NEW ORLEANS – In the international FREEDOM COVID trial that randomized non–critically ill hospitalized patients, a therapeutic dose of anticoagulation relative to a prophylactic dose significantly reduced death from COVID-19 at 30 days, even as a larger composite primary endpoint was missed.

The mortality reduction suggests therapeutic-dose anticoagulation “may improve outcomes in non–critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who are at increased risk for adverse events but do not yet require ICU-level of care,” reported Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

These data provide a suggestion rather than a demonstration of benefit because the primary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, intubation requiring mechanical ventilation, systemic thromboembolism or ischemic stroke at 30 days was not met. Although this 30-day outcome was lower on the therapeutic dose (11.3% vs. 13.2%), the difference was only a trend (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .11), said Dr. Fuster, physician-in-chief, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.
 

Missed primary endpoint blamed on low events

The declining severity of more recent COVID-19 variants (the trial was conducted from August 2022 to September 2022) might be one explanation that the primary endpoint was not met, but the more likely explanation is the relatively good health status – and therefore a low risk of events – among patients randomized in India, 1 of 10 participating countries.

India accounted for roughly 40% of the total number of 3,398 patients in the intention-to-treat population. In India, the rates of events were 0.7 and 1.3 in the prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation arms, respectively. In contrast, they were 17.5 and 9.5, respectively in the United States. In combined data from the other eight countries, the rates were 22.78 and 20.4, respectively.

“These results emphasize that varying country-specific thresholds for hospitalization may affect patient prognosis and the potential utility of advanced therapies” Dr. Fuster said.

In fact, the therapeutic anticoagulation was linked to a nonsignificant twofold increase in the risk of the primary outcome in India (HR, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-7.13) when outcomes were stratified by country. In the United States, where there was a much higher incidence of events, therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a nearly 50% reduction (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.91).

In the remaining countries, which included those in Latin America and Europe as well as the city of Hong Kong, the primary outcome was reduced numerically but not statistically by therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.71-1.11).
 

Enoxaparin and apixaban are studied

In FREEDOM COVID, patients were randomized to a therapeutic dose of the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) enoxaparin (1 mg/kg every 12 hours), a prophylactic dose of enoxaparin (40 mg once daily), or a therapeutic dose of the direct factor Xa inhibitor apixaban (5 mg every 12 hours). Lower doses of enoxaparin and apixaban were used for those with renal impairment, and lower doses of apixaban were employed for elderly patients (≥ 80 years) and those with low body weight (≤ 60 kg).

The major inclusion criteria were confirmed COVID-19 infection with symptomatic systemic involvement. The major exclusion criteria were need for ICU level of care or active bleeding.

The therapeutic anticoagulation arms performed similarly and were combined for comparison to the prophylactic arm. Despite the failure to show a difference in the primary outcome, the rate of 30-day mortality was substantially lower in the therapeutic arm (4.9% vs. 7.0%), translating into a 30% risk reduction (HR, 0.70; P = .01).

Therapeutic anticoagulation was also associated with a lower rate of intubation/mechanical ventilation (6.4% vs. 8.4%) that reached statistical significance (HR, 0.75; P = .03). The risk reduction was also significant for a combination of these endpoints (HR, 0.77; P = .03).

The lower proportion of patients who eventually required ICU-level of care (9.9% vs. 11.7%) showed a trend in favor of therapeutic anticoagulation (HR, 0.84; P = .11).
 

Bleeding rates did not differ between arms

Bleeding Academic Research Consortium major bleeding types 3 and 5 were slightly numerically higher in the group randomized to therapeutic enoxaparin (0.5%) than prophylactic enoxaparin (0.1%) and therapeutic apixaban (0.3%), but the differences between any groups were not significant.

Numerous anticoagulation trials in patients with COVID-19 have been published previously. One 2021 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine also suggested benefit from a therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation. In that trial, which compared heparin to usual-care thromboprophylaxis, benefits were derived from a Bayesian analysis. Significant differences were not shown for death or other major outcome assessed individually.

Even though this more recent trial missed its primary endpoint, Gregg Stone, MD, a coauthor of this study and a colleague of Dr. Fuster at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, reiterated that these results support routine anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“These are robust reductions in mortality and intubation rates, which are the most serious outcomes,” said Dr. Stone, who is first author of the paper, which was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology immediately after Dr. Fuster’s presentation.

COVID-19 has proven to be a very thrombogenic virus, but the literature has not been wholly consistent on which anticoagulation treatment provides the best balance of benefits and risks, according to Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, attending cardiologist, Guys and St. Thomas Hospital, London. She said that this randomized trial, despite its failure to meet the primary endpoint, is useful.

“This demonstrates that a therapeutic dose of enoxaparin is likely to improve outcomes over a prophylactic dose with a low risk of bleeding,” Dr. Grapsa said. On the basis of the randomized study, “I feel more confident with this approach.”

Dr. Fuster reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Stone has financial relationships with more than 30 companies that make pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Dr. Grapsa reported no potential conflicts of interest.

NEW ORLEANS – In the international FREEDOM COVID trial that randomized non–critically ill hospitalized patients, a therapeutic dose of anticoagulation relative to a prophylactic dose significantly reduced death from COVID-19 at 30 days, even as a larger composite primary endpoint was missed.

The mortality reduction suggests therapeutic-dose anticoagulation “may improve outcomes in non–critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who are at increased risk for adverse events but do not yet require ICU-level of care,” reported Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

These data provide a suggestion rather than a demonstration of benefit because the primary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, intubation requiring mechanical ventilation, systemic thromboembolism or ischemic stroke at 30 days was not met. Although this 30-day outcome was lower on the therapeutic dose (11.3% vs. 13.2%), the difference was only a trend (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .11), said Dr. Fuster, physician-in-chief, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.
 

Missed primary endpoint blamed on low events

The declining severity of more recent COVID-19 variants (the trial was conducted from August 2022 to September 2022) might be one explanation that the primary endpoint was not met, but the more likely explanation is the relatively good health status – and therefore a low risk of events – among patients randomized in India, 1 of 10 participating countries.

India accounted for roughly 40% of the total number of 3,398 patients in the intention-to-treat population. In India, the rates of events were 0.7 and 1.3 in the prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation arms, respectively. In contrast, they were 17.5 and 9.5, respectively in the United States. In combined data from the other eight countries, the rates were 22.78 and 20.4, respectively.

“These results emphasize that varying country-specific thresholds for hospitalization may affect patient prognosis and the potential utility of advanced therapies” Dr. Fuster said.

In fact, the therapeutic anticoagulation was linked to a nonsignificant twofold increase in the risk of the primary outcome in India (HR, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-7.13) when outcomes were stratified by country. In the United States, where there was a much higher incidence of events, therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a nearly 50% reduction (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.91).

In the remaining countries, which included those in Latin America and Europe as well as the city of Hong Kong, the primary outcome was reduced numerically but not statistically by therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.71-1.11).
 

Enoxaparin and apixaban are studied

In FREEDOM COVID, patients were randomized to a therapeutic dose of the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) enoxaparin (1 mg/kg every 12 hours), a prophylactic dose of enoxaparin (40 mg once daily), or a therapeutic dose of the direct factor Xa inhibitor apixaban (5 mg every 12 hours). Lower doses of enoxaparin and apixaban were used for those with renal impairment, and lower doses of apixaban were employed for elderly patients (≥ 80 years) and those with low body weight (≤ 60 kg).

The major inclusion criteria were confirmed COVID-19 infection with symptomatic systemic involvement. The major exclusion criteria were need for ICU level of care or active bleeding.

The therapeutic anticoagulation arms performed similarly and were combined for comparison to the prophylactic arm. Despite the failure to show a difference in the primary outcome, the rate of 30-day mortality was substantially lower in the therapeutic arm (4.9% vs. 7.0%), translating into a 30% risk reduction (HR, 0.70; P = .01).

Therapeutic anticoagulation was also associated with a lower rate of intubation/mechanical ventilation (6.4% vs. 8.4%) that reached statistical significance (HR, 0.75; P = .03). The risk reduction was also significant for a combination of these endpoints (HR, 0.77; P = .03).

The lower proportion of patients who eventually required ICU-level of care (9.9% vs. 11.7%) showed a trend in favor of therapeutic anticoagulation (HR, 0.84; P = .11).
 

Bleeding rates did not differ between arms

Bleeding Academic Research Consortium major bleeding types 3 and 5 were slightly numerically higher in the group randomized to therapeutic enoxaparin (0.5%) than prophylactic enoxaparin (0.1%) and therapeutic apixaban (0.3%), but the differences between any groups were not significant.

Numerous anticoagulation trials in patients with COVID-19 have been published previously. One 2021 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine also suggested benefit from a therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation. In that trial, which compared heparin to usual-care thromboprophylaxis, benefits were derived from a Bayesian analysis. Significant differences were not shown for death or other major outcome assessed individually.

Even though this more recent trial missed its primary endpoint, Gregg Stone, MD, a coauthor of this study and a colleague of Dr. Fuster at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, reiterated that these results support routine anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“These are robust reductions in mortality and intubation rates, which are the most serious outcomes,” said Dr. Stone, who is first author of the paper, which was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology immediately after Dr. Fuster’s presentation.

COVID-19 has proven to be a very thrombogenic virus, but the literature has not been wholly consistent on which anticoagulation treatment provides the best balance of benefits and risks, according to Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, attending cardiologist, Guys and St. Thomas Hospital, London. She said that this randomized trial, despite its failure to meet the primary endpoint, is useful.

“This demonstrates that a therapeutic dose of enoxaparin is likely to improve outcomes over a prophylactic dose with a low risk of bleeding,” Dr. Grapsa said. On the basis of the randomized study, “I feel more confident with this approach.”

Dr. Fuster reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Stone has financial relationships with more than 30 companies that make pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Dr. Grapsa reported no potential conflicts of interest.

NEW ORLEANS – In the international FREEDOM COVID trial that randomized non–critically ill hospitalized patients, a therapeutic dose of anticoagulation relative to a prophylactic dose significantly reduced death from COVID-19 at 30 days, even as a larger composite primary endpoint was missed.

The mortality reduction suggests therapeutic-dose anticoagulation “may improve outcomes in non–critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who are at increased risk for adverse events but do not yet require ICU-level of care,” reported Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

These data provide a suggestion rather than a demonstration of benefit because the primary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, intubation requiring mechanical ventilation, systemic thromboembolism or ischemic stroke at 30 days was not met. Although this 30-day outcome was lower on the therapeutic dose (11.3% vs. 13.2%), the difference was only a trend (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .11), said Dr. Fuster, physician-in-chief, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.
 

Missed primary endpoint blamed on low events

The declining severity of more recent COVID-19 variants (the trial was conducted from August 2022 to September 2022) might be one explanation that the primary endpoint was not met, but the more likely explanation is the relatively good health status – and therefore a low risk of events – among patients randomized in India, 1 of 10 participating countries.

