Drug Therapy

From the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.

Abstract

Objective: To review current challenges in the management of peptic ulcer disease.

Methods: Review of the literature.

Results: Peptic ulcer disease affects 5% to 10% of the population worldwide, with recent decreases in lifetime prevalence in high-income countries. Helicobacter pylori infection and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use are the most important drivers of peptic ulcer disease. Current management strategies for peptic ulcer disease focus on ulcer healing; management of complications such as bleeding, perforation, and obstruction; and prevention of ulcer recurrence. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the cornerstone of medical therapy for peptic ulcers, and complement testing for and treatment of H. pylori infection as well as elimination of NSAID use. Although advances have been made in the medical and endoscopic treatment of peptic ulcer disease and the management of ulcer complications, such as bleeding and obstruction, challenges remain.

Conclusion: Peptic ulcer disease is a common health problem globally, with persistent challenges related to refractory ulcers, antiplatelet and anticoagulant use, and continued bleeding in the face of endoscopic therapy. These challenges should be met with PPI therapy of adequate frequency and duration, vigilant attention to and treatment of ulcer etiology, evidence-based handling of antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications, and utilization of novel endoscopic tools to obtain improved clinical outcomes.

Keywords: H. pylori; nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; NSAIDs; proton pump inhibitor; PPI; bleeding; perforation; obstruction; refractory ulcer; salvage endoscopic therapy; transcatheter angiographic embolization.

A peptic ulcer is a fibrin-covered break in the mucosa of the digestive tract extending to the submucosa that is caused by acid injury (Figure 1). Most peptic ulcers occur in the stomach or proximal duodenum, though they may also occur in the esophagus or, less frequently, in a Meckel’s diverticulum.^1,2 The estimated worldwide prevalence of peptic ulcer disease is 5% to 10%, with an annual incidence of 0.1% to 0.3%¹; both rates are declining.³ The annual incidence of peptic ulcer disease requiring medical or surgical treatment is also declining, and currently is estimated to be 0.1% to 0.2%.⁴ The lifetime prevalence of peptic ulcers has been decreasing in high-income countries since the mid-20th century due to both the widespread use of medications that suppress gastric acid secretion and the declining prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection.^1,3

Peptic ulcer disease in most individuals results from H. pylori infection, chronic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including aspirin, or both. A combination of H. pylori factors and host factors lead to mucosal disruption in infected individuals who develop peptic ulcers. H. pylori–specific factors include the expression of virulence factors such as CagA and VacA, which interact with the host inflammatory response to cause mucosal injury. The mucosal inflammatory response is at least partially determined by polymorphisms in the host’s cytokine genes.^1,4 NSAIDs inhibit the production of cyclooxygenase-1-derived prostaglandins, with subsequent decreases in epithelial mucous formation, bicarbonate secretion, cell proliferation, and mucosal blood flow, all of which are key elements in the maintenance of mucosal integrity.^1,5 Less common causes of peptic ulcers include gastrinoma, adenocarcinoma, idiopathic ulcers, use of sympathomimetic drugs (eg, cocaine or methamphetamine), certain anticancer agents, and bariatric surgery.^4,6

This article provides an overview of current management principles for peptic ulcer disease and discusses current challenges in peptic ulcer management, including proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, refractory ulcers, handling of antiplatelet and anticoagulants during and after peptic ulcer bleeding, and ulcer bleeding that continues despite salvage endoscopic therapy.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE using the term peptic ulcer disease in combination with the terms current challenges, epidemiology, bleeding, anticoagulant, antiplatelet, PPI potency, etiology, treatment, management, and refractory. We selected publications from the past 35 years that we judged to be relevant.

Current Management

The goals of peptic ulcer disease management are ulcer healing and prevention of recurrence. The primary interventions used in the management of peptic ulcer disease are medical therapy and implementation of measures that address the underlying etiology of the disease.

Medical Therapy

Introduced in the late 1980s, PPIs are the cornerstone of medical therapy for peptic ulcer disease.⁶ These agents irreversibly inhibit the H+/K+-ATPase pump in the gastric mucosa and thereby inhibit gastric acid secretion, promoting ulcer healing. PPIs improve rates of ulcer healing compared to H2-receptor antagonists.^4,7

Underlying Causes

The underlying cause of peptic ulcer disease should be addressed, in addition to initiating medical therapy. A detailed history of NSAID use should be obtained, and patients with peptic ulcers caused by NSAIDs should be counseled to avoid them, if possible. Patients with peptic ulcer disease who require long-term use of NSAIDs should be placed on long-term PPI therapy.⁶ Any patient with peptic ulcer disease, regardless of any history of H. pylori infection or treatment, should be tested for infection. Tests that identify active infection, such as urea breath test, stool antigen assay, or mucosal biopsy–based testing, are preferred to IgG antibody testing, although the latter is acceptable in the context of peptic ulcer disease with a high pretest probability of infection.⁸ Any evidence of active infection warrants appropriate treatment to allow ulcer healing and prevent recurrence.¹H. pylori infection is most often treated with clarithromycin triple therapy or bismuth quadruple therapy for 14 days, with regimens selected based on the presence or absence of penicillin allergy, prior antibiotic exposure, and local clarithromycin resistance rates, when known.^4,8

