ORLANDO – What most people with type 2 diabetes don’t know about their cardiovascular risk could get them killed.

A national online survey revealed a surprising lack of awareness among patients with type 2 diabetes and their loved ones regarding the well-established significantly increased risk of cardiovascular mortality associated with the disease.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“We thought patient awareness would be higher, but some who I think understand this space better are surprised it’s even this high,” Dr. Pak said in an interview.

Putting aside the widespread lack of awareness of cardiovascular disease as the leading cause of death in patients with type 2 diabetes, 52% of the patients with type 2 diabetes and a similar proportion of their loved ones were unaware that type 2 diabetes is associated with any increased risk of cardiovascular disease and other macrovascular events, noted Dr. Pak, director of metabolism at Boehringer Ingelheim in Ridgefield, Conn.

There was a strong whiff of denial in the patients’ attitudes. For example, only 24% of the group with type 2 diabetes rated themselves as “likely” to have an amputation in the future, yet they rated 42% of others with type 2 disease as likely to undergo amputation. The same attitude pertained to the prospect of having an acute MI: It’s the others who are at increased risk, not me.

Encouragingly though, more than 80% of the type 2 diabetes patients who hadn’t realized they were at increased cardiovascular risk indicated that if they truly are at increased risk, they would take preventive measures to reduce that risk, including dietary modification and a conversation with their healthcare provider. In addition, 80% said their motivation in doing so would be to improve their quality of life, and 73% cited a desire to live longer and spend more time with their family, Dr. Pak observed.

“The findings from this survey highlight a huge opportunity to educate and inform, and for patients and their loved ones to act on,” he said.

The For Your Sweetheart survey was supported by Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and the Company Diabetes Alliance.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pak J. ACC 18.

ORLANDO – What most people with type 2 diabetes don’t know about their cardiovascular risk could get them killed.

A national online survey revealed a surprising lack of awareness among patients with type 2 diabetes and their loved ones regarding the well-established significantly increased risk of cardiovascular mortality associated with the disease.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“We thought patient awareness would be higher, but some who I think understand this space better are surprised it’s even this high,” Dr. Pak said in an interview.

Putting aside the widespread lack of awareness of cardiovascular disease as the leading cause of death in patients with type 2 diabetes, 52% of the patients with type 2 diabetes and a similar proportion of their loved ones were unaware that type 2 diabetes is associated with any increased risk of cardiovascular disease and other macrovascular events, noted Dr. Pak, director of metabolism at Boehringer Ingelheim in Ridgefield, Conn.

There was a strong whiff of denial in the patients’ attitudes. For example, only 24% of the group with type 2 diabetes rated themselves as “likely” to have an amputation in the future, yet they rated 42% of others with type 2 disease as likely to undergo amputation. The same attitude pertained to the prospect of having an acute MI: It’s the others who are at increased risk, not me.

Encouragingly though, more than 80% of the type 2 diabetes patients who hadn’t realized they were at increased cardiovascular risk indicated that if they truly are at increased risk, they would take preventive measures to reduce that risk, including dietary modification and a conversation with their healthcare provider. In addition, 80% said their motivation in doing so would be to improve their quality of life, and 73% cited a desire to live longer and spend more time with their family, Dr. Pak observed.

“The findings from this survey highlight a huge opportunity to educate and inform, and for patients and their loved ones to act on,” he said.

The For Your Sweetheart survey was supported by Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and the Company Diabetes Alliance.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pak J. ACC 18.

ORLANDO – What most people with type 2 diabetes don’t know about their cardiovascular risk could get them killed.

A national online survey revealed a surprising lack of awareness among patients with type 2 diabetes and their loved ones regarding the well-established significantly increased risk of cardiovascular mortality associated with the disease.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“We thought patient awareness would be higher, but some who I think understand this space better are surprised it’s even this high,” Dr. Pak said in an interview.

Putting aside the widespread lack of awareness of cardiovascular disease as the leading cause of death in patients with type 2 diabetes, 52% of the patients with type 2 diabetes and a similar proportion of their loved ones were unaware that type 2 diabetes is associated with any increased risk of cardiovascular disease and other macrovascular events, noted Dr. Pak, director of metabolism at Boehringer Ingelheim in Ridgefield, Conn.

There was a strong whiff of denial in the patients’ attitudes. For example, only 24% of the group with type 2 diabetes rated themselves as “likely” to have an amputation in the future, yet they rated 42% of others with type 2 disease as likely to undergo amputation. The same attitude pertained to the prospect of having an acute MI: It’s the others who are at increased risk, not me.

Encouragingly though, more than 80% of the type 2 diabetes patients who hadn’t realized they were at increased cardiovascular risk indicated that if they truly are at increased risk, they would take preventive measures to reduce that risk, including dietary modification and a conversation with their healthcare provider. In addition, 80% said their motivation in doing so would be to improve their quality of life, and 73% cited a desire to live longer and spend more time with their family, Dr. Pak observed.

“The findings from this survey highlight a huge opportunity to educate and inform, and for patients and their loved ones to act on,” he said.

The For Your Sweetheart survey was supported by Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and the Company Diabetes Alliance.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pak J. ACC 18.

The Ixodes tick is prevalent in temperate climates worldwide. During a blood meal, pathogens may be transmitted from the tick to its host. Borrelia burgdorferi, a spirochete responsible for Lyme disease, is the most prevalent pathogen transmitted by Ixodes ticks.¹ Borrelia mayonii recently was identified as an additional cause of Lyme disease in the United States.²

The Ixodes tick also is associated with several less common pathogens, including Babesia microti and the tick-borne encephalitis virus, which have been recognized as Ixodes-associated pathogens for many years.^3,4 Other pathogens have been identified, including Anaplasma phagocytophilum, recognized in the 1990s as the cause of human granulocytic anaplasmosis, as well as the Powassan virus and Borrelia miyamotoi.^5-7 Additionally, tick paralysis has been associated with toxins in the saliva of various species of several genera of ticks, including some Ixodes species.⁸ Due to an overlap in geographic distribution (Figure) and disease presentations (eTable), it is important that physicians be familiar with these regional pathogens transmitted by Ixodes ticks.

Human Granulocytic Anaplasmosis

Formerly known as human granulocytic ehrlichiosis, human granulocytic anaplasmosis is caused by A phagocytophilum and is transmitted by Ixodes scapularis, Ixodes pacificus, and Ixodes persulcatus. The incidence of human granulocytic anaplasmosis in the United States increased 12-fold from 2001 to 2011.⁹

Presenting symptoms generally are nonspecific, including fever, night sweats, headache, myalgias, and arthralgias, often resulting in misdiagnosis as a viral infection. Laboratory abnormalities include mild transaminitis, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia.^9,10 Although most infections resolve spontaneously, 3% of patients develop serious complications. The mortality rate is 0.6%.¹¹

A diagnosis of human granulocytic anaplasmosis should be suspected in patients with a viral-like illness and exposure to ticks in an endemic area. The diagnosis can be confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), acute- and convalescent-phase serologic testing, or direct fluorescent antibody screening. Characteristic morulae may be present in granulocytes.¹² Treatment typically includes doxycycline, which also covers B burgdorferi coinfection. When a diagnosis of human granulocytic anaplasmosis is suspected, treatment should never be delayed to await laboratory confirmation. If no clinical improvement is seen within 48 hours, alternate diagnoses or coinfection with B microti should be considered.¹⁰