India accounted for roughly 40% of the total number of 3,398 patients in the intention-to-treat population. In India, the rates of events were 0.7 and 1.3 in the prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation arms, respectively. In contrast, they were 17.5 and 9.5, respectively in the United States. In combined data from the other eight countries, the rates were 22.78 and 20.4, respectively.

“These results emphasize that varying country-specific thresholds for hospitalization may affect patient prognosis and the potential utility of advanced therapies” Dr. Fuster said.

In fact, the therapeutic anticoagulation was linked to a nonsignificant twofold increase in the risk of the primary outcome in India (HR, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-7.13) when outcomes were stratified by country. In the United States, where there was a much higher incidence of events, therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a nearly 50% reduction (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.91).

In the remaining countries, which included those in Latin America and Europe as well as the city of Hong Kong, the primary outcome was reduced numerically but not statistically by therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.71-1.11).
 

Enoxaparin and apixaban are studied

In FREEDOM COVID, patients were randomized to a therapeutic dose of the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) enoxaparin (1 mg/kg every 12 hours), a prophylactic dose of enoxaparin (40 mg once daily), or a therapeutic dose of the direct factor Xa inhibitor apixaban (5 mg every 12 hours). Lower doses of enoxaparin and apixaban were used for those with renal impairment, and lower doses of apixaban were employed for elderly patients (≥ 80 years) and those with low body weight (≤ 60 kg).

The major inclusion criteria were confirmed COVID-19 infection with symptomatic systemic involvement. The major exclusion criteria were need for ICU level of care or active bleeding.

The therapeutic anticoagulation arms performed similarly and were combined for comparison to the prophylactic arm. Despite the failure to show a difference in the primary outcome, the rate of 30-day mortality was substantially lower in the therapeutic arm (4.9% vs. 7.0%), translating into a 30% risk reduction (HR, 0.70; P = .01).

Therapeutic anticoagulation was also associated with a lower rate of intubation/mechanical ventilation (6.4% vs. 8.4%) that reached statistical significance (HR, 0.75; P = .03). The risk reduction was also significant for a combination of these endpoints (HR, 0.77; P = .03).

The lower proportion of patients who eventually required ICU-level of care (9.9% vs. 11.7%) showed a trend in favor of therapeutic anticoagulation (HR, 0.84; P = .11).
 

Bleeding rates did not differ between arms

Bleeding Academic Research Consortium major bleeding types 3 and 5 were slightly numerically higher in the group randomized to therapeutic enoxaparin (0.5%) than prophylactic enoxaparin (0.1%) and therapeutic apixaban (0.3%), but the differences between any groups were not significant.

Numerous anticoagulation trials in patients with COVID-19 have been published previously. One 2021 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine also suggested benefit from a therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation. In that trial, which compared heparin to usual-care thromboprophylaxis, benefits were derived from a Bayesian analysis. Significant differences were not shown for death or other major outcome assessed individually.

Even though this more recent trial missed its primary endpoint, Gregg Stone, MD, a coauthor of this study and a colleague of Dr. Fuster at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, reiterated that these results support routine anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“These are robust reductions in mortality and intubation rates, which are the most serious outcomes,” said Dr. Stone, who is first author of the paper, which was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology immediately after Dr. Fuster’s presentation.

COVID-19 has proven to be a very thrombogenic virus, but the literature has not been wholly consistent on which anticoagulation treatment provides the best balance of benefits and risks, according to Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, attending cardiologist, Guys and St. Thomas Hospital, London. She said that this randomized trial, despite its failure to meet the primary endpoint, is useful.

“This demonstrates that a therapeutic dose of enoxaparin is likely to improve outcomes over a prophylactic dose with a low risk of bleeding,” Dr. Grapsa said. On the basis of the randomized study, “I feel more confident with this approach.”

Dr. Fuster reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Stone has financial relationships with more than 30 companies that make pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Dr. Grapsa reported no potential conflicts of interest.

In 2022, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) received 36 separate serious incident reports involving 32 medical facilities—including a bomb threat. In response to those reports, OIG teams of auditors and criminal investigators visited 70 VA medical facilities in September 2022 to assess security and to issue a formal report.

Noting that VA policy includes an “extensive list of security safeguards” for medical facilities to implement, the OIG focused its review on those that “a person with a reasonable level of security knowledge could assess.” According to their report, released in February, they identified a variety of security vulnerabilities and deficiencies, ranging from shortages of police officers to radios with poor signal strength.

For one, the OIG says, the facilities were designed to provide a welcoming environment, which means the public can enter the grounds freely at many different points. But the open-campus design makes it more difficult to balance security with easy and prompt access for patients. Consequently, the OIG says, “threats may originate from many locations within the medical facility campus itself or in the nearby community.”

Walking around the perimeters of the facility buildings, the OIG teams assessed the security level of 2960 public and nonpublic access doors. They found that 87% of public doors did not have an active security presence, and of those, 23% also did not have a security camera. Moreover, 17% of nonpublic doors were unlocked; 97% of those did not have a security presence, and 43% did not have a security camera. Even more concerning: Some of those doors led to sensitive or restricted facility areas. For example, at one midwestern facility, an unlocked nonpublic access door led to the surgical intensive care unit.

The OIG teams also assessed training records for 170 police officers across the 70 facilities and found that nearly all officers were compliant with training requirements. Most respondents also reported they received adequate training to perform their job duties and provided numerous positive indicators. Well trained or not, though, a notable problem in maintaining security, the OIG teams found, was there simply weren’t enough officers.

The OIG has repeatedly issued reports on significant police officer staffing shortages since at least 2018. VA police officers are not only empowered to make arrests, carry firearms while on duty, and investigate criminal activity within VA’s jurisdiction, but also assist individuals on medical campuses “in myriad ways,” the OIG notes. Staffing shortages are likely to compromise overall facility security, morale, and staff retention and underscore the need for maintaining communication with local law enforcement agencies for assistance, the OIG report points out.

In the OIG surveys, security personnel often noted they were understaffed. Although VA guidance calls for at least 2 VA police officers on duty at all times, 21% of respondents said they were aware of a duty shift during which minimum police staffing requirements were not met. About 37% of respondents expressed concerns about the physical security at their facilities. Some pointed out that the lack of VA police on duty could make it difficult to respond to threats like an active shooter.

In May 2022, the VA issued a directive that established minimum police coverage at medical facilities, as well as a police officer staffing decision tool to help determine appropriate officer levels. It required facilities to have an active security presence in their emergency departments around-the-clock by May 2023. As of September 2022, 58% of the facilities’ emergency departments did not yet have a visible security presence.

The teams also found issues with security devices: 19% of all cameras were not functional; at 24 facilities, more than 20% of the cameras were not working. A few facilities had “highly functional” systems that allowed personnel to monitor the campus thoroughly and even search for specific individuals—but they weren’t always operable.

At one western facility, it came down to a problem that would be frustrating at any time, but alarming for security management: Security personnel could not access the monitoring system because the required security certificates had expired, and no one knew the administrative password. If the system went offline, the OIG team was told, no one could fix the problem without password access. Neither VA’s Office of Information and Technology nor the contractor for the facility’s cameras could override the administrative password.

On the bright side, the OIG teams found that camera video feeds were being actively surveilled by security personnel at 60 of 70 facilities. All but 1 site kept camera footage for an average of 2 weeks or more.

VA policy states that, in addition to at least 2 intermediate weapons (such as batons and pepper spray) uniformed officers must always be issued radios for use while on duty. Survey respondents generally indicated they received their equipment and that it was adequate, but 15% said theirs lacked functionality, such as battery life and signal strength.

Based on the teams’ findings, the OIG made 6 recommendations: (1) delegating a responsible official to monitor and report monthly on facilities’ security-related vacancies; (2) authorizing sufficient staff to inspect VA police forces per the OIG’s 2018 unimplemented recommendation; (3) ensuring medical facility directors appropriately assess VA police staffing needs, authorize associated positions, and leverage available mechanisms to fill vacancies; (4) committing sufficient resources to ensure that facility security measures are adequate, current, and operational; (5) directing Veterans Integrated Services Network police chiefs, in coordination with medical facility directors, facility police chiefs, and facility emergency management leaders, to present a plan to remedy identified security weaknesses; and (6) establishing policy that standardizes the review and retention requirements for facility security camera footage.

The VA concurred with all recommendations and submitted corrective action plans.

In 2022, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) received 36 separate serious incident reports involving 32 medical facilities—including a bomb threat. In response to those reports, OIG teams of auditors and criminal investigators visited 70 VA medical facilities in September 2022 to assess security and to issue a formal report.

Noting that VA policy includes an “extensive list of security safeguards” for medical facilities to implement, the OIG focused its review on those that “a person with a reasonable level of security knowledge could assess.” According to their report, released in February, they identified a variety of security vulnerabilities and deficiencies, ranging from shortages of police officers to radios with poor signal strength.

For one, the OIG says, the facilities were designed to provide a welcoming environment, which means the public can enter the grounds freely at many different points. But the open-campus design makes it more difficult to balance security with easy and prompt access for patients. Consequently, the OIG says, “threats may originate from many locations within the medical facility campus itself or in the nearby community.”

Walking around the perimeters of the facility buildings, the OIG teams assessed the security level of 2960 public and nonpublic access doors. They found that 87% of public doors did not have an active security presence, and of those, 23% also did not have a security camera. Moreover, 17% of nonpublic doors were unlocked; 97% of those did not have a security presence, and 43% did not have a security camera. Even more concerning: Some of those doors led to sensitive or restricted facility areas. For example, at one midwestern facility, an unlocked nonpublic access door led to the surgical intensive care unit.

The OIG teams also assessed training records for 170 police officers across the 70 facilities and found that nearly all officers were compliant with training requirements. Most respondents also reported they received adequate training to perform their job duties and provided numerous positive indicators. Well trained or not, though, a notable problem in maintaining security, the OIG teams found, was there simply weren’t enough officers.

The OIG has repeatedly issued reports on significant police officer staffing shortages since at least 2018. VA police officers are not only empowered to make arrests, carry firearms while on duty, and investigate criminal activity within VA’s jurisdiction, but also assist individuals on medical campuses “in myriad ways,” the OIG notes. Staffing shortages are likely to compromise overall facility security, morale, and staff retention and underscore the need for maintaining communication with local law enforcement agencies for assistance, the OIG report points out.

In the OIG surveys, security personnel often noted they were understaffed. Although VA guidance calls for at least 2 VA police officers on duty at all times, 21% of respondents said they were aware of a duty shift during which minimum police staffing requirements were not met. About 37% of respondents expressed concerns about the physical security at their facilities. Some pointed out that the lack of VA police on duty could make it difficult to respond to threats like an active shooter.

In May 2022, the VA issued a directive that established minimum police coverage at medical facilities, as well as a police officer staffing decision tool to help determine appropriate officer levels. It required facilities to have an active security presence in their emergency departments around-the-clock by May 2023. As of September 2022, 58% of the facilities’ emergency departments did not yet have a visible security presence.

The teams also found issues with security devices: 19% of all cameras were not functional; at 24 facilities, more than 20% of the cameras were not working. A few facilities had “highly functional” systems that allowed personnel to monitor the campus thoroughly and even search for specific individuals—but they weren’t always operable.

