All Content

Background: Sepsis is responsible for an increasingly disproportionate fraction of health care burden. Delays in diagnosis of sepsis are associated with worse outcomes.

Dr. Ho is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at UT Health San Antonio and a hospitalist at South Texas Veterans Health Care System.

Background: Sepsis is responsible for an increasingly disproportionate fraction of health care burden. Delays in diagnosis of sepsis are associated with worse outcomes.

Dr. Ho is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at UT Health San Antonio and a hospitalist at South Texas Veterans Health Care System.

Background: Sepsis is responsible for an increasingly disproportionate fraction of health care burden. Delays in diagnosis of sepsis are associated with worse outcomes.

Dr. Ho is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at UT Health San Antonio and a hospitalist at South Texas Veterans Health Care System.

These are challenging, and sometimes tragic, times in the history of the United States. The image of a father and child face down in the Rio Grande River, drowning as they tried to cross from Mexico into Texas, is heart breaking. Irrespective of your political affiliation, we can agree that the immigration process is far from ideal and that no one should die in pursuit of a better life.

The United States has a complicated history with equity and inclusion, for all persons, and we are now living in times when the scab is being ripped off and these wounds are raw. What role can the Society of Hospital Medicine play to help heal these wounds?

I am a first-generation immigrant to the United States. I remember walking down the streets of my neighborhood in Uganda when my attention was drawn to a plane flying overhead. I thought to myself, “Some lucky duck is going to the U.S.” The United States was the land of opportunity and I was determined to come here. Through hard work and some luck, I arrived in the United States on June 15, 1991, with a single suitcase packed full of hope, dreams, and $3,000.

Fast-forward 28 years. I am now a hospitalist and faculty at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, the associate director of the division of hospital medicine, and the vice chair for clinical operations at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center. I learned about hospital medicine during my third year of medical school at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. While I loved general medicine, I could not see myself practicing anywhere outside of the hospital.

Following residency at Johns Hopkins Bayview, I still felt that a hospital-based practice was tailor-made for me. As I matured professionally, I worked to improve the provision of care within my hospital, and then started developing educational and practice programs in hospital medicine, both locally and internationally. My passion for hospital medicine led me to serve on committees for SHM, and this year, I was honored to join the SHM Board of Directors.

It is hard to answer the question of why, or how, one person immigrates to the United States and finds success while another loses their life. A quote attributed to Edmund Burke says, “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [wo]men to do nothing.” One of SHM’s core values is to promote diversity and inclusion. A major step taken by the society to promote work in this area was to establish the diversity and inclusion Special Interest Group in 2018. I am the board liaison for the diversity and inclusion SIG and will work alongside this group, which aims to:

• Foster diversity, equity, and inclusion in SHM.
• Increase visibility of diversity, equity, and inclusion to the broader hospital medicine community.
• Support hospital medicine groups in matching their work forces to their diverse patient populations.
• Develop tool kits to improve the provision of care for our diverse patient population.
• Engender diversity among hospitalists.
• Develop opportunities for expanding the fund of knowledge on diversity in hospital medicine through research and discovery.
• Participate in SHM’s advocacy efforts related to diversity and inclusion.
• Develop partnerships with other key organizations to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion platforms so as to increase the scalability of SHM’s efforts.

We have been successful at Hopkins with diversity and inclusion, but that did not occur by chance. I believe that diversity and inclusion is a team sport and that everyone can be an important part of that team. In my hospitalist group, we actively engage women, men, doctors, NPs, PAs, administrators, minorities, and nonminorities. We recruit to – and cherish members of – our group irrespective of religious beliefs or sexual orientation. We believe that a heterogeneous group of people leads to an engaged and high-performing culture.

I have traveled a convoluted path since my arrival in 1991. Along the way, I was blessed with a husband and son who anchor me. Every day they remind me that the hard work I do is to build on the past to improve the future. My husband, an immigrant from Uganda like me, reminds me that we are lucky to have made it to the United States and that the ability and freedom to work hard and be rewarded for that hard work is a great privilege. My son reminds me of the many other children who look at me and know that they too can dare to dream. Occasionally, I still look up and see a plane, and I am reminded of that day many years ago. Hospital medicine is my suitcase packed with hopes and dreams for me, for this specialty, and for this country.

Dr. Kisuule is associate director of the division of hospital medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview and assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore, and a member of the SHM Board of Directors.

These are challenging, and sometimes tragic, times in the history of the United States. The image of a father and child face down in the Rio Grande River, drowning as they tried to cross from Mexico into Texas, is heart breaking. Irrespective of your political affiliation, we can agree that the immigration process is far from ideal and that no one should die in pursuit of a better life.

The United States has a complicated history with equity and inclusion, for all persons, and we are now living in times when the scab is being ripped off and these wounds are raw. What role can the Society of Hospital Medicine play to help heal these wounds?

I am a first-generation immigrant to the United States. I remember walking down the streets of my neighborhood in Uganda when my attention was drawn to a plane flying overhead. I thought to myself, “Some lucky duck is going to the U.S.” The United States was the land of opportunity and I was determined to come here. Through hard work and some luck, I arrived in the United States on June 15, 1991, with a single suitcase packed full of hope, dreams, and $3,000.

Fast-forward 28 years. I am now a hospitalist and faculty at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, the associate director of the division of hospital medicine, and the vice chair for clinical operations at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center. I learned about hospital medicine during my third year of medical school at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. While I loved general medicine, I could not see myself practicing anywhere outside of the hospital.

Following residency at Johns Hopkins Bayview, I still felt that a hospital-based practice was tailor-made for me. As I matured professionally, I worked to improve the provision of care within my hospital, and then started developing educational and practice programs in hospital medicine, both locally and internationally. My passion for hospital medicine led me to serve on committees for SHM, and this year, I was honored to join the SHM Board of Directors.

It is hard to answer the question of why, or how, one person immigrates to the United States and finds success while another loses their life. A quote attributed to Edmund Burke says, “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [wo]men to do nothing.” One of SHM’s core values is to promote diversity and inclusion. A major step taken by the society to promote work in this area was to establish the diversity and inclusion Special Interest Group in 2018. I am the board liaison for the diversity and inclusion SIG and will work alongside this group, which aims to:

• Foster diversity, equity, and inclusion in SHM.
• Increase visibility of diversity, equity, and inclusion to the broader hospital medicine community.
• Support hospital medicine groups in matching their work forces to their diverse patient populations.
• Develop tool kits to improve the provision of care for our diverse patient population.
• Engender diversity among hospitalists.
• Develop opportunities for expanding the fund of knowledge on diversity in hospital medicine through research and discovery.
• Participate in SHM’s advocacy efforts related to diversity and inclusion.
• Develop partnerships with other key organizations to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion platforms so as to increase the scalability of SHM’s efforts.

We have been successful at Hopkins with diversity and inclusion, but that did not occur by chance. I believe that diversity and inclusion is a team sport and that everyone can be an important part of that team. In my hospitalist group, we actively engage women, men, doctors, NPs, PAs, administrators, minorities, and nonminorities. We recruit to – and cherish members of – our group irrespective of religious beliefs or sexual orientation. We believe that a heterogeneous group of people leads to an engaged and high-performing culture.

I have traveled a convoluted path since my arrival in 1991. Along the way, I was blessed with a husband and son who anchor me. Every day they remind me that the hard work I do is to build on the past to improve the future. My husband, an immigrant from Uganda like me, reminds me that we are lucky to have made it to the United States and that the ability and freedom to work hard and be rewarded for that hard work is a great privilege. My son reminds me of the many other children who look at me and know that they too can dare to dream. Occasionally, I still look up and see a plane, and I am reminded of that day many years ago. Hospital medicine is my suitcase packed with hopes and dreams for me, for this specialty, and for this country.

Dr. Kisuule is associate director of the division of hospital medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview and assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore, and a member of the SHM Board of Directors.

These are challenging, and sometimes tragic, times in the history of the United States. The image of a father and child face down in the Rio Grande River, drowning as they tried to cross from Mexico into Texas, is heart breaking. Irrespective of your political affiliation, we can agree that the immigration process is far from ideal and that no one should die in pursuit of a better life.

The United States has a complicated history with equity and inclusion, for all persons, and we are now living in times when the scab is being ripped off and these wounds are raw. What role can the Society of Hospital Medicine play to help heal these wounds?

I am a first-generation immigrant to the United States. I remember walking down the streets of my neighborhood in Uganda when my attention was drawn to a plane flying overhead. I thought to myself, “Some lucky duck is going to the U.S.” The United States was the land of opportunity and I was determined to come here. Through hard work and some luck, I arrived in the United States on June 15, 1991, with a single suitcase packed full of hope, dreams, and $3,000.

Fast-forward 28 years. I am now a hospitalist and faculty at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, the associate director of the division of hospital medicine, and the vice chair for clinical operations at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center. I learned about hospital medicine during my third year of medical school at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. While I loved general medicine, I could not see myself practicing anywhere outside of the hospital.

