SAN ANTONIO – A proprietary oral fixed-dose, triple-antibiotic combination pill offers a promising new approach to the treatment of Crohn’s disease, David Y. Graham, MD, declared at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In the phase 3 MAP US trial, patients with Crohn’s disease who were randomized to the fixed-dose combination of 45 mg rifabutin, 95 mg clarithromycin, and 10 mg clofazimine, known for now as RHB-104, experienced significantly higher rates of clinical remission and improvement in inflammation as assessed endoscopically and via biomarkers, compared with placebo-treated controls, reported Dr. Graham, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

RHB-104 is effective against Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis (MAP) – and therein hangs a tale.

“MAP has been considered as a possible cause of Crohn’s disease since the disease was described by Crohn in 1932,” the gastroenterologist noted. “These randomized trial data provide further evidence suggesting an important role for MAP or similar microorganisms in the pathogenesis of Crohn’s disease.”

For Dr. Graham, this is a case of deja vu all over again. More than a quarter century ago he was lead author of a highly influential randomized, controlled trial which established that treatment with antibiotics directed against Helicobacter pylori cured peptic ulcer disease. As such, he became internationally recognized as a key figure in the resultant revolution in peptic ulcer treatment. He hears an echo of that earlier transformative change in the MAP US results.

“This is either an additional therapy or it’s the beginning of a paradigm shift. I mean, I see this as we’re standing at the same place now as we were standing with Helicobacter pylori 30 years ago, when the question was: Have we found something that we can eradicate and change the natural history of the disease and cure it? You can say this [MAP-directed therapy] is going in that direction, but it certainly hasn’t gotten to the point of proof yet. The results have to be reproduced,” he said.

The MAP US trial included 331 patients with moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease at 92 sites who had failed to achieve an adequate response with conventional therapies. Participants were randomized double blind to twice-daily RHB-104 or placebo for 52 weeks. Those not in remission at 26 weeks could opt for open-label RHB-104. Background concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, and immunosuppressives was permitted.

The primary outcome was clinical remission as defined by a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score below 150 at week 26. This was achieved in 36.7% of the active treatment group and 23% of controls, a highly significant difference. The clinical remission rates at week 16 were 42.2% and 29.1%, respectively. At week 26, 44% of RHB-104-treated patients had achieved at least a 100-point reduction in CDAI score, compared with baseline, as did 30.9% of controls. The key symptom score provided by the sum of the abdominal pain and bowel movement components of the CDAI was significantly lower in the RHB-104 group than in controls from week 16 on.

The remission rate at week 26 in the group on RHB-104 was similarly favorable regardless of whether or not they were on anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy.

“This suggests that RHB-104 can be used effectively and safely as an adjunct treatment to other medications to enhance the response to medical therapy,” according to Dr. Graham, who was principal investigator for MAP US.

The composite endpoint of clinical remission plus at least a 50% reduction from baseline in fecal calprotectin or C-reactive protein was achieved in 21.1% of the RHB-104 group and 9.1% of controls at week 26, and by 16.9% on RHB-104 and 7.9% on placebo at week 52.

In the 35 patients who underwent endoscopy at week 26, a 50% or greater reduction in the Simple Endoscopic Score in Crohn’s Disease was documented in 28.6% of patients on RHB-104 versus 4.8% of controls.

Durable remission, defined as a CDAI score below 150 at all study visits from week 16 to week 52, was achieved in 18.7% of the RHB-104 group, compared with 8.5% of controls.

The side effect profiles of RHB-104 and placebo were similar, with no serious adverse events recorded in the 52-week study. An increase in the QT interval on ECG was noted in the RHB-104 group from week 4 on, but it wasn’t associated with any clinical findings. Further study of this ECG finding is underway.

Several audience members rose to urge caution in interpreting the MAP US data.

“We must adhere to Koch’s postulates before we make conclusions about causative agents of an infectious disease, and I didn’t see those data here. So I look forward to a future presentation that shares that,” one gastroenterologist commented.

“I haven’t seen any data here that shows Mycobacterium was present in these patients,” noted another.

Dr. Graham replied that MAP US was a hypothesis-driven clinical trial: Crohn’s disease has much in common with an inflammatory bowel disease occurring in ruminant animals, where RHB-104 has shown treatment efficacy.

“This is a Mycobacterium avium organism, so it’s not something you’re going to cure in 2 weeks or 2 months. But the question is, do you have an effect on the disease, and the answer in MAP US was unquestionably yes. It’s very positive data to further pursue the hypothesis, but the study doesn’t provide a definitive answer,” he said.

Dr. Graham reported serving as a consultant to RedHill Biopharma, the study sponsor.

[email protected]

SAN ANTONIO – A proprietary oral fixed-dose, triple-antibiotic combination pill offers a promising new approach to the treatment of Crohn’s disease, David Y. Graham, MD, declared at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In the phase 3 MAP US trial, patients with Crohn’s disease who were randomized to the fixed-dose combination of 45 mg rifabutin, 95 mg clarithromycin, and 10 mg clofazimine, known for now as RHB-104, experienced significantly higher rates of clinical remission and improvement in inflammation as assessed endoscopically and via biomarkers, compared with placebo-treated controls, reported Dr. Graham, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

RHB-104 is effective against Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis (MAP) – and therein hangs a tale.

“MAP has been considered as a possible cause of Crohn’s disease since the disease was described by Crohn in 1932,” the gastroenterologist noted. “These randomized trial data provide further evidence suggesting an important role for MAP or similar microorganisms in the pathogenesis of Crohn’s disease.”

For Dr. Graham, this is a case of deja vu all over again. More than a quarter century ago he was lead author of a highly influential randomized, controlled trial which established that treatment with antibiotics directed against Helicobacter pylori cured peptic ulcer disease. As such, he became internationally recognized as a key figure in the resultant revolution in peptic ulcer treatment. He hears an echo of that earlier transformative change in the MAP US results.

“This is either an additional therapy or it’s the beginning of a paradigm shift. I mean, I see this as we’re standing at the same place now as we were standing with Helicobacter pylori 30 years ago, when the question was: Have we found something that we can eradicate and change the natural history of the disease and cure it? You can say this [MAP-directed therapy] is going in that direction, but it certainly hasn’t gotten to the point of proof yet. The results have to be reproduced,” he said.

The MAP US trial included 331 patients with moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease at 92 sites who had failed to achieve an adequate response with conventional therapies. Participants were randomized double blind to twice-daily RHB-104 or placebo for 52 weeks. Those not in remission at 26 weeks could opt for open-label RHB-104. Background concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, and immunosuppressives was permitted.

The primary outcome was clinical remission as defined by a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score below 150 at week 26. This was achieved in 36.7% of the active treatment group and 23% of controls, a highly significant difference. The clinical remission rates at week 16 were 42.2% and 29.1%, respectively. At week 26, 44% of RHB-104-treated patients had achieved at least a 100-point reduction in CDAI score, compared with baseline, as did 30.9% of controls. The key symptom score provided by the sum of the abdominal pain and bowel movement components of the CDAI was significantly lower in the RHB-104 group than in controls from week 16 on.

The remission rate at week 26 in the group on RHB-104 was similarly favorable regardless of whether or not they were on anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy.

“This suggests that RHB-104 can be used effectively and safely as an adjunct treatment to other medications to enhance the response to medical therapy,” according to Dr. Graham, who was principal investigator for MAP US.

The composite endpoint of clinical remission plus at least a 50% reduction from baseline in fecal calprotectin or C-reactive protein was achieved in 21.1% of the RHB-104 group and 9.1% of controls at week 26, and by 16.9% on RHB-104 and 7.9% on placebo at week 52.

In the 35 patients who underwent endoscopy at week 26, a 50% or greater reduction in the Simple Endoscopic Score in Crohn’s Disease was documented in 28.6% of patients on RHB-104 versus 4.8% of controls.

Durable remission, defined as a CDAI score below 150 at all study visits from week 16 to week 52, was achieved in 18.7% of the RHB-104 group, compared with 8.5% of controls.

The side effect profiles of RHB-104 and placebo were similar, with no serious adverse events recorded in the 52-week study. An increase in the QT interval on ECG was noted in the RHB-104 group from week 4 on, but it wasn’t associated with any clinical findings. Further study of this ECG finding is underway.

Several audience members rose to urge caution in interpreting the MAP US data.

“We must adhere to Koch’s postulates before we make conclusions about causative agents of an infectious disease, and I didn’t see those data here. So I look forward to a future presentation that shares that,” one gastroenterologist commented.

“I haven’t seen any data here that shows Mycobacterium was present in these patients,” noted another.

Dr. Graham replied that MAP US was a hypothesis-driven clinical trial: Crohn’s disease has much in common with an inflammatory bowel disease occurring in ruminant animals, where RHB-104 has shown treatment efficacy.

“This is a Mycobacterium avium organism, so it’s not something you’re going to cure in 2 weeks or 2 months. But the question is, do you have an effect on the disease, and the answer in MAP US was unquestionably yes. It’s very positive data to further pursue the hypothesis, but the study doesn’t provide a definitive answer,” he said.

Dr. Graham reported serving as a consultant to RedHill Biopharma, the study sponsor.

[email protected]

SAN ANTONIO – A proprietary oral fixed-dose, triple-antibiotic combination pill offers a promising new approach to the treatment of Crohn’s disease, David Y. Graham, MD, declared at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In the phase 3 MAP US trial, patients with Crohn’s disease who were randomized to the fixed-dose combination of 45 mg rifabutin, 95 mg clarithromycin, and 10 mg clofazimine, known for now as RHB-104, experienced significantly higher rates of clinical remission and improvement in inflammation as assessed endoscopically and via biomarkers, compared with placebo-treated controls, reported Dr. Graham, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

RHB-104 is effective against Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis (MAP) – and therein hangs a tale.

“MAP has been considered as a possible cause of Crohn’s disease since the disease was described by Crohn in 1932,” the gastroenterologist noted. “These randomized trial data provide further evidence suggesting an important role for MAP or similar microorganisms in the pathogenesis of Crohn’s disease.”

For Dr. Graham, this is a case of deja vu all over again. More than a quarter century ago he was lead author of a highly influential randomized, controlled trial which established that treatment with antibiotics directed against Helicobacter pylori cured peptic ulcer disease. As such, he became internationally recognized as a key figure in the resultant revolution in peptic ulcer treatment. He hears an echo of that earlier transformative change in the MAP US results.

“This is either an additional therapy or it’s the beginning of a paradigm shift. I mean, I see this as we’re standing at the same place now as we were standing with Helicobacter pylori 30 years ago, when the question was: Have we found something that we can eradicate and change the natural history of the disease and cure it? You can say this [MAP-directed therapy] is going in that direction, but it certainly hasn’t gotten to the point of proof yet. The results have to be reproduced,” he said.

The MAP US trial included 331 patients with moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease at 92 sites who had failed to achieve an adequate response with conventional therapies. Participants were randomized double blind to twice-daily RHB-104 or placebo for 52 weeks. Those not in remission at 26 weeks could opt for open-label RHB-104. Background concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, and immunosuppressives was permitted.

The primary outcome was clinical remission as defined by a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score below 150 at week 26. This was achieved in 36.7% of the active treatment group and 23% of controls, a highly significant difference. The clinical remission rates at week 16 were 42.2% and 29.1%, respectively. At week 26, 44% of RHB-104-treated patients had achieved at least a 100-point reduction in CDAI score, compared with baseline, as did 30.9% of controls. The key symptom score provided by the sum of the abdominal pain and bowel movement components of the CDAI was significantly lower in the RHB-104 group than in controls from week 16 on.

The remission rate at week 26 in the group on RHB-104 was similarly favorable regardless of whether or not they were on anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy.

“This suggests that RHB-104 can be used effectively and safely as an adjunct treatment to other medications to enhance the response to medical therapy,” according to Dr. Graham, who was principal investigator for MAP US.

The composite endpoint of clinical remission plus at least a 50% reduction from baseline in fecal calprotectin or C-reactive protein was achieved in 21.1% of the RHB-104 group and 9.1% of controls at week 26, and by 16.9% on RHB-104 and 7.9% on placebo at week 52.

In the 35 patients who underwent endoscopy at week 26, a 50% or greater reduction in the Simple Endoscopic Score in Crohn’s Disease was documented in 28.6% of patients on RHB-104 versus 4.8% of controls.

Durable remission, defined as a CDAI score below 150 at all study visits from week 16 to week 52, was achieved in 18.7% of the RHB-104 group, compared with 8.5% of controls.

The side effect profiles of RHB-104 and placebo were similar, with no serious adverse events recorded in the 52-week study. An increase in the QT interval on ECG was noted in the RHB-104 group from week 4 on, but it wasn’t associated with any clinical findings. Further study of this ECG finding is underway.

Several audience members rose to urge caution in interpreting the MAP US data.

“We must adhere to Koch’s postulates before we make conclusions about causative agents of an infectious disease, and I didn’t see those data here. So I look forward to a future presentation that shares that,” one gastroenterologist commented.

“I haven’t seen any data here that shows Mycobacterium was present in these patients,” noted another.

Dr. Graham replied that MAP US was a hypothesis-driven clinical trial: Crohn’s disease has much in common with an inflammatory bowel disease occurring in ruminant animals, where RHB-104 has shown treatment efficacy.

“This is a Mycobacterium avium organism, so it’s not something you’re going to cure in 2 weeks or 2 months. But the question is, do you have an effect on the disease, and the answer in MAP US was unquestionably yes. It’s very positive data to further pursue the hypothesis, but the study doesn’t provide a definitive answer,” he said.

Dr. Graham reported serving as a consultant to RedHill Biopharma, the study sponsor.

[email protected]

Many Americans who are treated with prescription opioid analgesics would be better off with less opioid or none at all. To that end, published opioid prescribing guidelines do provide guidance on the mechanics of tapering patients off opioids^1-4—but they have a major flaw: They do not adequately account for the fact that people who have a diagnosis of chronic pain are a heterogeneous group and require diagnosis-specific treatment planning. A patient-centered approach to opioid tapers must account for the reality that many people who are given a prescription for an opioid to treat pain have significant mental health conditions—for which opioids act as a psychotropic agent. An opioid taper must therefore address psychological trauma, in particular.⁵ (See “Tapering and harm-reduction strategies have failed.”^6-14)

In this article, we present an evidence-based consensus approach to opioid tapering for your practice that is informed by a broader understanding of why patients take prescription opioids and why they, occasionally, switch to illicit drugs when their prescription is tapered. This consensus approach is based on the experience of the authors, members of the pain faculty of Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) of the ECHO Institute, a worldwide initiative that uses adult learning techniques and interactive video technology to connect community providers with specialists at centers of excellence in regular real-time collaborative sessions. We are variously experts in pain medicine, primary care, psychology, addiction medicine, pharmacy, behavioral health therapy, occupational medicine, and Chinese medicine.

Why Americans obtain prescription opioids

There are 4 principal reasons why patients obtain prescription opioids, beyond indicated analgesic uses:

1. Patients seek the antianxiety and antidepressant effects of opioids. Multiple converging lines of evidence suggest that antianxiety and antidepressant effects of opioids are a significant reason that patients in the United States persist in requesting prescriptions for opioids:

• In our experience with more than 500 primary care telemedicine case presentations, at least 50% of patients say that the main effect of opioids prescribed for them is “it makes me feel calm” or “more relaxed.”
• In a 2007 survey of 91,823 US residents older than 18 years, nonmedical use of opioids was statistically associated with panic, social anxiety, and depressive symptoms.¹⁵
• Ten years later, Von Korff and colleagues found that more than half of opioid prescriptions written in the United States were for the small percentage of patients who have a diagnosis of serious anxiety or depression.¹³
• In 2016, Yovell and colleagues reported that ultra-low-dosage buprenorphine markedly reduced suicidal ideation over 4 weeks in 62 patients with varied levels of depression.¹⁶

There is also mechanistic evidence that the antianxiety and antidepressant effects of opioids are significant reasons Americans persist in requesting prescription opioids. The literature suggests that opioid receptors play a role in mood regulation, including alleviation of depression and anxiety; recent research suggests that oxycodone might be a unique mood-altering drug compared to other common prescription opioids because of its ability to affect mood through the δ opioid receptor.^17-20

It should not be a surprise that Americans often turn to opioids to address posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression. A recent study of the state of the US mental health system concluded that mental health services in the United States are inadequate—despite evidence that > 50% of Americans seek, or consider seeking, treatment for mental health problems for themselves or others.²¹

2. Patients experience pain unrelated to tissue damage. Rather, they are in pain “for psychological reasons.”²² In 2016, Davis and Vanderah wrote: “We theorize that a functional change in the [central nervous system] can occur in response to certain emotional states or traumatic experiences (eg, child abuse, assault, accidents).” They connect this change to central sensitization and a reduced pain-perception threshold,²³ and strongly suspect that many patients with chronic pain have undiagnosed and untreated psychological trauma that has changed the way their central nervous system processes sensory stimuli. The authors call this “trauma-induced hyperalgesia.”

Continue to: Psychological trauma...

Psychological trauma is uniquely capable of producing hyperalgesia, compared to anxiety or depression. In a study of veterans, Defrin and colleagues demonstrated hyperalgesia in patients who had a diagnosis of PTSD but not in controls group who had an anxiety disorder only.²⁴

High-dosage prescribing of opioids has fallen by 48% since 2011, yet the decline has not reduced overdose events of any kind.

To support successful opioid tapering, trauma-induced hyperalgesia, when present, must be addressed. Treatment of what the International Association for the Study of Pain calls “pain due to psychological factors”²² requires specific trauma therapy. However, our experience validates what researchers have to say about access to treatment of psychological trauma in the United States: “…[C]linical research has identified certain psychological interventions that effectively ameliorate the symptoms of PTSD. But most people struggling with PTSD don’t receive those treatments.”²⁵

We have no doubt that this is due, in part, to underdiagnosis of psychological trauma, even in mental health clinics. According to Miele and colleagues, “PTSD remains largely undiagnosed and undertreated in mental health outpatients, even in teaching hospitals, with diagnosis rates as low as 4% while published prevalence is between 7% and 50% in this population.”²⁶

3. Patients suffer from opioid use disorder (OUD) and complain of pain to obtain opioids by prescription. For patients with OUD, their use is out of control; they devote increasing mental and physical resources to obtaining, using, and recovering from substances; and they continue to use despite adverse consequences.²⁷ The prevalence of OUD in primary care clinics varies strikingly by the location of clinics. In Washington state, the prevalence of moderate and severe OUD in a large population of patients who had been prescribed opioids through primary care clinics was recently determined to be between 21.5% and 23.9%.¹³

4. Patients are obtaining opioid prescriptions for people other than themselves. While this is a reason that patients obtain opioid prescriptions, it is not necessarily common. Statistics show that the likelihood of a prescription being diverted intentionally is low: Dart and colleagues found that diversion has become uncommon in the general population.²⁸

Continue to: Why we taper opioid analgesics

 

 

Why we taper opioid analgesics

Reasons for an opioid taper include concern that the patient has, or will develop, an OUD; will experience accidental or intentional overdose; might be diverting opioids; is not benefiting from opioid therapy for pain; or is experiencing severe adverse effects. A patient who has nociceptive pain and might have ­opioid-induced hyperalgesia will require a much different opioid taper plan than a patient with untreated PTSD or a patient with severe OUD.