At one western facility, it came down to a problem that would be frustrating at any time, but alarming for security management: Security personnel could not access the monitoring system because the required security certificates had expired, and no one knew the administrative password. If the system went offline, the OIG team was told, no one could fix the problem without password access. Neither VA’s Office of Information and Technology nor the contractor for the facility’s cameras could override the administrative password.

On the bright side, the OIG teams found that camera video feeds were being actively surveilled by security personnel at 60 of 70 facilities. All but 1 site kept camera footage for an average of 2 weeks or more.

VA policy states that, in addition to at least 2 intermediate weapons (such as batons and pepper spray) uniformed officers must always be issued radios for use while on duty. Survey respondents generally indicated they received their equipment and that it was adequate, but 15% said theirs lacked functionality, such as battery life and signal strength.

Based on the teams’ findings, the OIG made 6 recommendations: (1) delegating a responsible official to monitor and report monthly on facilities’ security-related vacancies; (2) authorizing sufficient staff to inspect VA police forces per the OIG’s 2018 unimplemented recommendation; (3) ensuring medical facility directors appropriately assess VA police staffing needs, authorize associated positions, and leverage available mechanisms to fill vacancies; (4) committing sufficient resources to ensure that facility security measures are adequate, current, and operational; (5) directing Veterans Integrated Services Network police chiefs, in coordination with medical facility directors, facility police chiefs, and facility emergency management leaders, to present a plan to remedy identified security weaknesses; and (6) establishing policy that standardizes the review and retention requirements for facility security camera footage.

The VA concurred with all recommendations and submitted corrective action plans.

In 2022, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) received 36 separate serious incident reports involving 32 medical facilities—including a bomb threat. In response to those reports, OIG teams of auditors and criminal investigators visited 70 VA medical facilities in September 2022 to assess security and to issue a formal report.

Noting that VA policy includes an “extensive list of security safeguards” for medical facilities to implement, the OIG focused its review on those that “a person with a reasonable level of security knowledge could assess.” According to their report, released in February, they identified a variety of security vulnerabilities and deficiencies, ranging from shortages of police officers to radios with poor signal strength.

For one, the OIG says, the facilities were designed to provide a welcoming environment, which means the public can enter the grounds freely at many different points. But the open-campus design makes it more difficult to balance security with easy and prompt access for patients. Consequently, the OIG says, “threats may originate from many locations within the medical facility campus itself or in the nearby community.”

Walking around the perimeters of the facility buildings, the OIG teams assessed the security level of 2960 public and nonpublic access doors. They found that 87% of public doors did not have an active security presence, and of those, 23% also did not have a security camera. Moreover, 17% of nonpublic doors were unlocked; 97% of those did not have a security presence, and 43% did not have a security camera. Even more concerning: Some of those doors led to sensitive or restricted facility areas. For example, at one midwestern facility, an unlocked nonpublic access door led to the surgical intensive care unit.

The OIG teams also assessed training records for 170 police officers across the 70 facilities and found that nearly all officers were compliant with training requirements. Most respondents also reported they received adequate training to perform their job duties and provided numerous positive indicators. Well trained or not, though, a notable problem in maintaining security, the OIG teams found, was there simply weren’t enough officers.

The OIG has repeatedly issued reports on significant police officer staffing shortages since at least 2018. VA police officers are not only empowered to make arrests, carry firearms while on duty, and investigate criminal activity within VA’s jurisdiction, but also assist individuals on medical campuses “in myriad ways,” the OIG notes. Staffing shortages are likely to compromise overall facility security, morale, and staff retention and underscore the need for maintaining communication with local law enforcement agencies for assistance, the OIG report points out.

In the OIG surveys, security personnel often noted they were understaffed. Although VA guidance calls for at least 2 VA police officers on duty at all times, 21% of respondents said they were aware of a duty shift during which minimum police staffing requirements were not met. About 37% of respondents expressed concerns about the physical security at their facilities. Some pointed out that the lack of VA police on duty could make it difficult to respond to threats like an active shooter.

In May 2022, the VA issued a directive that established minimum police coverage at medical facilities, as well as a police officer staffing decision tool to help determine appropriate officer levels. It required facilities to have an active security presence in their emergency departments around-the-clock by May 2023. As of September 2022, 58% of the facilities’ emergency departments did not yet have a visible security presence.

The teams also found issues with security devices: 19% of all cameras were not functional; at 24 facilities, more than 20% of the cameras were not working. A few facilities had “highly functional” systems that allowed personnel to monitor the campus thoroughly and even search for specific individuals—but they weren’t always operable.

At one western facility, it came down to a problem that would be frustrating at any time, but alarming for security management: Security personnel could not access the monitoring system because the required security certificates had expired, and no one knew the administrative password. If the system went offline, the OIG team was told, no one could fix the problem without password access. Neither VA’s Office of Information and Technology nor the contractor for the facility’s cameras could override the administrative password.

On the bright side, the OIG teams found that camera video feeds were being actively surveilled by security personnel at 60 of 70 facilities. All but 1 site kept camera footage for an average of 2 weeks or more.

VA policy states that, in addition to at least 2 intermediate weapons (such as batons and pepper spray) uniformed officers must always be issued radios for use while on duty. Survey respondents generally indicated they received their equipment and that it was adequate, but 15% said theirs lacked functionality, such as battery life and signal strength.

Based on the teams’ findings, the OIG made 6 recommendations: (1) delegating a responsible official to monitor and report monthly on facilities’ security-related vacancies; (2) authorizing sufficient staff to inspect VA police forces per the OIG’s 2018 unimplemented recommendation; (3) ensuring medical facility directors appropriately assess VA police staffing needs, authorize associated positions, and leverage available mechanisms to fill vacancies; (4) committing sufficient resources to ensure that facility security measures are adequate, current, and operational; (5) directing Veterans Integrated Services Network police chiefs, in coordination with medical facility directors, facility police chiefs, and facility emergency management leaders, to present a plan to remedy identified security weaknesses; and (6) establishing policy that standardizes the review and retention requirements for facility security camera footage.

The VA concurred with all recommendations and submitted corrective action plans.

The history and findings in this case are suggestive of eosinophilic asthma. 

Asthma is a common, chronic, and heterogeneous respiratory disease, most often characterized by chronic airway inflammation. Affected individuals experience respiratory symptoms (ie, wheezing, dyspnea, chest tightness, and cough) that may fluctuate over time and in intensity, as well as variable expiratory airflow limitation, which may become persistent. For many patients, asthma has a significant impact on quality of life. According to the World Health Organization, asthma affected an estimated 262 million people and caused 455,000 deaths. Currently, approximately 334 million people worldwide are believed to be affected by asthma. 

Asthma frequently begins in childhood, but adult-onset asthma can occur and often presents as a nonatopic and eosinophilic condition. In fact, asthma is an umbrella diagnosis that encompasses several diseases with distinct mechanistic pathways (endotypes) and variable clinical presentations (phenotypes), all of which manifest with respiratory symptoms and are accompanied by variable airflow obstruction.

Broadly, asthma endotypes are categorized as type 2 (T2)-high or T2-low. Eosinophilic asthma falls under the T2-high endotype and comprises three phenotypes: atopic, late-onset, and aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease. Late-onset T2-high asthma is characterized by prominent blood and sputum eosinophilia and is refractory to inhaled/oral corticosteroid treatment. Patients in this subgroup tend to be older and have more severe asthma with fixed airflow obstruction and more frequent exacerbations; patients may also have comorbid chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, which usually precedes asthma development. High FeNO levels and normal or elevated serum total IgE levels are also often seen in this subgroup. 

The late-onset eosinophilic asthma phenotype accounts for 20%-40% of severe asthma cases and is associated with rapid decline of respiratory functions. Thus, earlier escalation of therapy may be indicated in patients with this phenotype.

According to a 2022 report from the Global Initiative for Asthma, the possibility of refractory T2 asthma should be considered when any of the following is found in patients taking high-dose ICS or daily oral corticosteroids:

•    Blood eosinophils ≥ 150/μL, and/or
•    FeNO ≥ 20 ppb, and/or
•    Sputum eosinophils ≥ 2%, and/or
•    Asthma is clinically allergen driven

Biologic T2-targeted therapies are available as add-on therapies for patients with T2 airway inflammation and severe asthma despite taking at least a high-dose ICS-LABA, and who have eosinophilic or allergic biomarkers or need maintenance oral corticosteroids. Available options for eosinophilic asthma include anti-interleukin (IL)-5/anti-IL-5R therapies (benralizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab) and anti-IL-4R therapy (dupilumab). 

Zab Mosenifar, MD, Medical Director, Women's Lung Institute; Executive Vice Chairman, Department of Medicine, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.

Zab Mosenifar, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

The history and findings in this case are suggestive of eosinophilic asthma. 

Asthma is a common, chronic, and heterogeneous respiratory disease, most often characterized by chronic airway inflammation. Affected individuals experience respiratory symptoms (ie, wheezing, dyspnea, chest tightness, and cough) that may fluctuate over time and in intensity, as well as variable expiratory airflow limitation, which may become persistent. For many patients, asthma has a significant impact on quality of life. According to the World Health Organization, asthma affected an estimated 262 million people and caused 455,000 deaths. Currently, approximately 334 million people worldwide are believed to be affected by asthma. 

Asthma frequently begins in childhood, but adult-onset asthma can occur and often presents as a nonatopic and eosinophilic condition. In fact, asthma is an umbrella diagnosis that encompasses several diseases with distinct mechanistic pathways (endotypes) and variable clinical presentations (phenotypes), all of which manifest with respiratory symptoms and are accompanied by variable airflow obstruction.

Broadly, asthma endotypes are categorized as type 2 (T2)-high or T2-low. Eosinophilic asthma falls under the T2-high endotype and comprises three phenotypes: atopic, late-onset, and aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease. Late-onset T2-high asthma is characterized by prominent blood and sputum eosinophilia and is refractory to inhaled/oral corticosteroid treatment. Patients in this subgroup tend to be older and have more severe asthma with fixed airflow obstruction and more frequent exacerbations; patients may also have comorbid chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, which usually precedes asthma development. High FeNO levels and normal or elevated serum total IgE levels are also often seen in this subgroup. 

The late-onset eosinophilic asthma phenotype accounts for 20%-40% of severe asthma cases and is associated with rapid decline of respiratory functions. Thus, earlier escalation of therapy may be indicated in patients with this phenotype.

According to a 2022 report from the Global Initiative for Asthma, the possibility of refractory T2 asthma should be considered when any of the following is found in patients taking high-dose ICS or daily oral corticosteroids:

•    Blood eosinophils ≥ 150/μL, and/or
•    FeNO ≥ 20 ppb, and/or
•    Sputum eosinophils ≥ 2%, and/or
•    Asthma is clinically allergen driven

Biologic T2-targeted therapies are available as add-on therapies for patients with T2 airway inflammation and severe asthma despite taking at least a high-dose ICS-LABA, and who have eosinophilic or allergic biomarkers or need maintenance oral corticosteroids. Available options for eosinophilic asthma include anti-interleukin (IL)-5/anti-IL-5R therapies (benralizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab) and anti-IL-4R therapy (dupilumab). 