Following residency at Johns Hopkins Bayview, I still felt that a hospital-based practice was tailor-made for me. As I matured professionally, I worked to improve the provision of care within my hospital, and then started developing educational and practice programs in hospital medicine, both locally and internationally. My passion for hospital medicine led me to serve on committees for SHM, and this year, I was honored to join the SHM Board of Directors.

It is hard to answer the question of why, or how, one person immigrates to the United States and finds success while another loses their life. A quote attributed to Edmund Burke says, “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [wo]men to do nothing.” One of SHM’s core values is to promote diversity and inclusion. A major step taken by the society to promote work in this area was to establish the diversity and inclusion Special Interest Group in 2018. I am the board liaison for the diversity and inclusion SIG and will work alongside this group, which aims to:

• Foster diversity, equity, and inclusion in SHM.
• Increase visibility of diversity, equity, and inclusion to the broader hospital medicine community.
• Support hospital medicine groups in matching their work forces to their diverse patient populations.
• Develop tool kits to improve the provision of care for our diverse patient population.
• Engender diversity among hospitalists.
• Develop opportunities for expanding the fund of knowledge on diversity in hospital medicine through research and discovery.
• Participate in SHM’s advocacy efforts related to diversity and inclusion.
• Develop partnerships with other key organizations to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion platforms so as to increase the scalability of SHM’s efforts.

We have been successful at Hopkins with diversity and inclusion, but that did not occur by chance. I believe that diversity and inclusion is a team sport and that everyone can be an important part of that team. In my hospitalist group, we actively engage women, men, doctors, NPs, PAs, administrators, minorities, and nonminorities. We recruit to – and cherish members of – our group irrespective of religious beliefs or sexual orientation. We believe that a heterogeneous group of people leads to an engaged and high-performing culture.

I have traveled a convoluted path since my arrival in 1991. Along the way, I was blessed with a husband and son who anchor me. Every day they remind me that the hard work I do is to build on the past to improve the future. My husband, an immigrant from Uganda like me, reminds me that we are lucky to have made it to the United States and that the ability and freedom to work hard and be rewarded for that hard work is a great privilege. My son reminds me of the many other children who look at me and know that they too can dare to dream. Occasionally, I still look up and see a plane, and I am reminded of that day many years ago. Hospital medicine is my suitcase packed with hopes and dreams for me, for this specialty, and for this country.

Dr. Kisuule is associate director of the division of hospital medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview and assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore, and a member of the SHM Board of Directors.

Persistent high rates of bacterial resistance to current treatments have created the need for more options, especially for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP), which remains a leading cause of hospitalization and death in the United States, wrote Elizabeth Alexander, MD, of Nabriva Therapeutics in King of Prussia, Penn., and colleagues. Lefamulin, “the first pleuromutilin antibiotic approved for intravenous and oral use in humans,” has demonstrated activity against many CABP-causing pathogens, including some not susceptible to other classes of antimicrobials, they noted.

Findings of Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia 2 (LEAP2) were published in JAMA. In this study, the researchers randomized 370 patients to 600 mg of oral lefamulin every 12 hours for 5 days and 368 patients to 400 mg of oral moxifloxacin every 24 hours for 7 days.

Early clinical response rates at 96 hours were 90.8% for both medications (difference of 0.1%). In addition, the rates of clinical response success were similar between the groups in both the modified intent-to-treat population (87.5% with lefamulin and 89.1% with moxifloxacin) and the clinically evaluable population (89.7% with lefamulin and 93.6% with moxifloxacin).

Gastrointestinal issues of diarrhea and nausea were the two most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events in both groups. Both conditions occurred more often in the lefamulin group, compared with the moxifloxacin group, but the differences were not significant (12.2% vs. 1.1% and 5.2% vs. 1.9%, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors including strict exclusion criteria that may limit the generalizability of the results, as well as a lack of testing for viral copathogens, low recovery of resistant pathogens, and possible misclassification of patient ethnicity, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the randomized design, inclusion of patients with more severe CABP, and low rate of discontinuation, they said. The data support previous studies of lefamulin. Its lack of cross-resistance to other drug classes, coverage of typical and atypical CABP pathogens, and options for both oral and intravenous use suggest that it “may provide an alternative approach for the treatment of vulnerable patients,” the researchers said.

The study was supported by Nabriva Therapeutics. Dr. Alexander and several coauthors are employees of Nabriva Therapeutics and own stock in the company.

SOURCE: Alexander E et al. JAMA. 2019 Sep 27. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.15468.

Persistent high rates of bacterial resistance to current treatments have created the need for more options, especially for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP), which remains a leading cause of hospitalization and death in the United States, wrote Elizabeth Alexander, MD, of Nabriva Therapeutics in King of Prussia, Penn., and colleagues. Lefamulin, “the first pleuromutilin antibiotic approved for intravenous and oral use in humans,” has demonstrated activity against many CABP-causing pathogens, including some not susceptible to other classes of antimicrobials, they noted.

Findings of Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia 2 (LEAP2) were published in JAMA. In this study, the researchers randomized 370 patients to 600 mg of oral lefamulin every 12 hours for 5 days and 368 patients to 400 mg of oral moxifloxacin every 24 hours for 7 days.

Early clinical response rates at 96 hours were 90.8% for both medications (difference of 0.1%). In addition, the rates of clinical response success were similar between the groups in both the modified intent-to-treat population (87.5% with lefamulin and 89.1% with moxifloxacin) and the clinically evaluable population (89.7% with lefamulin and 93.6% with moxifloxacin).

Gastrointestinal issues of diarrhea and nausea were the two most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events in both groups. Both conditions occurred more often in the lefamulin group, compared with the moxifloxacin group, but the differences were not significant (12.2% vs. 1.1% and 5.2% vs. 1.9%, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors including strict exclusion criteria that may limit the generalizability of the results, as well as a lack of testing for viral copathogens, low recovery of resistant pathogens, and possible misclassification of patient ethnicity, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the randomized design, inclusion of patients with more severe CABP, and low rate of discontinuation, they said. The data support previous studies of lefamulin. Its lack of cross-resistance to other drug classes, coverage of typical and atypical CABP pathogens, and options for both oral and intravenous use suggest that it “may provide an alternative approach for the treatment of vulnerable patients,” the researchers said.

The study was supported by Nabriva Therapeutics. Dr. Alexander and several coauthors are employees of Nabriva Therapeutics and own stock in the company.

SOURCE: Alexander E et al. JAMA. 2019 Sep 27. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.15468.

Persistent high rates of bacterial resistance to current treatments have created the need for more options, especially for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP), which remains a leading cause of hospitalization and death in the United States, wrote Elizabeth Alexander, MD, of Nabriva Therapeutics in King of Prussia, Penn., and colleagues. Lefamulin, “the first pleuromutilin antibiotic approved for intravenous and oral use in humans,” has demonstrated activity against many CABP-causing pathogens, including some not susceptible to other classes of antimicrobials, they noted.

Findings of Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia 2 (LEAP2) were published in JAMA. In this study, the researchers randomized 370 patients to 600 mg of oral lefamulin every 12 hours for 5 days and 368 patients to 400 mg of oral moxifloxacin every 24 hours for 7 days.

Early clinical response rates at 96 hours were 90.8% for both medications (difference of 0.1%). In addition, the rates of clinical response success were similar between the groups in both the modified intent-to-treat population (87.5% with lefamulin and 89.1% with moxifloxacin) and the clinically evaluable population (89.7% with lefamulin and 93.6% with moxifloxacin).

Gastrointestinal issues of diarrhea and nausea were the two most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events in both groups. Both conditions occurred more often in the lefamulin group, compared with the moxifloxacin group, but the differences were not significant (12.2% vs. 1.1% and 5.2% vs. 1.9%, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors including strict exclusion criteria that may limit the generalizability of the results, as well as a lack of testing for viral copathogens, low recovery of resistant pathogens, and possible misclassification of patient ethnicity, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the randomized design, inclusion of patients with more severe CABP, and low rate of discontinuation, they said. The data support previous studies of lefamulin. Its lack of cross-resistance to other drug classes, coverage of typical and atypical CABP pathogens, and options for both oral and intravenous use suggest that it “may provide an alternative approach for the treatment of vulnerable patients,” the researchers said.

The study was supported by Nabriva Therapeutics. Dr. Alexander and several coauthors are employees of Nabriva Therapeutics and own stock in the company.

SOURCE: Alexander E et al. JAMA. 2019 Sep 27. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.15468.

Background: PPIs reduce gastric acid production, promote ulcer healing, and prevent ulcer recurrence; however, limited evidence is available describing the incidence of anticoagulant-related serious upper GI tract bleeding from the newer non–vitamin K anticoagulants and PPI cotherapy.

Generalizability was limited by population (Medicare enrollees) and the study excluded prior hospitalizations for GI bleed, as well as switches in anticoagulant therapy during the study period.

Bottom line: PPI cotherapy with oral anticoagulation reduces risk of hospitalization for upper GI bleed.

Citation: Ray WA et al. Association of oral anticoagulants and proton pump inhibitor cotherapy with hospitalization for upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding. JAMA. 2018 Dec 4;320(21):2221-30.
 

Dr. Ho is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at UT Health San Antonio and a hospitalist at South Texas Veterans Health Care System.