Babesiosis

The protozoan B microti causes babesiosis in the United States, with Babesia divergens being more common in Europe.¹³ Reported cases of babesiosis in New York increased as much as 20-fold from 2001 to 2008.¹⁴ Transmission primarily is from the Ixodes tick but rarely can occur from blood transfusion.¹⁵ Tick attachment for at least 36 hours is required for transmission.¹³

The clinical presentation of babesiosis ranges from asymptomatic to fatal. Symptoms generally are nonspecific, resembling a viral infection and including headache, nausea, diarrhea, arthralgia, and myalgia. Laboratory evaluation may reveal hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, transaminitis, and elevated blood urea nitrogen and creatinine levels.¹⁶ Rash is not typical. Resolution of symptoms generally occurs within 2 weeks of presentation, although anemia may persist for months.¹³ Severe disease is more common among elderly and immunocompromised patients. Complications include respiratory failure, renal failure, congestive heart failure, and disseminated intravascular coagulation. The mortality rate in the United States is approximately 10%.^10,16

A diagnosis of babesiosis is made based on the presence of flulike symptoms, laboratory results, and history of recent travel to an endemic area. A thin blood smear allows identification of the organism in erythrocytes as ring forms or tetrads (a “Maltese cross” appearance).¹⁷ Polymerase chain reaction is more sensitive than a blood smear, especially in early disease.¹⁸ Indirect fluorescent antibody testing is species-specific but cannot verify active infection.¹⁰

Treatment of babesiosis is indicated for symptomatic patients with active infection. Positive serology alone is not an indication for treatment. Asymptomatic patients with positive serology should have diagnostic testing repeated in 3 months with subsequent treatment if parasitemia persists. Mild disease is treated with atovaquone plus azithromycin or clindamycin plus quinine. Severe babesiosis is treated with quinine and intravenous clindamycin and may require exchange transfusion.¹⁰ Coinfection with B burgdorferi should be considered in patients with flulike symptoms and erythema migrans or treatment failure. Coinfection is diagnosed by Lyme serology plus PCR for B microti. This is an important consideration because treatment of babesiosis does not eradicate B burgdorferi infection.¹⁹

Powassan Virus

Powassan virus is a flavivirus that causes encephalitis. It is transmitted by Ixodes cookei (Powassan virus, lineage I) in the Great Lakes region and by I scapularis (Powassan virus, lineage II, or deer tick virus) in the northeastern United States. Transmission can occur within 15 minutes of tick attachment.^6,20,21

Patients typically present with fever, headache, altered mental status, seizures, and focal neurologic deficits. Gastrointestinal symptoms and rash also have been reported.²¹ The diagnosis is made based on clinical presentation and laboratory testing with PCR or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Cross-reactivity on ELISA exists, necessitating confirmation with a neutralizing antibody or PCR. Treatment is supportive. Corticosteroids and intravenous immunoglobulin have been proposed as treatment modalities, but evidence of their efficacy is limited.²²

Tick-borne Encephalitis

Tick-borne encephalitis is caused by the flavivirus tick-borne encephalitis virus in Europe and Asia. The tick-borne encephalitis virus is transmitted by Ixodes ricinus in Europe and by Ixodes persulcatus in eastern Russia, China, and Japan. It also has been associated with consumption of unpasteurized milk.^23,24

Tick-borne encephalitis presents in a biphasic pattern. The initial viremic phase can persist for as long as 8 days with headache, nausea, myalgia, and fever. One-third of patients then enter an asymptomatic phase, followed by virus penetration into the central nervous system. The neurologic phase produces continued headache and fever with photophobia, focal neurologic deficits, seizures, respiratory depression, or coma. Neurologic sequelae persist in 10% to 20% of patients.^25,26

In the viremic stage, diagnosis is made with PCR or culture. During the latent phase or neurologic phase, serologic testing for tick-borne encephalitis virus antibodies is indicated. Neutralizing antibody evaluation may be necessary due to cross-reactivity among flaviviruses.²⁷ Treatment is supportive. An inactivated vaccine is available for high-risk populations.²⁸

Borrelia miyamotoi Disease

Borrelia miyamotoi is a symbiont of the Ixodes tick formerly believed to have no pathogenic significance; however, B miyamotoi was isolated in febrile patients in Russia in 2011⁷ and was identified as a pathogen in both North America²⁹ and Europe in 2013.³⁰ Disease presentation includes nonspecific symptoms of fever, fatigue, headache, arthralgia, myalgia, and nausea. Rash is uncommon. Laboratory abnormalities include leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, and transaminitis.^31,32 Meningoencephalitis may occur in immunocompromised patients.^29,30

The diagnosis of B miyamotoi disease is confirmed by PCR or serology. An ELISA that is positive for B burgdorferi IgM but negative with confirmatory immunoblot suggests B miyamotoi disease. Seroconversion using a glpQ protein ELISA also can be assessed.³¹ If ELISA is positive, Lyme disease can be excluded because B burgdorferi does not possess g1pQ. Treatment is with doxycycline.³²

Tick Paralysis

Tick paralysis is an intoxication with holocyclotoxin from the saliva of gravid hard ticks. In the United States, intoxication is associated with ticks of various species of Amblyomma, Dermacentor, and Ixodes in the Northwest, Southeast, and Northeast. In Australia, intoxication is associated with Ixodes.³³ Patients present with weakness and fatigue, progressing to ascending flaccid paralysis with sensory sparing. The treatment is tick removal.^8,33

Conclusion

Arthropods carry many regional pathogens. Physicians outside of those regions should seek a travel history and be alert for imported disease.

The Ixodes tick is prevalent in temperate climates worldwide. During a blood meal, pathogens may be transmitted from the tick to its host. Borrelia burgdorferi, a spirochete responsible for Lyme disease, is the most prevalent pathogen transmitted by Ixodes ticks.¹ Borrelia mayonii recently was identified as an additional cause of Lyme disease in the United States.²

The Ixodes tick also is associated with several less common pathogens, including Babesia microti and the tick-borne encephalitis virus, which have been recognized as Ixodes-associated pathogens for many years.^3,4 Other pathogens have been identified, including Anaplasma phagocytophilum, recognized in the 1990s as the cause of human granulocytic anaplasmosis, as well as the Powassan virus and Borrelia miyamotoi.^5-7 Additionally, tick paralysis has been associated with toxins in the saliva of various species of several genera of ticks, including some Ixodes species.⁸ Due to an overlap in geographic distribution (Figure) and disease presentations (eTable), it is important that physicians be familiar with these regional pathogens transmitted by Ixodes ticks.