Zab Mosenifar, MD, Medical Director, Women's Lung Institute; Executive Vice Chairman, Department of Medicine, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.

Zab Mosenifar, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

The history and findings in this case are suggestive of eosinophilic asthma. 

Asthma is a common, chronic, and heterogeneous respiratory disease, most often characterized by chronic airway inflammation. Affected individuals experience respiratory symptoms (ie, wheezing, dyspnea, chest tightness, and cough) that may fluctuate over time and in intensity, as well as variable expiratory airflow limitation, which may become persistent. For many patients, asthma has a significant impact on quality of life. According to the World Health Organization, asthma affected an estimated 262 million people and caused 455,000 deaths. Currently, approximately 334 million people worldwide are believed to be affected by asthma. 

Asthma frequently begins in childhood, but adult-onset asthma can occur and often presents as a nonatopic and eosinophilic condition. In fact, asthma is an umbrella diagnosis that encompasses several diseases with distinct mechanistic pathways (endotypes) and variable clinical presentations (phenotypes), all of which manifest with respiratory symptoms and are accompanied by variable airflow obstruction.

Broadly, asthma endotypes are categorized as type 2 (T2)-high or T2-low. Eosinophilic asthma falls under the T2-high endotype and comprises three phenotypes: atopic, late-onset, and aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease. Late-onset T2-high asthma is characterized by prominent blood and sputum eosinophilia and is refractory to inhaled/oral corticosteroid treatment. Patients in this subgroup tend to be older and have more severe asthma with fixed airflow obstruction and more frequent exacerbations; patients may also have comorbid chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, which usually precedes asthma development. High FeNO levels and normal or elevated serum total IgE levels are also often seen in this subgroup. 

The late-onset eosinophilic asthma phenotype accounts for 20%-40% of severe asthma cases and is associated with rapid decline of respiratory functions. Thus, earlier escalation of therapy may be indicated in patients with this phenotype.

According to a 2022 report from the Global Initiative for Asthma, the possibility of refractory T2 asthma should be considered when any of the following is found in patients taking high-dose ICS or daily oral corticosteroids:

•    Blood eosinophils ≥ 150/μL, and/or
•    FeNO ≥ 20 ppb, and/or
•    Sputum eosinophils ≥ 2%, and/or
•    Asthma is clinically allergen driven

Biologic T2-targeted therapies are available as add-on therapies for patients with T2 airway inflammation and severe asthma despite taking at least a high-dose ICS-LABA, and who have eosinophilic or allergic biomarkers or need maintenance oral corticosteroids. Available options for eosinophilic asthma include anti-interleukin (IL)-5/anti-IL-5R therapies (benralizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab) and anti-IL-4R therapy (dupilumab). 

Zab Mosenifar, MD, Medical Director, Women's Lung Institute; Executive Vice Chairman, Department of Medicine, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.

Zab Mosenifar, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Gilberto Salazar, MD, an emergency physician at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, to discuss a new virtual reality tool to help health care providers deescalate workplace violence. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.

Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.

Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.

First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?

Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.

We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.

Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.

UT Dallas

UT Southwestern Medical Center

We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.

This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.

Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.

Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.

Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.

Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?

Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.

Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.

Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?

Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.

Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.

Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.

Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.

Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
 

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Gilberto Salazar, MD, an emergency physician at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, to discuss a new virtual reality tool to help health care providers deescalate workplace violence. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.

Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.

Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.

First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?

Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.

We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.

Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.

UT Dallas

UT Southwestern Medical Center

We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.

This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.

Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.

Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.

Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.

Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?

Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.

Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.

Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?

Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.

Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.

Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.

Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.

Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
 

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Gilberto Salazar, MD, an emergency physician at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, to discuss a new virtual reality tool to help health care providers deescalate workplace violence. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.

Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.

Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.

First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?

Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.

We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.

Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.

UT Dallas

UT Southwestern Medical Center

We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.

This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.

Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.

Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.

Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.

Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?

Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.

Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.

Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?

Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.

Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.

Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.

Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.

Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
 

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

On average, children born following induced labor perform worse at school at age 12 years than their peers who were born after spontaneous onset of labor. This is the outcome of a report by Anita Ravelli, PhD, and her team of Dutch researchers in the department of obstetrics and gynecology of the Amsterdam University Medical Center, published in Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica.

For the retrospective cohort study, the team analyzed data from almost 230,000 patients. According to these data, the likelihood of children reaching higher secondary school level is around 10% lower after elective induction of labor.
 

Labor induction frequent

These days in Germany, more than 20% of all births are induced. Sometimes this decision is made because of medical reasons, such as the woman’s having gestational diabetes, the presence of gestational toxicity, or the occurrence of a premature rupture of membranes. However, contractions are most often artificially triggered because the expected delivery date has passed.

Guidelines from the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics recommend inducing labor if there is a medical indication and if more than 10 days have passed since the expected delivery date. After 14 days, induction is strongly advised. This recommendation is based on studies that indicate that the child is at increased risk of disease and death once the expected delivery date is far exceeded.
 

Causal relationship unproven

It is still unclear whether and to what extent inducing labor affects a child’s neurologic development. Since the frequency of induced labor has increased greatly worldwide, Dr. Ravelli and her colleagues investigated this matter.

The study may have limited validity, however. “The outcome of the study only determines an association between spontaneous labor in mature children versus induced labor and a school performance test at 12 years of age,” said Maria Delius, MD, MPH, head of the Perinatal Center at the Clinic and Polyclinic for Obstetrics and Gynecology of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. “The study is unable to prove any causality, even if it sounds that way in the abstract.”

This publication may in no way instigate a change in current practices, Dr. Delius emphasized. “There is a lot of potential for the wrong conclusions to be drawn from this study, and as a result – if it is presented and perceived in a subjective manner in public – to also cause harm to mothers and children,” she warned. The study also must not be associated with the drug misoprostol, since the various mechanical and medicinal methods of induction were not the topic of the Dutch investigation.
 

Gestational-week differences

The primary author of the study, Renee J. Burger, MD, PhD, of Dr. Ravelli’s UMC team, and her colleagues assessed the school performance of 226,684 children at age 12 years who were born in the 37th to 42nd week of gestation (WOG) between 2003 and 2008 in the Netherlands following an uncomplicated single pregnancy. They compared school performance, divided for each of the six WOG analyzed, between children whose birth was mechanically or medicinally induced and those who were born without intervention.

According to the report by the researchers, induced labor at every WOG up to the 41st week was associated with lower school performance in the children, compared with a spontaneous birth. In addition, fewer children whose birth was induced reached a higher secondary level of education. After 38 WOG, the figure stood at 48%, compared with 54% of children who were born without intervention. For 12-year-olds not born until the 42nd WOG, there were no significant differences between the two groups investigated.
 

Prospective studies pending

Dr. Burger and Dr. Ravelli emphasized that the results do not indicate that every child born after an induced labor will perform worse at school. This is a statistical correlation that cannot be transferred to a case-by-case basis. In addition, it is unlikely that all disruptive factors could be taken into consideration during the analyses. Nonetheless, the researchers conclude that the long-term effects of inducing labor should be considered during consultation and decision-making in the future.

In general, it is important that future randomized, controlled studies incorporate long-term measurements in their results and conclusions so that complete data on the present topic can be gathered. “Although the effect on the individual child is likely subtle, the impact on society due to the large number of early-term labor inductions should not be underestimated,” the authors wrote.
 

Unexamined disruptive factors

Sven Kehl, MD, PhD, senior physician of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and coordinator of the University Perinatal Center of Franconia at the University Hospital of Erlangen, Germany, is of a similar opinion. “Inducing labor causes birth to occur sooner and therefore for the pregnancy to finish prematurely,” said Dr. Kehl. Such premature births, not the mechanical or medicinal procedures for inducing labor, could affect the child’s cerebral development. “The results of this study suggest that inducing labor in uncomplicated pregnancies, in which there are no relevant medical indications, should be avoided,” said Dr. Kehl. In these cases, the mother should wait for a natural birth.

Some of the study’s strengths include the large quantity of data, the large number of participants, and the various disruptive factors taken into consideration, such as the mother’s level of education, according to Dr. Kehl. “But it is not a study from which causality can be derived,” he said.

Not all the potential disruptive factors could be found in the available data. For example, information regarding familial status, the father’s level of education, the parents’ smoking status, or the mother’s body mass index was missing. Also, only a small number of the possible indications for inducing labor was disclosed.
 

No elective inductions

The study is unlikely to have a major effect on practice in German maternity clinics, since the routine induction of labor from the 39th WOG has always been regarded critically in German-speaking countries, said Dr. Kehl. It is still true that if there are any risks, a risk-benefit analysis must be performed, and the risks to the mother or child must be evaluated when considering labor induction.

“If there are no medical reasons for inducing labor, the women must also be informed about the possible long-term consequences and not just about the short-term risks,” said Dr. Kehl.

His colleague in Berlin, Michael Abou-Dakn, MD, chief physician of gynecology and obstetrics at the St. Joseph’s Hospital, Berlin-Tempelhof, was more categorical. “It is right to criticize the fact that over 20% of births in Germany are induced,” he said. He is rather dubious, however, about the effects on school performance found in the study following induced labor. Still, the investigation is a reminder that inducing labor could involve side effects. “There should therefore be no elective inductions, or any without a clear indication,” said Dr. Abou-Dakn.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

On average, children born following induced labor perform worse at school at age 12 years than their peers who were born after spontaneous onset of labor. This is the outcome of a report by Anita Ravelli, PhD, and her team of Dutch researchers in the department of obstetrics and gynecology of the Amsterdam University Medical Center, published in Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica.

For the retrospective cohort study, the team analyzed data from almost 230,000 patients. According to these data, the likelihood of children reaching higher secondary school level is around 10% lower after elective induction of labor.
 

Labor induction frequent

These days in Germany, more than 20% of all births are induced. Sometimes this decision is made because of medical reasons, such as the woman’s having gestational diabetes, the presence of gestational toxicity, or the occurrence of a premature rupture of membranes. However, contractions are most often artificially triggered because the expected delivery date has passed.

Guidelines from the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics recommend inducing labor if there is a medical indication and if more than 10 days have passed since the expected delivery date. After 14 days, induction is strongly advised. This recommendation is based on studies that indicate that the child is at increased risk of disease and death once the expected delivery date is far exceeded.
 

Causal relationship unproven

It is still unclear whether and to what extent inducing labor affects a child’s neurologic development. Since the frequency of induced labor has increased greatly worldwide, Dr. Ravelli and her colleagues investigated this matter.

The study may have limited validity, however. “The outcome of the study only determines an association between spontaneous labor in mature children versus induced labor and a school performance test at 12 years of age,” said Maria Delius, MD, MPH, head of the Perinatal Center at the Clinic and Polyclinic for Obstetrics and Gynecology of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. “The study is unable to prove any causality, even if it sounds that way in the abstract.”