Background: PPIs reduce gastric acid production, promote ulcer healing, and prevent ulcer recurrence; however, limited evidence is available describing the incidence of anticoagulant-related serious upper GI tract bleeding from the newer non–vitamin K anticoagulants and PPI cotherapy.

Generalizability was limited by population (Medicare enrollees) and the study excluded prior hospitalizations for GI bleed, as well as switches in anticoagulant therapy during the study period.

Bottom line: PPI cotherapy with oral anticoagulation reduces risk of hospitalization for upper GI bleed.

Citation: Ray WA et al. Association of oral anticoagulants and proton pump inhibitor cotherapy with hospitalization for upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding. JAMA. 2018 Dec 4;320(21):2221-30.
 

Dr. Ho is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at UT Health San Antonio and a hospitalist at South Texas Veterans Health Care System.

Background: PPIs reduce gastric acid production, promote ulcer healing, and prevent ulcer recurrence; however, limited evidence is available describing the incidence of anticoagulant-related serious upper GI tract bleeding from the newer non–vitamin K anticoagulants and PPI cotherapy.

Generalizability was limited by population (Medicare enrollees) and the study excluded prior hospitalizations for GI bleed, as well as switches in anticoagulant therapy during the study period.

Bottom line: PPI cotherapy with oral anticoagulation reduces risk of hospitalization for upper GI bleed.

Citation: Ray WA et al. Association of oral anticoagulants and proton pump inhibitor cotherapy with hospitalization for upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding. JAMA. 2018 Dec 4;320(21):2221-30.
 

Dr. Ho is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at UT Health San Antonio and a hospitalist at South Texas Veterans Health Care System.

Vitamin C infusion did not improve outcomes related to organ failure, inflammation, or vascular injury for patients with sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome, based on data from 167 adults.

Dr_Microbe/Getty Images

“Previous research found that vitamin C attenuates systemic inflammation, corrects sepsis-induced coagulopathy, and attenuates vascular injury,” wrote Alpha A. Fowler III, MD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues.

To examine the impact of vitamin C infusion on patients with sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the researchers designed the CITRIS-ALI trial, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted at 7 medical intensive care units in the United States.

In the study, published in JAMA, the researchers randomized 167 adults with sepsis and ARDS to receive high-dose intravenous vitamin C (50 mg/kg in 5% dextrose in water) or placebo (5% dextrose in water only) every 6 hours for 96 hours. The primary outcomes were measures of organ failure based on changes in the modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (mSOFA), inflammation (based on changes in C-reactive protein), and vascular injury based on thrombomodulin.

Overall, no significant differences appeared between the vitamin C and placebo groups, respectively in the three primary outcome measures: change in average SOFA score (3-point change vs. a 3.5-point change) at 96 hours; change in C-reactive protein levels (change of 54.1 mcg/mL vs. 46.1 mcg/mL) at 168 hours; and change in thrombomodulin levels (14.5 ng/mL vs. 13.8 ng/mL) at 168 hours.

The average age of the patients was 55 years, and 54% were men.

The researchers also assessed 46 secondary outcomes. Most of these showed no significant differences between the groups, but 28-day all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the vitamin C group, compared with the placebo group (46.3% vs. 29.8%), the researchers said. Vitamin C also was significantly associated with increased ICU-free days to day 28 and hospital-free days to day 60, compared with placebo.

No significant differences were seen between the groups on 43 other secondary outcomes including ventilator-free days and vasopressor use. However, “these findings were based on analyses that did not account for multiple comparisons and therefore must be considered exploratory,” they said.

“The inability of vitamin C to affect C-reactive protein and thrombomodulin levels in this trial possibly resulted from the advanced stages of sepsis that were present before the development of ARDS,” the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including the variability in the timing of vitamin C administration and the use of a single high dose of vitamin C, they emphasized. However, the results suggest that further research may be needed to determine the potential of vitamin C for improving outcomes in patients with sepsis and ARDS, they said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, VCU Wright Center for Translational Science Award, VCU Investigational Drug Services, and McGuff Pharmaceuticals, who supplied the vitamin C free of charge. Dr. Fowler disclosed funding from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Richmond; the NHLBI; and study materials from McGuff Pharmaceuticals.

SOURCE: Fowler AA et al. JAMA. 2019 Oct 1;322:1261-70. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11825.

Vitamin C infusion did not improve outcomes related to organ failure, inflammation, or vascular injury for patients with sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome, based on data from 167 adults.

Dr_Microbe/Getty Images

“Previous research found that vitamin C attenuates systemic inflammation, corrects sepsis-induced coagulopathy, and attenuates vascular injury,” wrote Alpha A. Fowler III, MD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues.

To examine the impact of vitamin C infusion on patients with sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the researchers designed the CITRIS-ALI trial, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted at 7 medical intensive care units in the United States.

In the study, published in JAMA, the researchers randomized 167 adults with sepsis and ARDS to receive high-dose intravenous vitamin C (50 mg/kg in 5% dextrose in water) or placebo (5% dextrose in water only) every 6 hours for 96 hours. The primary outcomes were measures of organ failure based on changes in the modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (mSOFA), inflammation (based on changes in C-reactive protein), and vascular injury based on thrombomodulin.

Overall, no significant differences appeared between the vitamin C and placebo groups, respectively in the three primary outcome measures: change in average SOFA score (3-point change vs. a 3.5-point change) at 96 hours; change in C-reactive protein levels (change of 54.1 mcg/mL vs. 46.1 mcg/mL) at 168 hours; and change in thrombomodulin levels (14.5 ng/mL vs. 13.8 ng/mL) at 168 hours.

The average age of the patients was 55 years, and 54% were men.

The researchers also assessed 46 secondary outcomes. Most of these showed no significant differences between the groups, but 28-day all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the vitamin C group, compared with the placebo group (46.3% vs. 29.8%), the researchers said. Vitamin C also was significantly associated with increased ICU-free days to day 28 and hospital-free days to day 60, compared with placebo.

No significant differences were seen between the groups on 43 other secondary outcomes including ventilator-free days and vasopressor use. However, “these findings were based on analyses that did not account for multiple comparisons and therefore must be considered exploratory,” they said.

“The inability of vitamin C to affect C-reactive protein and thrombomodulin levels in this trial possibly resulted from the advanced stages of sepsis that were present before the development of ARDS,” the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including the variability in the timing of vitamin C administration and the use of a single high dose of vitamin C, they emphasized. However, the results suggest that further research may be needed to determine the potential of vitamin C for improving outcomes in patients with sepsis and ARDS, they said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, VCU Wright Center for Translational Science Award, VCU Investigational Drug Services, and McGuff Pharmaceuticals, who supplied the vitamin C free of charge. Dr. Fowler disclosed funding from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Richmond; the NHLBI; and study materials from McGuff Pharmaceuticals.

SOURCE: Fowler AA et al. JAMA. 2019 Oct 1;322:1261-70. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11825.

Vitamin C infusion did not improve outcomes related to organ failure, inflammation, or vascular injury for patients with sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome, based on data from 167 adults.

Dr_Microbe/Getty Images

“Previous research found that vitamin C attenuates systemic inflammation, corrects sepsis-induced coagulopathy, and attenuates vascular injury,” wrote Alpha A. Fowler III, MD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues.

To examine the impact of vitamin C infusion on patients with sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the researchers designed the CITRIS-ALI trial, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted at 7 medical intensive care units in the United States.

In the study, published in JAMA, the researchers randomized 167 adults with sepsis and ARDS to receive high-dose intravenous vitamin C (50 mg/kg in 5% dextrose in water) or placebo (5% dextrose in water only) every 6 hours for 96 hours. The primary outcomes were measures of organ failure based on changes in the modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (mSOFA), inflammation (based on changes in C-reactive protein), and vascular injury based on thrombomodulin.

Overall, no significant differences appeared between the vitamin C and placebo groups, respectively in the three primary outcome measures: change in average SOFA score (3-point change vs. a 3.5-point change) at 96 hours; change in C-reactive protein levels (change of 54.1 mcg/mL vs. 46.1 mcg/mL) at 168 hours; and change in thrombomodulin levels (14.5 ng/mL vs. 13.8 ng/mL) at 168 hours.

The average age of the patients was 55 years, and 54% were men.

The researchers also assessed 46 secondary outcomes. Most of these showed no significant differences between the groups, but 28-day all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the vitamin C group, compared with the placebo group (46.3% vs. 29.8%), the researchers said. Vitamin C also was significantly associated with increased ICU-free days to day 28 and hospital-free days to day 60, compared with placebo.

No significant differences were seen between the groups on 43 other secondary outcomes including ventilator-free days and vasopressor use. However, “these findings were based on analyses that did not account for multiple comparisons and therefore must be considered exploratory,” they said.

“The inability of vitamin C to affect C-reactive protein and thrombomodulin levels in this trial possibly resulted from the advanced stages of sepsis that were present before the development of ARDS,” the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including the variability in the timing of vitamin C administration and the use of a single high dose of vitamin C, they emphasized. However, the results suggest that further research may be needed to determine the potential of vitamin C for improving outcomes in patients with sepsis and ARDS, they said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, VCU Wright Center for Translational Science Award, VCU Investigational Drug Services, and McGuff Pharmaceuticals, who supplied the vitamin C free of charge. Dr. Fowler disclosed funding from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Richmond; the NHLBI; and study materials from McGuff Pharmaceuticals.