Misunderstanding can lead to inappropriate tapering

We often encounter primary care providers who believe that a large percentage of patients on chronic opioid therapy inevitably develop OUD. This is a common reason for initiating opioid taper. Most patients on a chronic opioid do become physically dependent, but only a small percentage of patients develop psychological dependence (ie, ­addiction or OUD).²⁹

Physical dependence is “a state of adaptation that is manifested by a drug class–­specific withdrawal syndrome that can be produced by abrupt cessation, rapid dose reduction, decreasing blood level of the drug, and/or administration of an antagonist.”³⁰ Symptoms of opioid withdrawal include muscle aches; abdominal cramping; increased lacrimation, rhinorrhea, and perspiration; diarrhea; agitation and anxiety; insomnia; and piloerection. Opioid withdrawal symptoms are caused by physical dependence, not by addiction. They can be mitigated by tapering slowly and instituting adjuvant medications, such as clonidine, to attenuate symptoms.

Psychological dependence, or addiction (that is, OUD, as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition²⁷), comprises primarily 3 behavioral criteria:

• Loss of control of the medication, with compulsive use
• Continued use despite adverse consequences of using opioids, such as arrest for driving under the influence and deterioration of social, family, or work performance
• Obsession or preoccupation with obtaining and using the substance. In properly selected chronic opioid therapy patients, there is evidence that new-onset OUD is not as common as has been thought. A recent study of the risk for opioid addiction after use of an opioid for ≥ 90 days for chronic noncancer pain found that the absolute rate of de novo OUD among patients treated for 90 days was 0.72%.²⁹ A systematic review by Fishbain and colleagues of 24 studies of opioid-exposed patients found a risk of 3.27% overall—0.19% for patients who did not have a history of abuse or addiction.³¹ As Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse Norma Volkow, MD, wrote in 2016: “Addiction occurs in only a small percentage of people who are exposed to opioids—even among those with preexisting vulnerabilities.”³²

Assessment should focus on why the patient is taking an opioid

A strong case can be made that less opioid is better for many of the people for whom these medications are prescribed for chronic noncancer pain. However, a one-size-fits-all dosage reduction and addiction-focused ­approach to opioid tapering has not worked: The assessment and treatment paradigm must change, in our view.

Continue to: During assessment...

During assessment, we must adopt the means to identify the reason that a patient is using a prescription opioid. It is of particular importance that we identify patients using opioids for their psychotropic properties, particularly when the goal is to cope with the effects of psychological trauma. The subsequent treatment protocol will then need to include time for effective, evidence-based behavioral health treatment of anxiety, PTSD, or depression. If opioids are serving primarily as psychotropic medication, an attempt to taper before establishing effective behavioral health treatment might lead the patient to pursue illegal means of procuring opioid medication.

Antianxiety and antidepressant effects of opioids are a significant reason that patients persist in requesting prescriptions.

We acknowledge that primary care physicians are not reimbursed for trauma screening and that evidence-based intensive trauma treatment is generally unavailable in the United States. Both of these shortcomings must be corrected if we want to stem the opioid crisis.

If diversion is suspected and there is evidence that the patient is not currently taking prescribed opioids (eg, a negative urine drug screen), discontinuing the opioid prescription is the immediate next step for the sake of public safety.

Considering a taper? Take this 5-step approach

Once it appears that tapering an opioid is indicated, we propose that you take the following steps:

• Establish whether it is safe to continue prescribing (follow the route provided in “2 decisions to make before continuing to prescribe an opioid for chronic noncancer pain”); if continuing it is not safe, take steps to protect the patient and the community
• Determine whether assessment by a trauma-informed behavioral health expert is needed, assuming that, in your judgment, it is safe to continue the opioid (TABLE³³). When behavioral health assessment is needed, you need 3 questions answered by that assessment: (1) Are psychological factors present that might put the patient at risk during an opioid taper? (2) What are those factors? (3) What needs to done about them before the taper is started? Recalling that psychological trauma often is not assessed by behavioral health colleagues, it is necessary to provide the behavioral health provider with a specific request to assess trauma burden, and state the physical diagnoses that are causing pain or provide a clear statement that no such diagnoses can be made. (See the FIGURE, which we developed in conjunction with behavioral health colleagues to help the consultant understand what the primary care physician needs from a behavioral health assessment.)
• Obtain consultation from a physical therapist, pain medicine specialist, and, if possible, an alternative or complementary medicine provider to determine what nonpharmacotherapeutic modalities can be instituted to treat pain before tapering the opioid.
• Initiate the Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) approach if OUD is suspected (www.samhsa.gov/sbirt).³⁴ This motivational interviewing tool identifies patients with a substance use disorder, severity of use, and appropriate level of treatment. (If OUD is suspected during assessment, next steps are to stop prescribing and implement harm-reduction strategies, such as primary care level medically assisted treatment [MAT] with buprenorphine, followed by expert behavioral health-centered addiction treatment.)
• Experiment with dosage reduction according to published guidance, if (1) psychological factors are absent or have been adequately addressed, according to the behavioral health consultant, and (2) nonpharmacotherapeutic strategies are in place.^8-11

Shifting to a patient-centered approach

The timing and choice of opioid tapers, in relation to harm reduction and intervention targeting the root cause of a patient’s complaint of pain, have not been adequately explored. In our practice, we’ve shifted from an addiction-centered, dosage-centered approach to opioid taper to a patient-centered approach³⁵ that emphasizes behavioral-medical integration—an approach that we broadly endorse. Such an approach (1) is based on a clear understanding of why the patient is taking opioid pain medication, (2) engages medical and complementary or alternative medicine specialists, (3) addresses underdiagnosis of psychological trauma, and (4) requires a quantum leap in access to trauma-specific behavioral health treatment resources. ³⁶

Continue to: To underscore the case...

To underscore the case for shifting to a patient-centered approach³⁵ we present sample cases in “How a patient-centered approach to tapering opioids looks in practice.”

An eye toward the future. To inform future approaches to opioid tapering, more resources need to be deployed to

• support screening and risk stratification for PTSD, anxiety, and related disorders at the primary care level,
• continue the effort to identify and treat OUD,
• develop best-practice responses to screening, and
• make harm-reduction strategies that are now reserved for patients with OUD available to those who don't have OUD.

We urge that research be pursued into best practices for chronic pain interventions that target psychological trauma, anxiety, and depression.

CORRESPONDENCE
Bennet Davis MD, 2092 East Calle de Dulcinea, Tucson, AZ 85718; [email protected].

Many Americans who are treated with prescription opioid analgesics would be better off with less opioid or none at all. To that end, published opioid prescribing guidelines do provide guidance on the mechanics of tapering patients off opioids^1-4—but they have a major flaw: They do not adequately account for the fact that people who have a diagnosis of chronic pain are a heterogeneous group and require diagnosis-specific treatment planning. A patient-centered approach to opioid tapers must account for the reality that many people who are given a prescription for an opioid to treat pain have significant mental health conditions—for which opioids act as a psychotropic agent. An opioid taper must therefore address psychological trauma, in particular.⁵ (See “Tapering and harm-reduction strategies have failed.”^6-14)

In this article, we present an evidence-based consensus approach to opioid tapering for your practice that is informed by a broader understanding of why patients take prescription opioids and why they, occasionally, switch to illicit drugs when their prescription is tapered. This consensus approach is based on the experience of the authors, members of the pain faculty of Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) of the ECHO Institute, a worldwide initiative that uses adult learning techniques and interactive video technology to connect community providers with specialists at centers of excellence in regular real-time collaborative sessions. We are variously experts in pain medicine, primary care, psychology, addiction medicine, pharmacy, behavioral health therapy, occupational medicine, and Chinese medicine.

Why Americans obtain prescription opioids

There are 4 principal reasons why patients obtain prescription opioids, beyond indicated analgesic uses:

1. Patients seek the antianxiety and antidepressant effects of opioids. Multiple converging lines of evidence suggest that antianxiety and antidepressant effects of opioids are a significant reason that patients in the United States persist in requesting prescriptions for opioids:

• In our experience with more than 500 primary care telemedicine case presentations, at least 50% of patients say that the main effect of opioids prescribed for them is “it makes me feel calm” or “more relaxed.”
• In a 2007 survey of 91,823 US residents older than 18 years, nonmedical use of opioids was statistically associated with panic, social anxiety, and depressive symptoms.¹⁵
• Ten years later, Von Korff and colleagues found that more than half of opioid prescriptions written in the United States were for the small percentage of patients who have a diagnosis of serious anxiety or depression.¹³
• In 2016, Yovell and colleagues reported that ultra-low-dosage buprenorphine markedly reduced suicidal ideation over 4 weeks in 62 patients with varied levels of depression.¹⁶

There is also mechanistic evidence that the antianxiety and antidepressant effects of opioids are significant reasons Americans persist in requesting prescription opioids. The literature suggests that opioid receptors play a role in mood regulation, including alleviation of depression and anxiety; recent research suggests that oxycodone might be a unique mood-altering drug compared to other common prescription opioids because of its ability to affect mood through the δ opioid receptor.^17-20

It should not be a surprise that Americans often turn to opioids to address posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression. A recent study of the state of the US mental health system concluded that mental health services in the United States are inadequate—despite evidence that > 50% of Americans seek, or consider seeking, treatment for mental health problems for themselves or others.²¹

2. Patients experience pain unrelated to tissue damage. Rather, they are in pain “for psychological reasons.”²² In 2016, Davis and Vanderah wrote: “We theorize that a functional change in the [central nervous system] can occur in response to certain emotional states or traumatic experiences (eg, child abuse, assault, accidents).” They connect this change to central sensitization and a reduced pain-perception threshold,²³ and strongly suspect that many patients with chronic pain have undiagnosed and untreated psychological trauma that has changed the way their central nervous system processes sensory stimuli. The authors call this “trauma-induced hyperalgesia.”

Continue to: Psychological trauma...

Psychological trauma is uniquely capable of producing hyperalgesia, compared to anxiety or depression. In a study of veterans, Defrin and colleagues demonstrated hyperalgesia in patients who had a diagnosis of PTSD but not in controls group who had an anxiety disorder only.²⁴

High-dosage prescribing of opioids has fallen by 48% since 2011, yet the decline has not reduced overdose events of any kind.

To support successful opioid tapering, trauma-induced hyperalgesia, when present, must be addressed. Treatment of what the International Association for the Study of Pain calls “pain due to psychological factors”²² requires specific trauma therapy. However, our experience validates what researchers have to say about access to treatment of psychological trauma in the United States: “…[C]linical research has identified certain psychological interventions that effectively ameliorate the symptoms of PTSD. But most people struggling with PTSD don’t receive those treatments.”²⁵

We have no doubt that this is due, in part, to underdiagnosis of psychological trauma, even in mental health clinics. According to Miele and colleagues, “PTSD remains largely undiagnosed and undertreated in mental health outpatients, even in teaching hospitals, with diagnosis rates as low as 4% while published prevalence is between 7% and 50% in this population.”²⁶

3. Patients suffer from opioid use disorder (OUD) and complain of pain to obtain opioids by prescription. For patients with OUD, their use is out of control; they devote increasing mental and physical resources to obtaining, using, and recovering from substances; and they continue to use despite adverse consequences.²⁷ The prevalence of OUD in primary care clinics varies strikingly by the location of clinics. In Washington state, the prevalence of moderate and severe OUD in a large population of patients who had been prescribed opioids through primary care clinics was recently determined to be between 21.5% and 23.9%.¹³

4. Patients are obtaining opioid prescriptions for people other than themselves. While this is a reason that patients obtain opioid prescriptions, it is not necessarily common. Statistics show that the likelihood of a prescription being diverted intentionally is low: Dart and colleagues found that diversion has become uncommon in the general population.²⁸

Continue to: Why we taper opioid analgesics

 

 

Why we taper opioid analgesics

Reasons for an opioid taper include concern that the patient has, or will develop, an OUD; will experience accidental or intentional overdose; might be diverting opioids; is not benefiting from opioid therapy for pain; or is experiencing severe adverse effects. A patient who has nociceptive pain and might have ­opioid-induced hyperalgesia will require a much different opioid taper plan than a patient with untreated PTSD or a patient with severe OUD.

Misunderstanding can lead to inappropriate tapering

We often encounter primary care providers who believe that a large percentage of patients on chronic opioid therapy inevitably develop OUD. This is a common reason for initiating opioid taper. Most patients on a chronic opioid do become physically dependent, but only a small percentage of patients develop psychological dependence (ie, ­addiction or OUD).²⁹

Physical dependence is “a state of adaptation that is manifested by a drug class–­specific withdrawal syndrome that can be produced by abrupt cessation, rapid dose reduction, decreasing blood level of the drug, and/or administration of an antagonist.”³⁰ Symptoms of opioid withdrawal include muscle aches; abdominal cramping; increased lacrimation, rhinorrhea, and perspiration; diarrhea; agitation and anxiety; insomnia; and piloerection. Opioid withdrawal symptoms are caused by physical dependence, not by addiction. They can be mitigated by tapering slowly and instituting adjuvant medications, such as clonidine, to attenuate symptoms.

Psychological dependence, or addiction (that is, OUD, as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition²⁷), comprises primarily 3 behavioral criteria:

• Loss of control of the medication, with compulsive use
• Continued use despite adverse consequences of using opioids, such as arrest for driving under the influence and deterioration of social, family, or work performance
• Obsession or preoccupation with obtaining and using the substance. In properly selected chronic opioid therapy patients, there is evidence that new-onset OUD is not as common as has been thought. A recent study of the risk for opioid addiction after use of an opioid for ≥ 90 days for chronic noncancer pain found that the absolute rate of de novo OUD among patients treated for 90 days was 0.72%.²⁹ A systematic review by Fishbain and colleagues of 24 studies of opioid-exposed patients found a risk of 3.27% overall—0.19% for patients who did not have a history of abuse or addiction.³¹ As Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse Norma Volkow, MD, wrote in 2016: “Addiction occurs in only a small percentage of people who are exposed to opioids—even among those with preexisting vulnerabilities.”³²

Assessment should focus on why the patient is taking an opioid

A strong case can be made that less opioid is better for many of the people for whom these medications are prescribed for chronic noncancer pain. However, a one-size-fits-all dosage reduction and addiction-focused ­approach to opioid tapering has not worked: The assessment and treatment paradigm must change, in our view.

Continue to: During assessment...

During assessment, we must adopt the means to identify the reason that a patient is using a prescription opioid. It is of particular importance that we identify patients using opioids for their psychotropic properties, particularly when the goal is to cope with the effects of psychological trauma. The subsequent treatment protocol will then need to include time for effective, evidence-based behavioral health treatment of anxiety, PTSD, or depression. If opioids are serving primarily as psychotropic medication, an attempt to taper before establishing effective behavioral health treatment might lead the patient to pursue illegal means of procuring opioid medication.

Antianxiety and antidepressant effects of opioids are a significant reason that patients persist in requesting prescriptions.

We acknowledge that primary care physicians are not reimbursed for trauma screening and that evidence-based intensive trauma treatment is generally unavailable in the United States. Both of these shortcomings must be corrected if we want to stem the opioid crisis.

If diversion is suspected and there is evidence that the patient is not currently taking prescribed opioids (eg, a negative urine drug screen), discontinuing the opioid prescription is the immediate next step for the sake of public safety.

Considering a taper? Take this 5-step approach

Once it appears that tapering an opioid is indicated, we propose that you take the following steps:

• Establish whether it is safe to continue prescribing (follow the route provided in “2 decisions to make before continuing to prescribe an opioid for chronic noncancer pain”); if continuing it is not safe, take steps to protect the patient and the community
• Determine whether assessment by a trauma-informed behavioral health expert is needed, assuming that, in your judgment, it is safe to continue the opioid (TABLE³³). When behavioral health assessment is needed, you need 3 questions answered by that assessment: (1) Are psychological factors present that might put the patient at risk during an opioid taper? (2) What are those factors? (3) What needs to done about them before the taper is started? Recalling that psychological trauma often is not assessed by behavioral health colleagues, it is necessary to provide the behavioral health provider with a specific request to assess trauma burden, and state the physical diagnoses that are causing pain or provide a clear statement that no such diagnoses can be made. (See the FIGURE, which we developed in conjunction with behavioral health colleagues to help the consultant understand what the primary care physician needs from a behavioral health assessment.)
• Obtain consultation from a physical therapist, pain medicine specialist, and, if possible, an alternative or complementary medicine provider to determine what nonpharmacotherapeutic modalities can be instituted to treat pain before tapering the opioid.
• Initiate the Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) approach if OUD is suspected (www.samhsa.gov/sbirt).³⁴ This motivational interviewing tool identifies patients with a substance use disorder, severity of use, and appropriate level of treatment. (If OUD is suspected during assessment, next steps are to stop prescribing and implement harm-reduction strategies, such as primary care level medically assisted treatment [MAT] with buprenorphine, followed by expert behavioral health-centered addiction treatment.)
• Experiment with dosage reduction according to published guidance, if (1) psychological factors are absent or have been adequately addressed, according to the behavioral health consultant, and (2) nonpharmacotherapeutic strategies are in place.^8-11

Shifting to a patient-centered approach

The timing and choice of opioid tapers, in relation to harm reduction and intervention targeting the root cause of a patient’s complaint of pain, have not been adequately explored. In our practice, we’ve shifted from an addiction-centered, dosage-centered approach to opioid taper to a patient-centered approach³⁵ that emphasizes behavioral-medical integration—an approach that we broadly endorse. Such an approach (1) is based on a clear understanding of why the patient is taking opioid pain medication, (2) engages medical and complementary or alternative medicine specialists, (3) addresses underdiagnosis of psychological trauma, and (4) requires a quantum leap in access to trauma-specific behavioral health treatment resources. ³⁶

Continue to: To underscore the case...

To underscore the case for shifting to a patient-centered approach³⁵ we present sample cases in “How a patient-centered approach to tapering opioids looks in practice.”

An eye toward the future. To inform future approaches to opioid tapering, more resources need to be deployed to

• support screening and risk stratification for PTSD, anxiety, and related disorders at the primary care level,
• continue the effort to identify and treat OUD,
• develop best-practice responses to screening, and
• make harm-reduction strategies that are now reserved for patients with OUD available to those who don't have OUD.

We urge that research be pursued into best practices for chronic pain interventions that target psychological trauma, anxiety, and depression.

CORRESPONDENCE
Bennet Davis MD, 2092 East Calle de Dulcinea, Tucson, AZ 85718; [email protected].

Many Americans who are treated with prescription opioid analgesics would be better off with less opioid or none at all. To that end, published opioid prescribing guidelines do provide guidance on the mechanics of tapering patients off opioids^1-4—but they have a major flaw: They do not adequately account for the fact that people who have a diagnosis of chronic pain are a heterogeneous group and require diagnosis-specific treatment planning. A patient-centered approach to opioid tapers must account for the reality that many people who are given a prescription for an opioid to treat pain have significant mental health conditions—for which opioids act as a psychotropic agent. An opioid taper must therefore address psychological trauma, in particular.⁵ (See “Tapering and harm-reduction strategies have failed.”^6-14)

In this article, we present an evidence-based consensus approach to opioid tapering for your practice that is informed by a broader understanding of why patients take prescription opioids and why they, occasionally, switch to illicit drugs when their prescription is tapered. This consensus approach is based on the experience of the authors, members of the pain faculty of Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) of the ECHO Institute, a worldwide initiative that uses adult learning techniques and interactive video technology to connect community providers with specialists at centers of excellence in regular real-time collaborative sessions. We are variously experts in pain medicine, primary care, psychology, addiction medicine, pharmacy, behavioral health therapy, occupational medicine, and Chinese medicine.

