infiltrates, or the need for supplemental oxygen to maintain an oxygen saturation greater than 92%.

The investigators randomly assigned 161 patients to receive intravenous tocilizumab 8 mg/kg up to 800 mg and 81 to receive a placebo.

They didn’t find a statistically significant difference between the groups. The hazard ratio for intubation or death in the tocilizumab group as compared with the placebo group was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.38 – 1.81; P = .64). The hazard ratio for disease worsening was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.59 – 2.10; P = .73). At 14 days, the conditions of 18.0% of the patients who received tocilizumab and 14.9% of the patients who received the placebo worsened.

In contrast to these randomized trials, STOP-COVID, a retrospective analysis of 3924 patients, also published in JAMA Internal Medicine, found that the risk for death was lower for patients treated with tocilizumab compared with those not treated with tocilizumab (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56 – 0.92) over a median follow-up period of 27 days.

Also on the bright side, none of the new studies showed significant adverse reactions to tocilizumab.

More randomized clinical trials are underway. In press releases announcing topline data, Roche reported mostly negative results in its phase 3 COVACTA trial but noted a 44% reduction in the risk for progression to death or ventilation in its phase 3 IMPACTA trial. Roche did not comment on the ethnicity of its COVACTA patients; it said IMPACTA enrolled a majority of Hispanic patients and included large representations of Native American and Black patients.
 

Results don’t support routine use

Commenting on the new studies, editorialists in both JAMA Internal Medicine and The New England Journal of Medicine concluded that the tocilizumab results were not strong enough to support routine use.

“My take-home point from looking at all of these together is that, even if it does help, it’s most likely in a small subset of the population and/or a small effect,” Cennimo told Medscape Medical News.

But the NIH recommendation against tocilizumab goes too far, argued Cristina Mussini, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia in Italy, who is a coauthor of a cohort study of tocilizumab and served on the CORIMUNO-19 Data Safety and Monitoring Board.

“I really think it’s too early to recommend against it because at least two clinical trials showed protection against mechanical ventilation and death,” she said.

She prescribes tocilizumab for patients who have not been helped by dexamethasone. “It’s just a rescue drug,” she told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not something you use for everybody, but it’s the only weapon we have now when the patient is really going to the intensive care unit.”

The BACC Bay Tocilizumab Trial was funded by Genentech/Roche. Genentech/Roche provided the drug for the CORIMUNO and RCT-TCZ-COVID-19 trials. The STOP-COVID study was supported by grants from the NIH and by the Frankel Cardiovascular Center COVID-19: Impact Research Ignitor. Cennimo, Hermine, and Mussini have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) has released a new Expert Consensus Decision Pathway (ECDP) on the management of conduction disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

The document provides guidance to clinicians in identifying and managing this common complication of TAVR, covering the pre-TAVR, periprocedural and post-TAVR periods.

“Conduction disturbances after TAVR are common and there is currently heterogeneity in how they’re managed, ranging from a casual observational approach to invasive electrophysiological studies and preemptive pacemaker implantation,” said writing committee chair Scott Lilly, MD, PhD, from the Ohio State Wexner Medical Center in Columbus.

“We felt this kind of collaborative effort to review what little research there is on this topic and come to [an] expert consensus was long overdue,” he added.

The document was published online Oct. 21 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Dr. Lilly stressed in an interview that this effort is an ECDP and not a guideline “because there is not data out there to solidly stand on and say, ‘This is the way we should do things.’ “

His hope is that this document will generate more discussion on this topic and spur some (probably National Institutes of Health–sponsored) clinical trials to better guide practice.
 

Not uncommon and not decreasing

Complete heart block requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is seen in about 15% of patients within 30 days after TAVR. While this is a clear indication for PPM, there is no consensus on the management of less severe conduction disturbances such as new bundle branch or transient complete atrioventricular (AV) heart block.

Unlike the rates of bleeding, vascular injury, and stroke, which have decreased over time, the rates of in-hospital PPM implantation after TAVR have not changed significantly since commercialization in 2012. This is a concern because TAVR is increasingly used in younger, lower-risk patients.

“The pacemaker rate really hasn’t improved at a clip we would like to see if it was going to be a durable technology,” Dr. Lilly said.

Consensus regarding a reasonable strategy to manage cardiac conduction disturbances after TAVR has been elusive. This is a result of several things: a dearth of adequately powered, randomized controlled trials; the often transient nature of the conduction disturbances; evolving technologies; and the interplay of cardiology subspecialties involved.

The 2013 European Society of Cardiology guidelines address pacing post-TAVR, but do not provide in-depth discussion on the topic. This is the first effort sponsored by a cardiovascular society in the United States to review the existing data and experience and propose evidence-based expert guidance.
 

Pre-TAVR assessment

Pre-TAVR assessment should consider the patient’s risk for postprocedure conduction disturbances, the authors said. Since bradyarrythmias and aortic stenosis may present similarly (fatigue, lightheadedness, and syncope being hallmarks of both), a careful history is needed to determine if bradyarrhythmia is present.

An electrocardiogram (ECG) or ambulatory rhythm monitoring may identify baseline conduction abnormalities and help predict the need for post-TAVR PPM.

“In this section, we underscored some of the literature that has raised awareness about the presence of preexisting arrhythmias in TAVR patients and suggest that monitoring in selected patients before the procedure is reasonable, particularly those presenting with syncope or lightheadedness,” said Dr. Lilly.
 

Intraprocedural management

On the day of the procedure, patients determined to have elevated risk for complete AV heart block require careful perioperative ECG and hemodynamic monitoring. Regardless of preexisting risk, said the authors that all patients should be monitored on a telemetry unit during the procedure with ability to do emergency pacing if necessary.

“In the periprocedural section, we address the role of electrophysiological studies for identifying patients at high-risk of subsequent heart block,” said Dr. Lilly. “That’s a practice that’s occurring at a number of centers, but the data out there is insufficient to establish it as a pacemaker indication. Routine EP testing for patients deemed at risk for conduction disturbances after TAVR is not guideline-based and more research is needed.”

The document also outlines the effects of medications and anesthesia on postprocedure conduction abnormalities.
 

Post-TAVR management

The authors define post-TAVR management as continuing through 30-days after discharge.

The ECDP carefully outlines which patients can be discharged without monitoring and those for whom outpatient monitoring can be considered.

“If I’m going to pick one thing from this section, it’s the monitoring piece. A lot of patients that have a conduction disturbance right after TAVR – but you’re not sure if it’s going to progress and require a pacemaker – might stay in the hospital for an extended time waiting to see if the heart holds up,” reported Dr. Lilly.

“But a number of centers are now discharging people at 1 or 2 days, which begs the question: What do you do with these folks? Our group has published data showing that 30-day monitoring in select patients is a safe approach,” said Dr. Lilly.

There are shortcomings, however, in existing data, and recommendations will likely change as more data are collected, he explained.

As well, there remains uncertainty in how conduction block should be managed after TAVR, and clinical judgment is “foundational” in this, wrote the authors.

“This document is meant to help programs deal with these situations right now, acknowledging full and well, that really good randomized clinical data is not available,” said Dr. Lilly.

Dr. Lilly has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The work of the writing committee was supported exclusively by the American College of Cardiology without commercial support.
 

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

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) has released a new Expert Consensus Decision Pathway (ECDP) on the management of conduction disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

The document provides guidance to clinicians in identifying and managing this common complication of TAVR, covering the pre-TAVR, periprocedural and post-TAVR periods.

“Conduction disturbances after TAVR are common and there is currently heterogeneity in how they’re managed, ranging from a casual observational approach to invasive electrophysiological studies and preemptive pacemaker implantation,” said writing committee chair Scott Lilly, MD, PhD, from the Ohio State Wexner Medical Center in Columbus.

“We felt this kind of collaborative effort to review what little research there is on this topic and come to [an] expert consensus was long overdue,” he added.

The document was published online Oct. 21 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Dr. Lilly stressed in an interview that this effort is an ECDP and not a guideline “because there is not data out there to solidly stand on and say, ‘This is the way we should do things.’ “

His hope is that this document will generate more discussion on this topic and spur some (probably National Institutes of Health–sponsored) clinical trials to better guide practice.
 

Not uncommon and not decreasing

Complete heart block requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is seen in about 15% of patients within 30 days after TAVR. While this is a clear indication for PPM, there is no consensus on the management of less severe conduction disturbances such as new bundle branch or transient complete atrioventricular (AV) heart block.

Unlike the rates of bleeding, vascular injury, and stroke, which have decreased over time, the rates of in-hospital PPM implantation after TAVR have not changed significantly since commercialization in 2012. This is a concern because TAVR is increasingly used in younger, lower-risk patients.

“The pacemaker rate really hasn’t improved at a clip we would like to see if it was going to be a durable technology,” Dr. Lilly said.

Consensus regarding a reasonable strategy to manage cardiac conduction disturbances after TAVR has been elusive. This is a result of several things: a dearth of adequately powered, randomized controlled trials; the often transient nature of the conduction disturbances; evolving technologies; and the interplay of cardiology subspecialties involved.

The 2013 European Society of Cardiology guidelines address pacing post-TAVR, but do not provide in-depth discussion on the topic. This is the first effort sponsored by a cardiovascular society in the United States to review the existing data and experience and propose evidence-based expert guidance.
 

Pre-TAVR assessment

Pre-TAVR assessment should consider the patient’s risk for postprocedure conduction disturbances, the authors said. Since bradyarrythmias and aortic stenosis may present similarly (fatigue, lightheadedness, and syncope being hallmarks of both), a careful history is needed to determine if bradyarrhythmia is present.

An electrocardiogram (ECG) or ambulatory rhythm monitoring may identify baseline conduction abnormalities and help predict the need for post-TAVR PPM.

“In this section, we underscored some of the literature that has raised awareness about the presence of preexisting arrhythmias in TAVR patients and suggest that monitoring in selected patients before the procedure is reasonable, particularly those presenting with syncope or lightheadedness,” said Dr. Lilly.
 

Intraprocedural management

On the day of the procedure, patients determined to have elevated risk for complete AV heart block require careful perioperative ECG and hemodynamic monitoring. Regardless of preexisting risk, said the authors that all patients should be monitored on a telemetry unit during the procedure with ability to do emergency pacing if necessary.

“In the periprocedural section, we address the role of electrophysiological studies for identifying patients at high-risk of subsequent heart block,” said Dr. Lilly. “That’s a practice that’s occurring at a number of centers, but the data out there is insufficient to establish it as a pacemaker indication. Routine EP testing for patients deemed at risk for conduction disturbances after TAVR is not guideline-based and more research is needed.”