This publication may in no way instigate a change in current practices, Dr. Delius emphasized. “There is a lot of potential for the wrong conclusions to be drawn from this study, and as a result – if it is presented and perceived in a subjective manner in public – to also cause harm to mothers and children,” she warned. The study also must not be associated with the drug misoprostol, since the various mechanical and medicinal methods of induction were not the topic of the Dutch investigation.
 

Gestational-week differences

The primary author of the study, Renee J. Burger, MD, PhD, of Dr. Ravelli’s UMC team, and her colleagues assessed the school performance of 226,684 children at age 12 years who were born in the 37th to 42nd week of gestation (WOG) between 2003 and 2008 in the Netherlands following an uncomplicated single pregnancy. They compared school performance, divided for each of the six WOG analyzed, between children whose birth was mechanically or medicinally induced and those who were born without intervention.

According to the report by the researchers, induced labor at every WOG up to the 41st week was associated with lower school performance in the children, compared with a spontaneous birth. In addition, fewer children whose birth was induced reached a higher secondary level of education. After 38 WOG, the figure stood at 48%, compared with 54% of children who were born without intervention. For 12-year-olds not born until the 42nd WOG, there were no significant differences between the two groups investigated.
 

Prospective studies pending

Dr. Burger and Dr. Ravelli emphasized that the results do not indicate that every child born after an induced labor will perform worse at school. This is a statistical correlation that cannot be transferred to a case-by-case basis. In addition, it is unlikely that all disruptive factors could be taken into consideration during the analyses. Nonetheless, the researchers conclude that the long-term effects of inducing labor should be considered during consultation and decision-making in the future.

In general, it is important that future randomized, controlled studies incorporate long-term measurements in their results and conclusions so that complete data on the present topic can be gathered. “Although the effect on the individual child is likely subtle, the impact on society due to the large number of early-term labor inductions should not be underestimated,” the authors wrote.
 

Unexamined disruptive factors

Sven Kehl, MD, PhD, senior physician of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and coordinator of the University Perinatal Center of Franconia at the University Hospital of Erlangen, Germany, is of a similar opinion. “Inducing labor causes birth to occur sooner and therefore for the pregnancy to finish prematurely,” said Dr. Kehl. Such premature births, not the mechanical or medicinal procedures for inducing labor, could affect the child’s cerebral development. “The results of this study suggest that inducing labor in uncomplicated pregnancies, in which there are no relevant medical indications, should be avoided,” said Dr. Kehl. In these cases, the mother should wait for a natural birth.

Some of the study’s strengths include the large quantity of data, the large number of participants, and the various disruptive factors taken into consideration, such as the mother’s level of education, according to Dr. Kehl. “But it is not a study from which causality can be derived,” he said.

Not all the potential disruptive factors could be found in the available data. For example, information regarding familial status, the father’s level of education, the parents’ smoking status, or the mother’s body mass index was missing. Also, only a small number of the possible indications for inducing labor was disclosed.
 

No elective inductions

The study is unlikely to have a major effect on practice in German maternity clinics, since the routine induction of labor from the 39th WOG has always been regarded critically in German-speaking countries, said Dr. Kehl. It is still true that if there are any risks, a risk-benefit analysis must be performed, and the risks to the mother or child must be evaluated when considering labor induction.

“If there are no medical reasons for inducing labor, the women must also be informed about the possible long-term consequences and not just about the short-term risks,” said Dr. Kehl.

His colleague in Berlin, Michael Abou-Dakn, MD, chief physician of gynecology and obstetrics at the St. Joseph’s Hospital, Berlin-Tempelhof, was more categorical. “It is right to criticize the fact that over 20% of births in Germany are induced,” he said. He is rather dubious, however, about the effects on school performance found in the study following induced labor. Still, the investigation is a reminder that inducing labor could involve side effects. “There should therefore be no elective inductions, or any without a clear indication,” said Dr. Abou-Dakn.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

On average, children born following induced labor perform worse at school at age 12 years than their peers who were born after spontaneous onset of labor. This is the outcome of a report by Anita Ravelli, PhD, and her team of Dutch researchers in the department of obstetrics and gynecology of the Amsterdam University Medical Center, published in Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica.

For the retrospective cohort study, the team analyzed data from almost 230,000 patients. According to these data, the likelihood of children reaching higher secondary school level is around 10% lower after elective induction of labor.
 

Labor induction frequent

These days in Germany, more than 20% of all births are induced. Sometimes this decision is made because of medical reasons, such as the woman’s having gestational diabetes, the presence of gestational toxicity, or the occurrence of a premature rupture of membranes. However, contractions are most often artificially triggered because the expected delivery date has passed.

Guidelines from the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics recommend inducing labor if there is a medical indication and if more than 10 days have passed since the expected delivery date. After 14 days, induction is strongly advised. This recommendation is based on studies that indicate that the child is at increased risk of disease and death once the expected delivery date is far exceeded.
 

Causal relationship unproven

It is still unclear whether and to what extent inducing labor affects a child’s neurologic development. Since the frequency of induced labor has increased greatly worldwide, Dr. Ravelli and her colleagues investigated this matter.

The study may have limited validity, however. “The outcome of the study only determines an association between spontaneous labor in mature children versus induced labor and a school performance test at 12 years of age,” said Maria Delius, MD, MPH, head of the Perinatal Center at the Clinic and Polyclinic for Obstetrics and Gynecology of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. “The study is unable to prove any causality, even if it sounds that way in the abstract.”

This publication may in no way instigate a change in current practices, Dr. Delius emphasized. “There is a lot of potential for the wrong conclusions to be drawn from this study, and as a result – if it is presented and perceived in a subjective manner in public – to also cause harm to mothers and children,” she warned. The study also must not be associated with the drug misoprostol, since the various mechanical and medicinal methods of induction were not the topic of the Dutch investigation.
 

Gestational-week differences

The primary author of the study, Renee J. Burger, MD, PhD, of Dr. Ravelli’s UMC team, and her colleagues assessed the school performance of 226,684 children at age 12 years who were born in the 37th to 42nd week of gestation (WOG) between 2003 and 2008 in the Netherlands following an uncomplicated single pregnancy. They compared school performance, divided for each of the six WOG analyzed, between children whose birth was mechanically or medicinally induced and those who were born without intervention.

According to the report by the researchers, induced labor at every WOG up to the 41st week was associated with lower school performance in the children, compared with a spontaneous birth. In addition, fewer children whose birth was induced reached a higher secondary level of education. After 38 WOG, the figure stood at 48%, compared with 54% of children who were born without intervention. For 12-year-olds not born until the 42nd WOG, there were no significant differences between the two groups investigated.
 

Prospective studies pending

Dr. Burger and Dr. Ravelli emphasized that the results do not indicate that every child born after an induced labor will perform worse at school. This is a statistical correlation that cannot be transferred to a case-by-case basis. In addition, it is unlikely that all disruptive factors could be taken into consideration during the analyses. Nonetheless, the researchers conclude that the long-term effects of inducing labor should be considered during consultation and decision-making in the future.

In general, it is important that future randomized, controlled studies incorporate long-term measurements in their results and conclusions so that complete data on the present topic can be gathered. “Although the effect on the individual child is likely subtle, the impact on society due to the large number of early-term labor inductions should not be underestimated,” the authors wrote.
 

Unexamined disruptive factors

Sven Kehl, MD, PhD, senior physician of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and coordinator of the University Perinatal Center of Franconia at the University Hospital of Erlangen, Germany, is of a similar opinion. “Inducing labor causes birth to occur sooner and therefore for the pregnancy to finish prematurely,” said Dr. Kehl. Such premature births, not the mechanical or medicinal procedures for inducing labor, could affect the child’s cerebral development. “The results of this study suggest that inducing labor in uncomplicated pregnancies, in which there are no relevant medical indications, should be avoided,” said Dr. Kehl. In these cases, the mother should wait for a natural birth.

Some of the study’s strengths include the large quantity of data, the large number of participants, and the various disruptive factors taken into consideration, such as the mother’s level of education, according to Dr. Kehl. “But it is not a study from which causality can be derived,” he said.

Not all the potential disruptive factors could be found in the available data. For example, information regarding familial status, the father’s level of education, the parents’ smoking status, or the mother’s body mass index was missing. Also, only a small number of the possible indications for inducing labor was disclosed.
 

No elective inductions

The study is unlikely to have a major effect on practice in German maternity clinics, since the routine induction of labor from the 39th WOG has always been regarded critically in German-speaking countries, said Dr. Kehl. It is still true that if there are any risks, a risk-benefit analysis must be performed, and the risks to the mother or child must be evaluated when considering labor induction.

“If there are no medical reasons for inducing labor, the women must also be informed about the possible long-term consequences and not just about the short-term risks,” said Dr. Kehl.

His colleague in Berlin, Michael Abou-Dakn, MD, chief physician of gynecology and obstetrics at the St. Joseph’s Hospital, Berlin-Tempelhof, was more categorical. “It is right to criticize the fact that over 20% of births in Germany are induced,” he said. He is rather dubious, however, about the effects on school performance found in the study following induced labor. Still, the investigation is a reminder that inducing labor could involve side effects. “There should therefore be no elective inductions, or any without a clear indication,” said Dr. Abou-Dakn.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

A once-daily oral stimulant medication for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in individuals aged 6 years or older is safe and effective after 1 year of treatment, new research shows.

Results from a phase 3, multicenter dose optimization, open-label safety study of Azstarys (KemPharm) found that most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate.

“This data show that Azstarys remains safe and effective for the treatment of ADHD when given for up to a year,” lead investigator Ann Childress, MD, president of the Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Las Vegas, said in an interview.

The study was published online  in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology.

Safety at 1 year

The drug is a combination of extended-release serdexmethylphenidate (SDX), KemPharm’s prodrug of dexmethylphenidate (d-MPH), co-formulated with immediate-release d-MPH.

SDX is converted to d-MPH after it is absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract. The d-MPH is released gradually throughout the day, providing quick symptom control with the d-MPH and extended control with SDX.

As reported by this news organization, Azstarys was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021 on the basis of results from a laboratory classroom phase 3 trial, which showed significant improvement in ADHD symptoms, compared with placebo.

For this study, the second phase 3 trial of Azstarys, investigators analyzed data from 282 children aged 6-12 years in the United States, including 70 who participated in an earlier 1-month efficacy trial as well.

After screening and a 3-week dose-optimization phase for new participants, patients received once-daily treatment with doses of 26.1 mg/5.2 mg, 39.2 mg/7.8 mg, or 52.3 mg/10.4 mg of SDX/d-MPH.

After 1 year of treatment, 60.1% of participants reported at least one TEAE, the majority of which were moderate. Twelve patients reported severe TEAEs. Six children (2.5%) discontinued the study due to a TEAE during the treatment phase.

Investigators also measured growth and changes in sleep with the Children’s Sleep Habits Questionnaire during the 12-month study. Sleep improved on most measures and the impact on growth was mild.

There were no life-threatening TEAEs and no deaths reported during the study.