Why Americans obtain prescription opioids

There are 4 principal reasons why patients obtain prescription opioids, beyond indicated analgesic uses:

1. Patients seek the antianxiety and antidepressant effects of opioids. Multiple converging lines of evidence suggest that antianxiety and antidepressant effects of opioids are a significant reason that patients in the United States persist in requesting prescriptions for opioids:

• In our experience with more than 500 primary care telemedicine case presentations, at least 50% of patients say that the main effect of opioids prescribed for them is “it makes me feel calm” or “more relaxed.”
• In a 2007 survey of 91,823 US residents older than 18 years, nonmedical use of opioids was statistically associated with panic, social anxiety, and depressive symptoms.¹⁵
• Ten years later, Von Korff and colleagues found that more than half of opioid prescriptions written in the United States were for the small percentage of patients who have a diagnosis of serious anxiety or depression.¹³
• In 2016, Yovell and colleagues reported that ultra-low-dosage buprenorphine markedly reduced suicidal ideation over 4 weeks in 62 patients with varied levels of depression.¹⁶

There is also mechanistic evidence that the antianxiety and antidepressant effects of opioids are significant reasons Americans persist in requesting prescription opioids. The literature suggests that opioid receptors play a role in mood regulation, including alleviation of depression and anxiety; recent research suggests that oxycodone might be a unique mood-altering drug compared to other common prescription opioids because of its ability to affect mood through the δ opioid receptor.^17-20

It should not be a surprise that Americans often turn to opioids to address posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression. A recent study of the state of the US mental health system concluded that mental health services in the United States are inadequate—despite evidence that > 50% of Americans seek, or consider seeking, treatment for mental health problems for themselves or others.²¹

2. Patients experience pain unrelated to tissue damage. Rather, they are in pain “for psychological reasons.”²² In 2016, Davis and Vanderah wrote: “We theorize that a functional change in the [central nervous system] can occur in response to certain emotional states or traumatic experiences (eg, child abuse, assault, accidents).” They connect this change to central sensitization and a reduced pain-perception threshold,²³ and strongly suspect that many patients with chronic pain have undiagnosed and untreated psychological trauma that has changed the way their central nervous system processes sensory stimuli. The authors call this “trauma-induced hyperalgesia.”

Continue to: Psychological trauma...

Psychological trauma is uniquely capable of producing hyperalgesia, compared to anxiety or depression. In a study of veterans, Defrin and colleagues demonstrated hyperalgesia in patients who had a diagnosis of PTSD but not in controls group who had an anxiety disorder only.²⁴

High-dosage prescribing of opioids has fallen by 48% since 2011, yet the decline has not reduced overdose events of any kind.

To support successful opioid tapering, trauma-induced hyperalgesia, when present, must be addressed. Treatment of what the International Association for the Study of Pain calls “pain due to psychological factors”²² requires specific trauma therapy. However, our experience validates what researchers have to say about access to treatment of psychological trauma in the United States: “…[C]linical research has identified certain psychological interventions that effectively ameliorate the symptoms of PTSD. But most people struggling with PTSD don’t receive those treatments.”²⁵

We have no doubt that this is due, in part, to underdiagnosis of psychological trauma, even in mental health clinics. According to Miele and colleagues, “PTSD remains largely undiagnosed and undertreated in mental health outpatients, even in teaching hospitals, with diagnosis rates as low as 4% while published prevalence is between 7% and 50% in this population.”²⁶

3. Patients suffer from opioid use disorder (OUD) and complain of pain to obtain opioids by prescription. For patients with OUD, their use is out of control; they devote increasing mental and physical resources to obtaining, using, and recovering from substances; and they continue to use despite adverse consequences.²⁷ The prevalence of OUD in primary care clinics varies strikingly by the location of clinics. In Washington state, the prevalence of moderate and severe OUD in a large population of patients who had been prescribed opioids through primary care clinics was recently determined to be between 21.5% and 23.9%.¹³

4. Patients are obtaining opioid prescriptions for people other than themselves. While this is a reason that patients obtain opioid prescriptions, it is not necessarily common. Statistics show that the likelihood of a prescription being diverted intentionally is low: Dart and colleagues found that diversion has become uncommon in the general population.²⁸

Continue to: Why we taper opioid analgesics

 

 

Why we taper opioid analgesics

Reasons for an opioid taper include concern that the patient has, or will develop, an OUD; will experience accidental or intentional overdose; might be diverting opioids; is not benefiting from opioid therapy for pain; or is experiencing severe adverse effects. A patient who has nociceptive pain and might have ­opioid-induced hyperalgesia will require a much different opioid taper plan than a patient with untreated PTSD or a patient with severe OUD.

Misunderstanding can lead to inappropriate tapering

We often encounter primary care providers who believe that a large percentage of patients on chronic opioid therapy inevitably develop OUD. This is a common reason for initiating opioid taper. Most patients on a chronic opioid do become physically dependent, but only a small percentage of patients develop psychological dependence (ie, ­addiction or OUD).²⁹

Physical dependence is “a state of adaptation that is manifested by a drug class–­specific withdrawal syndrome that can be produced by abrupt cessation, rapid dose reduction, decreasing blood level of the drug, and/or administration of an antagonist.”³⁰ Symptoms of opioid withdrawal include muscle aches; abdominal cramping; increased lacrimation, rhinorrhea, and perspiration; diarrhea; agitation and anxiety; insomnia; and piloerection. Opioid withdrawal symptoms are caused by physical dependence, not by addiction. They can be mitigated by tapering slowly and instituting adjuvant medications, such as clonidine, to attenuate symptoms.

Psychological dependence, or addiction (that is, OUD, as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition²⁷), comprises primarily 3 behavioral criteria:

• Loss of control of the medication, with compulsive use
• Continued use despite adverse consequences of using opioids, such as arrest for driving under the influence and deterioration of social, family, or work performance
• Obsession or preoccupation with obtaining and using the substance. In properly selected chronic opioid therapy patients, there is evidence that new-onset OUD is not as common as has been thought. A recent study of the risk for opioid addiction after use of an opioid for ≥ 90 days for chronic noncancer pain found that the absolute rate of de novo OUD among patients treated for 90 days was 0.72%.²⁹ A systematic review by Fishbain and colleagues of 24 studies of opioid-exposed patients found a risk of 3.27% overall—0.19% for patients who did not have a history of abuse or addiction.³¹ As Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse Norma Volkow, MD, wrote in 2016: “Addiction occurs in only a small percentage of people who are exposed to opioids—even among those with preexisting vulnerabilities.”³²

Assessment should focus on why the patient is taking an opioid

A strong case can be made that less opioid is better for many of the people for whom these medications are prescribed for chronic noncancer pain. However, a one-size-fits-all dosage reduction and addiction-focused ­approach to opioid tapering has not worked: The assessment and treatment paradigm must change, in our view.

Continue to: During assessment...

During assessment, we must adopt the means to identify the reason that a patient is using a prescription opioid. It is of particular importance that we identify patients using opioids for their psychotropic properties, particularly when the goal is to cope with the effects of psychological trauma. The subsequent treatment protocol will then need to include time for effective, evidence-based behavioral health treatment of anxiety, PTSD, or depression. If opioids are serving primarily as psychotropic medication, an attempt to taper before establishing effective behavioral health treatment might lead the patient to pursue illegal means of procuring opioid medication.

Antianxiety and antidepressant effects of opioids are a significant reason that patients persist in requesting prescriptions.

We acknowledge that primary care physicians are not reimbursed for trauma screening and that evidence-based intensive trauma treatment is generally unavailable in the United States. Both of these shortcomings must be corrected if we want to stem the opioid crisis.

If diversion is suspected and there is evidence that the patient is not currently taking prescribed opioids (eg, a negative urine drug screen), discontinuing the opioid prescription is the immediate next step for the sake of public safety.

Considering a taper? Take this 5-step approach

Once it appears that tapering an opioid is indicated, we propose that you take the following steps:

• Establish whether it is safe to continue prescribing (follow the route provided in “2 decisions to make before continuing to prescribe an opioid for chronic noncancer pain”); if continuing it is not safe, take steps to protect the patient and the community
• Determine whether assessment by a trauma-informed behavioral health expert is needed, assuming that, in your judgment, it is safe to continue the opioid (TABLE³³). When behavioral health assessment is needed, you need 3 questions answered by that assessment: (1) Are psychological factors present that might put the patient at risk during an opioid taper? (2) What are those factors? (3) What needs to done about them before the taper is started? Recalling that psychological trauma often is not assessed by behavioral health colleagues, it is necessary to provide the behavioral health provider with a specific request to assess trauma burden, and state the physical diagnoses that are causing pain or provide a clear statement that no such diagnoses can be made. (See the FIGURE, which we developed in conjunction with behavioral health colleagues to help the consultant understand what the primary care physician needs from a behavioral health assessment.)
• Obtain consultation from a physical therapist, pain medicine specialist, and, if possible, an alternative or complementary medicine provider to determine what nonpharmacotherapeutic modalities can be instituted to treat pain before tapering the opioid.
• Initiate the Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) approach if OUD is suspected (www.samhsa.gov/sbirt).³⁴ This motivational interviewing tool identifies patients with a substance use disorder, severity of use, and appropriate level of treatment. (If OUD is suspected during assessment, next steps are to stop prescribing and implement harm-reduction strategies, such as primary care level medically assisted treatment [MAT] with buprenorphine, followed by expert behavioral health-centered addiction treatment.)
• Experiment with dosage reduction according to published guidance, if (1) psychological factors are absent or have been adequately addressed, according to the behavioral health consultant, and (2) nonpharmacotherapeutic strategies are in place.^8-11

Shifting to a patient-centered approach

The timing and choice of opioid tapers, in relation to harm reduction and intervention targeting the root cause of a patient’s complaint of pain, have not been adequately explored. In our practice, we’ve shifted from an addiction-centered, dosage-centered approach to opioid taper to a patient-centered approach³⁵ that emphasizes behavioral-medical integration—an approach that we broadly endorse. Such an approach (1) is based on a clear understanding of why the patient is taking opioid pain medication, (2) engages medical and complementary or alternative medicine specialists, (3) addresses underdiagnosis of psychological trauma, and (4) requires a quantum leap in access to trauma-specific behavioral health treatment resources. ³⁶

Continue to: To underscore the case...

To underscore the case for shifting to a patient-centered approach³⁵ we present sample cases in “How a patient-centered approach to tapering opioids looks in practice.”

An eye toward the future. To inform future approaches to opioid tapering, more resources need to be deployed to

• support screening and risk stratification for PTSD, anxiety, and related disorders at the primary care level,
• continue the effort to identify and treat OUD,
• develop best-practice responses to screening, and
• make harm-reduction strategies that are now reserved for patients with OUD available to those who don't have OUD.

We urge that research be pursued into best practices for chronic pain interventions that target psychological trauma, anxiety, and depression.

CORRESPONDENCE
Bennet Davis MD, 2092 East Calle de Dulcinea, Tucson, AZ 85718; [email protected].

In vitro laboratory and in vivo animal models support the biologic plausibility that chronic infection is a potential cause of asthma.^1,2 Arising from that hypothesis, macrolide antibiotics have been the subject of clinical trials and other studies to determine whether these drugs are efficacious in the long-term management of asthma in adults and children. Macrolides might also have immunomodulatory and antiviral properties that can benefit patients with asthma.³

In vitro laboratory and in vivo animal models support the biologic plausibility that chronic infection is a potential cause of asthma.

This article looks at the evidence and clinical scenarios for the use of macrolides in asthma, provides proposed dosing schedules, and reviews associated concerns, including adverse effects, risk of bacterial resistance, and cost.

3 cases to consider

CASE 1 Paul D developed severe, refractory asthma at 30 years of age after an acute respiratory illness. At age 40, he was treated with 14 weekly doses of azithromycin. His asthma resolved slowly over 12 months.

Outcome. Mr. D has remained free of symptoms of ­asthma for more than 20 years.

CASE 2 Casey K developed severe wheezing at 18 months of age after an acute respiratory illness. Refractory asthma symptoms persisted until 6 years of age, at which time he was given 12 weekly doses of azithromycin. Asthma symptoms gradually resolved.

Outcome. Casey was able to resume normal physical ­activities, including competitive swimming.

CASE 3 Amy S, who had no history of respiratory problems, presented at 30 years of age with a 3-month history of wheezing and dyspnea after an acute respiratory illness. She was treated symptomatically with bronchodilators; wheezing failed to resolve. After 6 months of persistent wheezing that significantly affected her exercise capacity, Ms. S was given a diagnosis of persistent asthma and received 12 weekly doses of azithromycin.

[polldaddy:10475438]

Continue to: Outcome...

Outcome. Ms. S’s symptoms resolved completely within months.

Evidence of benefit of macrolides in asthma

These 3 cases, taken from my practice (but with names changed), demonstrate the therapeutic potential of macrolide antibiotics for patients with asthma under specific clinical circumstances. The cases are referenced again in the following examination of the literature on macrolides for asthma

Meta-analysis. Reiter et al⁴ performed a meta-analysis of 12 randomized clinical trials of macrolides for long-term management of asthma in children and adults. Prolonged treatment was defined as > 3 weeks of continuous administration of a macrolide. The pooled effect of macrolides on forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) was not significant; however, a significant effect on peak expiratory flow, symptom scores, quality of life, and airway hyperreactivity was observed.

Comment: The study’s authors concluded: “Macrolides may therefore be beneficial as adjunct asthma therapy. Future trials, focusing on long-term safety and effectiveness, should use standardized outcomes and ­procedures.”

Cochrane meta-analysis. Kew et al⁵ performed a meta-analysis of 23 studies of macrolides for managing chronic asthma for the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. In their review, they reported

• no significant effects of macrolides on asthma exacerbations, asthma control, quality of life, and rescue medication use; and
• significant effects of macrolides for asthma symptoms and FEV₁.

Continue to: Two within-study subgroup...

Some patients with asthma who respond to azithromycin experience persistent improvement after antibiotic treatment.

Two within-study subgroup analyses showed a possible benefit of macrolides for non-­eosinophilic asthma, defined by a predominance of neutrophils in a bronchoalveolar lavage specimen. Kew et al⁵ noted that (1) most of the evidence examined in the review was of low quality and (2) inclusion criteria, interventions, and outcomes were highly variable.

Comment: The validity of a meta-analysis depends on the validity and similarity of underlying trials. Both meta-analyses just described were characterized by (1) grouping trials of older and newer macrolides and (2) significant selection bias in the underlying trials.

Selection bias is prevalent in asthma research and is a major contributor to uncertainty: Randomized controlled trials upon which guideline treatments are based have systematically excluded > 90% of people with asthma.⁶ Exclusions include past or current smoking, the asthma–chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) overlap syndrome, severe asthma, and acute respiratory illness; these exclusion criteria have also been applied to studies of macrolides. Importantly, patients in the excluded groups are probably those most likely to respond to a macrolide.² Pragmatic effectiveness studies (broad eligibility criteria, adequate duration of azithromycin treatment, a posttreatment observation period, and pre-specified biomarker subgroup analyses) have been recommended to address the hypothesis of what has been termed infectious asthma.²

Inconsistent evidence, the generally poor quality of underlying studies, and uncertainty about which subgroup(s) of asthma patients might benefit all contribute to a strength of recommendation of “B” for treating asthma with macrolides. Two recent randomized trials^7,8 that were not included in the cited meta-analyses, along with other evidence,² point to 2 groups of patients who are candidates for a trial of azithromycin: those with severe refractory asthma and those with new-onset asthma.

Clinical trial in adults. Gibson et al⁷ conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of azithromycin 500 mg 3 times a week or placebo for 1 year in 420 adults who had uncontrolled persistent asthma despite taking medium-to-high doses of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus a long-acting β agonist (LABA) (the AMAZES [Asthma and Macrolides: The Azithromycin Efficacy and Safety] trial; Level 1 study). The mean baseline asthma control questionnaire score was 1.5, equivalent to an Asthma Control Test (ACT) score* of 15.⁹

Continue to: Azithromycin reduced the frequency...

Azithromycin reduced the frequency of asthma exacerbations (to 1.07 per patient–year for azithromycin, compared with 1.86 per patient–year for placebo [incidence rate ratio = 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.47-0.74]). The percentage of patients experiencing at least 1 exacerbation was reduced with azithromycin treatment (61% of patients in the placebo group experienced ≥ 1 exacerbation, compared with 44% in the azithromycin group [P < .0001; number needed to treat = 6]). Asthma quality of life was also improved by azithromycin (P = .001).

There was no significant difference between azithromycin and placebo in the overall rate of serious adverse events. Diarrhea that did not require treatment discontinuation was more common in patients treated with azithromycin (34%) than in the placebo group (19%). There was no posttreatment observation period to assess whether these azithromycin benefits waned or persisted after treatment was stopped.

Other evidence¹⁰ indicates that at least some patients who respond to azithromycin will experience persistent improvement after antibiotic treatment is completed (see CASE 1).

Pediatric clinical trial. Stokholm et al⁸ performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of azithromycin in children 1 to 3 years of age who had been given a diagnosis of recurrent asthma-like symptoms (Level 1 study). Treatment was a 3-day course of azithromycin oral solution, 10 mg/kg/d, or placebo. Random allocation was performed for 158 asthma-like episodes in 72 children.

Azithromycin reduced the wheezing episode to a mean duration of 3.4 days, compared with 7.7 days for placebo (risk reduction = 63.3%; 95% CI, 56%-69.3% [P < .0001]). Effect size increased with early initiation of treatment: ie, an 83% reduction in episode duration was seen when treatment was initiated before Day 6 of the episode, compared with a 36% reduction if treatment was initiated on or after Day 6 (P < .0001).

Continue to: No differences between...

No differences between the randomized groups were observed in clinical adverse ­effects.

Comment: The brief course of azithromycin provided to patients in this trial did not have a significant impact on time to next episode of troublesome lung symptoms in ­individual children. Previous clinical observations have suggested that a longer duration of treatment (3-6 months) might be required to achieve lasting improvement or remission in selected patients with asthma (see CASE 2).^10,11 The short-term benefit of azithromycin for acute wheezing is limited to children: Two comparable acute dosing trials in adults have shown little¹² or no¹³ short-term benefit; however, these negative findings have been ­hypothesized to be the result of selection bias.¹⁴

Other evidence is worth examining

Other studies not included in the meta-­analyses of randomized controlled trials provide additional evidence to support a recommendation of a trial of azithromycin in patients with severe, refractory, or new-onset asthma.

Nonrandomized controlled evidence. AZMATICS (AZithroMycin/Asthma Trial In Community Settings)¹⁵ is the sole randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of long-term azithromycin that included a 9-month posttreatment observation period. Seventy-five participants were randomized to receive a loading dose of 600 mg of azithromycin or placebo once daily for 3 days in Week 1. They then received either azithromycin 600 mg or placebo once weekly for 11 weeks. Posttreatment observation was performed until 48 weeks after randomization.

However, many eligible subjects, whom the principal investigator believed were ­ideal candidates for randomization, declined randomization because they did not want to risk receiving placebo. To accommodate those patients, the protocol was amended to include an open-label (OL) azithromycin arm, in which each participant’s personal physician prescribed azithromycin 750 mg for 11 weeks after a loading dose¹⁶ (OL cohort only, Level 2 study: controlled, nonrandomized, ­nonblinded). The OL group had (1) a higher baseline prevalence of severe, persistent asthma (32%) than the randomized group (8%) (P = .012); and (2) worse asthma quality of life than the randomized patients (P = .023). The OL group represented selection bias attributable to patient preference.