The document also outlines the effects of medications and anesthesia on postprocedure conduction abnormalities.
 

Post-TAVR management

The authors define post-TAVR management as continuing through 30-days after discharge.

The ECDP carefully outlines which patients can be discharged without monitoring and those for whom outpatient monitoring can be considered.

“If I’m going to pick one thing from this section, it’s the monitoring piece. A lot of patients that have a conduction disturbance right after TAVR – but you’re not sure if it’s going to progress and require a pacemaker – might stay in the hospital for an extended time waiting to see if the heart holds up,” reported Dr. Lilly.

“But a number of centers are now discharging people at 1 or 2 days, which begs the question: What do you do with these folks? Our group has published data showing that 30-day monitoring in select patients is a safe approach,” said Dr. Lilly.

There are shortcomings, however, in existing data, and recommendations will likely change as more data are collected, he explained.

As well, there remains uncertainty in how conduction block should be managed after TAVR, and clinical judgment is “foundational” in this, wrote the authors.

“This document is meant to help programs deal with these situations right now, acknowledging full and well, that really good randomized clinical data is not available,” said Dr. Lilly.

Dr. Lilly has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The work of the writing committee was supported exclusively by the American College of Cardiology without commercial support.
 

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

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) has released a new Expert Consensus Decision Pathway (ECDP) on the management of conduction disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

The document provides guidance to clinicians in identifying and managing this common complication of TAVR, covering the pre-TAVR, periprocedural and post-TAVR periods.

“Conduction disturbances after TAVR are common and there is currently heterogeneity in how they’re managed, ranging from a casual observational approach to invasive electrophysiological studies and preemptive pacemaker implantation,” said writing committee chair Scott Lilly, MD, PhD, from the Ohio State Wexner Medical Center in Columbus.

“We felt this kind of collaborative effort to review what little research there is on this topic and come to [an] expert consensus was long overdue,” he added.

The document was published online Oct. 21 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Dr. Lilly stressed in an interview that this effort is an ECDP and not a guideline “because there is not data out there to solidly stand on and say, ‘This is the way we should do things.’ “

His hope is that this document will generate more discussion on this topic and spur some (probably National Institutes of Health–sponsored) clinical trials to better guide practice.
 

Not uncommon and not decreasing

Complete heart block requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is seen in about 15% of patients within 30 days after TAVR. While this is a clear indication for PPM, there is no consensus on the management of less severe conduction disturbances such as new bundle branch or transient complete atrioventricular (AV) heart block.

Unlike the rates of bleeding, vascular injury, and stroke, which have decreased over time, the rates of in-hospital PPM implantation after TAVR have not changed significantly since commercialization in 2012. This is a concern because TAVR is increasingly used in younger, lower-risk patients.

“The pacemaker rate really hasn’t improved at a clip we would like to see if it was going to be a durable technology,” Dr. Lilly said.

Consensus regarding a reasonable strategy to manage cardiac conduction disturbances after TAVR has been elusive. This is a result of several things: a dearth of adequately powered, randomized controlled trials; the often transient nature of the conduction disturbances; evolving technologies; and the interplay of cardiology subspecialties involved.

The 2013 European Society of Cardiology guidelines address pacing post-TAVR, but do not provide in-depth discussion on the topic. This is the first effort sponsored by a cardiovascular society in the United States to review the existing data and experience and propose evidence-based expert guidance.
 

Pre-TAVR assessment

Pre-TAVR assessment should consider the patient’s risk for postprocedure conduction disturbances, the authors said. Since bradyarrythmias and aortic stenosis may present similarly (fatigue, lightheadedness, and syncope being hallmarks of both), a careful history is needed to determine if bradyarrhythmia is present.

An electrocardiogram (ECG) or ambulatory rhythm monitoring may identify baseline conduction abnormalities and help predict the need for post-TAVR PPM.

“In this section, we underscored some of the literature that has raised awareness about the presence of preexisting arrhythmias in TAVR patients and suggest that monitoring in selected patients before the procedure is reasonable, particularly those presenting with syncope or lightheadedness,” said Dr. Lilly.
 

Intraprocedural management

On the day of the procedure, patients determined to have elevated risk for complete AV heart block require careful perioperative ECG and hemodynamic monitoring. Regardless of preexisting risk, said the authors that all patients should be monitored on a telemetry unit during the procedure with ability to do emergency pacing if necessary.

“In the periprocedural section, we address the role of electrophysiological studies for identifying patients at high-risk of subsequent heart block,” said Dr. Lilly. “That’s a practice that’s occurring at a number of centers, but the data out there is insufficient to establish it as a pacemaker indication. Routine EP testing for patients deemed at risk for conduction disturbances after TAVR is not guideline-based and more research is needed.”

The document also outlines the effects of medications and anesthesia on postprocedure conduction abnormalities.
 

Post-TAVR management

The authors define post-TAVR management as continuing through 30-days after discharge.

The ECDP carefully outlines which patients can be discharged without monitoring and those for whom outpatient monitoring can be considered.

“If I’m going to pick one thing from this section, it’s the monitoring piece. A lot of patients that have a conduction disturbance right after TAVR – but you’re not sure if it’s going to progress and require a pacemaker – might stay in the hospital for an extended time waiting to see if the heart holds up,” reported Dr. Lilly.

“But a number of centers are now discharging people at 1 or 2 days, which begs the question: What do you do with these folks? Our group has published data showing that 30-day monitoring in select patients is a safe approach,” said Dr. Lilly.

There are shortcomings, however, in existing data, and recommendations will likely change as more data are collected, he explained.

As well, there remains uncertainty in how conduction block should be managed after TAVR, and clinical judgment is “foundational” in this, wrote the authors.

“This document is meant to help programs deal with these situations right now, acknowledging full and well, that really good randomized clinical data is not available,” said Dr. Lilly.

Dr. Lilly has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The work of the writing committee was supported exclusively by the American College of Cardiology without commercial support.
 

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

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung oligometastases nets similar safety and efficacy whether it is delivered in multiple fractions or just one fraction. This was among key findings of a randomized, phase 2 trial reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

“Most patients [with lung metastases] are treated with lifelong anticancer drug therapy only, with little prospect for long-term cancer control,” investigator Shankar Siva, MBBS, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, said in a news briefing.

“However, some patients may have limited spread to the lungs and may be suitable for either surgery, which is an invasive approach, or SBRT, which is a noninvasive approach, with the aim to prolong long-term cancer control,” he added.
 

Patients and treatment

Dr. Siva and colleagues enrolled in their phase 2 trial (SAFRON II/TROG 13.01) 90 patients from 13 centers in Australia and New Zealand.

All patients had one to three lung metastases (from nonhematologic malignancies) that measured up to 5 cm in diameter and were located in the periphery.

The most common primaries were colorectal cancer (47%), lung cancer (11%), and kidney cancer (10%). The trial required that all primary and extrathoracic disease had been definitively treated.

The patients were randomized evenly to lung SBRT delivered with a single-fraction regimen (28 Gy in one fraction) or a multifraction regimen (48 Gy in four fractions) that netted the same biological equivalent dose.
 

Safety and efficacy

The two treatment groups did not differ significantly with respect to any-grade toxicities at 1 year, with the exception of higher rates of esophagitis and radiation dermatitis in the multifraction group, Dr. Siva reported.

The rate of grade 3 or worse toxicity at 1 year – the trial’s primary endpoint – was 5% with the single fraction and 3% with multiple fractions, with overlapping 80% confidence intervals, meeting the prespecified endpoint for acceptable toxicity.

The single-fraction group had two grade 3 events that resolved with intervention and no grade 4-5 events. The multifraction group had a single grade 5 event (fatal pneumonitis in a patient with underlying interstitial lung disease) and no grade 3-4 events.

The single-fraction and multifraction groups were also similar at 1 year on rates of freedom from local failure (93% and 95%, respectively), disease-free survival (59% and 60%, respectively), and overall survival (95% and 93%, respectively), with overlapping 95% CIs for each outcome.

Analyses of quality of life and cost-effectiveness are ongoing.
 

Applying the results: Useful in a pandemic?

“Single-session SBRT is safe, convenient, and noninvasive, and appears to be effective, to date, for lung secondaries. This approach may be considered as a one-stop, knockout type of approach for patients who have one to three metastases to the lung,” Dr. Siva proposed.

“These findings may have implications for treatment selection in a resource-constrained environment, such as the current global pandemic, when trying to reduce footfall or thoroughfare within a radiotherapy department, and it’s quite a convenient approach for patients,” he added.
 

“Stereotactic radiation has an obvious advantage over conventional radiation in several ways and may have a special advantage in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce exposure to patients and our hospital personnel,” agreed news briefing moderator Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

However, use of stereotactic techniques remains controversial because they require technical precision and additional resources for planning and quality assurance, and they are often more expensive than conventional radiation therapy, she noted. Therefore, there must be evidence to justify their use in a palliative or metastatic setting.

The current trial is noteworthy for pushing the SBRT efficiency envelope, according to Dr. Yom.

“These findings are going to be confirmed by the study team with further follow-up at 3 years,” she pointed out. “If the findings of this study are maintained, it shows that patients with up to three metastatic tumors in the lung can have their treatment given in an extremely efficient manner over one session, which saves them time and hospital resources, and could be very significant to patients’ quality of life.”

The trial is sponsored by the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group and the Australasian Lung Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Siva disclosed relationships with Varian Industries, Merck, AstraZeneca, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Meyers Squibb, and Reflexion. Dr. Yom disclosed no relevant conflicts.

SOURCE: Siva S et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract 5.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung oligometastases nets similar safety and efficacy whether it is delivered in multiple fractions or just one fraction. This was among key findings of a randomized, phase 2 trial reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

“Most patients [with lung metastases] are treated with lifelong anticancer drug therapy only, with little prospect for long-term cancer control,” investigator Shankar Siva, MBBS, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, said in a news briefing.

“However, some patients may have limited spread to the lungs and may be suitable for either surgery, which is an invasive approach, or SBRT, which is a noninvasive approach, with the aim to prolong long-term cancer control,” he added.
 

Patients and treatment

Dr. Siva and colleagues enrolled in their phase 2 trial (SAFRON II/TROG 13.01) 90 patients from 13 centers in Australia and New Zealand.

All patients had one to three lung metastases (from nonhematologic malignancies) that measured up to 5 cm in diameter and were located in the periphery.

The most common primaries were colorectal cancer (47%), lung cancer (11%), and kidney cancer (10%). The trial required that all primary and extrathoracic disease had been definitively treated.

The patients were randomized evenly to lung SBRT delivered with a single-fraction regimen (28 Gy in one fraction) or a multifraction regimen (48 Gy in four fractions) that netted the same biological equivalent dose.
 