Managing Complications

An additional aspect of care in peptic ulcer disease is managing the complications of bleeding, perforation, and gastric outlet obstruction. Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is the most common complication of peptic ulcer disease, which accounts for 40% to 60% of nonvariceal acute upper GIB.^1,6 The first step in the management of acute GIB from a peptic ulcer is fluid resuscitation to ensure hemodynamic stability. If there is associated anemia with a hemoglobin level < 8 g/dL, blood transfusion should be undertaken to target a hemoglobin level > 8 g/dL. In patients with peptic ulcer disease–related acute upper GIB and comorbid cardiovascular disease, the transfusion threshold is higher, with the specific cutoff depending on clinical status, type and severity of cardiovascular disease, and degree of bleeding. Endoscopic management should generally be undertaken within 24 hours of presentation and should not be delayed in patients taking anticoagulants.⁹ Combination endoscopic treatment with through-the-scope clips plus thermocoagulation or sclerosant injection is recommended for acutely bleeding peptic ulcers with high-risk stigmata.

Pharmacologic management of patients with bleeding peptic ulcers with high-risk stigmata includes PPI therapy, with an 80 mg intravenous (IV) loading dose followed by continuous infusion of 8 mg/hr for 72 hours to reduce rebleeding and mortality. Following completion of IV therapy, oral PPI therapy should be continued twice daily for 14 days, followed by once-daily dosing thereafter.⁹Patients with peptic ulcer perforation present with sudden-onset epigastric abdominal pain and have tenderness to palpation, guarding, and rigidity on examination, often along with tachycardia and hypotension.^1,4 Computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen is 98% sensitive for identifying and localizing a perforation. Most perforations occur in the duodenum or antrum.

Management of a peptic ulcer perforation requires consultation with a surgeon to determine whether a nonoperative approach may be employed (eg, a stable patient with a contained perforation), or if surgery is indicated. The surgical approach to peptic ulcer perforation has been impacted by the clinical success of gastric acid suppression with PPIs and H. pylori eradication, but a range of surgical approaches are still used to repair perforations, from omental patch repair with peritoneal drain placement, to more extensive surgeries such as wedge resection or partial gastrectomy.⁴ Perforation carries a high mortality risk, up to 20% to 30%, and is the leading cause of death in patients with peptic ulcer disease.^1,4

Gastric outlet obstruction, a rare complication of peptic ulcer disease, results from recurrent ulcer formation and scarring. Obstruction often presents with hypovolemia and metabolic alkalosis from prolonged vomiting. CT imaging with oral contrast is often the first diagnostic test employed to demonstrate obstruction. Upper endoscopy should be performed to evaluate the appearance and degree of obstruction as well as to obtain biopsies to evaluate for a malignant etiology of the ulcer disease. Endoscopic balloon dilation has become the cornerstone of initial therapy for obstruction from peptic ulcer disease, especially in the case of ulcers due to reversible causes. Surgery is now typically reserved for cases of refractory obstruction, after repeated endoscopic balloon dilation has failed to remove the obstruction. However, because nearly all patients with gastric outlet obstruction present with malnutrition, nutritional deficiencies should be addressed prior to the patient undergoing surgical intervention. Surgical options include pyloroplasty, antrectomy, and gastrojejunostomy.⁴

Current Challenges

Rapid Metabolism of PPIs

High-dose PPI therapy is a key component of therapy for peptic ulcer healing. PPIs are metabolized by the cytochrome P450 system, which is comprised of multiple isoenzymes. CYP2C19, an isoenzyme involved in PPI metabolism, has 21 polymorphisms, which have variable effects leading to ultra-rapid, extensive, intermediate, or poor metabolism of PPIs.¹⁰ With rapid metabolism of PPIs, standard dosing can result in inadequate suppression of acid secretion. Despite this knowledge, routine testing of CYP2C19 phenotype is not recommended due to the cost of testing. Instead, inadequate ulcer healing should prompt consideration of increased PPI dosing to 80 mg orally twice daily, which may be sufficient to overcome rapid PPI metabolism.¹¹

Relative Potency of PPIs

In addition to variation in PPI metabolism, the relative potency of various PPIs has been questioned. A review of all available clinical studies of the effects of PPIs on mean 24-hour intragastric pH reported a quantitative difference in the potency of 5 PPIs, with omeprazole as the reference standard. Potencies ranged from 0.23 omeprazole equivalents for pantoprazole to 1.82 omeprazole equivalents for rabeprazole.¹² An additional study of data from 56 randomized clinical trials confirmed that PPIs vary in potency, which was measured as time that gastric pH is less than 4. A linear increase in intragastric pH time less than 4 was observed from 9 to 64 mg omeprazole equivalents; higher doses yielded no additional benefit. An increase in PPI dosing from once daily to twice daily also increased the duration of intragastric pH time less than 4 from 15 to 21 hours.¹³ Earlier modeling of the relationship between duodenal ulcer healing and antisecretory therapy showed a strong correlation of ulcer healing with the duration of acid suppression, length of therapy, and the degree of acid suppression. Additional benefit was not observed after intragastric pH rose above 3.¹⁴ Thus, as the frequency and duration of acid suppression therapy are more important than PPI potency, PPIs can be used interchangeably.^13,14