Human Granulocytic Anaplasmosis

Formerly known as human granulocytic ehrlichiosis, human granulocytic anaplasmosis is caused by A phagocytophilum and is transmitted by Ixodes scapularis, Ixodes pacificus, and Ixodes persulcatus. The incidence of human granulocytic anaplasmosis in the United States increased 12-fold from 2001 to 2011.⁹

Presenting symptoms generally are nonspecific, including fever, night sweats, headache, myalgias, and arthralgias, often resulting in misdiagnosis as a viral infection. Laboratory abnormalities include mild transaminitis, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia.^9,10 Although most infections resolve spontaneously, 3% of patients develop serious complications. The mortality rate is 0.6%.¹¹

A diagnosis of human granulocytic anaplasmosis should be suspected in patients with a viral-like illness and exposure to ticks in an endemic area. The diagnosis can be confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), acute- and convalescent-phase serologic testing, or direct fluorescent antibody screening. Characteristic morulae may be present in granulocytes.¹² Treatment typically includes doxycycline, which also covers B burgdorferi coinfection. When a diagnosis of human granulocytic anaplasmosis is suspected, treatment should never be delayed to await laboratory confirmation. If no clinical improvement is seen within 48 hours, alternate diagnoses or coinfection with B microti should be considered.¹⁰

Babesiosis

The protozoan B microti causes babesiosis in the United States, with Babesia divergens being more common in Europe.¹³ Reported cases of babesiosis in New York increased as much as 20-fold from 2001 to 2008.¹⁴ Transmission primarily is from the Ixodes tick but rarely can occur from blood transfusion.¹⁵ Tick attachment for at least 36 hours is required for transmission.¹³

The clinical presentation of babesiosis ranges from asymptomatic to fatal. Symptoms generally are nonspecific, resembling a viral infection and including headache, nausea, diarrhea, arthralgia, and myalgia. Laboratory evaluation may reveal hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, transaminitis, and elevated blood urea nitrogen and creatinine levels.¹⁶ Rash is not typical. Resolution of symptoms generally occurs within 2 weeks of presentation, although anemia may persist for months.¹³ Severe disease is more common among elderly and immunocompromised patients. Complications include respiratory failure, renal failure, congestive heart failure, and disseminated intravascular coagulation. The mortality rate in the United States is approximately 10%.^10,16

A diagnosis of babesiosis is made based on the presence of flulike symptoms, laboratory results, and history of recent travel to an endemic area. A thin blood smear allows identification of the organism in erythrocytes as ring forms or tetrads (a “Maltese cross” appearance).¹⁷ Polymerase chain reaction is more sensitive than a blood smear, especially in early disease.¹⁸ Indirect fluorescent antibody testing is species-specific but cannot verify active infection.¹⁰

Treatment of babesiosis is indicated for symptomatic patients with active infection. Positive serology alone is not an indication for treatment. Asymptomatic patients with positive serology should have diagnostic testing repeated in 3 months with subsequent treatment if parasitemia persists. Mild disease is treated with atovaquone plus azithromycin or clindamycin plus quinine. Severe babesiosis is treated with quinine and intravenous clindamycin and may require exchange transfusion.¹⁰ Coinfection with B burgdorferi should be considered in patients with flulike symptoms and erythema migrans or treatment failure. Coinfection is diagnosed by Lyme serology plus PCR for B microti. This is an important consideration because treatment of babesiosis does not eradicate B burgdorferi infection.¹⁹

Powassan Virus

Powassan virus is a flavivirus that causes encephalitis. It is transmitted by Ixodes cookei (Powassan virus, lineage I) in the Great Lakes region and by I scapularis (Powassan virus, lineage II, or deer tick virus) in the northeastern United States. Transmission can occur within 15 minutes of tick attachment.^6,20,21

Patients typically present with fever, headache, altered mental status, seizures, and focal neurologic deficits. Gastrointestinal symptoms and rash also have been reported.²¹ The diagnosis is made based on clinical presentation and laboratory testing with PCR or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Cross-reactivity on ELISA exists, necessitating confirmation with a neutralizing antibody or PCR. Treatment is supportive. Corticosteroids and intravenous immunoglobulin have been proposed as treatment modalities, but evidence of their efficacy is limited.²²

Tick-borne Encephalitis

Tick-borne encephalitis is caused by the flavivirus tick-borne encephalitis virus in Europe and Asia. The tick-borne encephalitis virus is transmitted by Ixodes ricinus in Europe and by Ixodes persulcatus in eastern Russia, China, and Japan. It also has been associated with consumption of unpasteurized milk.^23,24

Tick-borne encephalitis presents in a biphasic pattern. The initial viremic phase can persist for as long as 8 days with headache, nausea, myalgia, and fever. One-third of patients then enter an asymptomatic phase, followed by virus penetration into the central nervous system. The neurologic phase produces continued headache and fever with photophobia, focal neurologic deficits, seizures, respiratory depression, or coma. Neurologic sequelae persist in 10% to 20% of patients.^25,26

In the viremic stage, diagnosis is made with PCR or culture. During the latent phase or neurologic phase, serologic testing for tick-borne encephalitis virus antibodies is indicated. Neutralizing antibody evaluation may be necessary due to cross-reactivity among flaviviruses.²⁷ Treatment is supportive. An inactivated vaccine is available for high-risk populations.²⁸

Borrelia miyamotoi Disease

Borrelia miyamotoi is a symbiont of the Ixodes tick formerly believed to have no pathogenic significance; however, B miyamotoi was isolated in febrile patients in Russia in 2011⁷ and was identified as a pathogen in both North America²⁹ and Europe in 2013.³⁰ Disease presentation includes nonspecific symptoms of fever, fatigue, headache, arthralgia, myalgia, and nausea. Rash is uncommon. Laboratory abnormalities include leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, and transaminitis.^31,32 Meningoencephalitis may occur in immunocompromised patients.^29,30

The diagnosis of B miyamotoi disease is confirmed by PCR or serology. An ELISA that is positive for B burgdorferi IgM but negative with confirmatory immunoblot suggests B miyamotoi disease. Seroconversion using a glpQ protein ELISA also can be assessed.³¹ If ELISA is positive, Lyme disease can be excluded because B burgdorferi does not possess g1pQ. Treatment is with doxycycline.³²

Tick Paralysis

Tick paralysis is an intoxication with holocyclotoxin from the saliva of gravid hard ticks. In the United States, intoxication is associated with ticks of various species of Amblyomma, Dermacentor, and Ixodes in the Northwest, Southeast, and Northeast. In Australia, intoxication is associated with Ixodes.³³ Patients present with weakness and fatigue, progressing to ascending flaccid paralysis with sensory sparing. The treatment is tick removal.^8,33

Conclusion

Arthropods carry many regional pathogens. Physicians outside of those regions should seek a travel history and be alert for imported disease.

The Ixodes tick is prevalent in temperate climates worldwide. During a blood meal, pathogens may be transmitted from the tick to its host. Borrelia burgdorferi, a spirochete responsible for Lyme disease, is the most prevalent pathogen transmitted by Ixodes ticks.¹ Borrelia mayonii recently was identified as an additional cause of Lyme disease in the United States.²

The Ixodes tick also is associated with several less common pathogens, including Babesia microti and the tick-borne encephalitis virus, which have been recognized as Ixodes-associated pathogens for many years.^3,4 Other pathogens have been identified, including Anaplasma phagocytophilum, recognized in the 1990s as the cause of human granulocytic anaplasmosis, as well as the Powassan virus and Borrelia miyamotoi.^5-7 Additionally, tick paralysis has been associated with toxins in the saliva of various species of several genera of ticks, including some Ixodes species.⁸ Due to an overlap in geographic distribution (Figure) and disease presentations (eTable), it is important that physicians be familiar with these regional pathogens transmitted by Ixodes ticks.