Safety and efficacy

The two treatment groups did not differ significantly with respect to any-grade toxicities at 1 year, with the exception of higher rates of esophagitis and radiation dermatitis in the multifraction group, Dr. Siva reported.

The rate of grade 3 or worse toxicity at 1 year – the trial’s primary endpoint – was 5% with the single fraction and 3% with multiple fractions, with overlapping 80% confidence intervals, meeting the prespecified endpoint for acceptable toxicity.

The single-fraction group had two grade 3 events that resolved with intervention and no grade 4-5 events. The multifraction group had a single grade 5 event (fatal pneumonitis in a patient with underlying interstitial lung disease) and no grade 3-4 events.

The single-fraction and multifraction groups were also similar at 1 year on rates of freedom from local failure (93% and 95%, respectively), disease-free survival (59% and 60%, respectively), and overall survival (95% and 93%, respectively), with overlapping 95% CIs for each outcome.

Analyses of quality of life and cost-effectiveness are ongoing.
 

Applying the results: Useful in a pandemic?

“Single-session SBRT is safe, convenient, and noninvasive, and appears to be effective, to date, for lung secondaries. This approach may be considered as a one-stop, knockout type of approach for patients who have one to three metastases to the lung,” Dr. Siva proposed.

“These findings may have implications for treatment selection in a resource-constrained environment, such as the current global pandemic, when trying to reduce footfall or thoroughfare within a radiotherapy department, and it’s quite a convenient approach for patients,” he added.
 

“Stereotactic radiation has an obvious advantage over conventional radiation in several ways and may have a special advantage in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce exposure to patients and our hospital personnel,” agreed news briefing moderator Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

However, use of stereotactic techniques remains controversial because they require technical precision and additional resources for planning and quality assurance, and they are often more expensive than conventional radiation therapy, she noted. Therefore, there must be evidence to justify their use in a palliative or metastatic setting.

The current trial is noteworthy for pushing the SBRT efficiency envelope, according to Dr. Yom.

“These findings are going to be confirmed by the study team with further follow-up at 3 years,” she pointed out. “If the findings of this study are maintained, it shows that patients with up to three metastatic tumors in the lung can have their treatment given in an extremely efficient manner over one session, which saves them time and hospital resources, and could be very significant to patients’ quality of life.”

The trial is sponsored by the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group and the Australasian Lung Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Siva disclosed relationships with Varian Industries, Merck, AstraZeneca, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Meyers Squibb, and Reflexion. Dr. Yom disclosed no relevant conflicts.

SOURCE: Siva S et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract 5.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung oligometastases nets similar safety and efficacy whether it is delivered in multiple fractions or just one fraction. This was among key findings of a randomized, phase 2 trial reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

“Most patients [with lung metastases] are treated with lifelong anticancer drug therapy only, with little prospect for long-term cancer control,” investigator Shankar Siva, MBBS, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, said in a news briefing.

“However, some patients may have limited spread to the lungs and may be suitable for either surgery, which is an invasive approach, or SBRT, which is a noninvasive approach, with the aim to prolong long-term cancer control,” he added.
 

Patients and treatment

Dr. Siva and colleagues enrolled in their phase 2 trial (SAFRON II/TROG 13.01) 90 patients from 13 centers in Australia and New Zealand.

All patients had one to three lung metastases (from nonhematologic malignancies) that measured up to 5 cm in diameter and were located in the periphery.

The most common primaries were colorectal cancer (47%), lung cancer (11%), and kidney cancer (10%). The trial required that all primary and extrathoracic disease had been definitively treated.

The patients were randomized evenly to lung SBRT delivered with a single-fraction regimen (28 Gy in one fraction) or a multifraction regimen (48 Gy in four fractions) that netted the same biological equivalent dose.
 

Safety and efficacy

The two treatment groups did not differ significantly with respect to any-grade toxicities at 1 year, with the exception of higher rates of esophagitis and radiation dermatitis in the multifraction group, Dr. Siva reported.

The rate of grade 3 or worse toxicity at 1 year – the trial’s primary endpoint – was 5% with the single fraction and 3% with multiple fractions, with overlapping 80% confidence intervals, meeting the prespecified endpoint for acceptable toxicity.

The single-fraction group had two grade 3 events that resolved with intervention and no grade 4-5 events. The multifraction group had a single grade 5 event (fatal pneumonitis in a patient with underlying interstitial lung disease) and no grade 3-4 events.

The single-fraction and multifraction groups were also similar at 1 year on rates of freedom from local failure (93% and 95%, respectively), disease-free survival (59% and 60%, respectively), and overall survival (95% and 93%, respectively), with overlapping 95% CIs for each outcome.

Analyses of quality of life and cost-effectiveness are ongoing.
 

Applying the results: Useful in a pandemic?

“Single-session SBRT is safe, convenient, and noninvasive, and appears to be effective, to date, for lung secondaries. This approach may be considered as a one-stop, knockout type of approach for patients who have one to three metastases to the lung,” Dr. Siva proposed.

“These findings may have implications for treatment selection in a resource-constrained environment, such as the current global pandemic, when trying to reduce footfall or thoroughfare within a radiotherapy department, and it’s quite a convenient approach for patients,” he added.
 

“Stereotactic radiation has an obvious advantage over conventional radiation in several ways and may have a special advantage in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce exposure to patients and our hospital personnel,” agreed news briefing moderator Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

However, use of stereotactic techniques remains controversial because they require technical precision and additional resources for planning and quality assurance, and they are often more expensive than conventional radiation therapy, she noted. Therefore, there must be evidence to justify their use in a palliative or metastatic setting.

The current trial is noteworthy for pushing the SBRT efficiency envelope, according to Dr. Yom.

“These findings are going to be confirmed by the study team with further follow-up at 3 years,” she pointed out. “If the findings of this study are maintained, it shows that patients with up to three metastatic tumors in the lung can have their treatment given in an extremely efficient manner over one session, which saves them time and hospital resources, and could be very significant to patients’ quality of life.”

The trial is sponsored by the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group and the Australasian Lung Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Siva disclosed relationships with Varian Industries, Merck, AstraZeneca, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Meyers Squibb, and Reflexion. Dr. Yom disclosed no relevant conflicts.

SOURCE: Siva S et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract 5.

Eli Lilly announced it will halt its ACTIV-3 trial evaluating the antibody bamlanivimab in combination with remdesivir for people hospitalized with COVID-19, after new evidence regarding efficacy emerged.

The new data from the National Institutes of Health suggest that the experimental neutralizing antibody therapy does not offer significant clinical benefit for people with more advanced COVID-19 illness, according to a company statement.

Eli Lilly also announced it plans to continue its other trials evaluating the antibody, including those assessing a potential role in treating people in the earlier stages of COVID-19.

“While there was insufficient evidence that bamlanivimab improved clinical outcomes when added to other treatments in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we remain confident based on data from Lilly’s BLAZE-1 study that bamlanivimab monotherapy may prevent progression of disease for those earlier in the course of COVID-19,” the statement reads.

The ACTIV-3 trial was paused on October 13 after a data and safety monitoring board cited safety concerns.

The most recent data update that triggered an end to the trial did not reveal any significant differences in safety, though.  
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Eli Lilly announced it will halt its ACTIV-3 trial evaluating the antibody bamlanivimab in combination with remdesivir for people hospitalized with COVID-19, after new evidence regarding efficacy emerged.

The new data from the National Institutes of Health suggest that the experimental neutralizing antibody therapy does not offer significant clinical benefit for people with more advanced COVID-19 illness, according to a company statement.

Eli Lilly also announced it plans to continue its other trials evaluating the antibody, including those assessing a potential role in treating people in the earlier stages of COVID-19.

“While there was insufficient evidence that bamlanivimab improved clinical outcomes when added to other treatments in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we remain confident based on data from Lilly’s BLAZE-1 study that bamlanivimab monotherapy may prevent progression of disease for those earlier in the course of COVID-19,” the statement reads.

The ACTIV-3 trial was paused on October 13 after a data and safety monitoring board cited safety concerns.

The most recent data update that triggered an end to the trial did not reveal any significant differences in safety, though.  
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Eli Lilly announced it will halt its ACTIV-3 trial evaluating the antibody bamlanivimab in combination with remdesivir for people hospitalized with COVID-19, after new evidence regarding efficacy emerged.

The new data from the National Institutes of Health suggest that the experimental neutralizing antibody therapy does not offer significant clinical benefit for people with more advanced COVID-19 illness, according to a company statement.

Eli Lilly also announced it plans to continue its other trials evaluating the antibody, including those assessing a potential role in treating people in the earlier stages of COVID-19.

“While there was insufficient evidence that bamlanivimab improved clinical outcomes when added to other treatments in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we remain confident based on data from Lilly’s BLAZE-1 study that bamlanivimab monotherapy may prevent progression of disease for those earlier in the course of COVID-19,” the statement reads.

The ACTIV-3 trial was paused on October 13 after a data and safety monitoring board cited safety concerns.

The most recent data update that triggered an end to the trial did not reveal any significant differences in safety, though.  
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I’m a big believer in my state’s Prescription Monitoring Program (PMP), perhaps more commonly known as the troll tracker. The ability to quickly access a patient’s controlled prescription records across pharmacies has been enormously helpful in my everyday practice. I rely on it and check it often.

With it I can see if my patients are getting the same drug from other prescribers, pharmacy-shopping, or carrying out other concerning activities. The database helpfully sends me emails alerting me to such conflicts, so I can take prompt action on them.

Unfortunately, the threshold for such emails has gradually crept lower, to where I now get maybe 10 a week.

A lady to whom I gave two Valium tablets to get her through a lumbar spine MRI also got 20 Percocet for the same back pain from her internist … and I get an alert email.

A long-established patient for whom I’ve been prescribing Ativan and Tramadol for years, fills them both every month … and I get an alert email every month (and I’m the only prescriber who has written for him in the last 10 years).

A patient who suffered a painful vertebral fracture, got 10 Norco in the ED, follows with up with me 5 days later, and I write her for 20 more … and I get an email.

Now, I understand what the program is trying to do – and wholeheartedly agree with it – but the problem is that the more email warnings I get the less likely I am to have time to investigate each one. It’s like the boy who cried “wolf!” In fact, it’s probably been over a year since a warning email from the PMP told me something I didn’t already know.

Granted, these emails are sent by a computer, following a rigid set of parameters to do so. The machine doesn’t know I’m aware of the situation, or keep track of case nuances, or even notice that I’m the only prescriber of all the medications involved. It just does what it’s set to do. And the warnings all make it clear that they’re just warnings, and that the treatment is still left to physician’s discretion.