SOURCE: Fowler AA et al. JAMA. 2019 Oct 1;322:1261-70. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11825.

Background: Acute pulmonary embolism is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in older adults, and IVC filters have historically and frequently been used to prevent subsequent PE. Almost one in six elderly Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries with PE currently receives an IVC filter.

In the 76,198 Medicare FFS patients hospitalized with acute PE in the matched cohort group, 18.2% received an IVC filter. The IVC-filter group had higher odds for 30-day mortality, compared with the no–IVC filter group (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 2.06-2.33).

Bottom line: In patients aged 65 years or older, use caution when considering IVC filter placement for prevention of subsequent PE. Future studies across patient subgroups are needed to analyze the safety and value of IVC filters.

Citation: Bikdeli B et al. Association of inferior vena cava filter use with mortality rates in older adults with acute pulmonary embolism. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(2):263-5.

Dr. Trammell Velasquez is an associate professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at UT Health San Antonio and a hospitalist at South Texas Veterans Health Care System.

Background: Acute pulmonary embolism is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in older adults, and IVC filters have historically and frequently been used to prevent subsequent PE. Almost one in six elderly Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries with PE currently receives an IVC filter.

In the 76,198 Medicare FFS patients hospitalized with acute PE in the matched cohort group, 18.2% received an IVC filter. The IVC-filter group had higher odds for 30-day mortality, compared with the no–IVC filter group (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 2.06-2.33).

Bottom line: In patients aged 65 years or older, use caution when considering IVC filter placement for prevention of subsequent PE. Future studies across patient subgroups are needed to analyze the safety and value of IVC filters.

Citation: Bikdeli B et al. Association of inferior vena cava filter use with mortality rates in older adults with acute pulmonary embolism. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(2):263-5.

Dr. Trammell Velasquez is an associate professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at UT Health San Antonio and a hospitalist at South Texas Veterans Health Care System.

Background: Acute pulmonary embolism is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in older adults, and IVC filters have historically and frequently been used to prevent subsequent PE. Almost one in six elderly Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries with PE currently receives an IVC filter.

In the 76,198 Medicare FFS patients hospitalized with acute PE in the matched cohort group, 18.2% received an IVC filter. The IVC-filter group had higher odds for 30-day mortality, compared with the no–IVC filter group (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 2.06-2.33).

Bottom line: In patients aged 65 years or older, use caution when considering IVC filter placement for prevention of subsequent PE. Future studies across patient subgroups are needed to analyze the safety and value of IVC filters.

Citation: Bikdeli B et al. Association of inferior vena cava filter use with mortality rates in older adults with acute pulmonary embolism. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(2):263-5.

Dr. Trammell Velasquez is an associate professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at UT Health San Antonio and a hospitalist at South Texas Veterans Health Care System.

Question: Which one of the following statements regarding medication warnings is incorrect?

A. The drug package “insert” or “label” contains, among other things, a drug’s pharmacology, indications, contraindications, risks and warnings.

B. The Physicians’ Desk Reference (PDR) is an annually updated drug compendium, which can be admitted into evidence as a learned treatise.

C. Drug labeling is a dual responsibility of the manufacturer and the Food and Drug Administration.

D. The FDA is solely responsible for a drug’s warnings and sets the absolute standard of care regarding side effects and complications.

E. State law can impose liability for negligent failure to warn even if the FDA has not included the warning in the drug’s label.

Answer: D. Should a prescription drug or medical device lead to harm, an injured party can sue the manufacturer who had placed it into the stream of commerce. In medical products liability, injured plaintiffs frequently claim a failure to warn of known risks. An example is the cardiovascular deaths caused by Vioxx, a nonsteroidal, anti-inflammatory drug that was withdrawn in 2004. Other examples alleging failure to warn are Actos-associated bladder cancer and Baycol-related rhabdomyolysis. At the time of product approval, the FDA sets out the labeling that goes with each drug, and then makes periodic changes to reflect new indications, warnings and risks. The manufacturer has the prime responsibility for submitting all updated information, especially of augmented risks that come with field experience. In 2012, for example, the FDA mandated the revision of the labeling of Lipitor and other statins to warn of the increased risk of diabetes.

The drug manufacturer stands in the unique position as having the most detailed and up-to-date data and bears a serious responsibility to submit its full findings to the FDA, including its request for label change. Litigation over failure to warn of risks frequently turns on whether the drug manufacturer knew or should have known, had failed to inform the FDA, or whether the FDA itself had declined to make the changes, e.g., because of incomplete or premature data. Notwithstanding the FDA’s overarching federal status, a plaintiff may still attempt to use state tort law to hold a manufacturer liable should the federally approved labeling be silent on the matter.

Two U.S. Supreme Court cases sought to clarify the rules under which a drug manufacturer, when sued for failure to warn, may seek protection under its FDA-approved labeling. The first case involved Diana Levine, a Vermont musician and migraine sufferer, who lost her arm after the drug Phenergan, given by intravenous push, accidentally entered an artery and caused gangrene. Although the intravenous use of Phenergan is approved by the FDA and the risk of such use is clearly stated in the drug’s package insert, the lawsuit alleged that under state law, such a warning was inadequate and should have been strengthened to prohibit this mode of administration. A Vermont jury awarded damages of $6.7 million. On appeal, Wyeth, the defendant pharmaceutical company, maintained that its warning was appropriate, as it had been approved by the federal government through the FDA. It further argued that the drug’s package insert could not be unilaterally altered or modified without running afoul of federal regulations.

In a 6-3 decision,¹ the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the manufacturer was in fact at liberty to issue a more stringent warning, and FDA approval does not bar lawsuits. The Court opined that “Federal law does not pre-empt Levine’s claim that Phenergan’s label did not contain an adequate warning about the IV-push method of administration.” Wyeth had argued that it was impossible for the company to provide additional warnings, since it was the FDA that made the sole determination of the nature and scope of a drug’s label. However, the court held that Wyeth never attempted to change the label to warn of the risk and failed to provide “clear” evidence that the FDA would have prevented it from changing its label. Without defining what constituted “clear” evidence, it rejected Wyeth’s broad assertion that unilaterally changing the Phenergan label would have violated federal law, which was based on the fundamental misunderstanding that the FDA, rather than the manufacturer, bears primary responsibility for drug labeling.

In 2019, the landmark case of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v. Albrecht et al.² reached the U.S. Supreme Court. This class-action suit involved more than 500 individuals who took Fosamax, an effective anti-resorptive drug for treating osteoporosis, and suffered atypical femoral fractures between 1999 and 2010. When the FDA first approved of the manufacture and sale of Fosamax in 1995, the Fosamax label did not warn of the then-speculative risk of atypical femoral fractures. But stronger evidence connecting Fosamax to atypical fractures developed after 1995, prompting the FDA to add a warning in 2011. Merck argued that plaintiffs’ state-law failure-to-warn claims should be dismissed as preempted by federal law. It conceded that the FDA regulations would have permitted Merck to try to change the label to add a warning before 2010 but believed the FDA would have rejected that attempt. In particular, it claimed that the FDA’s rejection of Merck’s 2008 attempt to warn of a risk of “stress fractures” showed that the FDA would also have rejected any attempt by Merck to warn of the risk of atypical femoral fractures. In short, Merck was relying on the legal doctrine of “impossibility preemption,” i.e., it was impossible to comply with both state law (adequate label warning of atypical fractures) and federal law (FDA control of warning labels). The plaintiffs’ position was that Merck’s proposed warning to the FDA had minimized the seriousness of the femoral fracture risk, characterizing them only as “stress fractures.”³

The Court’s earlier Levine decision had held that a state-law failure-to-warn claim is preempted where there is “clear” evidence the FDA would not have approved a label change. In the Albrecht decision, which also sided with the plaintiffs, the court indicated that “Clear evidence is evidence that shows the court that the drug manufacturer fully informed the FDA of the justifications for the warning required by state law and that the FDA, in turn, informed the drug manufacturer that the FDA would not approve a change to the drug’s label to include that warning.” The court also held that issues relating to presumption of impossibility are law-based, and thus it remains for the judge, not the jury, to make that determination.

Issuing timely warnings regarding medical products promotes patient safety, and the law appears to place the major onus on the manufacturer. Still, striking the proper balance is important. During oral arguments in Albrecht, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch is said to have cautioned against “ ... incentives for companies to submit weakly supported label changes to the agency, knowing that when those label changes are rejected the companies will be free of further liability.” And as pointed out in the earlier cited Johnston article: “ ... a system that creates incentives for manufacturers to over-warn physicians and patients could harm patients by listing the important warnings of adverse effects among numerous less important warnings, which may discourage physicians and patients from choosing potentially useful drugs. On the other hand, a shift of responsibility for labeling to the FDA raises questions about whether the agency, which has resources that are dwarfed by the combined resources of industry, is necessarily capable to serve in this role ...”