Addressing Underlying Causes

Continued NSAID Use. Refractory peptic ulcers are defined as those that do not heal despite adherence to 8 to 12 weeks of standard acid-suppression therapy. A cause of refractory peptic ulcer disease that must be considered is continued NSAID use.^1,15 In a study of patients with refractory peptic ulcers, 27% of patients continued NSAID use, as determined by eventual disclosure by the patients or platelet cyclooxygenase activity assay, despite extensive counseling to avoid NSAIDs at the time of the diagnosis of their refractory ulcer and at subsequent visits.¹⁶ Pain may make NSAID cessation difficult for some patients, while others do not realize that over-the-counter preparations they take contain NSAIDs.¹⁵

Another group of patients with continued NSAID exposure are those who require long-term NSAID therapy for control of arthritis or the management of cardiovascular conditions. If NSAID therapy cannot be discontinued, the risk of NSAID-related gastrointestinal injury can be assessed based on the presence of multiple risk factors, including age > 65 years, high-dose NSAID therapy, a history of peptic ulcer, and concurrent use of aspirin, corticosteroids, or anticoagulants. Individuals with 3 or more of the preceding risk factors or a history of a peptic ulcer with a complication, especially if recent, are considered to be at high risk of developing an NSAID-related ulcer and possible subsequent complications.¹⁷ In these individuals, NSAID therapy should be continued with agents that have the lowest risk for gastrointestinal toxicity and at the lowest possible dose. A meta-analysis comparing nonselective NSAIDs to placebo demonstrated naproxen to have the highest risk of gastrointestinal complications, including GIB, perforation, and obstruction (adjusted rate ratio, 4.2), while diclofenac demonstrated the lowest risk (adjusted rate ratio, 1.89). High-dose NSAID therapy demonstrated a 2-fold increase in risk of peptic ulcer formation as compared to low-dose therapy.¹⁸

In addition to selecting the NSAID with the least gastrointestinal toxicity at the lowest possible dose, additional strategies to prevent peptic ulcer disease and its complications in chronic NSAID users include co-administration of a PPI and substitution of a COX-2 selective NSAID for nonselective NSAIDs.^1,9 Prior double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter trials with patients requiring daily NSAIDs demonstrated an up to 15% absolute reduction in the risk of developing peptic ulcers over 6 months while taking esomeprazole.¹⁹

Persistent Infection. Persistent H. pylori infection, due either to initial false-negative testing or ongoing infection despite first-line therapy, is another cause of refractory peptic ulcer disease.^1,15 Because antibiotics and PPIs can reduce the number of H. pylori bacteria, use of these medications concurrent with H. pylori testing can lead to false-negative results with several testing modalities. When suspicion for H. pylori is high, 2 or more diagnostic tests may be needed to effectively rule out infection.¹⁵

When H. pylori is detected, successful eradication is becoming more difficult due to an increasing prevalence of antibiotic resistance, leading to persistent infection in many cases and maintained risk of peptic ulcer disease, despite appropriate first-line therapy.⁸ Options for salvage therapy for persistent H. pylori, as well as information on the role and best timing of susceptibility testing, are beyond the scope of this review, but are reviewed by Lanas and Chan¹ and in the American College of Gastroenterology guideline on the treatment of H. pylori infection.⁸

Other Causes. In a meta-analysis of rigorously designed studies from North America, 20% of patients experienced ulcer recurrence at 6 months, despite successful H. pylori eradication and no NSAID use.²⁰ In addition, as H. pylori prevalence is decreasing, idiopathic ulcers are increasingly being diagnosed, and such ulcers may be associated with high rates of GIB and mortality.¹ In this subset of patients with non-H. pylori, non-NSAID ulcers, increased effort is required to further evaluate the differential diagnosis for rarer causes of upper GI tract ulcer disease (Table). Certain malignancies, including adenocarcinoma and lymphoma, can cause ulcer formation and should be considered in refractory cases. Repeat biopsy at follow-up endoscopy for persistent ulcers should always be obtained to further evaluate for malignancy.^1,15 Infectious diseases other than H. pylori infection, such as tuberculosis, syphilis, cytomegalovirus, and herpes simplex virus, are also reported as etiologies of refractory ulcers, and require specific antimicrobial treatment over and above PPI monotherapy. Special attention in biopsy sampling and sample processing is often required when infectious etiologies are being considered, as specific histologic stains and cultures may be needed for identification.¹⁵

Systemic conditions, including sarcoidosis,²¹ Behçet disease,²² and polyarteritis nodosa,^15,23 can also cause refractory ulcers. Approximately 15% of patients with Crohn disease have gastroduodenal involvement, which may include ulcers of variable sizes.^1,15,24 The increased gastric acid production seen in Zollinger-Ellison syndrome commonly presents as refractory peptic ulcers in the duodenum beyond the bulb that do not heal with standard doses of PPIs.^1,15 More rare causes of acid hypersecretion leading to refractory ulcers include idiopathic gastric acid hypersecretion and retained gastric antrum syndrome after partial gastrectomy with Billroth II anastomosis.¹⁵ Smoking is a known risk factor for impaired tissue healing throughout the body, and can contribute to impaired healing of peptic ulcers through decreased prostaglandin synthesis²⁵ and reduced gastric mucosal blood flow.²⁶ Smoking should always be addressed in patients with refractory peptic ulcers, and cessation should be strongly encouraged. Other less common causes of refractory upper GI tract ulcers include radiation therapy, crack cocaine use, and mesenteric ischemia.¹⁵