Arizona currently has roughly 18,000 practicing physicians. Granted, not all of them are routinely prescribing controlled agents, but I’d guess at least two-thirds of them are. So it’s safe to assume at least 12,000 doctors here are receiving email warnings with varying degrees of frequency.

At some point, with all the other tasks and hats your average doctor goes through in a day, too many of these warnings – the vast majority of them meaningless – become part of the background noise.

There are only so many hours in a day to see patients, write notes, send prescriptions, review tests, return calls, fill out forms, and all the other things that are part of our days. Having to log into the PMP website to see what’s up every time you get an email from them, especially when the last 20 (or more) warnings that you received were meaningless, gets pushed farther and farther onto the back burner. So when a real warning shows up, it may not got noticed much at all.

Like I said, I believe in and routinely use the state PMP. But it may be time to take a second look at the criteria under which its email warning system operates.

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

I’m a big believer in my state’s Prescription Monitoring Program (PMP), perhaps more commonly known as the troll tracker. The ability to quickly access a patient’s controlled prescription records across pharmacies has been enormously helpful in my everyday practice. I rely on it and check it often.

With it I can see if my patients are getting the same drug from other prescribers, pharmacy-shopping, or carrying out other concerning activities. The database helpfully sends me emails alerting me to such conflicts, so I can take prompt action on them.

Unfortunately, the threshold for such emails has gradually crept lower, to where I now get maybe 10 a week.

A lady to whom I gave two Valium tablets to get her through a lumbar spine MRI also got 20 Percocet for the same back pain from her internist … and I get an alert email.

A long-established patient for whom I’ve been prescribing Ativan and Tramadol for years, fills them both every month … and I get an alert email every month (and I’m the only prescriber who has written for him in the last 10 years).

A patient who suffered a painful vertebral fracture, got 10 Norco in the ED, follows with up with me 5 days later, and I write her for 20 more … and I get an email.

Now, I understand what the program is trying to do – and wholeheartedly agree with it – but the problem is that the more email warnings I get the less likely I am to have time to investigate each one. It’s like the boy who cried “wolf!” In fact, it’s probably been over a year since a warning email from the PMP told me something I didn’t already know.

Granted, these emails are sent by a computer, following a rigid set of parameters to do so. The machine doesn’t know I’m aware of the situation, or keep track of case nuances, or even notice that I’m the only prescriber of all the medications involved. It just does what it’s set to do. And the warnings all make it clear that they’re just warnings, and that the treatment is still left to physician’s discretion.

Arizona currently has roughly 18,000 practicing physicians. Granted, not all of them are routinely prescribing controlled agents, but I’d guess at least two-thirds of them are. So it’s safe to assume at least 12,000 doctors here are receiving email warnings with varying degrees of frequency.

At some point, with all the other tasks and hats your average doctor goes through in a day, too many of these warnings – the vast majority of them meaningless – become part of the background noise.

There are only so many hours in a day to see patients, write notes, send prescriptions, review tests, return calls, fill out forms, and all the other things that are part of our days. Having to log into the PMP website to see what’s up every time you get an email from them, especially when the last 20 (or more) warnings that you received were meaningless, gets pushed farther and farther onto the back burner. So when a real warning shows up, it may not got noticed much at all.

Like I said, I believe in and routinely use the state PMP. But it may be time to take a second look at the criteria under which its email warning system operates.

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

I’m a big believer in my state’s Prescription Monitoring Program (PMP), perhaps more commonly known as the troll tracker. The ability to quickly access a patient’s controlled prescription records across pharmacies has been enormously helpful in my everyday practice. I rely on it and check it often.

With it I can see if my patients are getting the same drug from other prescribers, pharmacy-shopping, or carrying out other concerning activities. The database helpfully sends me emails alerting me to such conflicts, so I can take prompt action on them.

Unfortunately, the threshold for such emails has gradually crept lower, to where I now get maybe 10 a week.

A lady to whom I gave two Valium tablets to get her through a lumbar spine MRI also got 20 Percocet for the same back pain from her internist … and I get an alert email.

A long-established patient for whom I’ve been prescribing Ativan and Tramadol for years, fills them both every month … and I get an alert email every month (and I’m the only prescriber who has written for him in the last 10 years).

A patient who suffered a painful vertebral fracture, got 10 Norco in the ED, follows with up with me 5 days later, and I write her for 20 more … and I get an email.

Now, I understand what the program is trying to do – and wholeheartedly agree with it – but the problem is that the more email warnings I get the less likely I am to have time to investigate each one. It’s like the boy who cried “wolf!” In fact, it’s probably been over a year since a warning email from the PMP told me something I didn’t already know.

Granted, these emails are sent by a computer, following a rigid set of parameters to do so. The machine doesn’t know I’m aware of the situation, or keep track of case nuances, or even notice that I’m the only prescriber of all the medications involved. It just does what it’s set to do. And the warnings all make it clear that they’re just warnings, and that the treatment is still left to physician’s discretion.

Arizona currently has roughly 18,000 practicing physicians. Granted, not all of them are routinely prescribing controlled agents, but I’d guess at least two-thirds of them are. So it’s safe to assume at least 12,000 doctors here are receiving email warnings with varying degrees of frequency.

At some point, with all the other tasks and hats your average doctor goes through in a day, too many of these warnings – the vast majority of them meaningless – become part of the background noise.

There are only so many hours in a day to see patients, write notes, send prescriptions, review tests, return calls, fill out forms, and all the other things that are part of our days. Having to log into the PMP website to see what’s up every time you get an email from them, especially when the last 20 (or more) warnings that you received were meaningless, gets pushed farther and farther onto the back burner. So when a real warning shows up, it may not got noticed much at all.

Like I said, I believe in and routinely use the state PMP. But it may be time to take a second look at the criteria under which its email warning system operates.

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

I have had the pleasure of working on the Society of Hospital Medicine’s signature Leadership Academies since 2010, and I enjoy working with hospital medicine leaders from around the country every year. I started as a hospital medicine leader in 2000 and served during the unprecedented growth of the field when it was “the most rapidly growing specialty in the history of medicine.”

Most businesses dream of having a year of double-digit growth; my department grew an average of 15% annually for more than 10 years. These unique experiences have taught me many lessons and afforded me the opportunity to watch many stars of hospital medicine rise, as well as to learn from several less-scrupulous leaders about the darker side of hospital politics.

One of the lessons I learned the hard way about hospital politics is striking the “Authority/Accountability balance” in your career. I shared this perspective at the SHM annual conference in 2018, at speaking engagements on the West Coast, and with my leadership group at the academies. I am sharing it with you because the feedback I have received has been very positive.

The Authority/Accountability balance is a tool for evaluating your current career trajectory and measuring if it is set up for success or failure. The essence is that your Authority and Accountability need to be balanced for you to be successful in your career, regardless of your station. Everybody from the hospitalist fresh out of residency to the CEO needs to have Authority and Accountability in balance to be successful. And as you use the tool to measure your own potential for success or failure, learn to apply it to those who report to you.

I believe the rising tide lifts all boats and the success of your subordinates, through mentoring and support, will add to your success. There is another, more cynical view of subordinates that can be identified using the Authority/Accountability balance, which I will address.
 

Authority

In this construct, “Authority” has a much broader meaning than just the ability to tell people what to do. The ability to tell people what to do is important but not sufficient for success in hospital politics.

Financial resources are essential for a successful Authority/Accountability balance – not only the hardware such as computers, telephones, pagers, and so on, but also clerical support, technical support, and analytic support so that you are getting high-quality data on the performance of the members of your hospital medicine group (HMG). These “soft” resources (clerical, technical, and analytical) are often overlooked as needs that HMG leaders must advocate for; I speak with many HMG leaders who remain under-resourced with “soft” assets. However, being appropriately resourced in these areas can be transformational for a group. Hospitalists don’t like doing clerical work, and if you don’t like a menial job assigned to you, you probably won’t do it very well. Having an unlicensed person dedicated to these clerical activities not only will cost less, but will ensure the job is done better.

Reporting structure is critically important, often overlooked, and historically misaligned in HMGs. When hospital medicine was starting in the late 1990s and early 2000s, rapidly growing hospitalist groups were typically led by young, early-career physicians who had chosen hospital medicine as a career. The problem was that they often lacked the seniority and connections at the executive level to advocate for their HMG. All too often the hospitalist group was tucked in under another department or division which, in turn, reported HMG updates and issues to the board of directors and the CEO.

A common reporting structure in the early days was that a senior member of the medical staff, or group, had once worked in the hospital and therefore “understood” the issues and challenges that the hospitalists were facing. It was up to this physician with seniority and connections to advocate for the hospitalists as they saw fit. The problem was that the hospital landscape was, and is, constantly evolving in innumerable ways. These “once removed” reporting structures for HMGs failed to get the required information on the rapidly changing, and evolving, hospitalist landscape to the desks of executives who had the financial and structural control to address the challenges that the hospitalists in the trenches were facing.

Numerous HMGs failed in the early days of hospital medicine because of this type of misaligned reporting structure. This is a lesson that should not be forgotten: Make sure your HMG leader has a seat at the table where executive decisions are made, including but not limited to the board of directors. To be in balance, you have to be “in the room where it happens.”
 

Accountability

The outcomes that you are responsible for need to be explicit, appropriately resourced with Authority, and clearly spelled out in your job description. Your job description is a document you should know, own, and revisit regularly with whomever you report to, in order to ensure success.

Once you have the Authority side of the equation appropriately resourced, setting outcomes that are a stretch, but still realistic and achievable within the scope of your position, is critical to your success. It is good to think about short-, medium-, and long-term goals, especially if you are in a leadership role. For example, one expectation you will have, regardless of your station, is that you keep up on your email and answer your phone. These are short-term goals that will often be included in your job description. However, taking on a new hospital contract and making sure that it has 24/7 hospitalist coverage, that all the hospitalists are meeting the geometric mean length of stay, and that all the physicians are having 15 encounters per day doesn’t happen immediately. Long-term goals, such as taking on a new hospital contract, are the big-picture stuff that can make or break the career of an HMG leader. Long-term goals also need to be delineated in the job description, along with specific time stamps and the resources you need to accomplish big ticket items – which are spelled out in the Authority side (that is, physician recruiter, secretary, background checks, and so on).

One of the classic misuses of Accountability is the “Fall Guy” scenario. The Fall Guy scenario is often used by cynical hospital and medical group executives to expand their influence while limiting their liability. In the Fall Guy scenario, the executive is surrounded with junior partners who are underpowered with Authority, and then the executive makes decisions for which the junior partners are Accountable. This allows the senior executive to make risky decisions on behalf of the hospital or medical group without the liability of being held accountable when the decision-making process fails. When the risky, and often ill-informed, decision fails, the junior partner who lacked the Authority to make the decision – but held the Accountability for it – becomes the Fall Guy for the failed endeavor. This is a critical outcome that the Authority/Accountability balance can help you avoid, if you use it wisely and properly.