Finally, this issue is more complex for devices because of the Medical Device Amendments Act of 1976 (MDA), which may preempt state-based lawsuits. In a claim brought after a Medtronic catheter ruptured in a patient’s coronary artery during heart surgery, the plaintiff alleged that the device was designed, labeled, and manufactured in a manner that violated New York common law. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court held that the MDA preempted petitioner’s common-law claims challenging the safety or effectiveness of a medical device marketed in a form that received premarket approval from the FDA.⁴ The court ruled that MDA created a scheme of federal safety oversight for medical devices while sweeping back state oversight schemes.
 

Dr. Tan is professor emeritus of medicine and former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].

References

1. Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 2 (2009).

2. Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht et al., 587 U. S. ____ (2019).

3. Johnston MC et al., A new Supreme Court ruling on drug liability. JAMA 2019;322(7):607-8.

4. Riegel v. Medtronic, 128 S. Ct. 999 (2008).

Question: Which one of the following statements regarding medication warnings is incorrect?

A. The drug package “insert” or “label” contains, among other things, a drug’s pharmacology, indications, contraindications, risks and warnings.

B. The Physicians’ Desk Reference (PDR) is an annually updated drug compendium, which can be admitted into evidence as a learned treatise.

C. Drug labeling is a dual responsibility of the manufacturer and the Food and Drug Administration.

D. The FDA is solely responsible for a drug’s warnings and sets the absolute standard of care regarding side effects and complications.

E. State law can impose liability for negligent failure to warn even if the FDA has not included the warning in the drug’s label.

Answer: D. Should a prescription drug or medical device lead to harm, an injured party can sue the manufacturer who had placed it into the stream of commerce. In medical products liability, injured plaintiffs frequently claim a failure to warn of known risks. An example is the cardiovascular deaths caused by Vioxx, a nonsteroidal, anti-inflammatory drug that was withdrawn in 2004. Other examples alleging failure to warn are Actos-associated bladder cancer and Baycol-related rhabdomyolysis. At the time of product approval, the FDA sets out the labeling that goes with each drug, and then makes periodic changes to reflect new indications, warnings and risks. The manufacturer has the prime responsibility for submitting all updated information, especially of augmented risks that come with field experience. In 2012, for example, the FDA mandated the revision of the labeling of Lipitor and other statins to warn of the increased risk of diabetes.

The drug manufacturer stands in the unique position as having the most detailed and up-to-date data and bears a serious responsibility to submit its full findings to the FDA, including its request for label change. Litigation over failure to warn of risks frequently turns on whether the drug manufacturer knew or should have known, had failed to inform the FDA, or whether the FDA itself had declined to make the changes, e.g., because of incomplete or premature data. Notwithstanding the FDA’s overarching federal status, a plaintiff may still attempt to use state tort law to hold a manufacturer liable should the federally approved labeling be silent on the matter.

Two U.S. Supreme Court cases sought to clarify the rules under which a drug manufacturer, when sued for failure to warn, may seek protection under its FDA-approved labeling. The first case involved Diana Levine, a Vermont musician and migraine sufferer, who lost her arm after the drug Phenergan, given by intravenous push, accidentally entered an artery and caused gangrene. Although the intravenous use of Phenergan is approved by the FDA and the risk of such use is clearly stated in the drug’s package insert, the lawsuit alleged that under state law, such a warning was inadequate and should have been strengthened to prohibit this mode of administration. A Vermont jury awarded damages of $6.7 million. On appeal, Wyeth, the defendant pharmaceutical company, maintained that its warning was appropriate, as it had been approved by the federal government through the FDA. It further argued that the drug’s package insert could not be unilaterally altered or modified without running afoul of federal regulations.

In a 6-3 decision,¹ the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the manufacturer was in fact at liberty to issue a more stringent warning, and FDA approval does not bar lawsuits. The Court opined that “Federal law does not pre-empt Levine’s claim that Phenergan’s label did not contain an adequate warning about the IV-push method of administration.” Wyeth had argued that it was impossible for the company to provide additional warnings, since it was the FDA that made the sole determination of the nature and scope of a drug’s label. However, the court held that Wyeth never attempted to change the label to warn of the risk and failed to provide “clear” evidence that the FDA would have prevented it from changing its label. Without defining what constituted “clear” evidence, it rejected Wyeth’s broad assertion that unilaterally changing the Phenergan label would have violated federal law, which was based on the fundamental misunderstanding that the FDA, rather than the manufacturer, bears primary responsibility for drug labeling.

In 2019, the landmark case of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v. Albrecht et al.² reached the U.S. Supreme Court. This class-action suit involved more than 500 individuals who took Fosamax, an effective anti-resorptive drug for treating osteoporosis, and suffered atypical femoral fractures between 1999 and 2010. When the FDA first approved of the manufacture and sale of Fosamax in 1995, the Fosamax label did not warn of the then-speculative risk of atypical femoral fractures. But stronger evidence connecting Fosamax to atypical fractures developed after 1995, prompting the FDA to add a warning in 2011. Merck argued that plaintiffs’ state-law failure-to-warn claims should be dismissed as preempted by federal law. It conceded that the FDA regulations would have permitted Merck to try to change the label to add a warning before 2010 but believed the FDA would have rejected that attempt. In particular, it claimed that the FDA’s rejection of Merck’s 2008 attempt to warn of a risk of “stress fractures” showed that the FDA would also have rejected any attempt by Merck to warn of the risk of atypical femoral fractures. In short, Merck was relying on the legal doctrine of “impossibility preemption,” i.e., it was impossible to comply with both state law (adequate label warning of atypical fractures) and federal law (FDA control of warning labels). The plaintiffs’ position was that Merck’s proposed warning to the FDA had minimized the seriousness of the femoral fracture risk, characterizing them only as “stress fractures.”³

The Court’s earlier Levine decision had held that a state-law failure-to-warn claim is preempted where there is “clear” evidence the FDA would not have approved a label change. In the Albrecht decision, which also sided with the plaintiffs, the court indicated that “Clear evidence is evidence that shows the court that the drug manufacturer fully informed the FDA of the justifications for the warning required by state law and that the FDA, in turn, informed the drug manufacturer that the FDA would not approve a change to the drug’s label to include that warning.” The court also held that issues relating to presumption of impossibility are law-based, and thus it remains for the judge, not the jury, to make that determination.

Issuing timely warnings regarding medical products promotes patient safety, and the law appears to place the major onus on the manufacturer. Still, striking the proper balance is important. During oral arguments in Albrecht, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch is said to have cautioned against “ ... incentives for companies to submit weakly supported label changes to the agency, knowing that when those label changes are rejected the companies will be free of further liability.” And as pointed out in the earlier cited Johnston article: “ ... a system that creates incentives for manufacturers to over-warn physicians and patients could harm patients by listing the important warnings of adverse effects among numerous less important warnings, which may discourage physicians and patients from choosing potentially useful drugs. On the other hand, a shift of responsibility for labeling to the FDA raises questions about whether the agency, which has resources that are dwarfed by the combined resources of industry, is necessarily capable to serve in this role ...”

Finally, this issue is more complex for devices because of the Medical Device Amendments Act of 1976 (MDA), which may preempt state-based lawsuits. In a claim brought after a Medtronic catheter ruptured in a patient’s coronary artery during heart surgery, the plaintiff alleged that the device was designed, labeled, and manufactured in a manner that violated New York common law. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court held that the MDA preempted petitioner’s common-law claims challenging the safety or effectiveness of a medical device marketed in a form that received premarket approval from the FDA.⁴ The court ruled that MDA created a scheme of federal safety oversight for medical devices while sweeping back state oversight schemes.
 

Dr. Tan is professor emeritus of medicine and former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].

References

1. Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 2 (2009).

2. Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht et al., 587 U. S. ____ (2019).

3. Johnston MC et al., A new Supreme Court ruling on drug liability. JAMA 2019;322(7):607-8.

4. Riegel v. Medtronic, 128 S. Ct. 999 (2008).

Question: Which one of the following statements regarding medication warnings is incorrect?

A. The drug package “insert” or “label” contains, among other things, a drug’s pharmacology, indications, contraindications, risks and warnings.

B. The Physicians’ Desk Reference (PDR) is an annually updated drug compendium, which can be admitted into evidence as a learned treatise.

C. Drug labeling is a dual responsibility of the manufacturer and the Food and Drug Administration.

D. The FDA is solely responsible for a drug’s warnings and sets the absolute standard of care regarding side effects and complications.

E. State law can impose liability for negligent failure to warn even if the FDA has not included the warning in the drug’s label.

Answer: D. Should a prescription drug or medical device lead to harm, an injured party can sue the manufacturer who had placed it into the stream of commerce. In medical products liability, injured plaintiffs frequently claim a failure to warn of known risks. An example is the cardiovascular deaths caused by Vioxx, a nonsteroidal, anti-inflammatory drug that was withdrawn in 2004. Other examples alleging failure to warn are Actos-associated bladder cancer and Baycol-related rhabdomyolysis. At the time of product approval, the FDA sets out the labeling that goes with each drug, and then makes periodic changes to reflect new indications, warnings and risks. The manufacturer has the prime responsibility for submitting all updated information, especially of augmented risks that come with field experience. In 2012, for example, the FDA mandated the revision of the labeling of Lipitor and other statins to warn of the increased risk of diabetes.