Continue to: The less severely...

The less severely affected randomized group of the trial did not exhibit significant effects attributable to azithromycin. The more severely affected OL cohort demonstrated significant, and large, azithromycin treatment effects for asthma symptoms, asthma quality of life, and asthma control (P < .05 for both groups; number needed to treat [NNT] = 3) that persisted during the posttreatment observation period.

There is no direct evidence that the benefit of azithromycin in asthma is limited to patients who have positive infection biomarkers.

Comment: The authors concluded: “Pending further randomized trials and given the relative safety of azithromycin and the significant disease burden from severe, refractory asthma, prescribing prolonged azithromycin therapy to patients with uncontrolled asthma may be considered by managing clinicians, particularly for patients who have failed to respond to conventional treatment and as an alternative to instituting immunomodulatory agents.”¹⁵

Before-and-after trial. Forty-six patients with moderate or severe chronic, persistent, stable asthma were selected as a cohort unlikely to experience spontaneous remission (ie, patients in exacerbation were excluded) (Level 2 study: prospective cohort).¹⁷ Subjects were treated for a median of 4 weeks (range, 3 to 9 weeks) with oral doxycycline, 100 mg bid; azithromycin, 1000 mg, once weekly; or erythromycin, 1000 mg/d in divided doses. Average duration of posttreatment follow-up was 6 months. All subjects were positive for antibodies to Chlamydia pneumoniae.

Four patients with diagnosed acuteC pneumoniae respiratory infection developed chronic asthma, which disappeared in each case after treatment. Of the other 42 seroreactive patients who were treated a mean of 6 years after they developed chronic asthma, 21 had either complete remission of asthma symptoms (n = 3) or major persistent clinical improvement (n = 18). Clinical improvement was more likely to occur in patients with early disease (P = .01) and before development of fixed airway obstruction (P < .01).

These results are consistent with the hypothesis that chronic infection of the lower respiratory tract contributes to the development and progression of asthma.¹⁷ Although clinical improvement was more likely in early asthma compared with asthma with fixed airway obstruction, improvement was nevertheless noted in the latter group.

Continue to: Physicians should also note...

Physicians should also note the landmark trial of azithromycin in severe, smoking-­associated COPD, which found a clinically significant benefit in reducing exacerbations and improving quality of life (NNT = 3, to prevent 1 exacerbation).¹⁸

Case series. In a prospective case series (Level 2 study: prospective cohort), 163 primary care outpatients (adolescents and adults) who had acute wheezing illnesses or chronic asthma were evaluated for C pneumoniae infection by serologic testing.¹⁹ A subgroup of this cohort also had nasopharyngeal cultures tested for C pneumoniae.

Rather than increasing the risk of asthma by disrupting the “healthy” microbiome, azithromycin might be helpful in treating an “unhealthy” microbiome.

Twenty patients (12%) were given a diagnosis of C pneumoniae infection defined by serology (n = 15), culture isolation (n = 3), or both (n = 2). Of the 20, 10 wheezed for the first time—6 of whom subsequently developed chronic asthma (n = 5) or chronic bronchitis (n = 1), with a serologic profile suggesting chronic infection. The other 10 patients who had a diagnosis of C pneumoniae infection already had a diagnosis of chronic asthma. In patients with established chronic asthma, initial serologic findings suggested chronic, rather than acute, C pneumoniae infection.

Tx recommendations: When to consider azithromycin

Randomized⁷ and nonrandomized¹⁵ evidence supports treating severely uncontrolled or refractory asthma (strength of recommendation [SOR], B); no comparable randomized trials of azithromycin have been conducted for new-onset asthma (SOR, C). Consider prescribing empiric azithromycin for patients with new-onset asthma in the context of shared decision making about potential benefits, harms, and consequences of chronic asthma (SOR, C).

It is important to note that wheezing is frequently associated with uncomplicated acute bronchitis that resolves spontaneously without antibiotic treatment.¹¹ Azithromycin treatment for new-onset asthma should therefore be reserved for patients in whom apparent uncomplicated acute bronchitis fails to resolve after 3 to 6 months, and whose illness is diagnosable as asthma (see CASE 3).¹⁰

Continue to: Do biomarkers predict response?

 

 

Do biomarkers predict response?

Confirming C pneumoniae infection by bronchoscopy before beginning treatment has been recommended²⁰ but might be impractical; also, diagnostic testing for C pneumoniae is limited in availability and has potentially low sensitivity for diagnosing chronic deep lung infection.

So should you test for C pneumoniae biomarkers (or for biomarkers of Mycoplasma pneumoniae, another atypical infection implicated in the pathogenesis of asthma²¹) before initiating treatment? Azithromycin has antimicrobial, immunomodulatory, and potential antiviral properties.³ The body of evidence reviewed here indicates that the effects of macrolides on asthma might be, at least in part, antimicrobial. However, there is no direct evidence that the benefit of azithromycin in asthma is limited to patients who have positive infection biomarkers.²² Therefore, infection biomarker testing as a decision aid cannot be recommended at this time (although future research might alter this ­recommendation).

Acute bronchitis and asthma-onset ­associated with an acute lower respiratory tract infection have been statistically associated with biomarkers of C pneumoniae infection.²³ However, C pneumoniae biomarkers are also prevalent in patients who have asthma that is not associated with an infectious onset.²³ Several other matters are worth noting:

• C pneumoniae-specific IgA²³ and IgE²⁴ are promising biomarkers that deserve further investigation.
• M pneumoniae infection has also been associated with asthma and a response to antibiotic therapy.^21,25
• Noneosinophilic severe asthma is another potential predictive characteristic.²⁶ The applicability of this biomarker to primary care practice is limited, however, by the invasive nature of bronchoscopy and by the uncertain validity of the diagnostic concept: There is no guarantee that dynamic inflammatory infiltrates remain stable over a lifetime. Furthermore, the AMAZES Trial⁷ reported that azithromycin benefit was comparable in eosinophilic and noneosinophilic asthma.

Potential for harm withlong-term macrolide use?

Controversies about the role of macrolides in asthma involve uncertainty about who might benefit from treatment and the potential harms of macrolides use (TABLE 1^27,28 and discussed below).²⁹

Adverse effects. The newer macrolides azithromycin and clarithromycin offer favorable safety and tolerability profiles, compared with those of older agents.³⁰ In clinical trials of azithromycin, gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea) were usually mild or moderate and rarely (< 2% of subjects) required discontinuation of study medication.^31,32Clostridium difficile diarrhea has not been reported in any of the large clinical trials, in which thousands of patients received azithromycin for 3 to 12 months.^31,32 The major clinical “side ­effects” attributable to azithromycin are a significant reduction, compared to placebo, in acute respiratory illness, bronchitis, pneumonia, and sinusitis.^31,32

Continue to: Antibiotic resistance

Antibiotic resistance. Exposure of populations to macrolides can increase the percentage of macrolide-resistant bacterial respiratory pathogens³³; policies aimed at decreasing inappropriate macrolide prescribing can significantly lower that percentage.³⁴ There is no evidence, however, of any detrimental effects of macrolide resistance in individual patients receiving azithromycin.³³

Physicians who prescribe long-term azithromycin should instruct patients to report any hearing loss.

In trials of azithromycin for the treatment of trachoma in Africa, significantly fewer deaths occurred in villages where subjects were treated with azithromycin than in villages where azithromycin therapy was not provided.³⁵ In the United States, weekly azithromycin treatment for 3 to 12 months in adults with heart disease resulted in fewer cases of acute bronchitis and pneumonia, compared with the placebo-treated groups^31,32; similar benefit for azithromycin was seen in children who had recurrent lung infection.^8,36

Nevertheless, concern over the spread of macrolide-resistant bacteria to the surrounding community is a concern and a possibility—and should be the subject of future research.

Sudden cardiac death. In a Medicaid population, the risk of sudden cardiac death from taking a macrolide among patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease was 1 in ­every 4000 administrations.²⁷ Compare that level of risk with the 1 in 167 risk of an acute cardiovascular event in patients with COPD who start taking a LABA.³⁷ There is no detectable increase in the risk of sudden cardiac death when taking azithromycin in the general (ie, average cardiovascular risk) population^38,39 or when azithromycin is coadministered with a LABA.³

Hearing loss. An excess of 18 (< 1%) patients affected by hearing loss, 7 of whom sought medical attention, was reported among 2004 patients who had stable coronary artery disease and had been treated once weekly with azithromycin for 12 months (P = .02, compared with placebo).³² In another study, hearing test changes leading to discontinuation of azithromycin were detected in an excess of 32 (2.8%) of 1142 patients with COPD treated daily for 1 year.¹⁸

Continue to: Physicians who prescribe...

Physicians who prescribe long-term azithromycin should instruct patients to report any hearing loss.

Drug–drug interactions. Azithromycin is free of the drug–drug interactions characteristic of conventional macrolides, such as clarithromycin.⁴⁰ Nevertheless:

• Caution is advised when giving azithromycin in conjunction with coumadin or theophylline.
• Giving azithromycin with antacids that contain aluminum or magnesium salts can reduce the rate, although not the extent, of the absorption of ­azithromycin.
• The serum concentration of azithromycin is markedly increased when it is given with nelfinavir.⁴⁰

Microbiome effects. The host microbiome can have a significant effect on the risk of asthma.² A cross-sectional study indicated that lower respiratory bacterial burden is greater in patients with asthma, compared with that of healthy control subjects, and correlates with bronchial hyperresponsiveness.⁴¹ Early colonization of the infant nasopharynx, particularly with Streptococcus spp, is a predictor of asthma risk.^42,43 Bacterial pathogens in the nasopharyngeal biome at the time of upper respiratory viral infection are significant determinants of risk for the spread of infection to the lower airways, suggesting that these microorganisms contribute to the risk of persistent asthma.⁴¹

In the long run, azithromycin was 10 to 20 times as cost effective as the other 3 therapeutic options for improving asthma qualityof-life outcomes.

Investigators have speculated that, rather than increasing the risk of asthma by disrupting the “healthy” microbiome, azithromycin might be helpful in treating an “unhealthy” microbiome.^42,43 Recently, it was shown in a randomized trial that azithromycin induced a perturbation in the gut microbiota of children 14 days after randomization, although the drug did not have a long-lasting effect on the composition of gut microbiota.⁴⁴

Consider a trial of azithromycin for patients who have new-onset asthma.

What about cost?

Inhaled corticosteroids and combination formulations of an ICS and a LABA are expensive and must be taken for the long term. A 3-month course of generic azithromycin—comparable to what was used in the OL subgroup of AZMATICS¹⁵—costs about as much as 1 ICS and LABA combination inhaler. Using published results,^15,45 a pilot cost-effectiveness analysis in patients with persistent asthma compared doubling the ICS dosage, adding salmeterol, adding tiotropium, or prescribing 3 months of azithromycin. In the long run, azithromycin was 10 to 20 times as cost-effective as the other 3 therapeutic options for improving asthma quality-of-life outcomes.* However, reliable cost-effectiveness analyses require more, and better, evidence.

Continue to: Recommendations to reflect on for your practice

 

 

Recommendations to reflect on for your practice

Table 2^7,15 outlines selected long-term (≥ 3 months) macrolide dosing schedules in the management of asthma. Consider a trial of azithromycin for your patients

• whose asthma is refractory (poorly controlled persistent asthma), despite treatment with either an ICS and LABA combination or an ICS and long-acting muscarinic antagonist combination; and
• who have new-onset asthma.

At press time, the European Respiratory Journal published a patient-level meta-analysis that demonstrates that maintenance use of azithromycin decreases exacerbations in adults with asthma. To learn more, go to https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/54/5/1901381

Last, there is no evidence for or against prescribing azithromycin for patients who have chronic asthma that is not refractory but is uncontrolled because they are not being treated according to guidelines.

*Data available from the author upon request. See “Correspondence,” at end of article.

CORRESPONDENCE
David L. Hahn, MD, MS, Department of Family Medicine & Community Health, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, 1100 Delaplaine Court, Madison, WI 53715; [email protected].

In vitro laboratory and in vivo animal models support the biologic plausibility that chronic infection is a potential cause of asthma.^1,2 Arising from that hypothesis, macrolide antibiotics have been the subject of clinical trials and other studies to determine whether these drugs are efficacious in the long-term management of asthma in adults and children. Macrolides might also have immunomodulatory and antiviral properties that can benefit patients with asthma.³

In vitro laboratory and in vivo animal models support the biologic plausibility that chronic infection is a potential cause of asthma.

This article looks at the evidence and clinical scenarios for the use of macrolides in asthma, provides proposed dosing schedules, and reviews associated concerns, including adverse effects, risk of bacterial resistance, and cost.

3 cases to consider

CASE 1 Paul D developed severe, refractory asthma at 30 years of age after an acute respiratory illness. At age 40, he was treated with 14 weekly doses of azithromycin. His asthma resolved slowly over 12 months.

Outcome. Mr. D has remained free of symptoms of ­asthma for more than 20 years.

CASE 2 Casey K developed severe wheezing at 18 months of age after an acute respiratory illness. Refractory asthma symptoms persisted until 6 years of age, at which time he was given 12 weekly doses of azithromycin. Asthma symptoms gradually resolved.

Outcome. Casey was able to resume normal physical ­activities, including competitive swimming.

CASE 3 Amy S, who had no history of respiratory problems, presented at 30 years of age with a 3-month history of wheezing and dyspnea after an acute respiratory illness. She was treated symptomatically with bronchodilators; wheezing failed to resolve. After 6 months of persistent wheezing that significantly affected her exercise capacity, Ms. S was given a diagnosis of persistent asthma and received 12 weekly doses of azithromycin.

[polldaddy:10475438]

Continue to: Outcome...

Outcome. Ms. S’s symptoms resolved completely within months.

Evidence of benefit of macrolides in asthma

These 3 cases, taken from my practice (but with names changed), demonstrate the therapeutic potential of macrolide antibiotics for patients with asthma under specific clinical circumstances. The cases are referenced again in the following examination of the literature on macrolides for asthma

Meta-analysis. Reiter et al⁴ performed a meta-analysis of 12 randomized clinical trials of macrolides for long-term management of asthma in children and adults. Prolonged treatment was defined as > 3 weeks of continuous administration of a macrolide. The pooled effect of macrolides on forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) was not significant; however, a significant effect on peak expiratory flow, symptom scores, quality of life, and airway hyperreactivity was observed.

Comment: The study’s authors concluded: “Macrolides may therefore be beneficial as adjunct asthma therapy. Future trials, focusing on long-term safety and effectiveness, should use standardized outcomes and ­procedures.”

Cochrane meta-analysis. Kew et al⁵ performed a meta-analysis of 23 studies of macrolides for managing chronic asthma for the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. In their review, they reported

• no significant effects of macrolides on asthma exacerbations, asthma control, quality of life, and rescue medication use; and
• significant effects of macrolides for asthma symptoms and FEV₁.

Continue to: Two within-study subgroup...

Some patients with asthma who respond to azithromycin experience persistent improvement after antibiotic treatment.

Two within-study subgroup analyses showed a possible benefit of macrolides for non-­eosinophilic asthma, defined by a predominance of neutrophils in a bronchoalveolar lavage specimen. Kew et al⁵ noted that (1) most of the evidence examined in the review was of low quality and (2) inclusion criteria, interventions, and outcomes were highly variable.

Comment: The validity of a meta-analysis depends on the validity and similarity of underlying trials. Both meta-analyses just described were characterized by (1) grouping trials of older and newer macrolides and (2) significant selection bias in the underlying trials.

Selection bias is prevalent in asthma research and is a major contributor to uncertainty: Randomized controlled trials upon which guideline treatments are based have systematically excluded > 90% of people with asthma.⁶ Exclusions include past or current smoking, the asthma–chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) overlap syndrome, severe asthma, and acute respiratory illness; these exclusion criteria have also been applied to studies of macrolides. Importantly, patients in the excluded groups are probably those most likely to respond to a macrolide.² Pragmatic effectiveness studies (broad eligibility criteria, adequate duration of azithromycin treatment, a posttreatment observation period, and pre-specified biomarker subgroup analyses) have been recommended to address the hypothesis of what has been termed infectious asthma.²

Inconsistent evidence, the generally poor quality of underlying studies, and uncertainty about which subgroup(s) of asthma patients might benefit all contribute to a strength of recommendation of “B” for treating asthma with macrolides. Two recent randomized trials^7,8 that were not included in the cited meta-analyses, along with other evidence,² point to 2 groups of patients who are candidates for a trial of azithromycin: those with severe refractory asthma and those with new-onset asthma.

Clinical trial in adults. Gibson et al⁷ conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of azithromycin 500 mg 3 times a week or placebo for 1 year in 420 adults who had uncontrolled persistent asthma despite taking medium-to-high doses of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus a long-acting β agonist (LABA) (the AMAZES [Asthma and Macrolides: The Azithromycin Efficacy and Safety] trial; Level 1 study). The mean baseline asthma control questionnaire score was 1.5, equivalent to an Asthma Control Test (ACT) score* of 15.⁹

Continue to: Azithromycin reduced the frequency...

Azithromycin reduced the frequency of asthma exacerbations (to 1.07 per patient–year for azithromycin, compared with 1.86 per patient–year for placebo [incidence rate ratio = 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.47-0.74]). The percentage of patients experiencing at least 1 exacerbation was reduced with azithromycin treatment (61% of patients in the placebo group experienced ≥ 1 exacerbation, compared with 44% in the azithromycin group [P < .0001; number needed to treat = 6]). Asthma quality of life was also improved by azithromycin (P = .001).

There was no significant difference between azithromycin and placebo in the overall rate of serious adverse events. Diarrhea that did not require treatment discontinuation was more common in patients treated with azithromycin (34%) than in the placebo group (19%). There was no posttreatment observation period to assess whether these azithromycin benefits waned or persisted after treatment was stopped.

Other evidence¹⁰ indicates that at least some patients who respond to azithromycin will experience persistent improvement after antibiotic treatment is completed (see CASE 1).

Pediatric clinical trial. Stokholm et al⁸ performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of azithromycin in children 1 to 3 years of age who had been given a diagnosis of recurrent asthma-like symptoms (Level 1 study). Treatment was a 3-day course of azithromycin oral solution, 10 mg/kg/d, or placebo. Random allocation was performed for 158 asthma-like episodes in 72 children.

Azithromycin reduced the wheezing episode to a mean duration of 3.4 days, compared with 7.7 days for placebo (risk reduction = 63.3%; 95% CI, 56%-69.3% [P < .0001]). Effect size increased with early initiation of treatment: ie, an 83% reduction in episode duration was seen when treatment was initiated before Day 6 of the episode, compared with a 36% reduction if treatment was initiated on or after Day 6 (P < .0001).

Continue to: No differences between...

No differences between the randomized groups were observed in clinical adverse ­effects.

Comment: The brief course of azithromycin provided to patients in this trial did not have a significant impact on time to next episode of troublesome lung symptoms in ­individual children. Previous clinical observations have suggested that a longer duration of treatment (3-6 months) might be required to achieve lasting improvement or remission in selected patients with asthma (see CASE 2).^10,11 The short-term benefit of azithromycin for acute wheezing is limited to children: Two comparable acute dosing trials in adults have shown little¹² or no¹³ short-term benefit; however, these negative findings have been ­hypothesized to be the result of selection bias.¹⁴

Other evidence is worth examining

Other studies not included in the meta-­analyses of randomized controlled trials provide additional evidence to support a recommendation of a trial of azithromycin in patients with severe, refractory, or new-onset asthma.