If you find yourself in the Fall Guy position, it is time for a change. The Authority, the Accountability, or both need to change so that they are in better balance. Or your employer needs to change. Changing employers is an outcome worth avoiding, if at all possible. I have scrutinized thousands of resumes in my career, and frequent job changes always wave a red flag to prospective employers. However, changing jobs remains a crucial option if you are being set up for failure when Authority and Accountability are out of balance.

If you are unable to negotiate for the balance that will allow you to be successful with your current group, remember that HMG leaders are a prized commodity and in short supply. Leaving a group that has been your career is hard, but it is better to leave than stay in a position where you are set up for failure as the Fall Guy. Further, the most effective time to expand your Authority is when you are negotiating the terms of a new position. Changing positions is the nuclear option. However, it is better than becoming the Fall Guy, and a change can create opportunities that will accelerate your career and influence, if done right.

When I talk about Authority/Accountability balance, I always counter the Fall Guy with an ignominious historical figure: General George B. McClellan. General McClellan was the commander of the Army of the Potomac during the early years of the American Civil War. General McClellan had the industrial might of the Union north at his beck and call, as well as extraordinary resources for recruiting and retaining soldiers for his army. At every encounter with General Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia, General McClellan outnumbered them, sometimes by more than two to one. Yet General McClellan was outfoxed repeatedly for the same reason: He failed to take decisive action.

Every time that McClellan failed, he blamed insufficient resources and told President Lincoln that he needed more troops and more equipment to be successful. In summary, while the Fall Guy scenario needs to be avoided, once you are adequately resourced, success requires taking decisive and strategic action, or you will suffer as did General McClellan. Failing to act when you are appropriately resourced can be just as damaging to your career and credibility as allowing yourself to become the Fall Guy.
 

Job description

Everybody has somebody that they report to, no matter how high up on the executive ladder they have climbed. Even the CEO must report to the board of directors. And that reporting structure usually involves periodic formal reviews. Your formal review is a good time to go over your job description, note what is relevant, remove what is irrelevant, and add new elements that have evolved in importance since your last review.

Job descriptions take many forms, but they always include a list of qualifications. If you have the job, you have the qualifications, so that is not likely to change. You may become more qualified for a higher-level position, but that is an entirely different discussion. I like to think of a well-written job description as including short-term and long-term goals. Short-term goals are usually the daily stuff that keeps operations running smoothly but garners little attention. Examples would include staying current on your emails, answering your phone, organizing meetings, and regularly attending various committees. Even some of these short-term goals can and will change over time. I always enjoyed quality oversight in my department, but as the department and my responsibilities grew, I realized I couldn’t do everything that I wanted to do. I needed to focus on the things only I could do and delegate those things that could be done by someone else, even though I wanted to continue doing them myself. I created a position for a clinical quality officer, and quality oversight moved off of my job description.

Long-term goals are the aspirational items, such as increasing market share, decreasing readmissions, improving patient satisfaction, and the like. Effective leaders are often focused on these aspirational, long-term goals, but they still must effectively execute their short-term goals. Stephen Covey outlines the dilemma with the “time management matrix” in his seminal work “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.” An in-depth discussion is beyond the scope of this article, but the time management matrix places tasks into one of four categories based on urgency and importance, and provides strategies for staying up on short-term goals while continually moving long-term goals forward.If you show up at your review with a list of accomplishments as well as an understanding of how the “time management matrix” affects your responsibilities, your boss will be impressed. It is also worth mentioning that Covey’s first habit is “Proactivity.” He uses the term Proactivity in a much more nuanced form than we typically think of, however. Simply put, Proactivity is the opposite of Reactivity, and it is another invaluable tool for success with those long-term goals that will help you make a name for yourself.

When you show up for your review, be it annual, biannual, or other, be prepared. Not only should you bring your job description and recommendations for how it should be adapted in the changing environment, but also bring examples of your accomplishments since the last review.

I talk with leaders frequently who are hardworking and diligent and hate bragging about their achievements; I get that. At the same time, if you don’t inform your superiors about your successes, there is no guarantee that they will hear about them or understand them in the appropriate context. Bragging about how great you are in the physician’s lounge is annoying; telling your boss about your accomplishments since the last review is critical to maintaining the momentum of past accomplishments. If you are not willing to toot your own horn, there is a very good chance that your horn will remain silent. I don’t think self-promotion comes easily to anyone, and it has to be done with a degree of humility and sensitivity; but it has to be done, so prepare for it.
 

Look out for yourself and others

We talk about teamwork and collaboration as hospitalists, and SHM is always underscoring the importance of teamwork and highlighting examples of successful teamwork in its many conferences and publications. Most hospital executives are focused on their own careers, however, and many have no reservations about damaging your career (your brand) if they think it will promote theirs. You have to look out for yourself and size up every leadership position you get into.

Physicians can expect their careers to last decades. The average hospital CEO has a tenure of less than 3.5 years, however, and when a new CEO is hired, almost half of chief financial, chief operating, and chief information officers are fired within 9 months. You may be focused on the long-term success of your organization as you plan your career, but many hospital administrators are interested only in short-term gains. It is similar to some members of Congress who are interested only in what they need to do now to win the next election and not in the long-term needs of the country. You should understand this disconnect when dealing with hospital executives, and how you and your credibility can become cannon fodder in their quest for short-term self-preservation.

You have to look out for and take care of yourself as you promote your group. With a better understanding of the Authority/Accountability balance, you have new tools to assess your chances of success and to advocate for yourself so that you and your group can be successful.

Despite my cynicism toward executives in the medical field, I personally advocate for supporting the career development of those around you and advise against furthering your career at the expense of others. Many unscrupulous executives will use this approach, surrounding themselves with Fall Guys, but my experience shows that this is not a sustainable strategy for success. It can lead to short-term gains, but eventually the piper must be paid. Moreover, the most successful medical executives and leaders that I have encountered have been those who genuinely cared about their subordinates, looked out for them, and selflessly promoted their careers.

In the age of social media, tearing others down seems to be the fastest way to get more “likes.” However, I strongly believe that you can’t build up your group, and our profession, just by tearing people down. Lending a helping hand may bring you less attention in the short term, but such action raises your stature, creates loyalty, and leads to sustainable success for the long run.
 

Dr. McIlraith is the founding chairman of the Hospital Medicine Department at Mercy Medical Group in Sacramento, Calif. He received the SHM Award for Outstanding Service in Hospital Medicine in 2016 and is currently a member of the SHM Practice Management and Awards Committees, as well as the SHM Critical Care Task Force.

Sources

Quinn R. HM Turns 20: A look at the evolution of hospital medicine. The Hospitalist. 2016 August. https://www.the-hospitalist.org/hospitalist/article/121525/hm-turns-20-look-evolution-hospital-medicine

Stephen R. Covey. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change. Simon & Schuster. 1989.

10 Statistics on CEO Turnover, Recruitment. Becker’s Hospital Review. 2020. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/10-statistics-on-ceo-turnover-recruitment.html

I have had the pleasure of working on the Society of Hospital Medicine’s signature Leadership Academies since 2010, and I enjoy working with hospital medicine leaders from around the country every year. I started as a hospital medicine leader in 2000 and served during the unprecedented growth of the field when it was “the most rapidly growing specialty in the history of medicine.”

Most businesses dream of having a year of double-digit growth; my department grew an average of 15% annually for more than 10 years. These unique experiences have taught me many lessons and afforded me the opportunity to watch many stars of hospital medicine rise, as well as to learn from several less-scrupulous leaders about the darker side of hospital politics.

One of the lessons I learned the hard way about hospital politics is striking the “Authority/Accountability balance” in your career. I shared this perspective at the SHM annual conference in 2018, at speaking engagements on the West Coast, and with my leadership group at the academies. I am sharing it with you because the feedback I have received has been very positive.

The Authority/Accountability balance is a tool for evaluating your current career trajectory and measuring if it is set up for success or failure. The essence is that your Authority and Accountability need to be balanced for you to be successful in your career, regardless of your station. Everybody from the hospitalist fresh out of residency to the CEO needs to have Authority and Accountability in balance to be successful. And as you use the tool to measure your own potential for success or failure, learn to apply it to those who report to you.

I believe the rising tide lifts all boats and the success of your subordinates, through mentoring and support, will add to your success. There is another, more cynical view of subordinates that can be identified using the Authority/Accountability balance, which I will address.
 

Authority

In this construct, “Authority” has a much broader meaning than just the ability to tell people what to do. The ability to tell people what to do is important but not sufficient for success in hospital politics.

Financial resources are essential for a successful Authority/Accountability balance – not only the hardware such as computers, telephones, pagers, and so on, but also clerical support, technical support, and analytic support so that you are getting high-quality data on the performance of the members of your hospital medicine group (HMG). These “soft” resources (clerical, technical, and analytical) are often overlooked as needs that HMG leaders must advocate for; I speak with many HMG leaders who remain under-resourced with “soft” assets. However, being appropriately resourced in these areas can be transformational for a group. Hospitalists don’t like doing clerical work, and if you don’t like a menial job assigned to you, you probably won’t do it very well. Having an unlicensed person dedicated to these clerical activities not only will cost less, but will ensure the job is done better.

Reporting structure is critically important, often overlooked, and historically misaligned in HMGs. When hospital medicine was starting in the late 1990s and early 2000s, rapidly growing hospitalist groups were typically led by young, early-career physicians who had chosen hospital medicine as a career. The problem was that they often lacked the seniority and connections at the executive level to advocate for their HMG. All too often the hospitalist group was tucked in under another department or division which, in turn, reported HMG updates and issues to the board of directors and the CEO.

A common reporting structure in the early days was that a senior member of the medical staff, or group, had once worked in the hospital and therefore “understood” the issues and challenges that the hospitalists were facing. It was up to this physician with seniority and connections to advocate for the hospitalists as they saw fit. The problem was that the hospital landscape was, and is, constantly evolving in innumerable ways. These “once removed” reporting structures for HMGs failed to get the required information on the rapidly changing, and evolving, hospitalist landscape to the desks of executives who had the financial and structural control to address the challenges that the hospitalists in the trenches were facing.

Numerous HMGs failed in the early days of hospital medicine because of this type of misaligned reporting structure. This is a lesson that should not be forgotten: Make sure your HMG leader has a seat at the table where executive decisions are made, including but not limited to the board of directors. To be in balance, you have to be “in the room where it happens.”
 