Human Granulocytic Anaplasmosis

Formerly known as human granulocytic ehrlichiosis, human granulocytic anaplasmosis is caused by A phagocytophilum and is transmitted by Ixodes scapularis, Ixodes pacificus, and Ixodes persulcatus. The incidence of human granulocytic anaplasmosis in the United States increased 12-fold from 2001 to 2011.⁹

Presenting symptoms generally are nonspecific, including fever, night sweats, headache, myalgias, and arthralgias, often resulting in misdiagnosis as a viral infection. Laboratory abnormalities include mild transaminitis, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia.^9,10 Although most infections resolve spontaneously, 3% of patients develop serious complications. The mortality rate is 0.6%.¹¹

A diagnosis of human granulocytic anaplasmosis should be suspected in patients with a viral-like illness and exposure to ticks in an endemic area. The diagnosis can be confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), acute- and convalescent-phase serologic testing, or direct fluorescent antibody screening. Characteristic morulae may be present in granulocytes.¹² Treatment typically includes doxycycline, which also covers B burgdorferi coinfection. When a diagnosis of human granulocytic anaplasmosis is suspected, treatment should never be delayed to await laboratory confirmation. If no clinical improvement is seen within 48 hours, alternate diagnoses or coinfection with B microti should be considered.¹⁰

Babesiosis

The protozoan B microti causes babesiosis in the United States, with Babesia divergens being more common in Europe.¹³ Reported cases of babesiosis in New York increased as much as 20-fold from 2001 to 2008.¹⁴ Transmission primarily is from the Ixodes tick but rarely can occur from blood transfusion.¹⁵ Tick attachment for at least 36 hours is required for transmission.¹³

The clinical presentation of babesiosis ranges from asymptomatic to fatal. Symptoms generally are nonspecific, resembling a viral infection and including headache, nausea, diarrhea, arthralgia, and myalgia. Laboratory evaluation may reveal hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, transaminitis, and elevated blood urea nitrogen and creatinine levels.¹⁶ Rash is not typical. Resolution of symptoms generally occurs within 2 weeks of presentation, although anemia may persist for months.¹³ Severe disease is more common among elderly and immunocompromised patients. Complications include respiratory failure, renal failure, congestive heart failure, and disseminated intravascular coagulation. The mortality rate in the United States is approximately 10%.^10,16

A diagnosis of babesiosis is made based on the presence of flulike symptoms, laboratory results, and history of recent travel to an endemic area. A thin blood smear allows identification of the organism in erythrocytes as ring forms or tetrads (a “Maltese cross” appearance).¹⁷ Polymerase chain reaction is more sensitive than a blood smear, especially in early disease.¹⁸ Indirect fluorescent antibody testing is species-specific but cannot verify active infection.¹⁰

Treatment of babesiosis is indicated for symptomatic patients with active infection. Positive serology alone is not an indication for treatment. Asymptomatic patients with positive serology should have diagnostic testing repeated in 3 months with subsequent treatment if parasitemia persists. Mild disease is treated with atovaquone plus azithromycin or clindamycin plus quinine. Severe babesiosis is treated with quinine and intravenous clindamycin and may require exchange transfusion.¹⁰ Coinfection with B burgdorferi should be considered in patients with flulike symptoms and erythema migrans or treatment failure. Coinfection is diagnosed by Lyme serology plus PCR for B microti. This is an important consideration because treatment of babesiosis does not eradicate B burgdorferi infection.¹⁹

Powassan Virus

Powassan virus is a flavivirus that causes encephalitis. It is transmitted by Ixodes cookei (Powassan virus, lineage I) in the Great Lakes region and by I scapularis (Powassan virus, lineage II, or deer tick virus) in the northeastern United States. Transmission can occur within 15 minutes of tick attachment.^6,20,21

Patients typically present with fever, headache, altered mental status, seizures, and focal neurologic deficits. Gastrointestinal symptoms and rash also have been reported.²¹ The diagnosis is made based on clinical presentation and laboratory testing with PCR or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Cross-reactivity on ELISA exists, necessitating confirmation with a neutralizing antibody or PCR. Treatment is supportive. Corticosteroids and intravenous immunoglobulin have been proposed as treatment modalities, but evidence of their efficacy is limited.²²

Tick-borne Encephalitis

Tick-borne encephalitis is caused by the flavivirus tick-borne encephalitis virus in Europe and Asia. The tick-borne encephalitis virus is transmitted by Ixodes ricinus in Europe and by Ixodes persulcatus in eastern Russia, China, and Japan. It also has been associated with consumption of unpasteurized milk.^23,24

Tick-borne encephalitis presents in a biphasic pattern. The initial viremic phase can persist for as long as 8 days with headache, nausea, myalgia, and fever. One-third of patients then enter an asymptomatic phase, followed by virus penetration into the central nervous system. The neurologic phase produces continued headache and fever with photophobia, focal neurologic deficits, seizures, respiratory depression, or coma. Neurologic sequelae persist in 10% to 20% of patients.^25,26

In the viremic stage, diagnosis is made with PCR or culture. During the latent phase or neurologic phase, serologic testing for tick-borne encephalitis virus antibodies is indicated. Neutralizing antibody evaluation may be necessary due to cross-reactivity among flaviviruses.²⁷ Treatment is supportive. An inactivated vaccine is available for high-risk populations.²⁸

Borrelia miyamotoi Disease

Borrelia miyamotoi is a symbiont of the Ixodes tick formerly believed to have no pathogenic significance; however, B miyamotoi was isolated in febrile patients in Russia in 2011⁷ and was identified as a pathogen in both North America²⁹ and Europe in 2013.³⁰ Disease presentation includes nonspecific symptoms of fever, fatigue, headache, arthralgia, myalgia, and nausea. Rash is uncommon. Laboratory abnormalities include leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, and transaminitis.^31,32 Meningoencephalitis may occur in immunocompromised patients.^29,30

The diagnosis of B miyamotoi disease is confirmed by PCR or serology. An ELISA that is positive for B burgdorferi IgM but negative with confirmatory immunoblot suggests B miyamotoi disease. Seroconversion using a glpQ protein ELISA also can be assessed.³¹ If ELISA is positive, Lyme disease can be excluded because B burgdorferi does not possess g1pQ. Treatment is with doxycycline.³²

Tick Paralysis

Tick paralysis is an intoxication with holocyclotoxin from the saliva of gravid hard ticks. In the United States, intoxication is associated with ticks of various species of Amblyomma, Dermacentor, and Ixodes in the Northwest, Southeast, and Northeast. In Australia, intoxication is associated with Ixodes.³³ Patients present with weakness and fatigue, progressing to ascending flaccid paralysis with sensory sparing. The treatment is tick removal.^8,33

Conclusion

Arthropods carry many regional pathogens. Physicians outside of those regions should seek a travel history and be alert for imported disease.

Physicians receiving general payments from the company marketing a targeted cancer therapy were more likely to prescribe it in three out of six drugs evaluated, researchers reported.

Prescribing of sunitinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib was increased for physicians receiving such payments versus not receiving them, while prescribing of imatinib, sorafenib, and pazopanib were not, according to the analysis by Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, of the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, UNC School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and his coauthors.

In previous studies, pharmaceutical industry payments to physicians have been associated with “higher-cost, brand-name pharmaceutical prescribing,” Dr. Mitchell and his colleagues wrote. The report was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Whether industry payments are associated with physician treatment choice in oncology is uncertain,” they said.

To evaluate the association between payments to oncologists and drug selection, Dr. Mitchell and his colleagues linked Open Payments data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to data from Medicare Part D Prescriber Public Use File for the years 2013-2014.

The primary variable in the study was payments received during 2013, according to investigators, and the primary outcome of the analysis was prescriptions filled during 2014.

Open Payments reported in 2013 had a total dollar value of $4.08 billion, including $1.20 billion paid to physicians, according to CMS data.

The researchers focused on targeted therapies for two therapeutic areas: metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), including sorafenib, sunitinib, and pazopanib; and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), including imatinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib.

They limited their analysis to physicians listed as oncologists who filled at least 20 prescriptions for each of the three drugs in metastatic RCC (n = 354) or in CML (n = 2,225).

Receiving payments categorized as “general,” such as gifts, speaker fees, meals, and travel, increased the odds of prescribing drugs for both metastatic RCC (odds ratio, 2.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-3.14; P = .001) and for CML (odds ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.13-1.47; P less than .001).