The drug manufacturer stands in the unique position as having the most detailed and up-to-date data and bears a serious responsibility to submit its full findings to the FDA, including its request for label change. Litigation over failure to warn of risks frequently turns on whether the drug manufacturer knew or should have known, had failed to inform the FDA, or whether the FDA itself had declined to make the changes, e.g., because of incomplete or premature data. Notwithstanding the FDA’s overarching federal status, a plaintiff may still attempt to use state tort law to hold a manufacturer liable should the federally approved labeling be silent on the matter.

Two U.S. Supreme Court cases sought to clarify the rules under which a drug manufacturer, when sued for failure to warn, may seek protection under its FDA-approved labeling. The first case involved Diana Levine, a Vermont musician and migraine sufferer, who lost her arm after the drug Phenergan, given by intravenous push, accidentally entered an artery and caused gangrene. Although the intravenous use of Phenergan is approved by the FDA and the risk of such use is clearly stated in the drug’s package insert, the lawsuit alleged that under state law, such a warning was inadequate and should have been strengthened to prohibit this mode of administration. A Vermont jury awarded damages of $6.7 million. On appeal, Wyeth, the defendant pharmaceutical company, maintained that its warning was appropriate, as it had been approved by the federal government through the FDA. It further argued that the drug’s package insert could not be unilaterally altered or modified without running afoul of federal regulations.

In a 6-3 decision,¹ the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the manufacturer was in fact at liberty to issue a more stringent warning, and FDA approval does not bar lawsuits. The Court opined that “Federal law does not pre-empt Levine’s claim that Phenergan’s label did not contain an adequate warning about the IV-push method of administration.” Wyeth had argued that it was impossible for the company to provide additional warnings, since it was the FDA that made the sole determination of the nature and scope of a drug’s label. However, the court held that Wyeth never attempted to change the label to warn of the risk and failed to provide “clear” evidence that the FDA would have prevented it from changing its label. Without defining what constituted “clear” evidence, it rejected Wyeth’s broad assertion that unilaterally changing the Phenergan label would have violated federal law, which was based on the fundamental misunderstanding that the FDA, rather than the manufacturer, bears primary responsibility for drug labeling.

In 2019, the landmark case of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v. Albrecht et al.² reached the U.S. Supreme Court. This class-action suit involved more than 500 individuals who took Fosamax, an effective anti-resorptive drug for treating osteoporosis, and suffered atypical femoral fractures between 1999 and 2010. When the FDA first approved of the manufacture and sale of Fosamax in 1995, the Fosamax label did not warn of the then-speculative risk of atypical femoral fractures. But stronger evidence connecting Fosamax to atypical fractures developed after 1995, prompting the FDA to add a warning in 2011. Merck argued that plaintiffs’ state-law failure-to-warn claims should be dismissed as preempted by federal law. It conceded that the FDA regulations would have permitted Merck to try to change the label to add a warning before 2010 but believed the FDA would have rejected that attempt. In particular, it claimed that the FDA’s rejection of Merck’s 2008 attempt to warn of a risk of “stress fractures” showed that the FDA would also have rejected any attempt by Merck to warn of the risk of atypical femoral fractures. In short, Merck was relying on the legal doctrine of “impossibility preemption,” i.e., it was impossible to comply with both state law (adequate label warning of atypical fractures) and federal law (FDA control of warning labels). The plaintiffs’ position was that Merck’s proposed warning to the FDA had minimized the seriousness of the femoral fracture risk, characterizing them only as “stress fractures.”³

The Court’s earlier Levine decision had held that a state-law failure-to-warn claim is preempted where there is “clear” evidence the FDA would not have approved a label change. In the Albrecht decision, which also sided with the plaintiffs, the court indicated that “Clear evidence is evidence that shows the court that the drug manufacturer fully informed the FDA of the justifications for the warning required by state law and that the FDA, in turn, informed the drug manufacturer that the FDA would not approve a change to the drug’s label to include that warning.” The court also held that issues relating to presumption of impossibility are law-based, and thus it remains for the judge, not the jury, to make that determination.

Issuing timely warnings regarding medical products promotes patient safety, and the law appears to place the major onus on the manufacturer. Still, striking the proper balance is important. During oral arguments in Albrecht, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch is said to have cautioned against “ ... incentives for companies to submit weakly supported label changes to the agency, knowing that when those label changes are rejected the companies will be free of further liability.” And as pointed out in the earlier cited Johnston article: “ ... a system that creates incentives for manufacturers to over-warn physicians and patients could harm patients by listing the important warnings of adverse effects among numerous less important warnings, which may discourage physicians and patients from choosing potentially useful drugs. On the other hand, a shift of responsibility for labeling to the FDA raises questions about whether the agency, which has resources that are dwarfed by the combined resources of industry, is necessarily capable to serve in this role ...”

Finally, this issue is more complex for devices because of the Medical Device Amendments Act of 1976 (MDA), which may preempt state-based lawsuits. In a claim brought after a Medtronic catheter ruptured in a patient’s coronary artery during heart surgery, the plaintiff alleged that the device was designed, labeled, and manufactured in a manner that violated New York common law. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court held that the MDA preempted petitioner’s common-law claims challenging the safety or effectiveness of a medical device marketed in a form that received premarket approval from the FDA.⁴ The court ruled that MDA created a scheme of federal safety oversight for medical devices while sweeping back state oversight schemes.
 

Dr. Tan is professor emeritus of medicine and former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].

References

1. Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 2 (2009).

2. Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht et al., 587 U. S. ____ (2019).

3. Johnston MC et al., A new Supreme Court ruling on drug liability. JAMA 2019;322(7):607-8.

4. Riegel v. Medtronic, 128 S. Ct. 999 (2008).

The Food and Drug Administration has approved canagliflozin (Invokana) for the treatment of diabetic kidney disease and for reduction of the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic kidney disease, which makes it the first drug indicated for diabetic kidney disease treatment in 20 years.

FDA approval, which was announced in a press release by Janssen, the drug’s manufacturer, is based on results from the phase 3 CREDENCE trial. In that study patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic diabetic kidney disease received either 100 mg canagliflozin or placebo. Patients who received canagliflozin experienced a 30% reduction in the risk of the primary composite endpoint, which included end-stage kidney disease, doubling of serum creatinine, and renal or cardiovascular death. The risk of secondary outcomes were also reduced in patients receiving canagliflozin, including a 39% reduction in the risk of hospitalization for heart failure.

The most common adverse events associated with canagliflozin, according to the label, are female genital mycotic infections, urinary tract infection, and increased urination. Serious adverse events associated with canagliflozin include ketoacidosis, kidney problems, serious urinary tract infections, hypoglycemia, necrotizing fasciitis, serious allergic reaction, and bone fractures.

“The real battle to turn the tide on kidney disease is in early detection and slowing its progression so that patients stay healthier and fewer patients reach kidney failure,” LaVerne A. Burton, president and CEO of the American Kidney Fund, said in the press release. “We are so grateful that advances in kidney disease research are producing treatment options that help to slow the progression of diabetic kidney disease and reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”

Find the full press release on the Janssen website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved canagliflozin (Invokana) for the treatment of diabetic kidney disease and for reduction of the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic kidney disease, which makes it the first drug indicated for diabetic kidney disease treatment in 20 years.

FDA approval, which was announced in a press release by Janssen, the drug’s manufacturer, is based on results from the phase 3 CREDENCE trial. In that study patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic diabetic kidney disease received either 100 mg canagliflozin or placebo. Patients who received canagliflozin experienced a 30% reduction in the risk of the primary composite endpoint, which included end-stage kidney disease, doubling of serum creatinine, and renal or cardiovascular death. The risk of secondary outcomes were also reduced in patients receiving canagliflozin, including a 39% reduction in the risk of hospitalization for heart failure.

The most common adverse events associated with canagliflozin, according to the label, are female genital mycotic infections, urinary tract infection, and increased urination. Serious adverse events associated with canagliflozin include ketoacidosis, kidney problems, serious urinary tract infections, hypoglycemia, necrotizing fasciitis, serious allergic reaction, and bone fractures.

“The real battle to turn the tide on kidney disease is in early detection and slowing its progression so that patients stay healthier and fewer patients reach kidney failure,” LaVerne A. Burton, president and CEO of the American Kidney Fund, said in the press release. “We are so grateful that advances in kidney disease research are producing treatment options that help to slow the progression of diabetic kidney disease and reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”

Find the full press release on the Janssen website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved canagliflozin (Invokana) for the treatment of diabetic kidney disease and for reduction of the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic kidney disease, which makes it the first drug indicated for diabetic kidney disease treatment in 20 years.

FDA approval, which was announced in a press release by Janssen, the drug’s manufacturer, is based on results from the phase 3 CREDENCE trial. In that study patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic diabetic kidney disease received either 100 mg canagliflozin or placebo. Patients who received canagliflozin experienced a 30% reduction in the risk of the primary composite endpoint, which included end-stage kidney disease, doubling of serum creatinine, and renal or cardiovascular death. The risk of secondary outcomes were also reduced in patients receiving canagliflozin, including a 39% reduction in the risk of hospitalization for heart failure.