Accountability

The outcomes that you are responsible for need to be explicit, appropriately resourced with Authority, and clearly spelled out in your job description. Your job description is a document you should know, own, and revisit regularly with whomever you report to, in order to ensure success.

Once you have the Authority side of the equation appropriately resourced, setting outcomes that are a stretch, but still realistic and achievable within the scope of your position, is critical to your success. It is good to think about short-, medium-, and long-term goals, especially if you are in a leadership role. For example, one expectation you will have, regardless of your station, is that you keep up on your email and answer your phone. These are short-term goals that will often be included in your job description. However, taking on a new hospital contract and making sure that it has 24/7 hospitalist coverage, that all the hospitalists are meeting the geometric mean length of stay, and that all the physicians are having 15 encounters per day doesn’t happen immediately. Long-term goals, such as taking on a new hospital contract, are the big-picture stuff that can make or break the career of an HMG leader. Long-term goals also need to be delineated in the job description, along with specific time stamps and the resources you need to accomplish big ticket items – which are spelled out in the Authority side (that is, physician recruiter, secretary, background checks, and so on).

One of the classic misuses of Accountability is the “Fall Guy” scenario. The Fall Guy scenario is often used by cynical hospital and medical group executives to expand their influence while limiting their liability. In the Fall Guy scenario, the executive is surrounded with junior partners who are underpowered with Authority, and then the executive makes decisions for which the junior partners are Accountable. This allows the senior executive to make risky decisions on behalf of the hospital or medical group without the liability of being held accountable when the decision-making process fails. When the risky, and often ill-informed, decision fails, the junior partner who lacked the Authority to make the decision – but held the Accountability for it – becomes the Fall Guy for the failed endeavor. This is a critical outcome that the Authority/Accountability balance can help you avoid, if you use it wisely and properly.

If you find yourself in the Fall Guy position, it is time for a change. The Authority, the Accountability, or both need to change so that they are in better balance. Or your employer needs to change. Changing employers is an outcome worth avoiding, if at all possible. I have scrutinized thousands of resumes in my career, and frequent job changes always wave a red flag to prospective employers. However, changing jobs remains a crucial option if you are being set up for failure when Authority and Accountability are out of balance.

If you are unable to negotiate for the balance that will allow you to be successful with your current group, remember that HMG leaders are a prized commodity and in short supply. Leaving a group that has been your career is hard, but it is better to leave than stay in a position where you are set up for failure as the Fall Guy. Further, the most effective time to expand your Authority is when you are negotiating the terms of a new position. Changing positions is the nuclear option. However, it is better than becoming the Fall Guy, and a change can create opportunities that will accelerate your career and influence, if done right.

When I talk about Authority/Accountability balance, I always counter the Fall Guy with an ignominious historical figure: General George B. McClellan. General McClellan was the commander of the Army of the Potomac during the early years of the American Civil War. General McClellan had the industrial might of the Union north at his beck and call, as well as extraordinary resources for recruiting and retaining soldiers for his army. At every encounter with General Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia, General McClellan outnumbered them, sometimes by more than two to one. Yet General McClellan was outfoxed repeatedly for the same reason: He failed to take decisive action.

Every time that McClellan failed, he blamed insufficient resources and told President Lincoln that he needed more troops and more equipment to be successful. In summary, while the Fall Guy scenario needs to be avoided, once you are adequately resourced, success requires taking decisive and strategic action, or you will suffer as did General McClellan. Failing to act when you are appropriately resourced can be just as damaging to your career and credibility as allowing yourself to become the Fall Guy.
 

Job description

Everybody has somebody that they report to, no matter how high up on the executive ladder they have climbed. Even the CEO must report to the board of directors. And that reporting structure usually involves periodic formal reviews. Your formal review is a good time to go over your job description, note what is relevant, remove what is irrelevant, and add new elements that have evolved in importance since your last review.

Job descriptions take many forms, but they always include a list of qualifications. If you have the job, you have the qualifications, so that is not likely to change. You may become more qualified for a higher-level position, but that is an entirely different discussion. I like to think of a well-written job description as including short-term and long-term goals. Short-term goals are usually the daily stuff that keeps operations running smoothly but garners little attention. Examples would include staying current on your emails, answering your phone, organizing meetings, and regularly attending various committees. Even some of these short-term goals can and will change over time. I always enjoyed quality oversight in my department, but as the department and my responsibilities grew, I realized I couldn’t do everything that I wanted to do. I needed to focus on the things only I could do and delegate those things that could be done by someone else, even though I wanted to continue doing them myself. I created a position for a clinical quality officer, and quality oversight moved off of my job description.

Long-term goals are the aspirational items, such as increasing market share, decreasing readmissions, improving patient satisfaction, and the like. Effective leaders are often focused on these aspirational, long-term goals, but they still must effectively execute their short-term goals. Stephen Covey outlines the dilemma with the “time management matrix” in his seminal work “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.” An in-depth discussion is beyond the scope of this article, but the time management matrix places tasks into one of four categories based on urgency and importance, and provides strategies for staying up on short-term goals while continually moving long-term goals forward.If you show up at your review with a list of accomplishments as well as an understanding of how the “time management matrix” affects your responsibilities, your boss will be impressed. It is also worth mentioning that Covey’s first habit is “Proactivity.” He uses the term Proactivity in a much more nuanced form than we typically think of, however. Simply put, Proactivity is the opposite of Reactivity, and it is another invaluable tool for success with those long-term goals that will help you make a name for yourself.

When you show up for your review, be it annual, biannual, or other, be prepared. Not only should you bring your job description and recommendations for how it should be adapted in the changing environment, but also bring examples of your accomplishments since the last review.

I talk with leaders frequently who are hardworking and diligent and hate bragging about their achievements; I get that. At the same time, if you don’t inform your superiors about your successes, there is no guarantee that they will hear about them or understand them in the appropriate context. Bragging about how great you are in the physician’s lounge is annoying; telling your boss about your accomplishments since the last review is critical to maintaining the momentum of past accomplishments. If you are not willing to toot your own horn, there is a very good chance that your horn will remain silent. I don’t think self-promotion comes easily to anyone, and it has to be done with a degree of humility and sensitivity; but it has to be done, so prepare for it.
 

Look out for yourself and others

We talk about teamwork and collaboration as hospitalists, and SHM is always underscoring the importance of teamwork and highlighting examples of successful teamwork in its many conferences and publications. Most hospital executives are focused on their own careers, however, and many have no reservations about damaging your career (your brand) if they think it will promote theirs. You have to look out for yourself and size up every leadership position you get into.

Physicians can expect their careers to last decades. The average hospital CEO has a tenure of less than 3.5 years, however, and when a new CEO is hired, almost half of chief financial, chief operating, and chief information officers are fired within 9 months. You may be focused on the long-term success of your organization as you plan your career, but many hospital administrators are interested only in short-term gains. It is similar to some members of Congress who are interested only in what they need to do now to win the next election and not in the long-term needs of the country. You should understand this disconnect when dealing with hospital executives, and how you and your credibility can become cannon fodder in their quest for short-term self-preservation.

You have to look out for and take care of yourself as you promote your group. With a better understanding of the Authority/Accountability balance, you have new tools to assess your chances of success and to advocate for yourself so that you and your group can be successful.

Despite my cynicism toward executives in the medical field, I personally advocate for supporting the career development of those around you and advise against furthering your career at the expense of others. Many unscrupulous executives will use this approach, surrounding themselves with Fall Guys, but my experience shows that this is not a sustainable strategy for success. It can lead to short-term gains, but eventually the piper must be paid. Moreover, the most successful medical executives and leaders that I have encountered have been those who genuinely cared about their subordinates, looked out for them, and selflessly promoted their careers.

In the age of social media, tearing others down seems to be the fastest way to get more “likes.” However, I strongly believe that you can’t build up your group, and our profession, just by tearing people down. Lending a helping hand may bring you less attention in the short term, but such action raises your stature, creates loyalty, and leads to sustainable success for the long run.
 

Dr. McIlraith is the founding chairman of the Hospital Medicine Department at Mercy Medical Group in Sacramento, Calif. He received the SHM Award for Outstanding Service in Hospital Medicine in 2016 and is currently a member of the SHM Practice Management and Awards Committees, as well as the SHM Critical Care Task Force.

Sources

Quinn R. HM Turns 20: A look at the evolution of hospital medicine. The Hospitalist. 2016 August. https://www.the-hospitalist.org/hospitalist/article/121525/hm-turns-20-look-evolution-hospital-medicine

Stephen R. Covey. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change. Simon & Schuster. 1989.

10 Statistics on CEO Turnover, Recruitment. Becker’s Hospital Review. 2020. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/10-statistics-on-ceo-turnover-recruitment.html

I have had the pleasure of working on the Society of Hospital Medicine’s signature Leadership Academies since 2010, and I enjoy working with hospital medicine leaders from around the country every year. I started as a hospital medicine leader in 2000 and served during the unprecedented growth of the field when it was “the most rapidly growing specialty in the history of medicine.”

Most businesses dream of having a year of double-digit growth; my department grew an average of 15% annually for more than 10 years. These unique experiences have taught me many lessons and afforded me the opportunity to watch many stars of hospital medicine rise, as well as to learn from several less-scrupulous leaders about the darker side of hospital politics.

One of the lessons I learned the hard way about hospital politics is striking the “Authority/Accountability balance” in your career. I shared this perspective at the SHM annual conference in 2018, at speaking engagements on the West Coast, and with my leadership group at the academies. I am sharing it with you because the feedback I have received has been very positive.

The Authority/Accountability balance is a tool for evaluating your current career trajectory and measuring if it is set up for success or failure. The essence is that your Authority and Accountability need to be balanced for you to be successful in your career, regardless of your station. Everybody from the hospitalist fresh out of residency to the CEO needs to have Authority and Accountability in balance to be successful. And as you use the tool to measure your own potential for success or failure, learn to apply it to those who report to you.

I believe the rising tide lifts all boats and the success of your subordinates, through mentoring and support, will add to your success. There is another, more cynical view of subordinates that can be identified using the Authority/Accountability balance, which I will address.
 

Authority

In this construct, “Authority” has a much broader meaning than just the ability to tell people what to do. The ability to tell people what to do is important but not sufficient for success in hospital politics.

Financial resources are essential for a successful Authority/Accountability balance – not only the hardware such as computers, telephones, pagers, and so on, but also clerical support, technical support, and analytic support so that you are getting high-quality data on the performance of the members of your hospital medicine group (HMG). These “soft” resources (clerical, technical, and analytical) are often overlooked as needs that HMG leaders must advocate for; I speak with many HMG leaders who remain under-resourced with “soft” assets. However, being appropriately resourced in these areas can be transformational for a group. Hospitalists don’t like doing clerical work, and if you don’t like a menial job assigned to you, you probably won’t do it very well. Having an unlicensed person dedicated to these clerical activities not only will cost less, but will ensure the job is done better.