By contrast, research payments did not increase the odds of prescribing those drugs, the investigators reported.

Looking at specific drugs, they found that receipt of general payments from a drug’s manufacturer was associated with increased prescribing of sunitinib (50.5% versus 34.4%, P = .01), dasatinib (13.8% versus 11.4%, P = .02), and nilotinib (15.4% vs 12.5%, P = .01).

However, no such association was found for sorafenib or pazopanib.

For imatinib, by contrast, investigators said industry payments were associated with a prescribing decrease.

“This may reflect a strategy by the manufacturer of imatinib, which also produces nilotinib, to promote switching to nilotinib before the patent expiration of imatinib in 2015,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Mitchell and his coauthors reported no conflict of interest disclosures related to the study.

SOURCE: Mitchell AP, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Apr 9. doi: 0.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0776.

Physicians receiving general payments from the company marketing a targeted cancer therapy were more likely to prescribe it in three out of six drugs evaluated, researchers reported.

Prescribing of sunitinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib was increased for physicians receiving such payments versus not receiving them, while prescribing of imatinib, sorafenib, and pazopanib were not, according to the analysis by Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, of the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, UNC School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and his coauthors.

In previous studies, pharmaceutical industry payments to physicians have been associated with “higher-cost, brand-name pharmaceutical prescribing,” Dr. Mitchell and his colleagues wrote. The report was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Whether industry payments are associated with physician treatment choice in oncology is uncertain,” they said.

To evaluate the association between payments to oncologists and drug selection, Dr. Mitchell and his colleagues linked Open Payments data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to data from Medicare Part D Prescriber Public Use File for the years 2013-2014.

The primary variable in the study was payments received during 2013, according to investigators, and the primary outcome of the analysis was prescriptions filled during 2014.

Open Payments reported in 2013 had a total dollar value of $4.08 billion, including $1.20 billion paid to physicians, according to CMS data.

The researchers focused on targeted therapies for two therapeutic areas: metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), including sorafenib, sunitinib, and pazopanib; and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), including imatinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib.

They limited their analysis to physicians listed as oncologists who filled at least 20 prescriptions for each of the three drugs in metastatic RCC (n = 354) or in CML (n = 2,225).

Receiving payments categorized as “general,” such as gifts, speaker fees, meals, and travel, increased the odds of prescribing drugs for both metastatic RCC (odds ratio, 2.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-3.14; P = .001) and for CML (odds ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.13-1.47; P less than .001).

By contrast, research payments did not increase the odds of prescribing those drugs, the investigators reported.

Looking at specific drugs, they found that receipt of general payments from a drug’s manufacturer was associated with increased prescribing of sunitinib (50.5% versus 34.4%, P = .01), dasatinib (13.8% versus 11.4%, P = .02), and nilotinib (15.4% vs 12.5%, P = .01).

However, no such association was found for sorafenib or pazopanib.

For imatinib, by contrast, investigators said industry payments were associated with a prescribing decrease.

“This may reflect a strategy by the manufacturer of imatinib, which also produces nilotinib, to promote switching to nilotinib before the patent expiration of imatinib in 2015,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Mitchell and his coauthors reported no conflict of interest disclosures related to the study.

SOURCE: Mitchell AP, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Apr 9. doi: 0.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0776.

Physicians receiving general payments from the company marketing a targeted cancer therapy were more likely to prescribe it in three out of six drugs evaluated, researchers reported.

Prescribing of sunitinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib was increased for physicians receiving such payments versus not receiving them, while prescribing of imatinib, sorafenib, and pazopanib were not, according to the analysis by Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, of the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, UNC School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and his coauthors.

In previous studies, pharmaceutical industry payments to physicians have been associated with “higher-cost, brand-name pharmaceutical prescribing,” Dr. Mitchell and his colleagues wrote. The report was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Whether industry payments are associated with physician treatment choice in oncology is uncertain,” they said.

To evaluate the association between payments to oncologists and drug selection, Dr. Mitchell and his colleagues linked Open Payments data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to data from Medicare Part D Prescriber Public Use File for the years 2013-2014.

The primary variable in the study was payments received during 2013, according to investigators, and the primary outcome of the analysis was prescriptions filled during 2014.

Open Payments reported in 2013 had a total dollar value of $4.08 billion, including $1.20 billion paid to physicians, according to CMS data.

The researchers focused on targeted therapies for two therapeutic areas: metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), including sorafenib, sunitinib, and pazopanib; and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), including imatinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib.

They limited their analysis to physicians listed as oncologists who filled at least 20 prescriptions for each of the three drugs in metastatic RCC (n = 354) or in CML (n = 2,225).

Receiving payments categorized as “general,” such as gifts, speaker fees, meals, and travel, increased the odds of prescribing drugs for both metastatic RCC (odds ratio, 2.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-3.14; P = .001) and for CML (odds ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.13-1.47; P less than .001).

By contrast, research payments did not increase the odds of prescribing those drugs, the investigators reported.

Looking at specific drugs, they found that receipt of general payments from a drug’s manufacturer was associated with increased prescribing of sunitinib (50.5% versus 34.4%, P = .01), dasatinib (13.8% versus 11.4%, P = .02), and nilotinib (15.4% vs 12.5%, P = .01).

However, no such association was found for sorafenib or pazopanib.

For imatinib, by contrast, investigators said industry payments were associated with a prescribing decrease.

“This may reflect a strategy by the manufacturer of imatinib, which also produces nilotinib, to promote switching to nilotinib before the patent expiration of imatinib in 2015,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Mitchell and his coauthors reported no conflict of interest disclosures related to the study.

SOURCE: Mitchell AP, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Apr 9. doi: 0.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0776.

Prenatal exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) was associated with fetal brain development in brain regions important in emotional processing, results of an imaging study show.

Compared to controls, SSRI-exposed infants had significant gray matter volume expansion and increased white matter structural connectivity in the amygdala and insula, according to results published in JAMA Pediatrics.

“Our findings suggest a potential association between prenatal SSRI exposure, likely via aberrant serotonin signaling, and the development of the amygdala-insula circuit in the fetal brain,” wrote Claudia Lugo-Candelas, PhD, of Columbia University Medical Center, New York, and her coauthors.

An increasing number of pregnant women are taking SSRIs, in part due to increased awareness of the negative effects of untreated prenatal maternal depression (PMD), the investigators said in their report.

“Because untreated PMD poses risks to both the infant and mother, the decision to initiate, continue, or suspend SSRI treatment remains a clinical dilemma,” they wrote.

Animal studies suggest atypical serotonergic signaling from prenatal SSRI exposure could change fetal brain development and affect function later in life, they explained.

Studies in humans have produced mixed results, but in a recent national registry study including more than 15,000 individuals exposed to SSRIs prenatally, exposure was linked to increased rates of depression.

To evaluate the impact of prenatal SSRI exposure on brain development, Dr. Lugo-Candelas and colleagues used structural and diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to evaluate the brains of 98 infants.

They included 16 infants with in utero exposure to SSRIs, 21 born to mothers with untreated maternal depression, and 61 healthy control subjects, all evaluated between 2011 and 2016.

Infants exposed to SSRIs in utero had significant (P less than .05) gray matter volume expansion versus controls in both the right amygdala (Cohen’s d, 0.65; 95 %CI, 0.06-1.23) and the right insula (Cohen’s d = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.26-1.14).

The SSRI-exposed infants also had a significant (P less than .05) increase in connectivity between the right amygdala and the right insula versus controls (Cohen’s d, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.40-1.57).