The most common adverse events associated with canagliflozin, according to the label, are female genital mycotic infections, urinary tract infection, and increased urination. Serious adverse events associated with canagliflozin include ketoacidosis, kidney problems, serious urinary tract infections, hypoglycemia, necrotizing fasciitis, serious allergic reaction, and bone fractures.

“The real battle to turn the tide on kidney disease is in early detection and slowing its progression so that patients stay healthier and fewer patients reach kidney failure,” LaVerne A. Burton, president and CEO of the American Kidney Fund, said in the press release. “We are so grateful that advances in kidney disease research are producing treatment options that help to slow the progression of diabetic kidney disease and reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”

Find the full press release on the Janssen website.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – After 3 months of ticagrelor (Brilinta) plus aspirin following cardiac stenting, stopping the aspirin but continuing the ticagrelor resulted in less bleeding with no increase in ischemic events in a randomized trial with more than 7,000 drug-eluting stent patients at high risk for both.

“This was a superior therapy” to staying on both drugs, the more usual approach, said lead investigator Roxana Mehran, MD, director of interventional cardiovascular research and clinical trials at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“We can’t say this is for all comers, but for patients whose physician felt comfortable putting them on aspirin and ticagrelor,” who tolerated it well for the first 3 months, and who had clinical and angiographic indications of risk, “I think these patients can be peeled away” from aspirin, she said in a presentation at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting that coincided with publication of the trial, dubbed TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor with Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention).

Interventional cardiologists have long sought the sweet spot for dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after stenting; the idea is to maximize thrombosis prevention while minimizing bleeding risk. The trial supports the trend in recent years towards shorter DAPT. Often, however, it’s the P2Y12 inhibitor – ticagrelor, clopidogrel (Plavix), or prasugrel (Effient) – that goes first, not the aspirin.

Responding to an audience question about why the trial didn’t include an aspirin monotherapy arm, Dr. Mehran said that aspirin alone wouldn’t have been sufficient in high-risk patients “in whom you have almost 70% acute coronary syndrome.” She added that her team has data showing that aspirin itself doesn’t have much effect on blood thrombogenicity.

The 7,119 patients in TWILIGHT were on ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily and aspirin 81-100 mg daily for 3 months, then evenly randomized to continued treatment or ticagrelor plus an aspirin placebo for a year.

Subjects had to have at least one clinical and angiographic finding that put them at high risk for bleeding or an ischemic event, such as chronic kidney disease, acute coronary syndrome, diabetes, or a bifurcated target lesion treated with two stents.

One year after randomization, 4% in the ticagrelor monotherapy group versus 7.1% in the ticagrelor plus aspirin arm reached the primary end point, actionable (type 2), severe (type 3), or fatal (type 5) bleeding on the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium scale (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.45 - 0.68, P less than .001).

The incidence of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke was 3.9% in both groups (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.78-1.25; P less than .001 for noninferiority).

There were more ischemic strokes in the ticagrelor monotherapy arm (0.5% versus 0.2%). All-cause mortality (1.3% versus 1%) and stent thrombosis (0.6% versus 0.4%) were more frequent in the ticagrelor/aspirin group, but the differences were not statistically significant.

The two groups were well balanced. The mean age was 65 years, 23.8% of the patients were female, 37% had diabetes, and 65% had percutaneous coronary intervention for an acute coronary syndrome. Almost two-thirds had multivessel disease. Mean stent length was about 40 mm. The trial excluded patients with prior strokes.

Almost 2,000 patients originally enrolled in the trial never made it to randomization because they had a major bleeding or ischemic event in the 3-month run up, or dyspnea or some other reaction to ticagrelor.

The recent STOPDAPT-2 trial had a similar outcome – less bleeding with no increase in ischemic events – with clopidogrel monotherapy after a month-long run in of dual therapy with aspirin, versus continued treatment with both, in patients at low risk for ischemic events after stenting (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2414-27).

Another recent study, GLOBAL LEADERS, concluded that 1 month of DAPT followed by ticagrelor monotherapy for 23 months was not superior to 12 months of DAPT followed by a year of aspirin. There was a numerical advantage for solo ticagrelor on death, myocardial infarction, and bleeding, but it did not reach statistical significance (Lancet. 2018 Sep 15;392[10151]:940-9).

The work was funded by ticagrelor’s maker, AstraZeneca. Dr. Mehran reported consulting and other relationships with Abbott, Janssen, and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mehran A et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908419.

SAN FRANCISCO – After 3 months of ticagrelor (Brilinta) plus aspirin following cardiac stenting, stopping the aspirin but continuing the ticagrelor resulted in less bleeding with no increase in ischemic events in a randomized trial with more than 7,000 drug-eluting stent patients at high risk for both.

“This was a superior therapy” to staying on both drugs, the more usual approach, said lead investigator Roxana Mehran, MD, director of interventional cardiovascular research and clinical trials at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“We can’t say this is for all comers, but for patients whose physician felt comfortable putting them on aspirin and ticagrelor,” who tolerated it well for the first 3 months, and who had clinical and angiographic indications of risk, “I think these patients can be peeled away” from aspirin, she said in a presentation at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting that coincided with publication of the trial, dubbed TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor with Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention).

Interventional cardiologists have long sought the sweet spot for dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after stenting; the idea is to maximize thrombosis prevention while minimizing bleeding risk. The trial supports the trend in recent years towards shorter DAPT. Often, however, it’s the P2Y12 inhibitor – ticagrelor, clopidogrel (Plavix), or prasugrel (Effient) – that goes first, not the aspirin.

Responding to an audience question about why the trial didn’t include an aspirin monotherapy arm, Dr. Mehran said that aspirin alone wouldn’t have been sufficient in high-risk patients “in whom you have almost 70% acute coronary syndrome.” She added that her team has data showing that aspirin itself doesn’t have much effect on blood thrombogenicity.

The 7,119 patients in TWILIGHT were on ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily and aspirin 81-100 mg daily for 3 months, then evenly randomized to continued treatment or ticagrelor plus an aspirin placebo for a year.

Subjects had to have at least one clinical and angiographic finding that put them at high risk for bleeding or an ischemic event, such as chronic kidney disease, acute coronary syndrome, diabetes, or a bifurcated target lesion treated with two stents.

One year after randomization, 4% in the ticagrelor monotherapy group versus 7.1% in the ticagrelor plus aspirin arm reached the primary end point, actionable (type 2), severe (type 3), or fatal (type 5) bleeding on the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium scale (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.45 - 0.68, P less than .001).

The incidence of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke was 3.9% in both groups (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.78-1.25; P less than .001 for noninferiority).

There were more ischemic strokes in the ticagrelor monotherapy arm (0.5% versus 0.2%). All-cause mortality (1.3% versus 1%) and stent thrombosis (0.6% versus 0.4%) were more frequent in the ticagrelor/aspirin group, but the differences were not statistically significant.

The two groups were well balanced. The mean age was 65 years, 23.8% of the patients were female, 37% had diabetes, and 65% had percutaneous coronary intervention for an acute coronary syndrome. Almost two-thirds had multivessel disease. Mean stent length was about 40 mm. The trial excluded patients with prior strokes.

Almost 2,000 patients originally enrolled in the trial never made it to randomization because they had a major bleeding or ischemic event in the 3-month run up, or dyspnea or some other reaction to ticagrelor.

The recent STOPDAPT-2 trial had a similar outcome – less bleeding with no increase in ischemic events – with clopidogrel monotherapy after a month-long run in of dual therapy with aspirin, versus continued treatment with both, in patients at low risk for ischemic events after stenting (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2414-27).

Another recent study, GLOBAL LEADERS, concluded that 1 month of DAPT followed by ticagrelor monotherapy for 23 months was not superior to 12 months of DAPT followed by a year of aspirin. There was a numerical advantage for solo ticagrelor on death, myocardial infarction, and bleeding, but it did not reach statistical significance (Lancet. 2018 Sep 15;392[10151]:940-9).

The work was funded by ticagrelor’s maker, AstraZeneca. Dr. Mehran reported consulting and other relationships with Abbott, Janssen, and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mehran A et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908419.

SAN FRANCISCO – After 3 months of ticagrelor (Brilinta) plus aspirin following cardiac stenting, stopping the aspirin but continuing the ticagrelor resulted in less bleeding with no increase in ischemic events in a randomized trial with more than 7,000 drug-eluting stent patients at high risk for both.

“This was a superior therapy” to staying on both drugs, the more usual approach, said lead investigator Roxana Mehran, MD, director of interventional cardiovascular research and clinical trials at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“We can’t say this is for all comers, but for patients whose physician felt comfortable putting them on aspirin and ticagrelor,” who tolerated it well for the first 3 months, and who had clinical and angiographic indications of risk, “I think these patients can be peeled away” from aspirin, she said in a presentation at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting that coincided with publication of the trial, dubbed TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor with Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention).