Nonrandomized controlled evidence. AZMATICS (AZithroMycin/Asthma Trial In Community Settings)¹⁵ is the sole randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of long-term azithromycin that included a 9-month posttreatment observation period. Seventy-five participants were randomized to receive a loading dose of 600 mg of azithromycin or placebo once daily for 3 days in Week 1. They then received either azithromycin 600 mg or placebo once weekly for 11 weeks. Posttreatment observation was performed until 48 weeks after randomization.

However, many eligible subjects, whom the principal investigator believed were ­ideal candidates for randomization, declined randomization because they did not want to risk receiving placebo. To accommodate those patients, the protocol was amended to include an open-label (OL) azithromycin arm, in which each participant’s personal physician prescribed azithromycin 750 mg for 11 weeks after a loading dose¹⁶ (OL cohort only, Level 2 study: controlled, nonrandomized, ­nonblinded). The OL group had (1) a higher baseline prevalence of severe, persistent asthma (32%) than the randomized group (8%) (P = .012); and (2) worse asthma quality of life than the randomized patients (P = .023). The OL group represented selection bias attributable to patient preference.

Continue to: The less severely...

The less severely affected randomized group of the trial did not exhibit significant effects attributable to azithromycin. The more severely affected OL cohort demonstrated significant, and large, azithromycin treatment effects for asthma symptoms, asthma quality of life, and asthma control (P < .05 for both groups; number needed to treat [NNT] = 3) that persisted during the posttreatment observation period.

There is no direct evidence that the benefit of azithromycin in asthma is limited to patients who have positive infection biomarkers.

Comment: The authors concluded: “Pending further randomized trials and given the relative safety of azithromycin and the significant disease burden from severe, refractory asthma, prescribing prolonged azithromycin therapy to patients with uncontrolled asthma may be considered by managing clinicians, particularly for patients who have failed to respond to conventional treatment and as an alternative to instituting immunomodulatory agents.”¹⁵

Before-and-after trial. Forty-six patients with moderate or severe chronic, persistent, stable asthma were selected as a cohort unlikely to experience spontaneous remission (ie, patients in exacerbation were excluded) (Level 2 study: prospective cohort).¹⁷ Subjects were treated for a median of 4 weeks (range, 3 to 9 weeks) with oral doxycycline, 100 mg bid; azithromycin, 1000 mg, once weekly; or erythromycin, 1000 mg/d in divided doses. Average duration of posttreatment follow-up was 6 months. All subjects were positive for antibodies to Chlamydia pneumoniae.

Four patients with diagnosed acuteC pneumoniae respiratory infection developed chronic asthma, which disappeared in each case after treatment. Of the other 42 seroreactive patients who were treated a mean of 6 years after they developed chronic asthma, 21 had either complete remission of asthma symptoms (n = 3) or major persistent clinical improvement (n = 18). Clinical improvement was more likely to occur in patients with early disease (P = .01) and before development of fixed airway obstruction (P < .01).

These results are consistent with the hypothesis that chronic infection of the lower respiratory tract contributes to the development and progression of asthma.¹⁷ Although clinical improvement was more likely in early asthma compared with asthma with fixed airway obstruction, improvement was nevertheless noted in the latter group.

Continue to: Physicians should also note...

Physicians should also note the landmark trial of azithromycin in severe, smoking-­associated COPD, which found a clinically significant benefit in reducing exacerbations and improving quality of life (NNT = 3, to prevent 1 exacerbation).¹⁸

Case series. In a prospective case series (Level 2 study: prospective cohort), 163 primary care outpatients (adolescents and adults) who had acute wheezing illnesses or chronic asthma were evaluated for C pneumoniae infection by serologic testing.¹⁹ A subgroup of this cohort also had nasopharyngeal cultures tested for C pneumoniae.

Rather than increasing the risk of asthma by disrupting the “healthy” microbiome, azithromycin might be helpful in treating an “unhealthy” microbiome.

Twenty patients (12%) were given a diagnosis of C pneumoniae infection defined by serology (n = 15), culture isolation (n = 3), or both (n = 2). Of the 20, 10 wheezed for the first time—6 of whom subsequently developed chronic asthma (n = 5) or chronic bronchitis (n = 1), with a serologic profile suggesting chronic infection. The other 10 patients who had a diagnosis of C pneumoniae infection already had a diagnosis of chronic asthma. In patients with established chronic asthma, initial serologic findings suggested chronic, rather than acute, C pneumoniae infection.

Tx recommendations: When to consider azithromycin

Randomized⁷ and nonrandomized¹⁵ evidence supports treating severely uncontrolled or refractory asthma (strength of recommendation [SOR], B); no comparable randomized trials of azithromycin have been conducted for new-onset asthma (SOR, C). Consider prescribing empiric azithromycin for patients with new-onset asthma in the context of shared decision making about potential benefits, harms, and consequences of chronic asthma (SOR, C).

It is important to note that wheezing is frequently associated with uncomplicated acute bronchitis that resolves spontaneously without antibiotic treatment.¹¹ Azithromycin treatment for new-onset asthma should therefore be reserved for patients in whom apparent uncomplicated acute bronchitis fails to resolve after 3 to 6 months, and whose illness is diagnosable as asthma (see CASE 3).¹⁰

Continue to: Do biomarkers predict response?

 

 

Do biomarkers predict response?

Confirming C pneumoniae infection by bronchoscopy before beginning treatment has been recommended²⁰ but might be impractical; also, diagnostic testing for C pneumoniae is limited in availability and has potentially low sensitivity for diagnosing chronic deep lung infection.

So should you test for C pneumoniae biomarkers (or for biomarkers of Mycoplasma pneumoniae, another atypical infection implicated in the pathogenesis of asthma²¹) before initiating treatment? Azithromycin has antimicrobial, immunomodulatory, and potential antiviral properties.³ The body of evidence reviewed here indicates that the effects of macrolides on asthma might be, at least in part, antimicrobial. However, there is no direct evidence that the benefit of azithromycin in asthma is limited to patients who have positive infection biomarkers.²² Therefore, infection biomarker testing as a decision aid cannot be recommended at this time (although future research might alter this ­recommendation).

Acute bronchitis and asthma-onset ­associated with an acute lower respiratory tract infection have been statistically associated with biomarkers of C pneumoniae infection.²³ However, C pneumoniae biomarkers are also prevalent in patients who have asthma that is not associated with an infectious onset.²³ Several other matters are worth noting:

• C pneumoniae-specific IgA²³ and IgE²⁴ are promising biomarkers that deserve further investigation.
• M pneumoniae infection has also been associated with asthma and a response to antibiotic therapy.^21,25
• Noneosinophilic severe asthma is another potential predictive characteristic.²⁶ The applicability of this biomarker to primary care practice is limited, however, by the invasive nature of bronchoscopy and by the uncertain validity of the diagnostic concept: There is no guarantee that dynamic inflammatory infiltrates remain stable over a lifetime. Furthermore, the AMAZES Trial⁷ reported that azithromycin benefit was comparable in eosinophilic and noneosinophilic asthma.

Potential for harm withlong-term macrolide use?

Controversies about the role of macrolides in asthma involve uncertainty about who might benefit from treatment and the potential harms of macrolides use (TABLE 1^27,28 and discussed below).²⁹

Adverse effects. The newer macrolides azithromycin and clarithromycin offer favorable safety and tolerability profiles, compared with those of older agents.³⁰ In clinical trials of azithromycin, gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea) were usually mild or moderate and rarely (< 2% of subjects) required discontinuation of study medication.^31,32Clostridium difficile diarrhea has not been reported in any of the large clinical trials, in which thousands of patients received azithromycin for 3 to 12 months.^31,32 The major clinical “side ­effects” attributable to azithromycin are a significant reduction, compared to placebo, in acute respiratory illness, bronchitis, pneumonia, and sinusitis.^31,32

Continue to: Antibiotic resistance

Antibiotic resistance. Exposure of populations to macrolides can increase the percentage of macrolide-resistant bacterial respiratory pathogens³³; policies aimed at decreasing inappropriate macrolide prescribing can significantly lower that percentage.³⁴ There is no evidence, however, of any detrimental effects of macrolide resistance in individual patients receiving azithromycin.³³

Physicians who prescribe long-term azithromycin should instruct patients to report any hearing loss.

In trials of azithromycin for the treatment of trachoma in Africa, significantly fewer deaths occurred in villages where subjects were treated with azithromycin than in villages where azithromycin therapy was not provided.³⁵ In the United States, weekly azithromycin treatment for 3 to 12 months in adults with heart disease resulted in fewer cases of acute bronchitis and pneumonia, compared with the placebo-treated groups^31,32; similar benefit for azithromycin was seen in children who had recurrent lung infection.^8,36

Nevertheless, concern over the spread of macrolide-resistant bacteria to the surrounding community is a concern and a possibility—and should be the subject of future research.

Sudden cardiac death. In a Medicaid population, the risk of sudden cardiac death from taking a macrolide among patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease was 1 in ­every 4000 administrations.²⁷ Compare that level of risk with the 1 in 167 risk of an acute cardiovascular event in patients with COPD who start taking a LABA.³⁷ There is no detectable increase in the risk of sudden cardiac death when taking azithromycin in the general (ie, average cardiovascular risk) population^38,39 or when azithromycin is coadministered with a LABA.³

Hearing loss. An excess of 18 (< 1%) patients affected by hearing loss, 7 of whom sought medical attention, was reported among 2004 patients who had stable coronary artery disease and had been treated once weekly with azithromycin for 12 months (P = .02, compared with placebo).³² In another study, hearing test changes leading to discontinuation of azithromycin were detected in an excess of 32 (2.8%) of 1142 patients with COPD treated daily for 1 year.¹⁸

Continue to: Physicians who prescribe...

Physicians who prescribe long-term azithromycin should instruct patients to report any hearing loss.

Drug–drug interactions. Azithromycin is free of the drug–drug interactions characteristic of conventional macrolides, such as clarithromycin.⁴⁰ Nevertheless:

• Caution is advised when giving azithromycin in conjunction with coumadin or theophylline.
• Giving azithromycin with antacids that contain aluminum or magnesium salts can reduce the rate, although not the extent, of the absorption of ­azithromycin.
• The serum concentration of azithromycin is markedly increased when it is given with nelfinavir.⁴⁰

Microbiome effects. The host microbiome can have a significant effect on the risk of asthma.² A cross-sectional study indicated that lower respiratory bacterial burden is greater in patients with asthma, compared with that of healthy control subjects, and correlates with bronchial hyperresponsiveness.⁴¹ Early colonization of the infant nasopharynx, particularly with Streptococcus spp, is a predictor of asthma risk.^42,43 Bacterial pathogens in the nasopharyngeal biome at the time of upper respiratory viral infection are significant determinants of risk for the spread of infection to the lower airways, suggesting that these microorganisms contribute to the risk of persistent asthma.⁴¹

In the long run, azithromycin was 10 to 20 times as cost effective as the other 3 therapeutic options for improving asthma qualityof-life outcomes.

Investigators have speculated that, rather than increasing the risk of asthma by disrupting the “healthy” microbiome, azithromycin might be helpful in treating an “unhealthy” microbiome.^42,43 Recently, it was shown in a randomized trial that azithromycin induced a perturbation in the gut microbiota of children 14 days after randomization, although the drug did not have a long-lasting effect on the composition of gut microbiota.⁴⁴

Consider a trial of azithromycin for patients who have new-onset asthma.

What about cost?

Inhaled corticosteroids and combination formulations of an ICS and a LABA are expensive and must be taken for the long term. A 3-month course of generic azithromycin—comparable to what was used in the OL subgroup of AZMATICS¹⁵—costs about as much as 1 ICS and LABA combination inhaler. Using published results,^15,45 a pilot cost-effectiveness analysis in patients with persistent asthma compared doubling the ICS dosage, adding salmeterol, adding tiotropium, or prescribing 3 months of azithromycin. In the long run, azithromycin was 10 to 20 times as cost-effective as the other 3 therapeutic options for improving asthma quality-of-life outcomes.* However, reliable cost-effectiveness analyses require more, and better, evidence.

Continue to: Recommendations to reflect on for your practice

 

 

Recommendations to reflect on for your practice

Table 2^7,15 outlines selected long-term (≥ 3 months) macrolide dosing schedules in the management of asthma. Consider a trial of azithromycin for your patients

• whose asthma is refractory (poorly controlled persistent asthma), despite treatment with either an ICS and LABA combination or an ICS and long-acting muscarinic antagonist combination; and
• who have new-onset asthma.

At press time, the European Respiratory Journal published a patient-level meta-analysis that demonstrates that maintenance use of azithromycin decreases exacerbations in adults with asthma. To learn more, go to https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/54/5/1901381

Last, there is no evidence for or against prescribing azithromycin for patients who have chronic asthma that is not refractory but is uncontrolled because they are not being treated according to guidelines.

*Data available from the author upon request. See “Correspondence,” at end of article.

CORRESPONDENCE
David L. Hahn, MD, MS, Department of Family Medicine & Community Health, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, 1100 Delaplaine Court, Madison, WI 53715; [email protected].

In vitro laboratory and in vivo animal models support the biologic plausibility that chronic infection is a potential cause of asthma.^1,2 Arising from that hypothesis, macrolide antibiotics have been the subject of clinical trials and other studies to determine whether these drugs are efficacious in the long-term management of asthma in adults and children. Macrolides might also have immunomodulatory and antiviral properties that can benefit patients with asthma.³

In vitro laboratory and in vivo animal models support the biologic plausibility that chronic infection is a potential cause of asthma.

This article looks at the evidence and clinical scenarios for the use of macrolides in asthma, provides proposed dosing schedules, and reviews associated concerns, including adverse effects, risk of bacterial resistance, and cost.

3 cases to consider

CASE 1 Paul D developed severe, refractory asthma at 30 years of age after an acute respiratory illness. At age 40, he was treated with 14 weekly doses of azithromycin. His asthma resolved slowly over 12 months.

Outcome. Mr. D has remained free of symptoms of ­asthma for more than 20 years.

CASE 2 Casey K developed severe wheezing at 18 months of age after an acute respiratory illness. Refractory asthma symptoms persisted until 6 years of age, at which time he was given 12 weekly doses of azithromycin. Asthma symptoms gradually resolved.

Outcome. Casey was able to resume normal physical ­activities, including competitive swimming.

CASE 3 Amy S, who had no history of respiratory problems, presented at 30 years of age with a 3-month history of wheezing and dyspnea after an acute respiratory illness. She was treated symptomatically with bronchodilators; wheezing failed to resolve. After 6 months of persistent wheezing that significantly affected her exercise capacity, Ms. S was given a diagnosis of persistent asthma and received 12 weekly doses of azithromycin.

[polldaddy:10475438]

Continue to: Outcome...

Outcome. Ms. S’s symptoms resolved completely within months.

Evidence of benefit of macrolides in asthma

These 3 cases, taken from my practice (but with names changed), demonstrate the therapeutic potential of macrolide antibiotics for patients with asthma under specific clinical circumstances. The cases are referenced again in the following examination of the literature on macrolides for asthma

Meta-analysis. Reiter et al⁴ performed a meta-analysis of 12 randomized clinical trials of macrolides for long-term management of asthma in children and adults. Prolonged treatment was defined as > 3 weeks of continuous administration of a macrolide. The pooled effect of macrolides on forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) was not significant; however, a significant effect on peak expiratory flow, symptom scores, quality of life, and airway hyperreactivity was observed.

Comment: The study’s authors concluded: “Macrolides may therefore be beneficial as adjunct asthma therapy. Future trials, focusing on long-term safety and effectiveness, should use standardized outcomes and ­procedures.”

Cochrane meta-analysis. Kew et al⁵ performed a meta-analysis of 23 studies of macrolides for managing chronic asthma for the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. In their review, they reported

• no significant effects of macrolides on asthma exacerbations, asthma control, quality of life, and rescue medication use; and
• significant effects of macrolides for asthma symptoms and FEV₁.

Continue to: Two within-study subgroup...

Some patients with asthma who respond to azithromycin experience persistent improvement after antibiotic treatment.

Two within-study subgroup analyses showed a possible benefit of macrolides for non-­eosinophilic asthma, defined by a predominance of neutrophils in a bronchoalveolar lavage specimen. Kew et al⁵ noted that (1) most of the evidence examined in the review was of low quality and (2) inclusion criteria, interventions, and outcomes were highly variable.

Comment: The validity of a meta-analysis depends on the validity and similarity of underlying trials. Both meta-analyses just described were characterized by (1) grouping trials of older and newer macrolides and (2) significant selection bias in the underlying trials.

Selection bias is prevalent in asthma research and is a major contributor to uncertainty: Randomized controlled trials upon which guideline treatments are based have systematically excluded > 90% of people with asthma.⁶ Exclusions include past or current smoking, the asthma–chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) overlap syndrome, severe asthma, and acute respiratory illness; these exclusion criteria have also been applied to studies of macrolides. Importantly, patients in the excluded groups are probably those most likely to respond to a macrolide.² Pragmatic effectiveness studies (broad eligibility criteria, adequate duration of azithromycin treatment, a posttreatment observation period, and pre-specified biomarker subgroup analyses) have been recommended to address the hypothesis of what has been termed infectious asthma.²

Inconsistent evidence, the generally poor quality of underlying studies, and uncertainty about which subgroup(s) of asthma patients might benefit all contribute to a strength of recommendation of “B” for treating asthma with macrolides. Two recent randomized trials^7,8 that were not included in the cited meta-analyses, along with other evidence,² point to 2 groups of patients who are candidates for a trial of azithromycin: those with severe refractory asthma and those with new-onset asthma.

Clinical trial in adults. Gibson et al⁷ conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of azithromycin 500 mg 3 times a week or placebo for 1 year in 420 adults who had uncontrolled persistent asthma despite taking medium-to-high doses of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus a long-acting β agonist (LABA) (the AMAZES [Asthma and Macrolides: The Azithromycin Efficacy and Safety] trial; Level 1 study). The mean baseline asthma control questionnaire score was 1.5, equivalent to an Asthma Control Test (ACT) score* of 15.⁹

Continue to: Azithromycin reduced the frequency...

Azithromycin reduced the frequency of asthma exacerbations (to 1.07 per patient–year for azithromycin, compared with 1.86 per patient–year for placebo [incidence rate ratio = 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.47-0.74]). The percentage of patients experiencing at least 1 exacerbation was reduced with azithromycin treatment (61% of patients in the placebo group experienced ≥ 1 exacerbation, compared with 44% in the azithromycin group [P < .0001; number needed to treat = 6]). Asthma quality of life was also improved by azithromycin (P = .001).

There was no significant difference between azithromycin and placebo in the overall rate of serious adverse events. Diarrhea that did not require treatment discontinuation was more common in patients treated with azithromycin (34%) than in the placebo group (19%). There was no posttreatment observation period to assess whether these azithromycin benefits waned or persisted after treatment was stopped.

Other evidence¹⁰ indicates that at least some patients who respond to azithromycin will experience persistent improvement after antibiotic treatment is completed (see CASE 1).

Pediatric clinical trial. Stokholm et al⁸ performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of azithromycin in children 1 to 3 years of age who had been given a diagnosis of recurrent asthma-like symptoms (Level 1 study). Treatment was a 3-day course of azithromycin oral solution, 10 mg/kg/d, or placebo. Random allocation was performed for 158 asthma-like episodes in 72 children.