Whether these neurodevelopmental changes translate into long-term behavioral or psychological outcomes should be evaluated in subsequent studies, Dr. Lugo-Candelas and colleagues said.

Abnormalities in amygdala-insula circuitry may lead to anxiety or depression, they wrote.

“The structurally primed circuit in the infant brains could lead to maladaptive fear processing in their later life, such as generalization of conditioned fear or negative attention bias,” they added.

Dr. Lugo-Candelas reported no conflicts of interest related to the study. One study coauthor reported research support from Shire Pharmaceuticals and Aevi Genomics.

SOURCE: Lugo-Candelas C, et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2018 Apr 9. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.5227.

Prenatal exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) was associated with fetal brain development in brain regions important in emotional processing, results of an imaging study show.

Compared to controls, SSRI-exposed infants had significant gray matter volume expansion and increased white matter structural connectivity in the amygdala and insula, according to results published in JAMA Pediatrics.

“Our findings suggest a potential association between prenatal SSRI exposure, likely via aberrant serotonin signaling, and the development of the amygdala-insula circuit in the fetal brain,” wrote Claudia Lugo-Candelas, PhD, of Columbia University Medical Center, New York, and her coauthors.

An increasing number of pregnant women are taking SSRIs, in part due to increased awareness of the negative effects of untreated prenatal maternal depression (PMD), the investigators said in their report.

“Because untreated PMD poses risks to both the infant and mother, the decision to initiate, continue, or suspend SSRI treatment remains a clinical dilemma,” they wrote.

Animal studies suggest atypical serotonergic signaling from prenatal SSRI exposure could change fetal brain development and affect function later in life, they explained.

Studies in humans have produced mixed results, but in a recent national registry study including more than 15,000 individuals exposed to SSRIs prenatally, exposure was linked to increased rates of depression.

To evaluate the impact of prenatal SSRI exposure on brain development, Dr. Lugo-Candelas and colleagues used structural and diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to evaluate the brains of 98 infants.

They included 16 infants with in utero exposure to SSRIs, 21 born to mothers with untreated maternal depression, and 61 healthy control subjects, all evaluated between 2011 and 2016.

Infants exposed to SSRIs in utero had significant (P less than .05) gray matter volume expansion versus controls in both the right amygdala (Cohen’s d, 0.65; 95 %CI, 0.06-1.23) and the right insula (Cohen’s d = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.26-1.14).

The SSRI-exposed infants also had a significant (P less than .05) increase in connectivity between the right amygdala and the right insula versus controls (Cohen’s d, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.40-1.57).

Whether these neurodevelopmental changes translate into long-term behavioral or psychological outcomes should be evaluated in subsequent studies, Dr. Lugo-Candelas and colleagues said.

Abnormalities in amygdala-insula circuitry may lead to anxiety or depression, they wrote.

“The structurally primed circuit in the infant brains could lead to maladaptive fear processing in their later life, such as generalization of conditioned fear or negative attention bias,” they added.

Dr. Lugo-Candelas reported no conflicts of interest related to the study. One study coauthor reported research support from Shire Pharmaceuticals and Aevi Genomics.

SOURCE: Lugo-Candelas C, et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2018 Apr 9. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.5227.

Prenatal exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) was associated with fetal brain development in brain regions important in emotional processing, results of an imaging study show.

Compared to controls, SSRI-exposed infants had significant gray matter volume expansion and increased white matter structural connectivity in the amygdala and insula, according to results published in JAMA Pediatrics.

“Our findings suggest a potential association between prenatal SSRI exposure, likely via aberrant serotonin signaling, and the development of the amygdala-insula circuit in the fetal brain,” wrote Claudia Lugo-Candelas, PhD, of Columbia University Medical Center, New York, and her coauthors.

An increasing number of pregnant women are taking SSRIs, in part due to increased awareness of the negative effects of untreated prenatal maternal depression (PMD), the investigators said in their report.

“Because untreated PMD poses risks to both the infant and mother, the decision to initiate, continue, or suspend SSRI treatment remains a clinical dilemma,” they wrote.

Animal studies suggest atypical serotonergic signaling from prenatal SSRI exposure could change fetal brain development and affect function later in life, they explained.

Studies in humans have produced mixed results, but in a recent national registry study including more than 15,000 individuals exposed to SSRIs prenatally, exposure was linked to increased rates of depression.

To evaluate the impact of prenatal SSRI exposure on brain development, Dr. Lugo-Candelas and colleagues used structural and diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to evaluate the brains of 98 infants.

They included 16 infants with in utero exposure to SSRIs, 21 born to mothers with untreated maternal depression, and 61 healthy control subjects, all evaluated between 2011 and 2016.

Infants exposed to SSRIs in utero had significant (P less than .05) gray matter volume expansion versus controls in both the right amygdala (Cohen’s d, 0.65; 95 %CI, 0.06-1.23) and the right insula (Cohen’s d = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.26-1.14).

The SSRI-exposed infants also had a significant (P less than .05) increase in connectivity between the right amygdala and the right insula versus controls (Cohen’s d, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.40-1.57).

Whether these neurodevelopmental changes translate into long-term behavioral or psychological outcomes should be evaluated in subsequent studies, Dr. Lugo-Candelas and colleagues said.

Abnormalities in amygdala-insula circuitry may lead to anxiety or depression, they wrote.

“The structurally primed circuit in the infant brains could lead to maladaptive fear processing in their later life, such as generalization of conditioned fear or negative attention bias,” they added.

Dr. Lugo-Candelas reported no conflicts of interest related to the study. One study coauthor reported research support from Shire Pharmaceuticals and Aevi Genomics.

SOURCE: Lugo-Candelas C, et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2018 Apr 9. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.5227.

After the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease released updated recommendations for grading COPD patients’ level of disease in November of 2016, Imran Iftikhar, MD, tried to incorporate them into his practice, but he encountered problems.

For one thing, the new classification system, which became known as GOLD 2017, uncoupled spirometry results from the ABCD treatment algorithm. “I found it wasn’t really helping me in terms of prognostication or COPD management,” said Dr. Iftikhar, section chief of pulmonary and critical care at Emory Saint Joseph’s Hospital, Atlanta. “Although the purpose of the GOLD classification was not really meant for prognostication, most practicing physicians are frequently asked about prognosis by patients, and I am not sure if the 2017 reclassification really helps with that.”

Courtesy Dr. Imran Iftikhar

Additional important outcomes

Dr. Ouellette noted that while mortality is an important outcome for COPD patients, it’s not the only outcome of interest. “In addition to [trying to] help people live longer, which is certainly a desirable goal, we also want to make people be able to be more functional during their life, have fewer hospitalizations, and have less of a need of other types of supportive medical care for worsening of their disease,” he said. “The fact that the current guidelines don’t improve mortality more than the previous ones may not be a negative thing. It may tell us that the previous guidelines already did a pretty good job of helping us to improve mortality.”

Dr. Ouellette was quick to add that none of inhaled drugs currently available to treat COPD have been conclusively shown to improve mortality. “The only things we know that improve mortality for COPD patients are quitting smoking and using oxygen if a patient meets predefined goals for oxygen,” he said. “So the fact that GOLD criteria doesn’t improve mortality shouldn’t make us think that it’s not a useful tool. We already know that the medicines may not help people live longer.”

Dr. Han pointed out that spirometry “is still used to further clarify the choice of therapy recommended based on the nature and degree of airflow obstruction in light of severity of patient symptoms. The data are still designed to be used in conjunction to personalize therapy for patients.”