The most common TEAEs during the treatment phase were decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, decreased weight, irritability, and increased weight.

Efficacy at 1 year

ADHD symptoms improved considerably after 1 month of treatment, with responses continuing at 1 year.

At baseline, participants’ mean ADHD Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) score was 41.5. After 1 month of treatment, scores averaged 16.1, a decline of –25.3 (P < .001).

The mean score stabilized in the 12-15 range for the remainder of the study. After 1 year of treatment, ADHD symptoms had decreased approximately 70% from baseline.

Investigators found similar results in clinical severity. After 1 month of treatment, the average Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scale score was 2.5, a decline of –2.2 (P < .0001).

CGI-S scale scores remained in the 2.2-2.4 range for the remainder of the study.

These results, combined with the results of the original classroom trial, suggest Azstarys may offer advantages over other ADHD drugs, Dr. Childress said.

“In the laboratory classroom trial, subjects taking Azstarys completed significantly more math problems than subjects taking placebo beginning at 30 minutes and up to 13 hours after dosing,” Dr. Childress said. “No other methylphenidate extended-release product currently marketed in the United States has a 13-hour duration of effect.”

‘Reassuring data’

Aditya Pawar, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with the Kennedy Krieger Institute and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that the study suggests the drug may be a valuable addition to ADHD treatment options for pediatric patients.

“The study provides reassuring data on the safety of stimulants in patients without significant history of cardiac events or blood pressure changes, which are usual concerns among patients and clinicians despite the evidence supporting safety, said Dr. Pawar, who was not part of the study.

“Additionally, the 1-year data on efficacy and safety of a new stimulant medication is valuable for clinicians looking for sustained relief for their patients, despite the limitations of an open-label trial,” she added.

Overall, the safety data reported here are fairly consistent with the safety profile of other methylphenidates used for treating ADHD, Dr. Pawar said.

However, she noted, the study does have some limitations, including its open-label design and lack of blinding. The research also excluded children with autism, disruptive mood dysregulation disorders, and other common comorbidities of ADHD, which may limit the generalizability of the results.

“These comorbidities often require stimulants as a part of treatment and yet have a higher risk of side effects,” Dr. Pawar said. “Future studies with a broader population may be needed to better understand treatment effectiveness and potential risks.”

The study was funded by KemPharm. Dr. Childress serves as consultant for Aardvark, Arbor, Attentive, Cingulate, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocentria, Otsuka, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris Pharma, KemPharm, Supernus, Jazz, Corium, Tulex, and Lumos. Full disclosures are reported in the original article.

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

A once-daily oral stimulant medication for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in individuals aged 6 years or older is safe and effective after 1 year of treatment, new research shows.

Results from a phase 3, multicenter dose optimization, open-label safety study of Azstarys (KemPharm) found that most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate.

“This data show that Azstarys remains safe and effective for the treatment of ADHD when given for up to a year,” lead investigator Ann Childress, MD, president of the Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Las Vegas, said in an interview.

The study was published online  in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology.

Safety at 1 year

The drug is a combination of extended-release serdexmethylphenidate (SDX), KemPharm’s prodrug of dexmethylphenidate (d-MPH), co-formulated with immediate-release d-MPH.

SDX is converted to d-MPH after it is absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract. The d-MPH is released gradually throughout the day, providing quick symptom control with the d-MPH and extended control with SDX.

As reported by this news organization, Azstarys was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021 on the basis of results from a laboratory classroom phase 3 trial, which showed significant improvement in ADHD symptoms, compared with placebo.

For this study, the second phase 3 trial of Azstarys, investigators analyzed data from 282 children aged 6-12 years in the United States, including 70 who participated in an earlier 1-month efficacy trial as well.

After screening and a 3-week dose-optimization phase for new participants, patients received once-daily treatment with doses of 26.1 mg/5.2 mg, 39.2 mg/7.8 mg, or 52.3 mg/10.4 mg of SDX/d-MPH.

After 1 year of treatment, 60.1% of participants reported at least one TEAE, the majority of which were moderate. Twelve patients reported severe TEAEs. Six children (2.5%) discontinued the study due to a TEAE during the treatment phase.

Investigators also measured growth and changes in sleep with the Children’s Sleep Habits Questionnaire during the 12-month study. Sleep improved on most measures and the impact on growth was mild.

There were no life-threatening TEAEs and no deaths reported during the study.

The most common TEAEs during the treatment phase were decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, decreased weight, irritability, and increased weight.

Efficacy at 1 year

ADHD symptoms improved considerably after 1 month of treatment, with responses continuing at 1 year.

At baseline, participants’ mean ADHD Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) score was 41.5. After 1 month of treatment, scores averaged 16.1, a decline of –25.3 (P < .001).

The mean score stabilized in the 12-15 range for the remainder of the study. After 1 year of treatment, ADHD symptoms had decreased approximately 70% from baseline.

Investigators found similar results in clinical severity. After 1 month of treatment, the average Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scale score was 2.5, a decline of –2.2 (P < .0001).

CGI-S scale scores remained in the 2.2-2.4 range for the remainder of the study.

These results, combined with the results of the original classroom trial, suggest Azstarys may offer advantages over other ADHD drugs, Dr. Childress said.

“In the laboratory classroom trial, subjects taking Azstarys completed significantly more math problems than subjects taking placebo beginning at 30 minutes and up to 13 hours after dosing,” Dr. Childress said. “No other methylphenidate extended-release product currently marketed in the United States has a 13-hour duration of effect.”

‘Reassuring data’

Aditya Pawar, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with the Kennedy Krieger Institute and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that the study suggests the drug may be a valuable addition to ADHD treatment options for pediatric patients.

“The study provides reassuring data on the safety of stimulants in patients without significant history of cardiac events or blood pressure changes, which are usual concerns among patients and clinicians despite the evidence supporting safety, said Dr. Pawar, who was not part of the study.

“Additionally, the 1-year data on efficacy and safety of a new stimulant medication is valuable for clinicians looking for sustained relief for their patients, despite the limitations of an open-label trial,” she added.

Overall, the safety data reported here are fairly consistent with the safety profile of other methylphenidates used for treating ADHD, Dr. Pawar said.

However, she noted, the study does have some limitations, including its open-label design and lack of blinding. The research also excluded children with autism, disruptive mood dysregulation disorders, and other common comorbidities of ADHD, which may limit the generalizability of the results.

“These comorbidities often require stimulants as a part of treatment and yet have a higher risk of side effects,” Dr. Pawar said. “Future studies with a broader population may be needed to better understand treatment effectiveness and potential risks.”

The study was funded by KemPharm. Dr. Childress serves as consultant for Aardvark, Arbor, Attentive, Cingulate, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocentria, Otsuka, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris Pharma, KemPharm, Supernus, Jazz, Corium, Tulex, and Lumos. Full disclosures are reported in the original article.

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

A once-daily oral stimulant medication for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in individuals aged 6 years or older is safe and effective after 1 year of treatment, new research shows.

Results from a phase 3, multicenter dose optimization, open-label safety study of Azstarys (KemPharm) found that most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate.

“This data show that Azstarys remains safe and effective for the treatment of ADHD when given for up to a year,” lead investigator Ann Childress, MD, president of the Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Las Vegas, said in an interview.

The study was published online  in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology.

Safety at 1 year

The drug is a combination of extended-release serdexmethylphenidate (SDX), KemPharm’s prodrug of dexmethylphenidate (d-MPH), co-formulated with immediate-release d-MPH.

SDX is converted to d-MPH after it is absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract. The d-MPH is released gradually throughout the day, providing quick symptom control with the d-MPH and extended control with SDX.

As reported by this news organization, Azstarys was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021 on the basis of results from a laboratory classroom phase 3 trial, which showed significant improvement in ADHD symptoms, compared with placebo.

For this study, the second phase 3 trial of Azstarys, investigators analyzed data from 282 children aged 6-12 years in the United States, including 70 who participated in an earlier 1-month efficacy trial as well.

After screening and a 3-week dose-optimization phase for new participants, patients received once-daily treatment with doses of 26.1 mg/5.2 mg, 39.2 mg/7.8 mg, or 52.3 mg/10.4 mg of SDX/d-MPH.

After 1 year of treatment, 60.1% of participants reported at least one TEAE, the majority of which were moderate. Twelve patients reported severe TEAEs. Six children (2.5%) discontinued the study due to a TEAE during the treatment phase.

Investigators also measured growth and changes in sleep with the Children’s Sleep Habits Questionnaire during the 12-month study. Sleep improved on most measures and the impact on growth was mild.

There were no life-threatening TEAEs and no deaths reported during the study.

The most common TEAEs during the treatment phase were decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, decreased weight, irritability, and increased weight.

Efficacy at 1 year

ADHD symptoms improved considerably after 1 month of treatment, with responses continuing at 1 year.

At baseline, participants’ mean ADHD Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) score was 41.5. After 1 month of treatment, scores averaged 16.1, a decline of –25.3 (P < .001).

The mean score stabilized in the 12-15 range for the remainder of the study. After 1 year of treatment, ADHD symptoms had decreased approximately 70% from baseline.

Investigators found similar results in clinical severity. After 1 month of treatment, the average Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scale score was 2.5, a decline of –2.2 (P < .0001).

CGI-S scale scores remained in the 2.2-2.4 range for the remainder of the study.

These results, combined with the results of the original classroom trial, suggest Azstarys may offer advantages over other ADHD drugs, Dr. Childress said.

“In the laboratory classroom trial, subjects taking Azstarys completed significantly more math problems than subjects taking placebo beginning at 30 minutes and up to 13 hours after dosing,” Dr. Childress said. “No other methylphenidate extended-release product currently marketed in the United States has a 13-hour duration of effect.”

‘Reassuring data’

Aditya Pawar, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with the Kennedy Krieger Institute and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that the study suggests the drug may be a valuable addition to ADHD treatment options for pediatric patients.

“The study provides reassuring data on the safety of stimulants in patients without significant history of cardiac events or blood pressure changes, which are usual concerns among patients and clinicians despite the evidence supporting safety, said Dr. Pawar, who was not part of the study.

“Additionally, the 1-year data on efficacy and safety of a new stimulant medication is valuable for clinicians looking for sustained relief for their patients, despite the limitations of an open-label trial,” she added.

Overall, the safety data reported here are fairly consistent with the safety profile of other methylphenidates used for treating ADHD, Dr. Pawar said.

However, she noted, the study does have some limitations, including its open-label design and lack of blinding. The research also excluded children with autism, disruptive mood dysregulation disorders, and other common comorbidities of ADHD, which may limit the generalizability of the results.

“These comorbidities often require stimulants as a part of treatment and yet have a higher risk of side effects,” Dr. Pawar said. “Future studies with a broader population may be needed to better understand treatment effectiveness and potential risks.”

The study was funded by KemPharm. Dr. Childress serves as consultant for Aardvark, Arbor, Attentive, Cingulate, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocentria, Otsuka, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris Pharma, KemPharm, Supernus, Jazz, Corium, Tulex, and Lumos. Full disclosures are reported in the original article.