Managing Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Medications

Use of antiplatelets and anticoagulants, alone or in combination, increases the risk of peptic ulcer bleeding. In patients who continue to take aspirin after a peptic ulcer bleed, recurrent bleeding occurs in up to 300 cases per 1000 person-years. The rate of GIB associated with aspirin use ranges from 1.1% to 2.5%, depending on the dose. Prior peptic ulcer disease, age greater than 70 years, and concurrent NSAID, steroid, anticoagulant, or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) use increase the risk of bleeding while on aspirin. The rate of GIB while taking a thienopyridine alone is slightly less than that when taking aspirin, ranging from 0.5% to 1.6%. Studies to date have yielded mixed estimates of the effect of DAPT on the risk of GIB. Estimates of the risk of GIB with DAPT range from an odds ratio for serious GIB of 7.4 to an absolute risk increase of only 1.3% when compared to clopidogrel alone.²⁷

Many patients are also on warfarin or a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC). In a study from the United Kingdom, the adjusted rate ratio of GIB with warfarin alone was 1.94, and this increased to 6.48 when warfarin was used with aspirin.²⁸ The use of warfarin and DAPT, often called triple therapy, further increases the risk of GIB, with a hazard ratio of 5.0 compared to DAPT alone, and 5.38 when compared to warfarin alone. DOACs are increasingly prescribed for the treatment and prevention of thromboembolism, and by 2014 were prescribed as often as warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation in the United States. A meta-analysis showed the risk of major GIB did not differ between DOACs and warfarin or low-molecular-weight heparin, but among DOACs factor Xa inhibitors showed a reduced risk of GIB compared with dabigatran, a direct thrombin inhibitor.²⁹

The use of antiplatelets and anticoagulants in the context of peptic ulcer bleeding is a current management challenge. Data to guide decision-making in patients on antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant therapy who experience peptic ulcer bleeding are scarce. Decision-making in this group of patients requires balancing the severity and risk of bleeding with the risk of thromboembolism.^1,27 In patients on antiplatelet therapy for primary prophylaxis of atherothrombosis who develop bleeding from a peptic ulcer, the antiplatelet should generally be held and the indication for the medication reassessed. In patients on antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention, the agent may be immediately resumed after endoscopy if bleeding is found to be due to an ulcer with low-risk stigmata. With bleeding resulting from an ulcer with high-risk stigmata, antiplatelet agents employed for secondary prevention may be held initially, with consideration given to early reintroduction, as early as day 3 after endoscopy.¹ In patients at high risk for atherothrombotic events, including those on aspirin for secondary prophylaxis, withholding aspirin leads to a 3-fold increase in the risk of a major adverse cardiac event, with events occurring as early as 5 days after aspirin cessation in some cases.²⁷ A randomized controlled trial of continuing low-dose aspirin versus withholding it for 8 weeks in patients on aspirin for secondary prophylaxis of cardiovascular events who experienced peptic ulcer bleeding that required endoscopic therapy demonstrated lower all-cause mortality (1.3% vs 12.9%), including death from cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, among those who continued aspirin therapy, with a small increased risk of recurrent ulcer bleeding (10.3% vs 5.4%).³⁰ Thus, it is recommended that antiplatelet therapy, when held, be resumed as early as possible when the risk of a cardiovascular or cerebrovascular event is considered to be higher than the risk of bleeding.²⁷

When patients are on DAPT for a history of drug-eluting stent placement, withholding both antiplatelet medications should be avoided, even for a brief period of time, given the risk of in-stent thrombosis. When DAPT is employed for other reasons, it should be continued, if indicated, after bleeding that is found to be due to peptic ulcers with low-risk stigmata. If bleeding is due to a peptic ulcer with high-risk stigmata at endoscopy, then aspirin monotherapy should be continued and consultation should be obtained with a cardiologist to determine optimal timing to resume the second antiplatelet agent.¹ In patients on anticoagulants, anticoagulation should be resumed once hemostasis is achieved when the risk of withholding anticoagulation is thought to be greater than the risk of rebleeding. For example, anticoagulation should be resumed early in a patient with a mechanical heart valve to prevent thrombosis.^1,27 Following upper GIB from peptic ulcer disease, patients who will require long-term aspirin, DAPT, or anticoagulation with either warfarin or DOACs should be maintained on long-term PPI therapy to reduce the risk of recurrent bleeding.^9,27

Failure of Endoscopic Therapy to Control Peptic Ulcer Bleeding

Bleeding recurs in as many as 10% to 20% of patients after initial endoscopic control of peptic ulcer bleeding.^4,31 In this context, repeat upper endoscopy for hemostasis is preferred to surgery, as it leads to less morbidity while providing long-term control of bleeding in more than 70% of cases.^31,32 Two potential endoscopic rescue therapies that may be employed are over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) and hemostatic powder.^32,33