[email protected]

After the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease released updated recommendations for grading COPD patients’ level of disease in November of 2016, Imran Iftikhar, MD, tried to incorporate them into his practice, but he encountered problems.

For one thing, the new classification system, which became known as GOLD 2017, uncoupled spirometry results from the ABCD treatment algorithm. “I found it wasn’t really helping me in terms of prognostication or COPD management,” said Dr. Iftikhar, section chief of pulmonary and critical care at Emory Saint Joseph’s Hospital, Atlanta. “Although the purpose of the GOLD classification was not really meant for prognostication, most practicing physicians are frequently asked about prognosis by patients, and I am not sure if the 2017 reclassification really helps with that.”

Courtesy Dr. Imran Iftikhar

Additional important outcomes

Dr. Ouellette noted that while mortality is an important outcome for COPD patients, it’s not the only outcome of interest. “In addition to [trying to] help people live longer, which is certainly a desirable goal, we also want to make people be able to be more functional during their life, have fewer hospitalizations, and have less of a need of other types of supportive medical care for worsening of their disease,” he said. “The fact that the current guidelines don’t improve mortality more than the previous ones may not be a negative thing. It may tell us that the previous guidelines already did a pretty good job of helping us to improve mortality.”

Dr. Ouellette was quick to add that none of inhaled drugs currently available to treat COPD have been conclusively shown to improve mortality. “The only things we know that improve mortality for COPD patients are quitting smoking and using oxygen if a patient meets predefined goals for oxygen,” he said. “So the fact that GOLD criteria doesn’t improve mortality shouldn’t make us think that it’s not a useful tool. We already know that the medicines may not help people live longer.”

Dr. Han pointed out that spirometry “is still used to further clarify the choice of therapy recommended based on the nature and degree of airflow obstruction in light of severity of patient symptoms. The data are still designed to be used in conjunction to personalize therapy for patients.”

[email protected]

After the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease released updated recommendations for grading COPD patients’ level of disease in November of 2016, Imran Iftikhar, MD, tried to incorporate them into his practice, but he encountered problems.

For one thing, the new classification system, which became known as GOLD 2017, uncoupled spirometry results from the ABCD treatment algorithm. “I found it wasn’t really helping me in terms of prognostication or COPD management,” said Dr. Iftikhar, section chief of pulmonary and critical care at Emory Saint Joseph’s Hospital, Atlanta. “Although the purpose of the GOLD classification was not really meant for prognostication, most practicing physicians are frequently asked about prognosis by patients, and I am not sure if the 2017 reclassification really helps with that.”

Courtesy Dr. Imran Iftikhar

Additional important outcomes

Dr. Ouellette noted that while mortality is an important outcome for COPD patients, it’s not the only outcome of interest. “In addition to [trying to] help people live longer, which is certainly a desirable goal, we also want to make people be able to be more functional during their life, have fewer hospitalizations, and have less of a need of other types of supportive medical care for worsening of their disease,” he said. “The fact that the current guidelines don’t improve mortality more than the previous ones may not be a negative thing. It may tell us that the previous guidelines already did a pretty good job of helping us to improve mortality.”

Dr. Ouellette was quick to add that none of inhaled drugs currently available to treat COPD have been conclusively shown to improve mortality. “The only things we know that improve mortality for COPD patients are quitting smoking and using oxygen if a patient meets predefined goals for oxygen,” he said. “So the fact that GOLD criteria doesn’t improve mortality shouldn’t make us think that it’s not a useful tool. We already know that the medicines may not help people live longer.”

Dr. Han pointed out that spirometry “is still used to further clarify the choice of therapy recommended based on the nature and degree of airflow obstruction in light of severity of patient symptoms. The data are still designed to be used in conjunction to personalize therapy for patients.”

[email protected]

Have you registered yet for the 2018 Vascular Annual Meeting in Boston? This year, bring your vascular team – there will be programming for nurses, technicians, nurse practitioners and PAs. In addition to VAM sessions of interests to nurses, the Society for Vascular Nursing will hold its annual conference in alignment with VAM, on June 20-21. Registration for SVN covers attendance at both meetings. And PAs will their own section of programming from 1 to 5 p.m. Thursday, June 21. Learn more about VAM here. And register today.

Have you registered yet for the 2018 Vascular Annual Meeting in Boston? This year, bring your vascular team – there will be programming for nurses, technicians, nurse practitioners and PAs. In addition to VAM sessions of interests to nurses, the Society for Vascular Nursing will hold its annual conference in alignment with VAM, on June 20-21. Registration for SVN covers attendance at both meetings. And PAs will their own section of programming from 1 to 5 p.m. Thursday, June 21. Learn more about VAM here. And register today.

Have you registered yet for the 2018 Vascular Annual Meeting in Boston? This year, bring your vascular team – there will be programming for nurses, technicians, nurse practitioners and PAs. In addition to VAM sessions of interests to nurses, the Society for Vascular Nursing will hold its annual conference in alignment with VAM, on June 20-21. Registration for SVN covers attendance at both meetings. And PAs will their own section of programming from 1 to 5 p.m. Thursday, June 21. Learn more about VAM here. And register today.

SVS and the SVS Community Practice Committee will hold a webinar for SVS members on April 30 on “Negotiating Physician Employment Agreements.” The 75-minute webinar will begin at 8 p.m. Eastern time. Topics will include current trends, regulatory overview and key contractual provisions. Learn more here. Register here.

SVS and the SVS Community Practice Committee will hold a webinar for SVS members on April 30 on “Negotiating Physician Employment Agreements.” The 75-minute webinar will begin at 8 p.m. Eastern time. Topics will include current trends, regulatory overview and key contractual provisions. Learn more here. Register here.

SVS and the SVS Community Practice Committee will hold a webinar for SVS members on April 30 on “Negotiating Physician Employment Agreements.” The 75-minute webinar will begin at 8 p.m. Eastern time. Topics will include current trends, regulatory overview and key contractual provisions. Learn more here. Register here.

Pregnant women are rarely included in clinical drug trials, creating a significant and potentially dangerous gap in knowledge. Now, a new draft guidance from the Food and Drug Administration broadens the discussion about these trials, suggesting issues to consider – including ethics and risks – when testing medications in pregnant women.

“The guidance opens the possibility of ethical conduct of trials in pregnant women but carefully lays out the caveats to be considered,” Christina Chambers, PhD, a perinatal epidemiologist at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview. “With proper planning and thoughtful consultation with the relevant experts, this change in regulatory limitations will benefit pregnant women and their children.”

[polldaddy:9979976]

The draft guidance, released April 6 by the FDA, is “intended to advance scientific research in pregnant women, and discusses issues that should be considered within the framework of human subject protection regulations,” according to posting comments in the Federal Register.

The draft notes that in some cases, the lack of data about drugs may harm pregnant women and their fetuses by leading physicians to be fearful about prescribing medication. Conversely, physicians and pregnant women are often in the dark about the risks and benefits of medications that are prescribed and used, according to the draft.

In terms of research going forward, the guidance says “development of accessible treatment options for the pregnant population is a significant public health issue.”