Azithromycin reduced the wheezing episode to a mean duration of 3.4 days, compared with 7.7 days for placebo (risk reduction = 63.3%; 95% CI, 56%-69.3% [P < .0001]). Effect size increased with early initiation of treatment: ie, an 83% reduction in episode duration was seen when treatment was initiated before Day 6 of the episode, compared with a 36% reduction if treatment was initiated on or after Day 6 (P < .0001).

Continue to: No differences between...

No differences between the randomized groups were observed in clinical adverse ­effects.

Comment: The brief course of azithromycin provided to patients in this trial did not have a significant impact on time to next episode of troublesome lung symptoms in ­individual children. Previous clinical observations have suggested that a longer duration of treatment (3-6 months) might be required to achieve lasting improvement or remission in selected patients with asthma (see CASE 2).^10,11 The short-term benefit of azithromycin for acute wheezing is limited to children: Two comparable acute dosing trials in adults have shown little¹² or no¹³ short-term benefit; however, these negative findings have been ­hypothesized to be the result of selection bias.¹⁴

Other evidence is worth examining

Other studies not included in the meta-­analyses of randomized controlled trials provide additional evidence to support a recommendation of a trial of azithromycin in patients with severe, refractory, or new-onset asthma.

Nonrandomized controlled evidence. AZMATICS (AZithroMycin/Asthma Trial In Community Settings)¹⁵ is the sole randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of long-term azithromycin that included a 9-month posttreatment observation period. Seventy-five participants were randomized to receive a loading dose of 600 mg of azithromycin or placebo once daily for 3 days in Week 1. They then received either azithromycin 600 mg or placebo once weekly for 11 weeks. Posttreatment observation was performed until 48 weeks after randomization.

However, many eligible subjects, whom the principal investigator believed were ­ideal candidates for randomization, declined randomization because they did not want to risk receiving placebo. To accommodate those patients, the protocol was amended to include an open-label (OL) azithromycin arm, in which each participant’s personal physician prescribed azithromycin 750 mg for 11 weeks after a loading dose¹⁶ (OL cohort only, Level 2 study: controlled, nonrandomized, ­nonblinded). The OL group had (1) a higher baseline prevalence of severe, persistent asthma (32%) than the randomized group (8%) (P = .012); and (2) worse asthma quality of life than the randomized patients (P = .023). The OL group represented selection bias attributable to patient preference.

Continue to: The less severely...

The less severely affected randomized group of the trial did not exhibit significant effects attributable to azithromycin. The more severely affected OL cohort demonstrated significant, and large, azithromycin treatment effects for asthma symptoms, asthma quality of life, and asthma control (P < .05 for both groups; number needed to treat [NNT] = 3) that persisted during the posttreatment observation period.

There is no direct evidence that the benefit of azithromycin in asthma is limited to patients who have positive infection biomarkers.

Comment: The authors concluded: “Pending further randomized trials and given the relative safety of azithromycin and the significant disease burden from severe, refractory asthma, prescribing prolonged azithromycin therapy to patients with uncontrolled asthma may be considered by managing clinicians, particularly for patients who have failed to respond to conventional treatment and as an alternative to instituting immunomodulatory agents.”¹⁵

Before-and-after trial. Forty-six patients with moderate or severe chronic, persistent, stable asthma were selected as a cohort unlikely to experience spontaneous remission (ie, patients in exacerbation were excluded) (Level 2 study: prospective cohort).¹⁷ Subjects were treated for a median of 4 weeks (range, 3 to 9 weeks) with oral doxycycline, 100 mg bid; azithromycin, 1000 mg, once weekly; or erythromycin, 1000 mg/d in divided doses. Average duration of posttreatment follow-up was 6 months. All subjects were positive for antibodies to Chlamydia pneumoniae.

Four patients with diagnosed acuteC pneumoniae respiratory infection developed chronic asthma, which disappeared in each case after treatment. Of the other 42 seroreactive patients who were treated a mean of 6 years after they developed chronic asthma, 21 had either complete remission of asthma symptoms (n = 3) or major persistent clinical improvement (n = 18). Clinical improvement was more likely to occur in patients with early disease (P = .01) and before development of fixed airway obstruction (P < .01).

These results are consistent with the hypothesis that chronic infection of the lower respiratory tract contributes to the development and progression of asthma.¹⁷ Although clinical improvement was more likely in early asthma compared with asthma with fixed airway obstruction, improvement was nevertheless noted in the latter group.

Continue to: Physicians should also note...

Physicians should also note the landmark trial of azithromycin in severe, smoking-­associated COPD, which found a clinically significant benefit in reducing exacerbations and improving quality of life (NNT = 3, to prevent 1 exacerbation).¹⁸

Case series. In a prospective case series (Level 2 study: prospective cohort), 163 primary care outpatients (adolescents and adults) who had acute wheezing illnesses or chronic asthma were evaluated for C pneumoniae infection by serologic testing.¹⁹ A subgroup of this cohort also had nasopharyngeal cultures tested for C pneumoniae.

Rather than increasing the risk of asthma by disrupting the “healthy” microbiome, azithromycin might be helpful in treating an “unhealthy” microbiome.

Twenty patients (12%) were given a diagnosis of C pneumoniae infection defined by serology (n = 15), culture isolation (n = 3), or both (n = 2). Of the 20, 10 wheezed for the first time—6 of whom subsequently developed chronic asthma (n = 5) or chronic bronchitis (n = 1), with a serologic profile suggesting chronic infection. The other 10 patients who had a diagnosis of C pneumoniae infection already had a diagnosis of chronic asthma. In patients with established chronic asthma, initial serologic findings suggested chronic, rather than acute, C pneumoniae infection.

Tx recommendations: When to consider azithromycin

Randomized⁷ and nonrandomized¹⁵ evidence supports treating severely uncontrolled or refractory asthma (strength of recommendation [SOR], B); no comparable randomized trials of azithromycin have been conducted for new-onset asthma (SOR, C). Consider prescribing empiric azithromycin for patients with new-onset asthma in the context of shared decision making about potential benefits, harms, and consequences of chronic asthma (SOR, C).

It is important to note that wheezing is frequently associated with uncomplicated acute bronchitis that resolves spontaneously without antibiotic treatment.¹¹ Azithromycin treatment for new-onset asthma should therefore be reserved for patients in whom apparent uncomplicated acute bronchitis fails to resolve after 3 to 6 months, and whose illness is diagnosable as asthma (see CASE 3).¹⁰

Continue to: Do biomarkers predict response?

 

 

Do biomarkers predict response?

Confirming C pneumoniae infection by bronchoscopy before beginning treatment has been recommended²⁰ but might be impractical; also, diagnostic testing for C pneumoniae is limited in availability and has potentially low sensitivity for diagnosing chronic deep lung infection.

So should you test for C pneumoniae biomarkers (or for biomarkers of Mycoplasma pneumoniae, another atypical infection implicated in the pathogenesis of asthma²¹) before initiating treatment? Azithromycin has antimicrobial, immunomodulatory, and potential antiviral properties.³ The body of evidence reviewed here indicates that the effects of macrolides on asthma might be, at least in part, antimicrobial. However, there is no direct evidence that the benefit of azithromycin in asthma is limited to patients who have positive infection biomarkers.²² Therefore, infection biomarker testing as a decision aid cannot be recommended at this time (although future research might alter this ­recommendation).

Acute bronchitis and asthma-onset ­associated with an acute lower respiratory tract infection have been statistically associated with biomarkers of C pneumoniae infection.²³ However, C pneumoniae biomarkers are also prevalent in patients who have asthma that is not associated with an infectious onset.²³ Several other matters are worth noting:

• C pneumoniae-specific IgA²³ and IgE²⁴ are promising biomarkers that deserve further investigation.
• M pneumoniae infection has also been associated with asthma and a response to antibiotic therapy.^21,25
• Noneosinophilic severe asthma is another potential predictive characteristic.²⁶ The applicability of this biomarker to primary care practice is limited, however, by the invasive nature of bronchoscopy and by the uncertain validity of the diagnostic concept: There is no guarantee that dynamic inflammatory infiltrates remain stable over a lifetime. Furthermore, the AMAZES Trial⁷ reported that azithromycin benefit was comparable in eosinophilic and noneosinophilic asthma.

Potential for harm withlong-term macrolide use?

Controversies about the role of macrolides in asthma involve uncertainty about who might benefit from treatment and the potential harms of macrolides use (TABLE 1^27,28 and discussed below).²⁹

Adverse effects. The newer macrolides azithromycin and clarithromycin offer favorable safety and tolerability profiles, compared with those of older agents.³⁰ In clinical trials of azithromycin, gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea) were usually mild or moderate and rarely (< 2% of subjects) required discontinuation of study medication.^31,32Clostridium difficile diarrhea has not been reported in any of the large clinical trials, in which thousands of patients received azithromycin for 3 to 12 months.^31,32 The major clinical “side ­effects” attributable to azithromycin are a significant reduction, compared to placebo, in acute respiratory illness, bronchitis, pneumonia, and sinusitis.^31,32

Continue to: Antibiotic resistance

Antibiotic resistance. Exposure of populations to macrolides can increase the percentage of macrolide-resistant bacterial respiratory pathogens³³; policies aimed at decreasing inappropriate macrolide prescribing can significantly lower that percentage.³⁴ There is no evidence, however, of any detrimental effects of macrolide resistance in individual patients receiving azithromycin.³³

Physicians who prescribe long-term azithromycin should instruct patients to report any hearing loss.

In trials of azithromycin for the treatment of trachoma in Africa, significantly fewer deaths occurred in villages where subjects were treated with azithromycin than in villages where azithromycin therapy was not provided.³⁵ In the United States, weekly azithromycin treatment for 3 to 12 months in adults with heart disease resulted in fewer cases of acute bronchitis and pneumonia, compared with the placebo-treated groups^31,32; similar benefit for azithromycin was seen in children who had recurrent lung infection.^8,36

Nevertheless, concern over the spread of macrolide-resistant bacteria to the surrounding community is a concern and a possibility—and should be the subject of future research.

Sudden cardiac death. In a Medicaid population, the risk of sudden cardiac death from taking a macrolide among patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease was 1 in ­every 4000 administrations.²⁷ Compare that level of risk with the 1 in 167 risk of an acute cardiovascular event in patients with COPD who start taking a LABA.³⁷ There is no detectable increase in the risk of sudden cardiac death when taking azithromycin in the general (ie, average cardiovascular risk) population^38,39 or when azithromycin is coadministered with a LABA.³

Hearing loss. An excess of 18 (< 1%) patients affected by hearing loss, 7 of whom sought medical attention, was reported among 2004 patients who had stable coronary artery disease and had been treated once weekly with azithromycin for 12 months (P = .02, compared with placebo).³² In another study, hearing test changes leading to discontinuation of azithromycin were detected in an excess of 32 (2.8%) of 1142 patients with COPD treated daily for 1 year.¹⁸

Continue to: Physicians who prescribe...

Physicians who prescribe long-term azithromycin should instruct patients to report any hearing loss.

Drug–drug interactions. Azithromycin is free of the drug–drug interactions characteristic of conventional macrolides, such as clarithromycin.⁴⁰ Nevertheless:

• Caution is advised when giving azithromycin in conjunction with coumadin or theophylline.
• Giving azithromycin with antacids that contain aluminum or magnesium salts can reduce the rate, although not the extent, of the absorption of ­azithromycin.
• The serum concentration of azithromycin is markedly increased when it is given with nelfinavir.⁴⁰

Microbiome effects. The host microbiome can have a significant effect on the risk of asthma.² A cross-sectional study indicated that lower respiratory bacterial burden is greater in patients with asthma, compared with that of healthy control subjects, and correlates with bronchial hyperresponsiveness.⁴¹ Early colonization of the infant nasopharynx, particularly with Streptococcus spp, is a predictor of asthma risk.^42,43 Bacterial pathogens in the nasopharyngeal biome at the time of upper respiratory viral infection are significant determinants of risk for the spread of infection to the lower airways, suggesting that these microorganisms contribute to the risk of persistent asthma.⁴¹

In the long run, azithromycin was 10 to 20 times as cost effective as the other 3 therapeutic options for improving asthma qualityof-life outcomes.

Investigators have speculated that, rather than increasing the risk of asthma by disrupting the “healthy” microbiome, azithromycin might be helpful in treating an “unhealthy” microbiome.^42,43 Recently, it was shown in a randomized trial that azithromycin induced a perturbation in the gut microbiota of children 14 days after randomization, although the drug did not have a long-lasting effect on the composition of gut microbiota.⁴⁴

Consider a trial of azithromycin for patients who have new-onset asthma.

What about cost?

Inhaled corticosteroids and combination formulations of an ICS and a LABA are expensive and must be taken for the long term. A 3-month course of generic azithromycin—comparable to what was used in the OL subgroup of AZMATICS¹⁵—costs about as much as 1 ICS and LABA combination inhaler. Using published results,^15,45 a pilot cost-effectiveness analysis in patients with persistent asthma compared doubling the ICS dosage, adding salmeterol, adding tiotropium, or prescribing 3 months of azithromycin. In the long run, azithromycin was 10 to 20 times as cost-effective as the other 3 therapeutic options for improving asthma quality-of-life outcomes.* However, reliable cost-effectiveness analyses require more, and better, evidence.

Continue to: Recommendations to reflect on for your practice

 

 

Recommendations to reflect on for your practice

Table 2^7,15 outlines selected long-term (≥ 3 months) macrolide dosing schedules in the management of asthma. Consider a trial of azithromycin for your patients

• whose asthma is refractory (poorly controlled persistent asthma), despite treatment with either an ICS and LABA combination or an ICS and long-acting muscarinic antagonist combination; and
• who have new-onset asthma.

At press time, the European Respiratory Journal published a patient-level meta-analysis that demonstrates that maintenance use of azithromycin decreases exacerbations in adults with asthma. To learn more, go to https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/54/5/1901381

Last, there is no evidence for or against prescribing azithromycin for patients who have chronic asthma that is not refractory but is uncontrolled because they are not being treated according to guidelines.

*Data available from the author upon request. See “Correspondence,” at end of article.

CORRESPONDENCE
David L. Hahn, MD, MS, Department of Family Medicine & Community Health, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, 1100 Delaplaine Court, Madison, WI 53715; [email protected].

Are you interested in vascular surgery? Consider applying for a travel scholarship that will help defray costs of attending the 2020 Vascular Annual Meeting June 17 to 20 in Toronto, Canada. The Society for Vascular Surgery offers travel scholarships for medical students or general surgery residents. The Vascular Annual Meeting – June 17 to 20 – includes a dedicated resident/student educational and networking program that will include a mock interview session, mentor program, residency fair and more. Learn more.

Are you interested in vascular surgery? Consider applying for a travel scholarship that will help defray costs of attending the 2020 Vascular Annual Meeting June 17 to 20 in Toronto, Canada. The Society for Vascular Surgery offers travel scholarships for medical students or general surgery residents. The Vascular Annual Meeting – June 17 to 20 – includes a dedicated resident/student educational and networking program that will include a mock interview session, mentor program, residency fair and more. Learn more.

Are you interested in vascular surgery? Consider applying for a travel scholarship that will help defray costs of attending the 2020 Vascular Annual Meeting June 17 to 20 in Toronto, Canada. The Society for Vascular Surgery offers travel scholarships for medical students or general surgery residents. The Vascular Annual Meeting – June 17 to 20 – includes a dedicated resident/student educational and networking program that will include a mock interview session, mentor program, residency fair and more. Learn more.

ORLANDO – Oral arginine supplementation significantly increased plasma arginine levels and improved acute pain-related outcomes in Nigerian children with sickle cell disease in a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

Of 68 children with a mean age of 10 years who were hospitalized with vaso-occlusive crisis involving severe pain and treated with standard pain management, 35 were randomized to receive adjuvant oral L-arginine at a dose of 100 mg/kg every 8 hours for 5 days or until discharge, and 33 received placebo. Those in the arginine arm experienced a 125% increase in their plasma arginine level, compared with a 29% increase in the placebo arm, Richard Onalo, FC Paed, reported during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“This was statistically significant,” Dr. Onalo, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Abuja, Nigeria, said of the difference between the two arms. “Also, the global bioavailability ratio increased by 59% in the arginine arm.”

Low plasma arginine levels are associated with acute pain requiring hospitalization in Nigerian children with sickle cell disease, and have also been shown in a prior study in the United States to predict pediatric vaso-occlusion, Dr. Onalo said, adding that arginine supplementation, which has known opioid-sparing effects, was found in another phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled U.S. study to significantly decrease pain scores.

In the current study, the increase in arginine bioavailability inversely correlated with Medication Quantification Scale scores, which were 73 vs. 120 in the arginine and placebo arms, respectively (r = -0.35; P = .02), indicating reduced analgesic use in the arginine arm, he said.

“Clinically, the patients in the arginine arm also tended to have a faster resolution in their pain score,” he said.

Despite similar baseline Numerical Pain Scale (PS) scores (8.7 and 8.4 on a 0-10 scale), day 5 pain scores were 1.2 vs. 2.0, and the mean daily rate of decline was 1.5 vs. 1.1 cm/day.

Crisis resolution was achieved by 25% of the patients in the arginine arm in about 72 hours, compared with about 120 hours in the placebo arms.

“By day 5, 54% of patients on arginine were already home, as compared with just 24% in the placebo arm, and this was found to be clinically and statistically significant,” Dr. Onalo said, noting that mean hospital length of stay was 110 hours vs. 156 hours in the arginine and placebo arms, respectively.

A non–statistically significant decrease in mean total opioid dose was also observed in the arginine vs. placebo arms (3.8 vs 5.1 mg/kg; P = .11).

Arginine supplementation in this study was safe; no serious treatment-related adverse events occurred, and there were no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of adverse events. Dr. Onalo noted, however, that a trend toward more vomiting was observed in the arginine versus the placebo arm (20% vs. 3%, P = .07).

Severe vaso-occlusive pain episodes are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in sickle cell disease, and based on the prior findings – and the lack of data regarding the role of arginine for treating acute sickle cell-related vaso-occlusive pain episodes in sub-Saharan Africa – Dr. Onalo and colleagues set out to assess its role in that setting.

“Also, we are interested in finding a molecule that can be used easily by the patient at home, and also can be [self-administered],” he said.

Children enrolled in the double-blind study had a severe vaso-occlusive pain episode, defined by a PS score of at least 7 on a scale of 0-10, at one of two major hospitals in Abuja, Nigeria. All patients received pain management, including opioid and nonopioid analgesics, per institutional practice.

The findings reinforce the role of arginine in vaso-occlusive pain episodes, and suggest that oral arginine is a promising adjuvant therapy for vaso-occlusive crisis management in patients with sickle cell disease, he said.

“We recommend a phase 3 multicenter clinical trial,” he added.

As for a potential role for arginine in this setting in the United States, prevention trials in the U.S. have thus far been negative, said Julie Panepinto, MD, the press briefing moderator and a pediatric hematologist-oncologist at Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

“This is my first knowledge of use in the acute setting,” said Dr. Panepinto, also a professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. “There is going to be some future work looking at use of arginine in the U.S. for patients presenting with pain.”

For now, however, it’s too early to say that all patients should be started on arginine, she said, adding that more information is needed, including about appropriate dosing.

Nonetheless, it’s encouraging to see positive findings, she noted.

“We’ve been looking at and thinking about arginine for a long time, so I think this is a really exciting study ... that should lead us to future work to really understand better how to use the medication,” she said.