While through-the-scope (TTS) hemostatic clips are often used during endoscopy to control active peptic ulcer bleeding, their use may be limited in large or fibrotic ulcers due to the smaller size of the clips and method of application. OTSCs have several advantages over TTS clips; notably, their larger size allows the endoscopist to achieve deeper mucosal or submucosal clip attachment via suction of the targeted tissue into the endoscopic cap (Figure 2). In a systematic review of OTSCs, successful hemostasis was achieved in 84% of 761 lesions, including 75% of lesions due to peptic ulcer disease.³⁴ Some have argued that OTSCs may be preferred as first-line therapy over epinephrine with TTS clips for hemostasis in bleeding from high-risk peptic ulcers (ie, those with visualized arterial bleeding or a visible vessel) given observed decreases in rebleeding events.³⁵

Despite the advantages of OTSCs, endoscopists should be mindful of the potential complications of OTSC use, including luminal obstruction, particularly in the duodenum, and perforation, which occurs in 0.3% to 2% of cases. Additionally, retrieval of misplaced OTSCs presents a significant challenge. Careful decision-making with consideration of the location, size, and depth of lesions is required when deciding on OTSC placement.^34,36

A newer endoscopic tool developed for refractory bleeding from peptic ulcers and other causes is hemostatic powder. Hemostatic powders accelerate the coagulation cascade, leading to shortened coagulation times and enhanced clot formation.³⁷ A recent meta-analysis showed that immediate hemostasis could be achieved in 95% of cases of bleeding, including in 96% of cases of bleeding from peptic ulcer disease.³⁸ The primary limitation of hemostatic powders is the temporary nature of hemostasis, which requires the underlying etiology of bleeding to be addressed in order to provide long-term hemostasis. In the above meta-analysis, rebleeding occurred in 17% of cases after 30 days.³⁸

Hypotension and ulcer diameter ≥ 2 cm are independent predictors of failure of endoscopic salvage therapy.³¹ When severe bleeding is not controlled with initial endoscopic therapy or bleeding recurs despite salvage endoscopic therapy, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) is the treatment of choice.⁴ Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that compared TAE to surgery have shown that the rate of rebleeding may be higher with TAE, but with less morbidity and either decreased or equivalent rates of mortality, with no increased need for additional interventions.^4,32 In a case series examining 5 years of experience at a single medical center in China, massive GIB from duodenal ulcers was successfully treated with TAE in 27 of 29 cases (93% clinical success rate), with no mucosal ischemic necrosis observed.³⁹

If repeated endoscopic therapy has not led to hemostasis of a bleeding peptic ulcer and TAE is not available, then surgery is the next best option. Bleeding gastric ulcers may be excised, wedge resected, or oversewn after an anterior gastrostomy. Bleeding duodenal ulcers may require use of a Kocher maneuver and linear incision of the anterior duodenum followed by ligation of the gastroduodenal artery. Fortunately, such surgical management is rarely necessary given the availability of TAE at most centers.⁴

Conclusion

Peptic ulcer disease is a common health problem globally, with persistent challenges related to refractory ulcers, antiplatelet and anticoagulant use, and continued bleeding in the face of endoscopic therapy. These challenges should be met with adequate frequency and duration of PPI therapy, vigilant attention to and treatment of ulcer etiology, evidence-based handling of antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications, and utilization of novel endoscopic tools to obtain improved clinical outcomes.

Acknowledgment: We thank Dr. Nipun Reddy from our institution for providing the endoscopic images used in this article.

Corresponding author: Adam L. Edwards, MD, MS; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

From the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.

Abstract

Objective: To review current challenges in the management of peptic ulcer disease.

Methods: Review of the literature.

Results: Peptic ulcer disease affects 5% to 10% of the population worldwide, with recent decreases in lifetime prevalence in high-income countries. Helicobacter pylori infection and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use are the most important drivers of peptic ulcer disease. Current management strategies for peptic ulcer disease focus on ulcer healing; management of complications such as bleeding, perforation, and obstruction; and prevention of ulcer recurrence. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the cornerstone of medical therapy for peptic ulcers, and complement testing for and treatment of H. pylori infection as well as elimination of NSAID use. Although advances have been made in the medical and endoscopic treatment of peptic ulcer disease and the management of ulcer complications, such as bleeding and obstruction, challenges remain.

Conclusion: Peptic ulcer disease is a common health problem globally, with persistent challenges related to refractory ulcers, antiplatelet and anticoagulant use, and continued bleeding in the face of endoscopic therapy. These challenges should be met with PPI therapy of adequate frequency and duration, vigilant attention to and treatment of ulcer etiology, evidence-based handling of antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications, and utilization of novel endoscopic tools to obtain improved clinical outcomes.

Keywords: H. pylori; nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; NSAIDs; proton pump inhibitor; PPI; bleeding; perforation; obstruction; refractory ulcer; salvage endoscopic therapy; transcatheter angiographic embolization.