• It is “ethically justifiable” to include pregnant women in clinical trials under specific circumstances. “Sponsors should consider meeting with the appropriate FDA review division early in the development phase to discuss when and how to include pregnant women in the drug development plan. These discussions should involve FDA experts in bioethics and maternal health.”
• “Pregnant women can be enrolled in clinical trials that involve greater than minimal risk to the fetuses if the trials offer the potential for direct clinical benefit to the enrolled pregnant women and/or their fetuses.”
• A new pregnancy during a randomized, blinded clinical trial should prompt unblinding “so that counseling may be offered based on whether the fetus has been exposed to the investigational drug, placebo, or control.”
• The pregnant woman may continue the trial if potential benefits outweigh the risks.
• In general, pregnant women should not be enrolled in phase 1 and phase 2 clinical trials. Instead, those trials should be completed first “in a nonpregnant population that include females of reproductive potential.”
• Several types of events may call for the cessation of a clinical trial that includes pregnant women, such as serious maternal or fetal adverse events.

The draft guidance should take note of the fact that birth defects often don’t appear for months or even longer, according to Gerald Briggs, BPharm, FCCP, clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco. “Until first year of life or later, the babies need to be monitored,” he said in an interview.

Mr. Briggs, who led a 2015 report examining the role of pregnant women in phase 4 clinical drug trials, added that the document should take note of recommendations from clinical teratologists regarding the design of animal studies that should be performed prior to human trials (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(6):810-5).

Comments on the draft guidance can be made at www.federalregister.gov and are due by June 8, 2018.

Dr. Chambers and Mr. Briggs reported no relevant disclosures.

Pregnant women are rarely included in clinical drug trials, creating a significant and potentially dangerous gap in knowledge. Now, a new draft guidance from the Food and Drug Administration broadens the discussion about these trials, suggesting issues to consider – including ethics and risks – when testing medications in pregnant women.

“The guidance opens the possibility of ethical conduct of trials in pregnant women but carefully lays out the caveats to be considered,” Christina Chambers, PhD, a perinatal epidemiologist at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview. “With proper planning and thoughtful consultation with the relevant experts, this change in regulatory limitations will benefit pregnant women and their children.”

[polldaddy:9979976]

The draft guidance, released April 6 by the FDA, is “intended to advance scientific research in pregnant women, and discusses issues that should be considered within the framework of human subject protection regulations,” according to posting comments in the Federal Register.

The draft notes that in some cases, the lack of data about drugs may harm pregnant women and their fetuses by leading physicians to be fearful about prescribing medication. Conversely, physicians and pregnant women are often in the dark about the risks and benefits of medications that are prescribed and used, according to the draft.

In terms of research going forward, the guidance says “development of accessible treatment options for the pregnant population is a significant public health issue.”

• It is “ethically justifiable” to include pregnant women in clinical trials under specific circumstances. “Sponsors should consider meeting with the appropriate FDA review division early in the development phase to discuss when and how to include pregnant women in the drug development plan. These discussions should involve FDA experts in bioethics and maternal health.”
• “Pregnant women can be enrolled in clinical trials that involve greater than minimal risk to the fetuses if the trials offer the potential for direct clinical benefit to the enrolled pregnant women and/or their fetuses.”
• A new pregnancy during a randomized, blinded clinical trial should prompt unblinding “so that counseling may be offered based on whether the fetus has been exposed to the investigational drug, placebo, or control.”
• The pregnant woman may continue the trial if potential benefits outweigh the risks.
• In general, pregnant women should not be enrolled in phase 1 and phase 2 clinical trials. Instead, those trials should be completed first “in a nonpregnant population that include females of reproductive potential.”
• Several types of events may call for the cessation of a clinical trial that includes pregnant women, such as serious maternal or fetal adverse events.

The draft guidance should take note of the fact that birth defects often don’t appear for months or even longer, according to Gerald Briggs, BPharm, FCCP, clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco. “Until first year of life or later, the babies need to be monitored,” he said in an interview.

Mr. Briggs, who led a 2015 report examining the role of pregnant women in phase 4 clinical drug trials, added that the document should take note of recommendations from clinical teratologists regarding the design of animal studies that should be performed prior to human trials (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(6):810-5).

Comments on the draft guidance can be made at www.federalregister.gov and are due by June 8, 2018.

Dr. Chambers and Mr. Briggs reported no relevant disclosures.

Pregnant women are rarely included in clinical drug trials, creating a significant and potentially dangerous gap in knowledge. Now, a new draft guidance from the Food and Drug Administration broadens the discussion about these trials, suggesting issues to consider – including ethics and risks – when testing medications in pregnant women.

“The guidance opens the possibility of ethical conduct of trials in pregnant women but carefully lays out the caveats to be considered,” Christina Chambers, PhD, a perinatal epidemiologist at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview. “With proper planning and thoughtful consultation with the relevant experts, this change in regulatory limitations will benefit pregnant women and their children.”

[polldaddy:9979976]

The draft guidance, released April 6 by the FDA, is “intended to advance scientific research in pregnant women, and discusses issues that should be considered within the framework of human subject protection regulations,” according to posting comments in the Federal Register.

The draft notes that in some cases, the lack of data about drugs may harm pregnant women and their fetuses by leading physicians to be fearful about prescribing medication. Conversely, physicians and pregnant women are often in the dark about the risks and benefits of medications that are prescribed and used, according to the draft.

In terms of research going forward, the guidance says “development of accessible treatment options for the pregnant population is a significant public health issue.”

• It is “ethically justifiable” to include pregnant women in clinical trials under specific circumstances. “Sponsors should consider meeting with the appropriate FDA review division early in the development phase to discuss when and how to include pregnant women in the drug development plan. These discussions should involve FDA experts in bioethics and maternal health.”
• “Pregnant women can be enrolled in clinical trials that involve greater than minimal risk to the fetuses if the trials offer the potential for direct clinical benefit to the enrolled pregnant women and/or their fetuses.”
• A new pregnancy during a randomized, blinded clinical trial should prompt unblinding “so that counseling may be offered based on whether the fetus has been exposed to the investigational drug, placebo, or control.”
• The pregnant woman may continue the trial if potential benefits outweigh the risks.
• In general, pregnant women should not be enrolled in phase 1 and phase 2 clinical trials. Instead, those trials should be completed first “in a nonpregnant population that include females of reproductive potential.”
• Several types of events may call for the cessation of a clinical trial that includes pregnant women, such as serious maternal or fetal adverse events.

The draft guidance should take note of the fact that birth defects often don’t appear for months or even longer, according to Gerald Briggs, BPharm, FCCP, clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco. “Until first year of life or later, the babies need to be monitored,” he said in an interview.

Mr. Briggs, who led a 2015 report examining the role of pregnant women in phase 4 clinical drug trials, added that the document should take note of recommendations from clinical teratologists regarding the design of animal studies that should be performed prior to human trials (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(6):810-5).

Comments on the draft guidance can be made at www.federalregister.gov and are due by June 8, 2018.

Dr. Chambers and Mr. Briggs reported no relevant disclosures.

From weekend warriors to pros, athletes are plagued by skin disorders. CMS finalizes measures to help combat the opioid crisis. Enrollment slides on health exchanges in 2018. And the sensitivity of vibration-based neuropathy detectors varies widely.

Listen to the MDedge Daily News podcast for all the details on today’s top news.


 

From weekend warriors to pros, athletes are plagued by skin disorders. CMS finalizes measures to help combat the opioid crisis. Enrollment slides on health exchanges in 2018. And the sensitivity of vibration-based neuropathy detectors varies widely.

Listen to the MDedge Daily News podcast for all the details on today’s top news.


 

From weekend warriors to pros, athletes are plagued by skin disorders. CMS finalizes measures to help combat the opioid crisis. Enrollment slides on health exchanges in 2018. And the sensitivity of vibration-based neuropathy detectors varies widely.

Listen to the MDedge Daily News podcast for all the details on today’s top news.