Dr. Onalo reported having no disclosures. Dr. Panepinto has received research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Health Resources and Services Administration.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Onalo R et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 613.

ORLANDO – Oral arginine supplementation significantly increased plasma arginine levels and improved acute pain-related outcomes in Nigerian children with sickle cell disease in a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

Of 68 children with a mean age of 10 years who were hospitalized with vaso-occlusive crisis involving severe pain and treated with standard pain management, 35 were randomized to receive adjuvant oral L-arginine at a dose of 100 mg/kg every 8 hours for 5 days or until discharge, and 33 received placebo. Those in the arginine arm experienced a 125% increase in their plasma arginine level, compared with a 29% increase in the placebo arm, Richard Onalo, FC Paed, reported during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“This was statistically significant,” Dr. Onalo, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Abuja, Nigeria, said of the difference between the two arms. “Also, the global bioavailability ratio increased by 59% in the arginine arm.”

Low plasma arginine levels are associated with acute pain requiring hospitalization in Nigerian children with sickle cell disease, and have also been shown in a prior study in the United States to predict pediatric vaso-occlusion, Dr. Onalo said, adding that arginine supplementation, which has known opioid-sparing effects, was found in another phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled U.S. study to significantly decrease pain scores.

In the current study, the increase in arginine bioavailability inversely correlated with Medication Quantification Scale scores, which were 73 vs. 120 in the arginine and placebo arms, respectively (r = -0.35; P = .02), indicating reduced analgesic use in the arginine arm, he said.

“Clinically, the patients in the arginine arm also tended to have a faster resolution in their pain score,” he said.

Despite similar baseline Numerical Pain Scale (PS) scores (8.7 and 8.4 on a 0-10 scale), day 5 pain scores were 1.2 vs. 2.0, and the mean daily rate of decline was 1.5 vs. 1.1 cm/day.

Crisis resolution was achieved by 25% of the patients in the arginine arm in about 72 hours, compared with about 120 hours in the placebo arms.

“By day 5, 54% of patients on arginine were already home, as compared with just 24% in the placebo arm, and this was found to be clinically and statistically significant,” Dr. Onalo said, noting that mean hospital length of stay was 110 hours vs. 156 hours in the arginine and placebo arms, respectively.

A non–statistically significant decrease in mean total opioid dose was also observed in the arginine vs. placebo arms (3.8 vs 5.1 mg/kg; P = .11).

Arginine supplementation in this study was safe; no serious treatment-related adverse events occurred, and there were no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of adverse events. Dr. Onalo noted, however, that a trend toward more vomiting was observed in the arginine versus the placebo arm (20% vs. 3%, P = .07).

Severe vaso-occlusive pain episodes are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in sickle cell disease, and based on the prior findings – and the lack of data regarding the role of arginine for treating acute sickle cell-related vaso-occlusive pain episodes in sub-Saharan Africa – Dr. Onalo and colleagues set out to assess its role in that setting.

“Also, we are interested in finding a molecule that can be used easily by the patient at home, and also can be [self-administered],” he said.

Children enrolled in the double-blind study had a severe vaso-occlusive pain episode, defined by a PS score of at least 7 on a scale of 0-10, at one of two major hospitals in Abuja, Nigeria. All patients received pain management, including opioid and nonopioid analgesics, per institutional practice.

The findings reinforce the role of arginine in vaso-occlusive pain episodes, and suggest that oral arginine is a promising adjuvant therapy for vaso-occlusive crisis management in patients with sickle cell disease, he said.

“We recommend a phase 3 multicenter clinical trial,” he added.

As for a potential role for arginine in this setting in the United States, prevention trials in the U.S. have thus far been negative, said Julie Panepinto, MD, the press briefing moderator and a pediatric hematologist-oncologist at Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

“This is my first knowledge of use in the acute setting,” said Dr. Panepinto, also a professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. “There is going to be some future work looking at use of arginine in the U.S. for patients presenting with pain.”

For now, however, it’s too early to say that all patients should be started on arginine, she said, adding that more information is needed, including about appropriate dosing.

Nonetheless, it’s encouraging to see positive findings, she noted.

“We’ve been looking at and thinking about arginine for a long time, so I think this is a really exciting study ... that should lead us to future work to really understand better how to use the medication,” she said.

Dr. Onalo reported having no disclosures. Dr. Panepinto has received research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Health Resources and Services Administration.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Onalo R et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 613.

ORLANDO – Oral arginine supplementation significantly increased plasma arginine levels and improved acute pain-related outcomes in Nigerian children with sickle cell disease in a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

Of 68 children with a mean age of 10 years who were hospitalized with vaso-occlusive crisis involving severe pain and treated with standard pain management, 35 were randomized to receive adjuvant oral L-arginine at a dose of 100 mg/kg every 8 hours for 5 days or until discharge, and 33 received placebo. Those in the arginine arm experienced a 125% increase in their plasma arginine level, compared with a 29% increase in the placebo arm, Richard Onalo, FC Paed, reported during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“This was statistically significant,” Dr. Onalo, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Abuja, Nigeria, said of the difference between the two arms. “Also, the global bioavailability ratio increased by 59% in the arginine arm.”

Low plasma arginine levels are associated with acute pain requiring hospitalization in Nigerian children with sickle cell disease, and have also been shown in a prior study in the United States to predict pediatric vaso-occlusion, Dr. Onalo said, adding that arginine supplementation, which has known opioid-sparing effects, was found in another phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled U.S. study to significantly decrease pain scores.

In the current study, the increase in arginine bioavailability inversely correlated with Medication Quantification Scale scores, which were 73 vs. 120 in the arginine and placebo arms, respectively (r = -0.35; P = .02), indicating reduced analgesic use in the arginine arm, he said.

“Clinically, the patients in the arginine arm also tended to have a faster resolution in their pain score,” he said.

Despite similar baseline Numerical Pain Scale (PS) scores (8.7 and 8.4 on a 0-10 scale), day 5 pain scores were 1.2 vs. 2.0, and the mean daily rate of decline was 1.5 vs. 1.1 cm/day.

Crisis resolution was achieved by 25% of the patients in the arginine arm in about 72 hours, compared with about 120 hours in the placebo arms.

“By day 5, 54% of patients on arginine were already home, as compared with just 24% in the placebo arm, and this was found to be clinically and statistically significant,” Dr. Onalo said, noting that mean hospital length of stay was 110 hours vs. 156 hours in the arginine and placebo arms, respectively.

A non–statistically significant decrease in mean total opioid dose was also observed in the arginine vs. placebo arms (3.8 vs 5.1 mg/kg; P = .11).

Arginine supplementation in this study was safe; no serious treatment-related adverse events occurred, and there were no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of adverse events. Dr. Onalo noted, however, that a trend toward more vomiting was observed in the arginine versus the placebo arm (20% vs. 3%, P = .07).

Severe vaso-occlusive pain episodes are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in sickle cell disease, and based on the prior findings – and the lack of data regarding the role of arginine for treating acute sickle cell-related vaso-occlusive pain episodes in sub-Saharan Africa – Dr. Onalo and colleagues set out to assess its role in that setting.

“Also, we are interested in finding a molecule that can be used easily by the patient at home, and also can be [self-administered],” he said.

Children enrolled in the double-blind study had a severe vaso-occlusive pain episode, defined by a PS score of at least 7 on a scale of 0-10, at one of two major hospitals in Abuja, Nigeria. All patients received pain management, including opioid and nonopioid analgesics, per institutional practice.

The findings reinforce the role of arginine in vaso-occlusive pain episodes, and suggest that oral arginine is a promising adjuvant therapy for vaso-occlusive crisis management in patients with sickle cell disease, he said.

“We recommend a phase 3 multicenter clinical trial,” he added.

As for a potential role for arginine in this setting in the United States, prevention trials in the U.S. have thus far been negative, said Julie Panepinto, MD, the press briefing moderator and a pediatric hematologist-oncologist at Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

“This is my first knowledge of use in the acute setting,” said Dr. Panepinto, also a professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. “There is going to be some future work looking at use of arginine in the U.S. for patients presenting with pain.”

For now, however, it’s too early to say that all patients should be started on arginine, she said, adding that more information is needed, including about appropriate dosing.

Nonetheless, it’s encouraging to see positive findings, she noted.

“We’ve been looking at and thinking about arginine for a long time, so I think this is a really exciting study ... that should lead us to future work to really understand better how to use the medication,” she said.

Dr. Onalo reported having no disclosures. Dr. Panepinto has received research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Health Resources and Services Administration.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Onalo R et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 613.

ORLANDO – Preclinical research suggests nuclear factor I X is a fetal hemoglobin repressor, a finding that could have implications for the treatment of sickle cell disease.

Researchers found that knocking down nuclear factor I X (NFIX) in adult erythroblasts induced fetal hemoglobin expression in a vast majority of cells, and the total amount of fetal hemoglobin in those cells was about 40%. The target level of fetal hemoglobin for sickle cell patients to become asymptomatic is 30%, according to study investigator Jeffrey R. Shearstone, PhD, of Syros Pharmaceuticals in Cambridge, Mass. He made these remarks during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. Mudit Chaand, PhD, also of Syros, is scheduled to present the study at the meeting on Dec. 9, 2019.

“While this is obviously a preclinical, investigational study, to see levels of induction in primary cells and cell lines of 40% is very encouraging and shows that [NFIX] is a very potent fetal hemoglobin repressor,” Dr. Shearstone said. “We see this discovery as, potentially, a new avenue for therapeutic intervention in sickle cell disease, but there’s still a lot of work to be done.”

Syros researchers began this study by comparing erythroblasts derived from cord blood, which have high levels of fetal hemoglobin, and erythroblasts derived from bone marrow, which have low levels of fetal hemoglobin. The team’s goal was to identify transcription factors that might regulate the repression of fetal hemoglobin in adult cells.

Chromatin accessibility mapping pointed to NFIX as a hemoglobin repressor. The researchers observed increased accessibility at the NFIX promoter and elevated NFIX messenger RNA in adult cells.

To confirm NFIX’s role as a repressor of fetal hemoglobin, the researchers used short hairpin RNA to knock down NFIX in primary erythroblasts and cell lines.

“By knocking down NFIX, we saw a very robust induction of fetal hemoglobin,” Dr. Shearstone said. “We saw nearly 100% of cells in which NFIX was knocked down express fetal hemoglobin. This level of induction compared very favorably to probably the two most potent known repressors of fetal hemoglobin, ZBTB7A and BCL11A.”

Specifically, 86%-97% of cells with NFIX knockdown expressed fetal hemoglobin, compared with 16% of control cells, 88% of cells with BCL11A knockdown, and 91% of cells with ZBTB7A knockdown.

The total amount of fetal hemoglobin in erythroblasts with NFIX knockdown was 39%-40%.

The researchers plan to conduct additional studies to validate these results, examine how NFIX directly binds at the fetal globin promoter, determine if NFIX interacts with any previously identified fetal hemoglobin repressors, and investigate how NFIX can be shut down in patients with sickle cell disease. The researchers’ ultimate goal is to develop a small molecule that would target NFIX.

All researchers involved in this work are employees of Syros Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Shearstone JR et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 821.

ORLANDO – Preclinical research suggests nuclear factor I X is a fetal hemoglobin repressor, a finding that could have implications for the treatment of sickle cell disease.

Researchers found that knocking down nuclear factor I X (NFIX) in adult erythroblasts induced fetal hemoglobin expression in a vast majority of cells, and the total amount of fetal hemoglobin in those cells was about 40%. The target level of fetal hemoglobin for sickle cell patients to become asymptomatic is 30%, according to study investigator Jeffrey R. Shearstone, PhD, of Syros Pharmaceuticals in Cambridge, Mass. He made these remarks during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. Mudit Chaand, PhD, also of Syros, is scheduled to present the study at the meeting on Dec. 9, 2019.

“While this is obviously a preclinical, investigational study, to see levels of induction in primary cells and cell lines of 40% is very encouraging and shows that [NFIX] is a very potent fetal hemoglobin repressor,” Dr. Shearstone said. “We see this discovery as, potentially, a new avenue for therapeutic intervention in sickle cell disease, but there’s still a lot of work to be done.”

Syros researchers began this study by comparing erythroblasts derived from cord blood, which have high levels of fetal hemoglobin, and erythroblasts derived from bone marrow, which have low levels of fetal hemoglobin. The team’s goal was to identify transcription factors that might regulate the repression of fetal hemoglobin in adult cells.

Chromatin accessibility mapping pointed to NFIX as a hemoglobin repressor. The researchers observed increased accessibility at the NFIX promoter and elevated NFIX messenger RNA in adult cells.

To confirm NFIX’s role as a repressor of fetal hemoglobin, the researchers used short hairpin RNA to knock down NFIX in primary erythroblasts and cell lines.

“By knocking down NFIX, we saw a very robust induction of fetal hemoglobin,” Dr. Shearstone said. “We saw nearly 100% of cells in which NFIX was knocked down express fetal hemoglobin. This level of induction compared very favorably to probably the two most potent known repressors of fetal hemoglobin, ZBTB7A and BCL11A.”

Specifically, 86%-97% of cells with NFIX knockdown expressed fetal hemoglobin, compared with 16% of control cells, 88% of cells with BCL11A knockdown, and 91% of cells with ZBTB7A knockdown.

The total amount of fetal hemoglobin in erythroblasts with NFIX knockdown was 39%-40%.

The researchers plan to conduct additional studies to validate these results, examine how NFIX directly binds at the fetal globin promoter, determine if NFIX interacts with any previously identified fetal hemoglobin repressors, and investigate how NFIX can be shut down in patients with sickle cell disease. The researchers’ ultimate goal is to develop a small molecule that would target NFIX.

All researchers involved in this work are employees of Syros Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Shearstone JR et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 821.

ORLANDO – Preclinical research suggests nuclear factor I X is a fetal hemoglobin repressor, a finding that could have implications for the treatment of sickle cell disease.

Researchers found that knocking down nuclear factor I X (NFIX) in adult erythroblasts induced fetal hemoglobin expression in a vast majority of cells, and the total amount of fetal hemoglobin in those cells was about 40%. The target level of fetal hemoglobin for sickle cell patients to become asymptomatic is 30%, according to study investigator Jeffrey R. Shearstone, PhD, of Syros Pharmaceuticals in Cambridge, Mass. He made these remarks during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. Mudit Chaand, PhD, also of Syros, is scheduled to present the study at the meeting on Dec. 9, 2019.

“While this is obviously a preclinical, investigational study, to see levels of induction in primary cells and cell lines of 40% is very encouraging and shows that [NFIX] is a very potent fetal hemoglobin repressor,” Dr. Shearstone said. “We see this discovery as, potentially, a new avenue for therapeutic intervention in sickle cell disease, but there’s still a lot of work to be done.”

Syros researchers began this study by comparing erythroblasts derived from cord blood, which have high levels of fetal hemoglobin, and erythroblasts derived from bone marrow, which have low levels of fetal hemoglobin. The team’s goal was to identify transcription factors that might regulate the repression of fetal hemoglobin in adult cells.

Chromatin accessibility mapping pointed to NFIX as a hemoglobin repressor. The researchers observed increased accessibility at the NFIX promoter and elevated NFIX messenger RNA in adult cells.

To confirm NFIX’s role as a repressor of fetal hemoglobin, the researchers used short hairpin RNA to knock down NFIX in primary erythroblasts and cell lines.

“By knocking down NFIX, we saw a very robust induction of fetal hemoglobin,” Dr. Shearstone said. “We saw nearly 100% of cells in which NFIX was knocked down express fetal hemoglobin. This level of induction compared very favorably to probably the two most potent known repressors of fetal hemoglobin, ZBTB7A and BCL11A.”

Specifically, 86%-97% of cells with NFIX knockdown expressed fetal hemoglobin, compared with 16% of control cells, 88% of cells with BCL11A knockdown, and 91% of cells with ZBTB7A knockdown.

The total amount of fetal hemoglobin in erythroblasts with NFIX knockdown was 39%-40%.

The researchers plan to conduct additional studies to validate these results, examine how NFIX directly binds at the fetal globin promoter, determine if NFIX interacts with any previously identified fetal hemoglobin repressors, and investigate how NFIX can be shut down in patients with sickle cell disease. The researchers’ ultimate goal is to develop a small molecule that would target NFIX.

All researchers involved in this work are employees of Syros Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Shearstone JR et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 821.

The Affinity Program of expanded benefits gives SVS members more options for disability insurance. Many members are part of a group plan in which the employer or group pays the premium. These plans may meet the needs of members, but sometimes they may not. With the options offered through the Affinity Program, members could avoid offsets that reduce tax-free benefits or ones that limit the time period in which they are covered. The program can connect interested members with three companies: Principal Life Insurance Company, Securian and Lloyd’s of London. These group plans are unlike many others, providing tax-free benefits that could potentially protect hundreds of thousands of dollars. Click here for details.

The Affinity Program of expanded benefits gives SVS members more options for disability insurance. Many members are part of a group plan in which the employer or group pays the premium. These plans may meet the needs of members, but sometimes they may not. With the options offered through the Affinity Program, members could avoid offsets that reduce tax-free benefits or ones that limit the time period in which they are covered. The program can connect interested members with three companies: Principal Life Insurance Company, Securian and Lloyd’s of London. These group plans are unlike many others, providing tax-free benefits that could potentially protect hundreds of thousands of dollars. Click here for details.

The Affinity Program of expanded benefits gives SVS members more options for disability insurance. Many members are part of a group plan in which the employer or group pays the premium. These plans may meet the needs of members, but sometimes they may not. With the options offered through the Affinity Program, members could avoid offsets that reduce tax-free benefits or ones that limit the time period in which they are covered. The program can connect interested members with three companies: Principal Life Insurance Company, Securian and Lloyd’s of London. These group plans are unlike many others, providing tax-free benefits that could potentially protect hundreds of thousands of dollars. Click here for details.

ORLANDO – There is an urgent need for new therapies to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, but results of a phase 2 study suggest that monotherapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) is not the hoped-for salvage treatment.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

An interim analysis of data on 12 patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) treated with nivolumab monotherapy showed an overall response rate of 33%, consisting of 2 complete responses and 2 partial responses. But the responses were short lived, and one patient had hyperprogressive disease – dramatic progression within one cycle of treatment – while two more had progression within two cycles, leading to a trial halt, reported N. Nora Bennani, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“These findings likely reflect the distinct biology of PTCL and should be considered when designing future studies using checkpoint inhibitors in these diseases,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The rationale for using an immune checkpoint inhibitor directed against the programmed death–1 protein and its ligands (PD and PD-L1/2) is that malignant cells in PTCL induce a profoundly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Checkpoint inhibitors have shown strong activity against relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma, and the Mayo Clinic researchers speculated that an anti-PD-1 agent could have a similar effect in PTCL.

They had originally planned to enroll 29 patients into a phase 2 trial with nivolumab delivered 240 mg every 2 weeks for eight cycles, followed by a dose of 480 mg given every 4 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicities.

Patients were eligible if they had biopsy-confirmed relapsed or refractory PTCL, measurable disease on cross-sectional imaging of at least 1.5 cm, and prior systemic chemoimmunotherapy and/or autologous stem cell transplantation.

The interim analysis included 12 patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab. Of the 12 patients, 6 had angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), 3 had PTCL not otherwise specified, and 1 each had ALK-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALK-ALCL), enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma (EATL), or hepatosplenic gamma/delta T-cell lymphoma.

All patients had Ann Arbor stage III/IV disease, and 11 had extranodal involvement.