A peptic ulcer is a fibrin-covered break in the mucosa of the digestive tract extending to the submucosa that is caused by acid injury (Figure 1). Most peptic ulcers occur in the stomach or proximal duodenum, though they may also occur in the esophagus or, less frequently, in a Meckel’s diverticulum.^1,2 The estimated worldwide prevalence of peptic ulcer disease is 5% to 10%, with an annual incidence of 0.1% to 0.3%¹; both rates are declining.³ The annual incidence of peptic ulcer disease requiring medical or surgical treatment is also declining, and currently is estimated to be 0.1% to 0.2%.⁴ The lifetime prevalence of peptic ulcers has been decreasing in high-income countries since the mid-20th century due to both the widespread use of medications that suppress gastric acid secretion and the declining prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection.^1,3

Peptic ulcer disease in most individuals results from H. pylori infection, chronic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including aspirin, or both. A combination of H. pylori factors and host factors lead to mucosal disruption in infected individuals who develop peptic ulcers. H. pylori–specific factors include the expression of virulence factors such as CagA and VacA, which interact with the host inflammatory response to cause mucosal injury. The mucosal inflammatory response is at least partially determined by polymorphisms in the host’s cytokine genes.^1,4 NSAIDs inhibit the production of cyclooxygenase-1-derived prostaglandins, with subsequent decreases in epithelial mucous formation, bicarbonate secretion, cell proliferation, and mucosal blood flow, all of which are key elements in the maintenance of mucosal integrity.^1,5 Less common causes of peptic ulcers include gastrinoma, adenocarcinoma, idiopathic ulcers, use of sympathomimetic drugs (eg, cocaine or methamphetamine), certain anticancer agents, and bariatric surgery.^4,6

This article provides an overview of current management principles for peptic ulcer disease and discusses current challenges in peptic ulcer management, including proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, refractory ulcers, handling of antiplatelet and anticoagulants during and after peptic ulcer bleeding, and ulcer bleeding that continues despite salvage endoscopic therapy.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE using the term peptic ulcer disease in combination with the terms current challenges, epidemiology, bleeding, anticoagulant, antiplatelet, PPI potency, etiology, treatment, management, and refractory. We selected publications from the past 35 years that we judged to be relevant.

Current Management

The goals of peptic ulcer disease management are ulcer healing and prevention of recurrence. The primary interventions used in the management of peptic ulcer disease are medical therapy and implementation of measures that address the underlying etiology of the disease.

Medical Therapy

Introduced in the late 1980s, PPIs are the cornerstone of medical therapy for peptic ulcer disease.⁶ These agents irreversibly inhibit the H+/K+-ATPase pump in the gastric mucosa and thereby inhibit gastric acid secretion, promoting ulcer healing. PPIs improve rates of ulcer healing compared to H2-receptor antagonists.^4,7

Underlying Causes

The underlying cause of peptic ulcer disease should be addressed, in addition to initiating medical therapy. A detailed history of NSAID use should be obtained, and patients with peptic ulcers caused by NSAIDs should be counseled to avoid them, if possible. Patients with peptic ulcer disease who require long-term use of NSAIDs should be placed on long-term PPI therapy.⁶ Any patient with peptic ulcer disease, regardless of any history of H. pylori infection or treatment, should be tested for infection. Tests that identify active infection, such as urea breath test, stool antigen assay, or mucosal biopsy–based testing, are preferred to IgG antibody testing, although the latter is acceptable in the context of peptic ulcer disease with a high pretest probability of infection.⁸ Any evidence of active infection warrants appropriate treatment to allow ulcer healing and prevent recurrence.¹H. pylori infection is most often treated with clarithromycin triple therapy or bismuth quadruple therapy for 14 days, with regimens selected based on the presence or absence of penicillin allergy, prior antibiotic exposure, and local clarithromycin resistance rates, when known.^4,8

Managing Complications

An additional aspect of care in peptic ulcer disease is managing the complications of bleeding, perforation, and gastric outlet obstruction. Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is the most common complication of peptic ulcer disease, which accounts for 40% to 60% of nonvariceal acute upper GIB.^1,6 The first step in the management of acute GIB from a peptic ulcer is fluid resuscitation to ensure hemodynamic stability. If there is associated anemia with a hemoglobin level < 8 g/dL, blood transfusion should be undertaken to target a hemoglobin level > 8 g/dL. In patients with peptic ulcer disease–related acute upper GIB and comorbid cardiovascular disease, the transfusion threshold is higher, with the specific cutoff depending on clinical status, type and severity of cardiovascular disease, and degree of bleeding. Endoscopic management should generally be undertaken within 24 hours of presentation and should not be delayed in patients taking anticoagulants.⁹ Combination endoscopic treatment with through-the-scope clips plus thermocoagulation or sclerosant injection is recommended for acutely bleeding peptic ulcers with high-risk stigmata.

Pharmacologic management of patients with bleeding peptic ulcers with high-risk stigmata includes PPI therapy, with an 80 mg intravenous (IV) loading dose followed by continuous infusion of 8 mg/hr for 72 hours to reduce rebleeding and mortality. Following completion of IV therapy, oral PPI therapy should be continued twice daily for 14 days, followed by once-daily dosing thereafter.⁹Patients with peptic ulcer perforation present with sudden-onset epigastric abdominal pain and have tenderness to palpation, guarding, and rigidity on examination, often along with tachycardia and hypotension.^1,4 Computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen is 98% sensitive for identifying and localizing a perforation. Most perforations occur in the duodenum or antrum.