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

NEW ORLEANS - The antipsychotic brexpiprazole effectively improves agitation associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) with favorable tolerability, results of a phase 3 study suggest.

“In this phase 3 trial of patients with agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia, treatment with brexpiprazole 2 or 3 mg/day resulted in statistically significantly greater improvements in agitation versus placebo on the primary and key secondary endpoints,” said study investigator George Grossberg, MD, professor and director of the division of geriatric psychiatry, department of psychiatry & behavioral neuroscience, Saint Louis University.

Dr. Grossberg presented the findings as part of the annual meeting of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.

Agitation common, distressing

With two previous studies also showing efficacy of brexpiprazole in AD-related agitation, Dr. Grossberg speculated that brexpiprazole will become the first drug to be approved for agitation in AD.

Agitation is one of the most common AD symptoms and is arguably the most distressing for patients and caregivers alike, Dr. Grossberg noted.

The drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.

To investigate the drug at effective doses for AD-related agitation, the researchers conducted a phase 3 multicenter trial that included 345 patients with AD who met criteria for agitation and aggression.

Study participants had a mean Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score between 5 and 22 at screening and baseline and a mean Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score of about 79. A score above 45 is considered clinically significant agitation. Use of AD medications were permitted.

Patients had a mean age of 74 years and were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive treatment with brexpiprazole 2 mg (n = 75) or 3 mg (n = 153) per day, or placebo (n = 117).

The study’s primary endpoint was improvement as assessed by the CMAI. Over 12 weeks, participants in the brexpiprazole group experienced greater improvement in agitation, with a mean change of –22.6 with brexpiprazole vs. –17.3 with placebo (P = .0026).

Brexpiprazole was also associated with significantly greater improvement in the secondary outcome of change from baseline to week 12 in agitation severity, as assessed using the Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score (mean change, –1.20 with brexpiprazole vs. –0.93 with placebo; P = .0078).

Specifically, treatment with the drug resulted in improvements in three key subscales of agitation, including aggressive behavior, such as physically striking out (P < .01 vs. placebo); physically nonaggressive; and verbally agitated, such as screaming or cursing (both P < .05).

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) associated with brexpiprazole vs. placebo included somnolence (3.5% vs. 0.9%), nasopharyngitis (3.1% vs. 1.7%), dizziness (2.7% vs. 1.7%), diarrhea (2.2% vs. 0.9%), urinary tract infection (2.2% vs. 0.9%), and asthenia (2.2% vs. 0.0%).

“Aside from headache, no other TEAEs had an incidence of more than 5% in the brexpiprazole (2 or 3 mg) group, or in either dose group,” Dr. Grossberg said. “Cognition also remained stable,” he added.

Boxed warnings

Adverse events commonly associated with brexpiprazole include weight change, extrapyramidal events, falls, cardiovascular events, and sedation. In the study, all occurred at an incidence of less than 2% in both study groups, he noted.

Compared with the antipsychotic aripiprazole, brexpiprazole is associated with lower weight gain and akathisia, or motor restlessness.

One death occurred in the brexpiprazole 3 mg group in a patient who had heart failure, pneumonia, and cachexia. At autopsy, it was found the patient had cerebral and coronary atherosclerosis. The death was considered to be unrelated to brexpiprazole, said Dr. Grossberg.

This finding is notable because a caveat is that brexpiprazole, like aripiprazole and other typical and atypical antipsychotics, carries an FDA boxed warning related to an increased risk for death in older patients when used for dementia-related psychosis.

Noting that a black box warning about mortality risk is not a minor issue, Dr. Grossberg added that the risks are relatively low, whereas the risks associated with agitation in dementia can be high.

“If it’s an emergency situation, you have to treat the patient because otherwise they may harm someone else, or harm the staff, or harm their loved ones or themselves, and in those cases, we want to treat the patient first, get them under control, and then we worry about the black box,” he said.

In addition, “the No. 1 reason for getting kicked out of a nursing home is agitation or severe behaviors in the context of a dementia or a major neurocognitive disorder that the facility cannot control,” Dr. Grossberg added.

In such cases, patients may wind up in an emergency department and may not be welcome back at the nursing home.

“There’s always a risk/benefit ratio, and I have that discussion with patients and their families, but I can tell you that I’ve never had a family ask me not to use a medication because of the black box warning, because they see how miserable and how out of control their loved one is and they’re miserable because they see the suffering and will ask that we do anything that we can to get this behavior under control,” Dr. Grossberg said.

Caution still warranted

Commenting on the study, Rajesh R. Tampi, MD, professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry and the Bhatia Family Endowed Chair in Psychiatry at Creighton University, Omaha, Neb., underscored that, owing to the concerns behind the FDA warnings, “nonpharmacologic management is the cornerstone of treating agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia.”

He noted that the lack of an FDA-approved drug for agitation with AD is the result of “the overall benefits of any of the drug classes or drugs trialed to treat agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia vs. their adverse effect profile,” he said.

Therefore, he continued, “any medication or medication class should be used with caution among these individuals who often have polymorbidity.”

Dr. Tampi agreed that “the use of each drug for agitation in AD should be on a case-by-case basis with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with the patient and their families.”

“These medications should only be used for refractory symptoms or emergency situations where the agitation is not managed adequately with nonpharmacologic techniques and with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with patients and their families,” Dr. Tampi said. 

The study was supported by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization and H. Lundbeck. Dr. Grossberg has received consulting fees from Acadia, Avanir, Biogen, BioXcel, Genentech, Karuna, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Tampi had no disclosures to report.

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

This article was updated 3/14/23.

NEW ORLEANS - The antipsychotic brexpiprazole effectively improves agitation associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) with favorable tolerability, results of a phase 3 study suggest.

“In this phase 3 trial of patients with agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia, treatment with brexpiprazole 2 or 3 mg/day resulted in statistically significantly greater improvements in agitation versus placebo on the primary and key secondary endpoints,” said study investigator George Grossberg, MD, professor and director of the division of geriatric psychiatry, department of psychiatry & behavioral neuroscience, Saint Louis University.

Dr. Grossberg presented the findings as part of the annual meeting of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.

Agitation common, distressing

With two previous studies also showing efficacy of brexpiprazole in AD-related agitation, Dr. Grossberg speculated that brexpiprazole will become the first drug to be approved for agitation in AD.

Agitation is one of the most common AD symptoms and is arguably the most distressing for patients and caregivers alike, Dr. Grossberg noted.

The drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.

To investigate the drug at effective doses for AD-related agitation, the researchers conducted a phase 3 multicenter trial that included 345 patients with AD who met criteria for agitation and aggression.

Study participants had a mean Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score between 5 and 22 at screening and baseline and a mean Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score of about 79. A score above 45 is considered clinically significant agitation. Use of AD medications were permitted.

Patients had a mean age of 74 years and were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive treatment with brexpiprazole 2 mg (n = 75) or 3 mg (n = 153) per day, or placebo (n = 117).

The study’s primary endpoint was improvement as assessed by the CMAI. Over 12 weeks, participants in the brexpiprazole group experienced greater improvement in agitation, with a mean change of –22.6 with brexpiprazole vs. –17.3 with placebo (P = .0026).

Brexpiprazole was also associated with significantly greater improvement in the secondary outcome of change from baseline to week 12 in agitation severity, as assessed using the Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score (mean change, –1.20 with brexpiprazole vs. –0.93 with placebo; P = .0078).

Specifically, treatment with the drug resulted in improvements in three key subscales of agitation, including aggressive behavior, such as physically striking out (P < .01 vs. placebo); physically nonaggressive; and verbally agitated, such as screaming or cursing (both P < .05).

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) associated with brexpiprazole vs. placebo included somnolence (3.5% vs. 0.9%), nasopharyngitis (3.1% vs. 1.7%), dizziness (2.7% vs. 1.7%), diarrhea (2.2% vs. 0.9%), urinary tract infection (2.2% vs. 0.9%), and asthenia (2.2% vs. 0.0%).

“Aside from headache, no other TEAEs had an incidence of more than 5% in the brexpiprazole (2 or 3 mg) group, or in either dose group,” Dr. Grossberg said. “Cognition also remained stable,” he added.

Boxed warnings

Adverse events commonly associated with brexpiprazole include weight change, extrapyramidal events, falls, cardiovascular events, and sedation. In the study, all occurred at an incidence of less than 2% in both study groups, he noted.

Compared with the antipsychotic aripiprazole, brexpiprazole is associated with lower weight gain and akathisia, or motor restlessness.

One death occurred in the brexpiprazole 3 mg group in a patient who had heart failure, pneumonia, and cachexia. At autopsy, it was found the patient had cerebral and coronary atherosclerosis. The death was considered to be unrelated to brexpiprazole, said Dr. Grossberg.

This finding is notable because a caveat is that brexpiprazole, like aripiprazole and other typical and atypical antipsychotics, carries an FDA boxed warning related to an increased risk for death in older patients when used for dementia-related psychosis.

Noting that a black box warning about mortality risk is not a minor issue, Dr. Grossberg added that the risks are relatively low, whereas the risks associated with agitation in dementia can be high.

“If it’s an emergency situation, you have to treat the patient because otherwise they may harm someone else, or harm the staff, or harm their loved ones or themselves, and in those cases, we want to treat the patient first, get them under control, and then we worry about the black box,” he said.

In addition, “the No. 1 reason for getting kicked out of a nursing home is agitation or severe behaviors in the context of a dementia or a major neurocognitive disorder that the facility cannot control,” Dr. Grossberg added.

In such cases, patients may wind up in an emergency department and may not be welcome back at the nursing home.

“There’s always a risk/benefit ratio, and I have that discussion with patients and their families, but I can tell you that I’ve never had a family ask me not to use a medication because of the black box warning, because they see how miserable and how out of control their loved one is and they’re miserable because they see the suffering and will ask that we do anything that we can to get this behavior under control,” Dr. Grossberg said.

Caution still warranted

Commenting on the study, Rajesh R. Tampi, MD, professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry and the Bhatia Family Endowed Chair in Psychiatry at Creighton University, Omaha, Neb., underscored that, owing to the concerns behind the FDA warnings, “nonpharmacologic management is the cornerstone of treating agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia.”

He noted that the lack of an FDA-approved drug for agitation with AD is the result of “the overall benefits of any of the drug classes or drugs trialed to treat agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia vs. their adverse effect profile,” he said.

Therefore, he continued, “any medication or medication class should be used with caution among these individuals who often have polymorbidity.”

Dr. Tampi agreed that “the use of each drug for agitation in AD should be on a case-by-case basis with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with the patient and their families.”

“These medications should only be used for refractory symptoms or emergency situations where the agitation is not managed adequately with nonpharmacologic techniques and with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with patients and their families,” Dr. Tampi said. 

The study was supported by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization and H. Lundbeck. Dr. Grossberg has received consulting fees from Acadia, Avanir, Biogen, BioXcel, Genentech, Karuna, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Tampi had no disclosures to report.

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

This article was updated 3/14/23.