As noted, there were 4 responses among the 12 patients, consisting of 1 complete response in the patient with ALK-ALCL and 1 in a patient with AITL, and 2 partial responses – 1 in a patient with PTCL-NOS, and 1 in the patient with EATL.

The median progression-free survival for all 12 patients was short at 2.7 months, and the median overall survival was estimated at 6.7 months.

“It was staggering to see this: The duration of response was significantly short, less than 2 months,” Dr. Bennani said.

Nonhematologic toxicities were seen in 5 of the 12 patients (42%), and hematologic adverse events occurred in 3 (25%). All patients are now off treatment, 10 because of disease progression, 1 because of acute pancreatitis, and the aforementioned patient with hyperprogressive disease.

The patient with hyperprogressive disease had significant progression in tonsillar and cervical lymphadenopathy within 7-10 days of nivolumab infusion, with biopsy-proven AITL in the involved nodes.

“I believe that, in this patient population, combination therapies will be key. I think checkpoint blockers alone are not going to be sufficient to see meaningful outcomes in these patients,” Dr. Bennani said in an interview.

“An overall response rate of 33% is significant, because most other agents that were FDA approved in this patient population have response rates around 30%,” she said, adding that it’s possible that the patients with rapid progression had disease too advanced to be effectively treated with a checkpoint inhibitor.

“Ideally however, if we want to move forward, it will need to be with combinations of checkpoint inhibitors with HDAC [histone deacetylase] inhibitors, hypomethylating agents, or even PI3 kinase inhibitors,” she said.

­The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Bennani reported research funding and advisory board activities for Bristol-Myers Squibb and others.

SOURCE: Bennani NN et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 467.

ORLANDO – There is an urgent need for new therapies to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, but results of a phase 2 study suggest that monotherapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) is not the hoped-for salvage treatment.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

An interim analysis of data on 12 patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) treated with nivolumab monotherapy showed an overall response rate of 33%, consisting of 2 complete responses and 2 partial responses. But the responses were short lived, and one patient had hyperprogressive disease – dramatic progression within one cycle of treatment – while two more had progression within two cycles, leading to a trial halt, reported N. Nora Bennani, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“These findings likely reflect the distinct biology of PTCL and should be considered when designing future studies using checkpoint inhibitors in these diseases,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The rationale for using an immune checkpoint inhibitor directed against the programmed death–1 protein and its ligands (PD and PD-L1/2) is that malignant cells in PTCL induce a profoundly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Checkpoint inhibitors have shown strong activity against relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma, and the Mayo Clinic researchers speculated that an anti-PD-1 agent could have a similar effect in PTCL.

They had originally planned to enroll 29 patients into a phase 2 trial with nivolumab delivered 240 mg every 2 weeks for eight cycles, followed by a dose of 480 mg given every 4 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicities.

Patients were eligible if they had biopsy-confirmed relapsed or refractory PTCL, measurable disease on cross-sectional imaging of at least 1.5 cm, and prior systemic chemoimmunotherapy and/or autologous stem cell transplantation.

The interim analysis included 12 patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab. Of the 12 patients, 6 had angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), 3 had PTCL not otherwise specified, and 1 each had ALK-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALK-ALCL), enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma (EATL), or hepatosplenic gamma/delta T-cell lymphoma.

All patients had Ann Arbor stage III/IV disease, and 11 had extranodal involvement.

As noted, there were 4 responses among the 12 patients, consisting of 1 complete response in the patient with ALK-ALCL and 1 in a patient with AITL, and 2 partial responses – 1 in a patient with PTCL-NOS, and 1 in the patient with EATL.

The median progression-free survival for all 12 patients was short at 2.7 months, and the median overall survival was estimated at 6.7 months.

“It was staggering to see this: The duration of response was significantly short, less than 2 months,” Dr. Bennani said.

Nonhematologic toxicities were seen in 5 of the 12 patients (42%), and hematologic adverse events occurred in 3 (25%). All patients are now off treatment, 10 because of disease progression, 1 because of acute pancreatitis, and the aforementioned patient with hyperprogressive disease.

The patient with hyperprogressive disease had significant progression in tonsillar and cervical lymphadenopathy within 7-10 days of nivolumab infusion, with biopsy-proven AITL in the involved nodes.

“I believe that, in this patient population, combination therapies will be key. I think checkpoint blockers alone are not going to be sufficient to see meaningful outcomes in these patients,” Dr. Bennani said in an interview.

“An overall response rate of 33% is significant, because most other agents that were FDA approved in this patient population have response rates around 30%,” she said, adding that it’s possible that the patients with rapid progression had disease too advanced to be effectively treated with a checkpoint inhibitor.

“Ideally however, if we want to move forward, it will need to be with combinations of checkpoint inhibitors with HDAC [histone deacetylase] inhibitors, hypomethylating agents, or even PI3 kinase inhibitors,” she said.

­The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Bennani reported research funding and advisory board activities for Bristol-Myers Squibb and others.

SOURCE: Bennani NN et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 467.

ORLANDO – There is an urgent need for new therapies to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, but results of a phase 2 study suggest that monotherapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) is not the hoped-for salvage treatment.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

An interim analysis of data on 12 patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) treated with nivolumab monotherapy showed an overall response rate of 33%, consisting of 2 complete responses and 2 partial responses. But the responses were short lived, and one patient had hyperprogressive disease – dramatic progression within one cycle of treatment – while two more had progression within two cycles, leading to a trial halt, reported N. Nora Bennani, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“These findings likely reflect the distinct biology of PTCL and should be considered when designing future studies using checkpoint inhibitors in these diseases,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The rationale for using an immune checkpoint inhibitor directed against the programmed death–1 protein and its ligands (PD and PD-L1/2) is that malignant cells in PTCL induce a profoundly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Checkpoint inhibitors have shown strong activity against relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma, and the Mayo Clinic researchers speculated that an anti-PD-1 agent could have a similar effect in PTCL.

They had originally planned to enroll 29 patients into a phase 2 trial with nivolumab delivered 240 mg every 2 weeks for eight cycles, followed by a dose of 480 mg given every 4 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicities.

Patients were eligible if they had biopsy-confirmed relapsed or refractory PTCL, measurable disease on cross-sectional imaging of at least 1.5 cm, and prior systemic chemoimmunotherapy and/or autologous stem cell transplantation.

The interim analysis included 12 patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab. Of the 12 patients, 6 had angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), 3 had PTCL not otherwise specified, and 1 each had ALK-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALK-ALCL), enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma (EATL), or hepatosplenic gamma/delta T-cell lymphoma.

All patients had Ann Arbor stage III/IV disease, and 11 had extranodal involvement.

As noted, there were 4 responses among the 12 patients, consisting of 1 complete response in the patient with ALK-ALCL and 1 in a patient with AITL, and 2 partial responses – 1 in a patient with PTCL-NOS, and 1 in the patient with EATL.

The median progression-free survival for all 12 patients was short at 2.7 months, and the median overall survival was estimated at 6.7 months.

“It was staggering to see this: The duration of response was significantly short, less than 2 months,” Dr. Bennani said.

Nonhematologic toxicities were seen in 5 of the 12 patients (42%), and hematologic adverse events occurred in 3 (25%). All patients are now off treatment, 10 because of disease progression, 1 because of acute pancreatitis, and the aforementioned patient with hyperprogressive disease.

The patient with hyperprogressive disease had significant progression in tonsillar and cervical lymphadenopathy within 7-10 days of nivolumab infusion, with biopsy-proven AITL in the involved nodes.

“I believe that, in this patient population, combination therapies will be key. I think checkpoint blockers alone are not going to be sufficient to see meaningful outcomes in these patients,” Dr. Bennani said in an interview.

“An overall response rate of 33% is significant, because most other agents that were FDA approved in this patient population have response rates around 30%,” she said, adding that it’s possible that the patients with rapid progression had disease too advanced to be effectively treated with a checkpoint inhibitor.

“Ideally however, if we want to move forward, it will need to be with combinations of checkpoint inhibitors with HDAC [histone deacetylase] inhibitors, hypomethylating agents, or even PI3 kinase inhibitors,” she said.

­The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Bennani reported research funding and advisory board activities for Bristol-Myers Squibb and others.

SOURCE: Bennani NN et al. ASH 2019, Abstract 467.

Two priorities of NAMDRC have moved into the formal congressional arena. The issues focus on access to pulmonary rehabilitation and CMS’s move to include home mechanical ventilation in competitive bidding.

Pulmonary Rehabilitation – The Problem: One of the major concerns to CMS and Congress is the fact that different payment methodologies for the same service result in different payment amounts dependent upon the actual site of service. To address the phenomenon of hospitals purchasing certain physician practices to game the payment system, Congress included in the 2015 Budget Act a provision that would remove incentives for such hospital purchases by stating that new hospital outpatient services must be within 250 yards of the main hospital campus in order to receive payment based on the hospital outpatient prospective payment system methodology. If a hospital opens such services beyond that 250-yard threshold, the hospital would be reimbursed at the physician fee schedule amount for the same service. Likewise, if an off campus program moved its grandfathered location because of expansion, loss of lease, etc, the physician fee schedule would again kick in.

For pulmonary rehabilitation services, this is extremely problematic and is tying the hands of hospitals providing this service. The physician fee schedule payment for pulmonary rehabilitation is less than $30 for 1 hour of service, and it is, therefore, not surprising that the service is simply not provided in physician offices. In fact, Medicare data show that all physician specialties bill less than $1M for code G0424, and we believe that most of that is likely billing error. Pulmonologists bill less than $500K for code G0424, and putting that number in context, the entire Medicare program is approaching $700B in outlays.

Pulmonary Rehabilitation – The Solution: As a solution to this problem, HR 4838 has been introduced in the House of Representatives. There is no specific reference to pulmonary rehabilitation in the bill as our approach is based not only on substance but political considerations, as well. Using CMS’ own acknowledgment of “unintended consequences,” this legislation would exempt all CPT codes from the restrictions imposed by Section 603 of the 2015 Budget Act when the physician billings for that code are under $2M for the most recent year for which data are available. CMS has signaled to us that such a limitation would apply only to pulmonary and cardiac rehab services, but others may be affected, as well. By putting a dollar limit rather than identifying a specific service for such a “carve out,” it is a more politically viable approach.

Bills such as this rarely see the light of day; however, such provisions are often attached to larger, more substantive bills. For nearly 2 decades, the common legislative vehicle for such provisions is a larger Medicare bill, often including “must pass Medicare extender” provisions that are slated to expire on a particular date. Our goal is to include HR 4838 in such a package of extenders some time between now and the end of this Congress in 2020.

Home Mechanical Ventilation – The Problem: CMS has proposed inclusion of home mechanical ventilation in competitive bidding for durable medical equipment. Such a regulatory proposal is fraught with downside risk, most notably that such a policy would follow the history of liquid oxygen. Liquid 02 has virtually disappeared from the marketplace since it was included in competitive bidding as suppliers simply refused to provide liquid oxygen systems as their own bidding dropped the price to prohibitively low levels. Also, because there is a statutory requirement that such payment be made on the basis of “frequent and substantial servicing,” and that stipulation could trigger wide variations in actual bidding because some states require involvement of respiratory therapists in such services, while others do not.

It is critical to understand that the driving force behind all of this is the reality that CMS’ own coverage policies for home mechanical ventilation are seriously flawed and outdated, creating perverse incentives for physicians to order easily accessible systems rather than clinically appropriate ones. NAMDRC and its sister societies have been pushing CMS to revise those policies with no success.

Home Mechanical Ventilation – The Solution: Our solution is twofold. HR 4945 bill was introduced on November 1, 2019. First, the proposed legislation would create a blanket exemption for home mechanical ventilation from competitive bidding. Second, it requires CMS to convene a technical expert panel to craft up-to-date policies for home mechanical ventilation.

The political strategy here is slightly different. While passage of the bill is certainly our first choice, we believe that introduction of the bill is a red flag signal to CMS for the need to revise its coverage policies as those policies are the root cause of the growth of home mechanical ventilation outlays.

Two priorities of NAMDRC have moved into the formal congressional arena. The issues focus on access to pulmonary rehabilitation and CMS’s move to include home mechanical ventilation in competitive bidding.

Pulmonary Rehabilitation – The Problem: One of the major concerns to CMS and Congress is the fact that different payment methodologies for the same service result in different payment amounts dependent upon the actual site of service. To address the phenomenon of hospitals purchasing certain physician practices to game the payment system, Congress included in the 2015 Budget Act a provision that would remove incentives for such hospital purchases by stating that new hospital outpatient services must be within 250 yards of the main hospital campus in order to receive payment based on the hospital outpatient prospective payment system methodology. If a hospital opens such services beyond that 250-yard threshold, the hospital would be reimbursed at the physician fee schedule amount for the same service. Likewise, if an off campus program moved its grandfathered location because of expansion, loss of lease, etc, the physician fee schedule would again kick in.

For pulmonary rehabilitation services, this is extremely problematic and is tying the hands of hospitals providing this service. The physician fee schedule payment for pulmonary rehabilitation is less than $30 for 1 hour of service, and it is, therefore, not surprising that the service is simply not provided in physician offices. In fact, Medicare data show that all physician specialties bill less than $1M for code G0424, and we believe that most of that is likely billing error. Pulmonologists bill less than $500K for code G0424, and putting that number in context, the entire Medicare program is approaching $700B in outlays.

Pulmonary Rehabilitation – The Solution: As a solution to this problem, HR 4838 has been introduced in the House of Representatives. There is no specific reference to pulmonary rehabilitation in the bill as our approach is based not only on substance but political considerations, as well. Using CMS’ own acknowledgment of “unintended consequences,” this legislation would exempt all CPT codes from the restrictions imposed by Section 603 of the 2015 Budget Act when the physician billings for that code are under $2M for the most recent year for which data are available. CMS has signaled to us that such a limitation would apply only to pulmonary and cardiac rehab services, but others may be affected, as well. By putting a dollar limit rather than identifying a specific service for such a “carve out,” it is a more politically viable approach.

Bills such as this rarely see the light of day; however, such provisions are often attached to larger, more substantive bills. For nearly 2 decades, the common legislative vehicle for such provisions is a larger Medicare bill, often including “must pass Medicare extender” provisions that are slated to expire on a particular date. Our goal is to include HR 4838 in such a package of extenders some time between now and the end of this Congress in 2020.

Home Mechanical Ventilation – The Problem: CMS has proposed inclusion of home mechanical ventilation in competitive bidding for durable medical equipment. Such a regulatory proposal is fraught with downside risk, most notably that such a policy would follow the history of liquid oxygen. Liquid 02 has virtually disappeared from the marketplace since it was included in competitive bidding as suppliers simply refused to provide liquid oxygen systems as their own bidding dropped the price to prohibitively low levels. Also, because there is a statutory requirement that such payment be made on the basis of “frequent and substantial servicing,” and that stipulation could trigger wide variations in actual bidding because some states require involvement of respiratory therapists in such services, while others do not.

It is critical to understand that the driving force behind all of this is the reality that CMS’ own coverage policies for home mechanical ventilation are seriously flawed and outdated, creating perverse incentives for physicians to order easily accessible systems rather than clinically appropriate ones. NAMDRC and its sister societies have been pushing CMS to revise those policies with no success.

Home Mechanical Ventilation – The Solution: Our solution is twofold. HR 4945 bill was introduced on November 1, 2019. First, the proposed legislation would create a blanket exemption for home mechanical ventilation from competitive bidding. Second, it requires CMS to convene a technical expert panel to craft up-to-date policies for home mechanical ventilation.

The political strategy here is slightly different. While passage of the bill is certainly our first choice, we believe that introduction of the bill is a red flag signal to CMS for the need to revise its coverage policies as those policies are the root cause of the growth of home mechanical ventilation outlays.

Two priorities of NAMDRC have moved into the formal congressional arena. The issues focus on access to pulmonary rehabilitation and CMS’s move to include home mechanical ventilation in competitive bidding.

Pulmonary Rehabilitation – The Problem: One of the major concerns to CMS and Congress is the fact that different payment methodologies for the same service result in different payment amounts dependent upon the actual site of service. To address the phenomenon of hospitals purchasing certain physician practices to game the payment system, Congress included in the 2015 Budget Act a provision that would remove incentives for such hospital purchases by stating that new hospital outpatient services must be within 250 yards of the main hospital campus in order to receive payment based on the hospital outpatient prospective payment system methodology. If a hospital opens such services beyond that 250-yard threshold, the hospital would be reimbursed at the physician fee schedule amount for the same service. Likewise, if an off campus program moved its grandfathered location because of expansion, loss of lease, etc, the physician fee schedule would again kick in.

For pulmonary rehabilitation services, this is extremely problematic and is tying the hands of hospitals providing this service. The physician fee schedule payment for pulmonary rehabilitation is less than $30 for 1 hour of service, and it is, therefore, not surprising that the service is simply not provided in physician offices. In fact, Medicare data show that all physician specialties bill less than $1M for code G0424, and we believe that most of that is likely billing error. Pulmonologists bill less than $500K for code G0424, and putting that number in context, the entire Medicare program is approaching $700B in outlays.

Pulmonary Rehabilitation – The Solution: As a solution to this problem, HR 4838 has been introduced in the House of Representatives. There is no specific reference to pulmonary rehabilitation in the bill as our approach is based not only on substance but political considerations, as well. Using CMS’ own acknowledgment of “unintended consequences,” this legislation would exempt all CPT codes from the restrictions imposed by Section 603 of the 2015 Budget Act when the physician billings for that code are under $2M for the most recent year for which data are available. CMS has signaled to us that such a limitation would apply only to pulmonary and cardiac rehab services, but others may be affected, as well. By putting a dollar limit rather than identifying a specific service for such a “carve out,” it is a more politically viable approach.

Bills such as this rarely see the light of day; however, such provisions are often attached to larger, more substantive bills. For nearly 2 decades, the common legislative vehicle for such provisions is a larger Medicare bill, often including “must pass Medicare extender” provisions that are slated to expire on a particular date. Our goal is to include HR 4838 in such a package of extenders some time between now and the end of this Congress in 2020.

Home Mechanical Ventilation – The Problem: CMS has proposed inclusion of home mechanical ventilation in competitive bidding for durable medical equipment. Such a regulatory proposal is fraught with downside risk, most notably that such a policy would follow the history of liquid oxygen. Liquid 02 has virtually disappeared from the marketplace since it was included in competitive bidding as suppliers simply refused to provide liquid oxygen systems as their own bidding dropped the price to prohibitively low levels. Also, because there is a statutory requirement that such payment be made on the basis of “frequent and substantial servicing,” and that stipulation could trigger wide variations in actual bidding because some states require involvement of respiratory therapists in such services, while others do not.

It is critical to understand that the driving force behind all of this is the reality that CMS’ own coverage policies for home mechanical ventilation are seriously flawed and outdated, creating perverse incentives for physicians to order easily accessible systems rather than clinically appropriate ones. NAMDRC and its sister societies have been pushing CMS to revise those policies with no success.

Home Mechanical Ventilation – The Solution: Our solution is twofold. HR 4945 bill was introduced on November 1, 2019. First, the proposed legislation would create a blanket exemption for home mechanical ventilation from competitive bidding. Second, it requires CMS to convene a technical expert panel to craft up-to-date policies for home mechanical ventilation.

The political strategy here is slightly different. While passage of the bill is certainly our first choice, we believe that introduction of the bill is a red flag signal to CMS for the need to revise its coverage policies as those policies are the root cause of the growth of home mechanical ventilation outlays.