Reporting structure is critically important, often overlooked, and historically misaligned in HMGs. When hospital medicine was starting in the late 1990s and early 2000s, rapidly growing hospitalist groups were typically led by young, early-career physicians who had chosen hospital medicine as a career. The problem was that they often lacked the seniority and connections at the executive level to advocate for their HMG. All too often the hospitalist group was tucked in under another department or division which, in turn, reported HMG updates and issues to the board of directors and the CEO.

A common reporting structure in the early days was that a senior member of the medical staff, or group, had once worked in the hospital and therefore “understood” the issues and challenges that the hospitalists were facing. It was up to this physician with seniority and connections to advocate for the hospitalists as they saw fit. The problem was that the hospital landscape was, and is, constantly evolving in innumerable ways. These “once removed” reporting structures for HMGs failed to get the required information on the rapidly changing, and evolving, hospitalist landscape to the desks of executives who had the financial and structural control to address the challenges that the hospitalists in the trenches were facing.

Numerous HMGs failed in the early days of hospital medicine because of this type of misaligned reporting structure. This is a lesson that should not be forgotten: Make sure your HMG leader has a seat at the table where executive decisions are made, including but not limited to the board of directors. To be in balance, you have to be “in the room where it happens.”
 

Accountability

The outcomes that you are responsible for need to be explicit, appropriately resourced with Authority, and clearly spelled out in your job description. Your job description is a document you should know, own, and revisit regularly with whomever you report to, in order to ensure success.

Once you have the Authority side of the equation appropriately resourced, setting outcomes that are a stretch, but still realistic and achievable within the scope of your position, is critical to your success. It is good to think about short-, medium-, and long-term goals, especially if you are in a leadership role. For example, one expectation you will have, regardless of your station, is that you keep up on your email and answer your phone. These are short-term goals that will often be included in your job description. However, taking on a new hospital contract and making sure that it has 24/7 hospitalist coverage, that all the hospitalists are meeting the geometric mean length of stay, and that all the physicians are having 15 encounters per day doesn’t happen immediately. Long-term goals, such as taking on a new hospital contract, are the big-picture stuff that can make or break the career of an HMG leader. Long-term goals also need to be delineated in the job description, along with specific time stamps and the resources you need to accomplish big ticket items – which are spelled out in the Authority side (that is, physician recruiter, secretary, background checks, and so on).

One of the classic misuses of Accountability is the “Fall Guy” scenario. The Fall Guy scenario is often used by cynical hospital and medical group executives to expand their influence while limiting their liability. In the Fall Guy scenario, the executive is surrounded with junior partners who are underpowered with Authority, and then the executive makes decisions for which the junior partners are Accountable. This allows the senior executive to make risky decisions on behalf of the hospital or medical group without the liability of being held accountable when the decision-making process fails. When the risky, and often ill-informed, decision fails, the junior partner who lacked the Authority to make the decision – but held the Accountability for it – becomes the Fall Guy for the failed endeavor. This is a critical outcome that the Authority/Accountability balance can help you avoid, if you use it wisely and properly.

If you find yourself in the Fall Guy position, it is time for a change. The Authority, the Accountability, or both need to change so that they are in better balance. Or your employer needs to change. Changing employers is an outcome worth avoiding, if at all possible. I have scrutinized thousands of resumes in my career, and frequent job changes always wave a red flag to prospective employers. However, changing jobs remains a crucial option if you are being set up for failure when Authority and Accountability are out of balance.

If you are unable to negotiate for the balance that will allow you to be successful with your current group, remember that HMG leaders are a prized commodity and in short supply. Leaving a group that has been your career is hard, but it is better to leave than stay in a position where you are set up for failure as the Fall Guy. Further, the most effective time to expand your Authority is when you are negotiating the terms of a new position. Changing positions is the nuclear option. However, it is better than becoming the Fall Guy, and a change can create opportunities that will accelerate your career and influence, if done right.

When I talk about Authority/Accountability balance, I always counter the Fall Guy with an ignominious historical figure: General George B. McClellan. General McClellan was the commander of the Army of the Potomac during the early years of the American Civil War. General McClellan had the industrial might of the Union north at his beck and call, as well as extraordinary resources for recruiting and retaining soldiers for his army. At every encounter with General Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia, General McClellan outnumbered them, sometimes by more than two to one. Yet General McClellan was outfoxed repeatedly for the same reason: He failed to take decisive action.

Every time that McClellan failed, he blamed insufficient resources and told President Lincoln that he needed more troops and more equipment to be successful. In summary, while the Fall Guy scenario needs to be avoided, once you are adequately resourced, success requires taking decisive and strategic action, or you will suffer as did General McClellan. Failing to act when you are appropriately resourced can be just as damaging to your career and credibility as allowing yourself to become the Fall Guy.
 

Job description

Everybody has somebody that they report to, no matter how high up on the executive ladder they have climbed. Even the CEO must report to the board of directors. And that reporting structure usually involves periodic formal reviews. Your formal review is a good time to go over your job description, note what is relevant, remove what is irrelevant, and add new elements that have evolved in importance since your last review.

Job descriptions take many forms, but they always include a list of qualifications. If you have the job, you have the qualifications, so that is not likely to change. You may become more qualified for a higher-level position, but that is an entirely different discussion. I like to think of a well-written job description as including short-term and long-term goals. Short-term goals are usually the daily stuff that keeps operations running smoothly but garners little attention. Examples would include staying current on your emails, answering your phone, organizing meetings, and regularly attending various committees. Even some of these short-term goals can and will change over time. I always enjoyed quality oversight in my department, but as the department and my responsibilities grew, I realized I couldn’t do everything that I wanted to do. I needed to focus on the things only I could do and delegate those things that could be done by someone else, even though I wanted to continue doing them myself. I created a position for a clinical quality officer, and quality oversight moved off of my job description.

Long-term goals are the aspirational items, such as increasing market share, decreasing readmissions, improving patient satisfaction, and the like. Effective leaders are often focused on these aspirational, long-term goals, but they still must effectively execute their short-term goals. Stephen Covey outlines the dilemma with the “time management matrix” in his seminal work “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.” An in-depth discussion is beyond the scope of this article, but the time management matrix places tasks into one of four categories based on urgency and importance, and provides strategies for staying up on short-term goals while continually moving long-term goals forward.If you show up at your review with a list of accomplishments as well as an understanding of how the “time management matrix” affects your responsibilities, your boss will be impressed. It is also worth mentioning that Covey’s first habit is “Proactivity.” He uses the term Proactivity in a much more nuanced form than we typically think of, however. Simply put, Proactivity is the opposite of Reactivity, and it is another invaluable tool for success with those long-term goals that will help you make a name for yourself.

When you show up for your review, be it annual, biannual, or other, be prepared. Not only should you bring your job description and recommendations for how it should be adapted in the changing environment, but also bring examples of your accomplishments since the last review.

I talk with leaders frequently who are hardworking and diligent and hate bragging about their achievements; I get that. At the same time, if you don’t inform your superiors about your successes, there is no guarantee that they will hear about them or understand them in the appropriate context. Bragging about how great you are in the physician’s lounge is annoying; telling your boss about your accomplishments since the last review is critical to maintaining the momentum of past accomplishments. If you are not willing to toot your own horn, there is a very good chance that your horn will remain silent. I don’t think self-promotion comes easily to anyone, and it has to be done with a degree of humility and sensitivity; but it has to be done, so prepare for it.
 

Look out for yourself and others

We talk about teamwork and collaboration as hospitalists, and SHM is always underscoring the importance of teamwork and highlighting examples of successful teamwork in its many conferences and publications. Most hospital executives are focused on their own careers, however, and many have no reservations about damaging your career (your brand) if they think it will promote theirs. You have to look out for yourself and size up every leadership position you get into.

Physicians can expect their careers to last decades. The average hospital CEO has a tenure of less than 3.5 years, however, and when a new CEO is hired, almost half of chief financial, chief operating, and chief information officers are fired within 9 months. You may be focused on the long-term success of your organization as you plan your career, but many hospital administrators are interested only in short-term gains. It is similar to some members of Congress who are interested only in what they need to do now to win the next election and not in the long-term needs of the country. You should understand this disconnect when dealing with hospital executives, and how you and your credibility can become cannon fodder in their quest for short-term self-preservation.

You have to look out for and take care of yourself as you promote your group. With a better understanding of the Authority/Accountability balance, you have new tools to assess your chances of success and to advocate for yourself so that you and your group can be successful.

Despite my cynicism toward executives in the medical field, I personally advocate for supporting the career development of those around you and advise against furthering your career at the expense of others. Many unscrupulous executives will use this approach, surrounding themselves with Fall Guys, but my experience shows that this is not a sustainable strategy for success. It can lead to short-term gains, but eventually the piper must be paid. Moreover, the most successful medical executives and leaders that I have encountered have been those who genuinely cared about their subordinates, looked out for them, and selflessly promoted their careers.

In the age of social media, tearing others down seems to be the fastest way to get more “likes.” However, I strongly believe that you can’t build up your group, and our profession, just by tearing people down. Lending a helping hand may bring you less attention in the short term, but such action raises your stature, creates loyalty, and leads to sustainable success for the long run.
 

Dr. McIlraith is the founding chairman of the Hospital Medicine Department at Mercy Medical Group in Sacramento, Calif. He received the SHM Award for Outstanding Service in Hospital Medicine in 2016 and is currently a member of the SHM Practice Management and Awards Committees, as well as the SHM Critical Care Task Force.

Sources

Quinn R. HM Turns 20: A look at the evolution of hospital medicine. The Hospitalist. 2016 August. https://www.the-hospitalist.org/hospitalist/article/121525/hm-turns-20-look-evolution-hospital-medicine

Stephen R. Covey. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change. Simon & Schuster. 1989.

10 Statistics on CEO Turnover, Recruitment. Becker’s Hospital Review. 2020. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/10-statistics-on-ceo-turnover-recruitment.html

In a phase 2 trial in eosinophilic gastritis and duodenitis, an anti–Siglec-8 antibody greatly reduced populations of eosinophilic cells, and also led to improved symptoms. The sponsoring company, Alkalos, is currently conducting a phase 3 trial in eosinophilic gastritis or duodenitis and a phase 2-3 trial in eosinophilic esophagitis.