Interventional cardiologists have long sought the sweet spot for dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after stenting; the idea is to maximize thrombosis prevention while minimizing bleeding risk. The trial supports the trend in recent years towards shorter DAPT. Often, however, it’s the P2Y12 inhibitor – ticagrelor, clopidogrel (Plavix), or prasugrel (Effient) – that goes first, not the aspirin.

Responding to an audience question about why the trial didn’t include an aspirin monotherapy arm, Dr. Mehran said that aspirin alone wouldn’t have been sufficient in high-risk patients “in whom you have almost 70% acute coronary syndrome.” She added that her team has data showing that aspirin itself doesn’t have much effect on blood thrombogenicity.

The 7,119 patients in TWILIGHT were on ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily and aspirin 81-100 mg daily for 3 months, then evenly randomized to continued treatment or ticagrelor plus an aspirin placebo for a year.

Subjects had to have at least one clinical and angiographic finding that put them at high risk for bleeding or an ischemic event, such as chronic kidney disease, acute coronary syndrome, diabetes, or a bifurcated target lesion treated with two stents.

One year after randomization, 4% in the ticagrelor monotherapy group versus 7.1% in the ticagrelor plus aspirin arm reached the primary end point, actionable (type 2), severe (type 3), or fatal (type 5) bleeding on the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium scale (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.45 - 0.68, P less than .001).

The incidence of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke was 3.9% in both groups (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.78-1.25; P less than .001 for noninferiority).

There were more ischemic strokes in the ticagrelor monotherapy arm (0.5% versus 0.2%). All-cause mortality (1.3% versus 1%) and stent thrombosis (0.6% versus 0.4%) were more frequent in the ticagrelor/aspirin group, but the differences were not statistically significant.

The two groups were well balanced. The mean age was 65 years, 23.8% of the patients were female, 37% had diabetes, and 65% had percutaneous coronary intervention for an acute coronary syndrome. Almost two-thirds had multivessel disease. Mean stent length was about 40 mm. The trial excluded patients with prior strokes.

Almost 2,000 patients originally enrolled in the trial never made it to randomization because they had a major bleeding or ischemic event in the 3-month run up, or dyspnea or some other reaction to ticagrelor.

The recent STOPDAPT-2 trial had a similar outcome – less bleeding with no increase in ischemic events – with clopidogrel monotherapy after a month-long run in of dual therapy with aspirin, versus continued treatment with both, in patients at low risk for ischemic events after stenting (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2414-27).

Another recent study, GLOBAL LEADERS, concluded that 1 month of DAPT followed by ticagrelor monotherapy for 23 months was not superior to 12 months of DAPT followed by a year of aspirin. There was a numerical advantage for solo ticagrelor on death, myocardial infarction, and bleeding, but it did not reach statistical significance (Lancet. 2018 Sep 15;392[10151]:940-9).

The work was funded by ticagrelor’s maker, AstraZeneca. Dr. Mehran reported consulting and other relationships with Abbott, Janssen, and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mehran A et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908419.

More than 75% of patients with vaping-related lung injuries used at least one tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)–containing product before they developed symptoms, and most products used were prepackaged, prefilled cartridges, according to new data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

mauro grigollo/Thinkstock

The majority of these products (66%) were THC-containing cartridges marketed under the brand name Dank. Dank cartridges are available at legal dispensaries and online in areas where they are legal. The Dank company posted a statement on its website warning buyers about fake cartridges and showing images of genuine cartridges. However, 89% of the cartridges were obtained on the street, from dealers, online, or from friends or social contacts, Jennifer Layden, MD, of the Illinois Department of Public Health said during a CDC telebriefing.

The illness was first recognized in Wisconsin and Illinois. Marijuana is illegal in Wisconsin; Illinois licensed recreational marijuana in 2009.

Other commonalties among cases have also emerged, Anne Schuchat, MD, deputy director of CDC, said during the call. More than two-thirds of the 805 confirmed or probable cases were male, and the median age was 23 years. The illness crosses age barriers, she said. About 62% were 18-24 years of age, and 54% under age 25. However, among the 12 deaths so far reported, the median age was 50 years. The age range was wide, from 27 to 71 years. Dr. Schuchat said data about medical comorbidities potentially linking the deaths is not yet available, although it is part of the ongoing investigation.

Other clinical commonalities included intensive use of THC-containing products and, in a small number of cases, concomitant use of benzodiazepenes, opioids, and narcotics.

Cases have now emerged in 46 states and in the U.S. Virgin Islands, although the number reported each week is dropping. However, this decrease may not represent a drop in newly occurring cases, but instead reflect delays in clinical recognition or reporting to local health departments, Dr. Schuchat said.

Regardless of the recent decline in reported cases, she said, the epidemic is serious, far reaching, and ongoing.

“I want to stress that this is a serious, life-threatening disease occurring mostly in otherwise healthy young people. These illnesses and deaths are occurring in the context of a dynamic marketplace with mix of products with mixes of ingredients, including potentially illicit substances. Users don’t know what’s in them and cannot tell from the ingredients listed on the packaging.”

[email protected]

More than 75% of patients with vaping-related lung injuries used at least one tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)–containing product before they developed symptoms, and most products used were prepackaged, prefilled cartridges, according to new data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

mauro grigollo/Thinkstock

The majority of these products (66%) were THC-containing cartridges marketed under the brand name Dank. Dank cartridges are available at legal dispensaries and online in areas where they are legal. The Dank company posted a statement on its website warning buyers about fake cartridges and showing images of genuine cartridges. However, 89% of the cartridges were obtained on the street, from dealers, online, or from friends or social contacts, Jennifer Layden, MD, of the Illinois Department of Public Health said during a CDC telebriefing.

The illness was first recognized in Wisconsin and Illinois. Marijuana is illegal in Wisconsin; Illinois licensed recreational marijuana in 2009.

Other commonalties among cases have also emerged, Anne Schuchat, MD, deputy director of CDC, said during the call. More than two-thirds of the 805 confirmed or probable cases were male, and the median age was 23 years. The illness crosses age barriers, she said. About 62% were 18-24 years of age, and 54% under age 25. However, among the 12 deaths so far reported, the median age was 50 years. The age range was wide, from 27 to 71 years. Dr. Schuchat said data about medical comorbidities potentially linking the deaths is not yet available, although it is part of the ongoing investigation.

Other clinical commonalities included intensive use of THC-containing products and, in a small number of cases, concomitant use of benzodiazepenes, opioids, and narcotics.

Cases have now emerged in 46 states and in the U.S. Virgin Islands, although the number reported each week is dropping. However, this decrease may not represent a drop in newly occurring cases, but instead reflect delays in clinical recognition or reporting to local health departments, Dr. Schuchat said.

Regardless of the recent decline in reported cases, she said, the epidemic is serious, far reaching, and ongoing.

“I want to stress that this is a serious, life-threatening disease occurring mostly in otherwise healthy young people. These illnesses and deaths are occurring in the context of a dynamic marketplace with mix of products with mixes of ingredients, including potentially illicit substances. Users don’t know what’s in them and cannot tell from the ingredients listed on the packaging.”

[email protected]

More than 75% of patients with vaping-related lung injuries used at least one tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)–containing product before they developed symptoms, and most products used were prepackaged, prefilled cartridges, according to new data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

mauro grigollo/Thinkstock

The majority of these products (66%) were THC-containing cartridges marketed under the brand name Dank. Dank cartridges are available at legal dispensaries and online in areas where they are legal. The Dank company posted a statement on its website warning buyers about fake cartridges and showing images of genuine cartridges. However, 89% of the cartridges were obtained on the street, from dealers, online, or from friends or social contacts, Jennifer Layden, MD, of the Illinois Department of Public Health said during a CDC telebriefing.

The illness was first recognized in Wisconsin and Illinois. Marijuana is illegal in Wisconsin; Illinois licensed recreational marijuana in 2009.

Other commonalties among cases have also emerged, Anne Schuchat, MD, deputy director of CDC, said during the call. More than two-thirds of the 805 confirmed or probable cases were male, and the median age was 23 years. The illness crosses age barriers, she said. About 62% were 18-24 years of age, and 54% under age 25. However, among the 12 deaths so far reported, the median age was 50 years. The age range was wide, from 27 to 71 years. Dr. Schuchat said data about medical comorbidities potentially linking the deaths is not yet available, although it is part of the ongoing investigation.

Other clinical commonalities included intensive use of THC-containing products and, in a small number of cases, concomitant use of benzodiazepenes, opioids, and narcotics.

Cases have now emerged in 46 states and in the U.S. Virgin Islands, although the number reported each week is dropping. However, this decrease may not represent a drop in newly occurring cases, but instead reflect delays in clinical recognition or reporting to local health departments, Dr. Schuchat said.

Regardless of the recent decline in reported cases, she said, the epidemic is serious, far reaching, and ongoing.

“I want to stress that this is a serious, life-threatening disease occurring mostly in otherwise healthy young people. These illnesses and deaths are occurring in the context of a dynamic marketplace with mix of products with mixes of ingredients, including potentially illicit substances. Users don’t know what’s in them and cannot tell from the ingredients listed on the packaging.”

[email protected]