Management of a peptic ulcer perforation requires consultation with a surgeon to determine whether a nonoperative approach may be employed (eg, a stable patient with a contained perforation), or if surgery is indicated. The surgical approach to peptic ulcer perforation has been impacted by the clinical success of gastric acid suppression with PPIs and H. pylori eradication, but a range of surgical approaches are still used to repair perforations, from omental patch repair with peritoneal drain placement, to more extensive surgeries such as wedge resection or partial gastrectomy.⁴ Perforation carries a high mortality risk, up to 20% to 30%, and is the leading cause of death in patients with peptic ulcer disease.^1,4

Gastric outlet obstruction, a rare complication of peptic ulcer disease, results from recurrent ulcer formation and scarring. Obstruction often presents with hypovolemia and metabolic alkalosis from prolonged vomiting. CT imaging with oral contrast is often the first diagnostic test employed to demonstrate obstruction. Upper endoscopy should be performed to evaluate the appearance and degree of obstruction as well as to obtain biopsies to evaluate for a malignant etiology of the ulcer disease. Endoscopic balloon dilation has become the cornerstone of initial therapy for obstruction from peptic ulcer disease, especially in the case of ulcers due to reversible causes. Surgery is now typically reserved for cases of refractory obstruction, after repeated endoscopic balloon dilation has failed to remove the obstruction. However, because nearly all patients with gastric outlet obstruction present with malnutrition, nutritional deficiencies should be addressed prior to the patient undergoing surgical intervention. Surgical options include pyloroplasty, antrectomy, and gastrojejunostomy.⁴

Current Challenges

Rapid Metabolism of PPIs

High-dose PPI therapy is a key component of therapy for peptic ulcer healing. PPIs are metabolized by the cytochrome P450 system, which is comprised of multiple isoenzymes. CYP2C19, an isoenzyme involved in PPI metabolism, has 21 polymorphisms, which have variable effects leading to ultra-rapid, extensive, intermediate, or poor metabolism of PPIs.¹⁰ With rapid metabolism of PPIs, standard dosing can result in inadequate suppression of acid secretion. Despite this knowledge, routine testing of CYP2C19 phenotype is not recommended due to the cost of testing. Instead, inadequate ulcer healing should prompt consideration of increased PPI dosing to 80 mg orally twice daily, which may be sufficient to overcome rapid PPI metabolism.¹¹

Relative Potency of PPIs

In addition to variation in PPI metabolism, the relative potency of various PPIs has been questioned. A review of all available clinical studies of the effects of PPIs on mean 24-hour intragastric pH reported a quantitative difference in the potency of 5 PPIs, with omeprazole as the reference standard. Potencies ranged from 0.23 omeprazole equivalents for pantoprazole to 1.82 omeprazole equivalents for rabeprazole.¹² An additional study of data from 56 randomized clinical trials confirmed that PPIs vary in potency, which was measured as time that gastric pH is less than 4. A linear increase in intragastric pH time less than 4 was observed from 9 to 64 mg omeprazole equivalents; higher doses yielded no additional benefit. An increase in PPI dosing from once daily to twice daily also increased the duration of intragastric pH time less than 4 from 15 to 21 hours.¹³ Earlier modeling of the relationship between duodenal ulcer healing and antisecretory therapy showed a strong correlation of ulcer healing with the duration of acid suppression, length of therapy, and the degree of acid suppression. Additional benefit was not observed after intragastric pH rose above 3.¹⁴ Thus, as the frequency and duration of acid suppression therapy are more important than PPI potency, PPIs can be used interchangeably.^13,14

Addressing Underlying Causes

Continued NSAID Use. Refractory peptic ulcers are defined as those that do not heal despite adherence to 8 to 12 weeks of standard acid-suppression therapy. A cause of refractory peptic ulcer disease that must be considered is continued NSAID use.^1,15 In a study of patients with refractory peptic ulcers, 27% of patients continued NSAID use, as determined by eventual disclosure by the patients or platelet cyclooxygenase activity assay, despite extensive counseling to avoid NSAIDs at the time of the diagnosis of their refractory ulcer and at subsequent visits.¹⁶ Pain may make NSAID cessation difficult for some patients, while others do not realize that over-the-counter preparations they take contain NSAIDs.¹⁵

Another group of patients with continued NSAID exposure are those who require long-term NSAID therapy for control of arthritis or the management of cardiovascular conditions. If NSAID therapy cannot be discontinued, the risk of NSAID-related gastrointestinal injury can be assessed based on the presence of multiple risk factors, including age > 65 years, high-dose NSAID therapy, a history of peptic ulcer, and concurrent use of aspirin, corticosteroids, or anticoagulants. Individuals with 3 or more of the preceding risk factors or a history of a peptic ulcer with a complication, especially if recent, are considered to be at high risk of developing an NSAID-related ulcer and possible subsequent complications.¹⁷ In these individuals, NSAID therapy should be continued with agents that have the lowest risk for gastrointestinal toxicity and at the lowest possible dose. A meta-analysis comparing nonselective NSAIDs to placebo demonstrated naproxen to have the highest risk of gastrointestinal complications, including GIB, perforation, and obstruction (adjusted rate ratio, 4.2), while diclofenac demonstrated the lowest risk (adjusted rate ratio, 1.89). High-dose NSAID therapy demonstrated a 2-fold increase in risk of peptic ulcer formation as compared to low-dose therapy.¹⁸

In addition to selecting the NSAID with the least gastrointestinal toxicity at the lowest possible dose, additional strategies to prevent peptic ulcer disease and its complications in chronic NSAID users include co-administration of a PPI and substitution of a COX-2 selective NSAID for nonselective NSAIDs.^1,9 Prior double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter trials with patients requiring daily NSAIDs demonstrated an up to 15% absolute reduction in the risk of developing peptic ulcers over 6 months while taking esomeprazole.¹⁹