The news is welcome to clinicians who treat these rare conditions, since the only current treatment option is steroids. This is particularly challenging because most patients with these conditions present in their 30s and 40s, according to Carol Semrad, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study. She noted that the study’s results were impressive, but it will take a phase 3 trial to convince. It’s also unclear if the clinical benefit tracks with the impressive reduction seen in eosinophil count. “There’s somewhat of a disconnect between symptom reduction and reduction of the eosinophil counts. Sometimes just blocking the inflammation [isn’t enough]. Maybe there is other damage to the bowel.”

Still, “it looks like they have a proof of concept that it’s very effective at blocking the eosinophils and mast cells that are thought to be causing eosinophilic gastritis and duodenitis in human disease. That, along with improvement in symptoms, is highly promising, given that we have no other treatment beside steroids,” said Dr. Semrad.

The research, led by Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Ikuo Hirano, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The antibody (lirentelimab) targets sialic acid–binding immunoglobulin-like lectin 8 (Siglec-8), which is an inhibitory receptor found on mature eosinophils and mast cells, and expressed at low levels on basophils. The antibody reduces eosinophil population through natural killer cell-mediated cellular cytotoxicity and apoptosis, and other antibodies against the same target have been shown to inhibit activation of mast cells.

At 22 sites across the United States, researchers randomized 65 adults with active, uncontrolled eosinophilic gastritis or eosinophilic duodenitis, or both, to receive four monthly low doses (0.3, 1, 1, and 1 mg/kg) or high-dose lirentelimab (0.3, 1, 3, and 3 mg/kg), or placebo. A total of 10 patients had gastritis, 25 had duodenitis, and 30 had both.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was a mean 86% reduction in eosinophil count in patients in the treatment groups, compared with a 9% increase in controls (P < .001). In the per-protocol analysis, there was a 95% reduction versus a 10% increase (P < .001). Of treated patients, 95% had a gastrointestinal eosinophil count of 6 or fewer per high-powered field, compared with 0% in the placebo group.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, 63% of treated patients experienced a treatment response, defined as at least a 30% reduction in total symptom score and at least a 75% reduction in eosinophil count. About 5% of patients had a response in the placebo group (P < .001). The mean percentage change in total symptom score was –48 versus –22 in the placebo group (P = .004). In the per-protocol analysis, 69% responded versus 5% (P < .001). The mean percentage change in total symptom score was –53 versus –24 (P = .001).

91% of patients in the treatment groups experienced at least one adverse event, compared with 82% in the placebo group. About 60% in the treatment group had an infusion-related reaction versus 23% who received placebo; 93% of reactions were mild to moderate. Serious adverse events occurred in 9% of the treatment group and 14% of patients on placebo. The only serious adverse event thought to be related to the drug was a single grade 4 infusion-related event in the high-dose treatment group, which led to discontinuation of the drug and withdrawal from the trial. 86% of patients in the treatment group experienced transient lymphopenia, as did 47% of the placebo group, but there were no clinical consequences.

One potential concern with the therapy is the effect that long-term suppression of eosinophils and mast cells, and to a lesser extent basophils, could have on the immune system. Eosinophils are key to defenses against parasites, so that will need to be looked at in further studies, according to Dr. Semrad: “How is blocking those inflammatory cells going to impact gut function and the ability to fight off certain organisms? That’s going to be one of the real questions.”

The study was funded by Alkalos. Dr. Semrad has no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Dellon ES et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2012047.

In a phase 2 trial in eosinophilic gastritis and duodenitis, an anti–Siglec-8 antibody greatly reduced populations of eosinophilic cells, and also led to improved symptoms. The sponsoring company, Alkalos, is currently conducting a phase 3 trial in eosinophilic gastritis or duodenitis and a phase 2-3 trial in eosinophilic esophagitis.

The news is welcome to clinicians who treat these rare conditions, since the only current treatment option is steroids. This is particularly challenging because most patients with these conditions present in their 30s and 40s, according to Carol Semrad, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study. She noted that the study’s results were impressive, but it will take a phase 3 trial to convince. It’s also unclear if the clinical benefit tracks with the impressive reduction seen in eosinophil count. “There’s somewhat of a disconnect between symptom reduction and reduction of the eosinophil counts. Sometimes just blocking the inflammation [isn’t enough]. Maybe there is other damage to the bowel.”

Still, “it looks like they have a proof of concept that it’s very effective at blocking the eosinophils and mast cells that are thought to be causing eosinophilic gastritis and duodenitis in human disease. That, along with improvement in symptoms, is highly promising, given that we have no other treatment beside steroids,” said Dr. Semrad.

The research, led by Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Ikuo Hirano, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The antibody (lirentelimab) targets sialic acid–binding immunoglobulin-like lectin 8 (Siglec-8), which is an inhibitory receptor found on mature eosinophils and mast cells, and expressed at low levels on basophils. The antibody reduces eosinophil population through natural killer cell-mediated cellular cytotoxicity and apoptosis, and other antibodies against the same target have been shown to inhibit activation of mast cells.

At 22 sites across the United States, researchers randomized 65 adults with active, uncontrolled eosinophilic gastritis or eosinophilic duodenitis, or both, to receive four monthly low doses (0.3, 1, 1, and 1 mg/kg) or high-dose lirentelimab (0.3, 1, 3, and 3 mg/kg), or placebo. A total of 10 patients had gastritis, 25 had duodenitis, and 30 had both.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was a mean 86% reduction in eosinophil count in patients in the treatment groups, compared with a 9% increase in controls (P < .001). In the per-protocol analysis, there was a 95% reduction versus a 10% increase (P < .001). Of treated patients, 95% had a gastrointestinal eosinophil count of 6 or fewer per high-powered field, compared with 0% in the placebo group.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, 63% of treated patients experienced a treatment response, defined as at least a 30% reduction in total symptom score and at least a 75% reduction in eosinophil count. About 5% of patients had a response in the placebo group (P < .001). The mean percentage change in total symptom score was –48 versus –22 in the placebo group (P = .004). In the per-protocol analysis, 69% responded versus 5% (P < .001). The mean percentage change in total symptom score was –53 versus –24 (P = .001).

91% of patients in the treatment groups experienced at least one adverse event, compared with 82% in the placebo group. About 60% in the treatment group had an infusion-related reaction versus 23% who received placebo; 93% of reactions were mild to moderate. Serious adverse events occurred in 9% of the treatment group and 14% of patients on placebo. The only serious adverse event thought to be related to the drug was a single grade 4 infusion-related event in the high-dose treatment group, which led to discontinuation of the drug and withdrawal from the trial. 86% of patients in the treatment group experienced transient lymphopenia, as did 47% of the placebo group, but there were no clinical consequences.

One potential concern with the therapy is the effect that long-term suppression of eosinophils and mast cells, and to a lesser extent basophils, could have on the immune system. Eosinophils are key to defenses against parasites, so that will need to be looked at in further studies, according to Dr. Semrad: “How is blocking those inflammatory cells going to impact gut function and the ability to fight off certain organisms? That’s going to be one of the real questions.”

The study was funded by Alkalos. Dr. Semrad has no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Dellon ES et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2012047.

In a phase 2 trial in eosinophilic gastritis and duodenitis, an anti–Siglec-8 antibody greatly reduced populations of eosinophilic cells, and also led to improved symptoms. The sponsoring company, Alkalos, is currently conducting a phase 3 trial in eosinophilic gastritis or duodenitis and a phase 2-3 trial in eosinophilic esophagitis.

The news is welcome to clinicians who treat these rare conditions, since the only current treatment option is steroids. This is particularly challenging because most patients with these conditions present in their 30s and 40s, according to Carol Semrad, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study. She noted that the study’s results were impressive, but it will take a phase 3 trial to convince. It’s also unclear if the clinical benefit tracks with the impressive reduction seen in eosinophil count. “There’s somewhat of a disconnect between symptom reduction and reduction of the eosinophil counts. Sometimes just blocking the inflammation [isn’t enough]. Maybe there is other damage to the bowel.”

Still, “it looks like they have a proof of concept that it’s very effective at blocking the eosinophils and mast cells that are thought to be causing eosinophilic gastritis and duodenitis in human disease. That, along with improvement in symptoms, is highly promising, given that we have no other treatment beside steroids,” said Dr. Semrad.

The research, led by Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Ikuo Hirano, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The antibody (lirentelimab) targets sialic acid–binding immunoglobulin-like lectin 8 (Siglec-8), which is an inhibitory receptor found on mature eosinophils and mast cells, and expressed at low levels on basophils. The antibody reduces eosinophil population through natural killer cell-mediated cellular cytotoxicity and apoptosis, and other antibodies against the same target have been shown to inhibit activation of mast cells.

At 22 sites across the United States, researchers randomized 65 adults with active, uncontrolled eosinophilic gastritis or eosinophilic duodenitis, or both, to receive four monthly low doses (0.3, 1, 1, and 1 mg/kg) or high-dose lirentelimab (0.3, 1, 3, and 3 mg/kg), or placebo. A total of 10 patients had gastritis, 25 had duodenitis, and 30 had both.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was a mean 86% reduction in eosinophil count in patients in the treatment groups, compared with a 9% increase in controls (P < .001). In the per-protocol analysis, there was a 95% reduction versus a 10% increase (P < .001). Of treated patients, 95% had a gastrointestinal eosinophil count of 6 or fewer per high-powered field, compared with 0% in the placebo group.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, 63% of treated patients experienced a treatment response, defined as at least a 30% reduction in total symptom score and at least a 75% reduction in eosinophil count. About 5% of patients had a response in the placebo group (P < .001). The mean percentage change in total symptom score was –48 versus –22 in the placebo group (P = .004). In the per-protocol analysis, 69% responded versus 5% (P < .001). The mean percentage change in total symptom score was –53 versus –24 (P = .001).

91% of patients in the treatment groups experienced at least one adverse event, compared with 82% in the placebo group. About 60% in the treatment group had an infusion-related reaction versus 23% who received placebo; 93% of reactions were mild to moderate. Serious adverse events occurred in 9% of the treatment group and 14% of patients on placebo. The only serious adverse event thought to be related to the drug was a single grade 4 infusion-related event in the high-dose treatment group, which led to discontinuation of the drug and withdrawal from the trial. 86% of patients in the treatment group experienced transient lymphopenia, as did 47% of the placebo group, but there were no clinical consequences.

One potential concern with the therapy is the effect that long-term suppression of eosinophils and mast cells, and to a lesser extent basophils, could have on the immune system. Eosinophils are key to defenses against parasites, so that will need to be looked at in further studies, according to Dr. Semrad: “How is blocking those inflammatory cells going to impact gut function and the ability to fight off certain organisms? That’s going to be one of the real questions.”

The study was funded by Alkalos. Dr. Semrad has no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Dellon ES et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2012047.