NEW ORLEANS - The antipsychotic brexpiprazole effectively improves agitation associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) with favorable tolerability, results of a phase 3 study suggest.

“In this phase 3 trial of patients with agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia, treatment with brexpiprazole 2 or 3 mg/day resulted in statistically significantly greater improvements in agitation versus placebo on the primary and key secondary endpoints,” said study investigator George Grossberg, MD, professor and director of the division of geriatric psychiatry, department of psychiatry & behavioral neuroscience, Saint Louis University.

Dr. Grossberg presented the findings as part of the annual meeting of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.

Agitation common, distressing

With two previous studies also showing efficacy of brexpiprazole in AD-related agitation, Dr. Grossberg speculated that brexpiprazole will become the first drug to be approved for agitation in AD.

Agitation is one of the most common AD symptoms and is arguably the most distressing for patients and caregivers alike, Dr. Grossberg noted.

The drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.

To investigate the drug at effective doses for AD-related agitation, the researchers conducted a phase 3 multicenter trial that included 345 patients with AD who met criteria for agitation and aggression.

Study participants had a mean Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score between 5 and 22 at screening and baseline and a mean Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score of about 79. A score above 45 is considered clinically significant agitation. Use of AD medications were permitted.

Patients had a mean age of 74 years and were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive treatment with brexpiprazole 2 mg (n = 75) or 3 mg (n = 153) per day, or placebo (n = 117).

The study’s primary endpoint was improvement as assessed by the CMAI. Over 12 weeks, participants in the brexpiprazole group experienced greater improvement in agitation, with a mean change of –22.6 with brexpiprazole vs. –17.3 with placebo (P = .0026).

Brexpiprazole was also associated with significantly greater improvement in the secondary outcome of change from baseline to week 12 in agitation severity, as assessed using the Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score (mean change, –1.20 with brexpiprazole vs. –0.93 with placebo; P = .0078).

Specifically, treatment with the drug resulted in improvements in three key subscales of agitation, including aggressive behavior, such as physically striking out (P < .01 vs. placebo); physically nonaggressive; and verbally agitated, such as screaming or cursing (both P < .05).

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) associated with brexpiprazole vs. placebo included somnolence (3.5% vs. 0.9%), nasopharyngitis (3.1% vs. 1.7%), dizziness (2.7% vs. 1.7%), diarrhea (2.2% vs. 0.9%), urinary tract infection (2.2% vs. 0.9%), and asthenia (2.2% vs. 0.0%).

“Aside from headache, no other TEAEs had an incidence of more than 5% in the brexpiprazole (2 or 3 mg) group, or in either dose group,” Dr. Grossberg said. “Cognition also remained stable,” he added.

Boxed warnings

Adverse events commonly associated with brexpiprazole include weight change, extrapyramidal events, falls, cardiovascular events, and sedation. In the study, all occurred at an incidence of less than 2% in both study groups, he noted.

Compared with the antipsychotic aripiprazole, brexpiprazole is associated with lower weight gain and akathisia, or motor restlessness.

One death occurred in the brexpiprazole 3 mg group in a patient who had heart failure, pneumonia, and cachexia. At autopsy, it was found the patient had cerebral and coronary atherosclerosis. The death was considered to be unrelated to brexpiprazole, said Dr. Grossberg.

This finding is notable because a caveat is that brexpiprazole, like aripiprazole and other typical and atypical antipsychotics, carries an FDA boxed warning related to an increased risk for death in older patients when used for dementia-related psychosis.

Noting that a black box warning about mortality risk is not a minor issue, Dr. Grossberg added that the risks are relatively low, whereas the risks associated with agitation in dementia can be high.

“If it’s an emergency situation, you have to treat the patient because otherwise they may harm someone else, or harm the staff, or harm their loved ones or themselves, and in those cases, we want to treat the patient first, get them under control, and then we worry about the black box,” he said.

In addition, “the No. 1 reason for getting kicked out of a nursing home is agitation or severe behaviors in the context of a dementia or a major neurocognitive disorder that the facility cannot control,” Dr. Grossberg added.

In such cases, patients may wind up in an emergency department and may not be welcome back at the nursing home.

“There’s always a risk/benefit ratio, and I have that discussion with patients and their families, but I can tell you that I’ve never had a family ask me not to use a medication because of the black box warning, because they see how miserable and how out of control their loved one is and they’re miserable because they see the suffering and will ask that we do anything that we can to get this behavior under control,” Dr. Grossberg said.

Caution still warranted

Commenting on the study, Rajesh R. Tampi, MD, professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry and the Bhatia Family Endowed Chair in Psychiatry at Creighton University, Omaha, Neb., underscored that, owing to the concerns behind the FDA warnings, “nonpharmacologic management is the cornerstone of treating agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia.”

He noted that the lack of an FDA-approved drug for agitation with AD is the result of “the overall benefits of any of the drug classes or drugs trialed to treat agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia vs. their adverse effect profile,” he said.

Therefore, he continued, “any medication or medication class should be used with caution among these individuals who often have polymorbidity.”

Dr. Tampi agreed that “the use of each drug for agitation in AD should be on a case-by-case basis with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with the patient and their families.”

“These medications should only be used for refractory symptoms or emergency situations where the agitation is not managed adequately with nonpharmacologic techniques and with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with patients and their families,” Dr. Tampi said. 

The study was supported by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization and H. Lundbeck. Dr. Grossberg has received consulting fees from Acadia, Avanir, Biogen, BioXcel, Genentech, Karuna, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Tampi had no disclosures to report.

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

This article was updated 3/14/23.

Venetoclax (Venclexta) shows promise as salvage therapy for patients with relapsed or refractory hairy cell leukemia (HCL), according to a small study in which five of six patients responded to the drug when used alone or in combination with rituximab.

Venetoclax is already approved for adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, small lymphocytic leukemia, and as part of a treatment combination in certain patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

The new findings suggest that the drug could also be a chemotherapy-free treatment option for HCL patients after the failure of multiple prior lines of therapy, including vemurafenib plus rituximab, the investigators wrote in a letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Treatment options for such patients are limited, they noted.

Enrico Tiacci, MD, of the University of Perugia (Italy), and colleagues decided to explore the use of venetoclax in this patient population after reports of in vitro findings showing a possible benefit.

The investigators administered the drug off-label to six patients who had received vemurafenib plus rituximab as their most recent prior therapy; one was resistant and five relapsed after that therapy, they reported. Venetoclax was delivered in 29-day cycles.

After 6 or 12 cycles, two patients experienced complete remission with minimal residual disease (MRD), and one had partial remission, although each had incomplete platelet recovery.

Adding rituximab at a dose of 375 mg per square meter of body-surface area for three to eight cycles improved the depth of response in a patient who had a previous minor response, further reduced MRD in one who had a complete remission to venetoclax, and led to hematologic remission in one who had no response to venetoclax, they noted.

Progression-free survival ranged from 23 to 53-plus months in all five patients who did not have early progression and was similar or better than PFS seen after vemurafenib plus rituximab.

The main toxic effect of venetoclax was worsening of baseline neutropenia, which was sometimes complicated by infections or febrile neutropenia and was managed by dose reductions and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.

“Thus, venetoclax with or without rituximab may serve as a safe and effective salvage option after failure of vemurafenib plus rituximab treatment, especially in patients who do not require a rapid recovery of blood count,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants from Fondazione Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro and the Italian Ministry of Health.

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

Venetoclax (Venclexta) shows promise as salvage therapy for patients with relapsed or refractory hairy cell leukemia (HCL), according to a small study in which five of six patients responded to the drug when used alone or in combination with rituximab.

Venetoclax is already approved for adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, small lymphocytic leukemia, and as part of a treatment combination in certain patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

The new findings suggest that the drug could also be a chemotherapy-free treatment option for HCL patients after the failure of multiple prior lines of therapy, including vemurafenib plus rituximab, the investigators wrote in a letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Treatment options for such patients are limited, they noted.

Enrico Tiacci, MD, of the University of Perugia (Italy), and colleagues decided to explore the use of venetoclax in this patient population after reports of in vitro findings showing a possible benefit.

The investigators administered the drug off-label to six patients who had received vemurafenib plus rituximab as their most recent prior therapy; one was resistant and five relapsed after that therapy, they reported. Venetoclax was delivered in 29-day cycles.

After 6 or 12 cycles, two patients experienced complete remission with minimal residual disease (MRD), and one had partial remission, although each had incomplete platelet recovery.

Adding rituximab at a dose of 375 mg per square meter of body-surface area for three to eight cycles improved the depth of response in a patient who had a previous minor response, further reduced MRD in one who had a complete remission to venetoclax, and led to hematologic remission in one who had no response to venetoclax, they noted.

Progression-free survival ranged from 23 to 53-plus months in all five patients who did not have early progression and was similar or better than PFS seen after vemurafenib plus rituximab.

The main toxic effect of venetoclax was worsening of baseline neutropenia, which was sometimes complicated by infections or febrile neutropenia and was managed by dose reductions and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.

“Thus, venetoclax with or without rituximab may serve as a safe and effective salvage option after failure of vemurafenib plus rituximab treatment, especially in patients who do not require a rapid recovery of blood count,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants from Fondazione Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro and the Italian Ministry of Health.

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

Venetoclax (Venclexta) shows promise as salvage therapy for patients with relapsed or refractory hairy cell leukemia (HCL), according to a small study in which five of six patients responded to the drug when used alone or in combination with rituximab.

Venetoclax is already approved for adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, small lymphocytic leukemia, and as part of a treatment combination in certain patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

The new findings suggest that the drug could also be a chemotherapy-free treatment option for HCL patients after the failure of multiple prior lines of therapy, including vemurafenib plus rituximab, the investigators wrote in a letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Treatment options for such patients are limited, they noted.

Enrico Tiacci, MD, of the University of Perugia (Italy), and colleagues decided to explore the use of venetoclax in this patient population after reports of in vitro findings showing a possible benefit.

The investigators administered the drug off-label to six patients who had received vemurafenib plus rituximab as their most recent prior therapy; one was resistant and five relapsed after that therapy, they reported. Venetoclax was delivered in 29-day cycles.

After 6 or 12 cycles, two patients experienced complete remission with minimal residual disease (MRD), and one had partial remission, although each had incomplete platelet recovery.

Adding rituximab at a dose of 375 mg per square meter of body-surface area for three to eight cycles improved the depth of response in a patient who had a previous minor response, further reduced MRD in one who had a complete remission to venetoclax, and led to hematologic remission in one who had no response to venetoclax, they noted.

Progression-free survival ranged from 23 to 53-plus months in all five patients who did not have early progression and was similar or better than PFS seen after vemurafenib plus rituximab.

The main toxic effect of venetoclax was worsening of baseline neutropenia, which was sometimes complicated by infections or febrile neutropenia and was managed by dose reductions and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.

“Thus, venetoclax with or without rituximab may serve as a safe and effective salvage option after failure of vemurafenib plus rituximab treatment, especially in patients who do not require a rapid recovery of blood count,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants from Fondazione Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro and the Italian Ministry of Health.

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