Persistent Infection. Persistent H. pylori infection, due either to initial false-negative testing or ongoing infection despite first-line therapy, is another cause of refractory peptic ulcer disease.^1,15 Because antibiotics and PPIs can reduce the number of H. pylori bacteria, use of these medications concurrent with H. pylori testing can lead to false-negative results with several testing modalities. When suspicion for H. pylori is high, 2 or more diagnostic tests may be needed to effectively rule out infection.¹⁵

When H. pylori is detected, successful eradication is becoming more difficult due to an increasing prevalence of antibiotic resistance, leading to persistent infection in many cases and maintained risk of peptic ulcer disease, despite appropriate first-line therapy.⁸ Options for salvage therapy for persistent H. pylori, as well as information on the role and best timing of susceptibility testing, are beyond the scope of this review, but are reviewed by Lanas and Chan¹ and in the American College of Gastroenterology guideline on the treatment of H. pylori infection.⁸

Other Causes. In a meta-analysis of rigorously designed studies from North America, 20% of patients experienced ulcer recurrence at 6 months, despite successful H. pylori eradication and no NSAID use.²⁰ In addition, as H. pylori prevalence is decreasing, idiopathic ulcers are increasingly being diagnosed, and such ulcers may be associated with high rates of GIB and mortality.¹ In this subset of patients with non-H. pylori, non-NSAID ulcers, increased effort is required to further evaluate the differential diagnosis for rarer causes of upper GI tract ulcer disease (Table). Certain malignancies, including adenocarcinoma and lymphoma, can cause ulcer formation and should be considered in refractory cases. Repeat biopsy at follow-up endoscopy for persistent ulcers should always be obtained to further evaluate for malignancy.^1,15 Infectious diseases other than H. pylori infection, such as tuberculosis, syphilis, cytomegalovirus, and herpes simplex virus, are also reported as etiologies of refractory ulcers, and require specific antimicrobial treatment over and above PPI monotherapy. Special attention in biopsy sampling and sample processing is often required when infectious etiologies are being considered, as specific histologic stains and cultures may be needed for identification.¹⁵

Systemic conditions, including sarcoidosis,²¹ Behçet disease,²² and polyarteritis nodosa,^15,23 can also cause refractory ulcers. Approximately 15% of patients with Crohn disease have gastroduodenal involvement, which may include ulcers of variable sizes.^1,15,24 The increased gastric acid production seen in Zollinger-Ellison syndrome commonly presents as refractory peptic ulcers in the duodenum beyond the bulb that do not heal with standard doses of PPIs.^1,15 More rare causes of acid hypersecretion leading to refractory ulcers include idiopathic gastric acid hypersecretion and retained gastric antrum syndrome after partial gastrectomy with Billroth II anastomosis.¹⁵ Smoking is a known risk factor for impaired tissue healing throughout the body, and can contribute to impaired healing of peptic ulcers through decreased prostaglandin synthesis²⁵ and reduced gastric mucosal blood flow.²⁶ Smoking should always be addressed in patients with refractory peptic ulcers, and cessation should be strongly encouraged. Other less common causes of refractory upper GI tract ulcers include radiation therapy, crack cocaine use, and mesenteric ischemia.¹⁵

Managing Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Medications

Use of antiplatelets and anticoagulants, alone or in combination, increases the risk of peptic ulcer bleeding. In patients who continue to take aspirin after a peptic ulcer bleed, recurrent bleeding occurs in up to 300 cases per 1000 person-years. The rate of GIB associated with aspirin use ranges from 1.1% to 2.5%, depending on the dose. Prior peptic ulcer disease, age greater than 70 years, and concurrent NSAID, steroid, anticoagulant, or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) use increase the risk of bleeding while on aspirin. The rate of GIB while taking a thienopyridine alone is slightly less than that when taking aspirin, ranging from 0.5% to 1.6%. Studies to date have yielded mixed estimates of the effect of DAPT on the risk of GIB. Estimates of the risk of GIB with DAPT range from an odds ratio for serious GIB of 7.4 to an absolute risk increase of only 1.3% when compared to clopidogrel alone.²⁷

Many patients are also on warfarin or a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC). In a study from the United Kingdom, the adjusted rate ratio of GIB with warfarin alone was 1.94, and this increased to 6.48 when warfarin was used with aspirin.²⁸ The use of warfarin and DAPT, often called triple therapy, further increases the risk of GIB, with a hazard ratio of 5.0 compared to DAPT alone, and 5.38 when compared to warfarin alone. DOACs are increasingly prescribed for the treatment and prevention of thromboembolism, and by 2014 were prescribed as often as warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation in the United States. A meta-analysis showed the risk of major GIB did not differ between DOACs and warfarin or low-molecular-weight heparin, but among DOACs factor Xa inhibitors showed a reduced risk of GIB compared with dabigatran, a direct thrombin inhibitor.²⁹

The use of antiplatelets and anticoagulants in the context of peptic ulcer bleeding is a current management challenge. Data to guide decision-making in patients on antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant therapy who experience peptic ulcer bleeding are scarce. Decision-making in this group of patients requires balancing the severity and risk of bleeding with the risk of thromboembolism.^1,27 In patients on antiplatelet therapy for primary prophylaxis of atherothrombosis who develop bleeding from a peptic ulcer, the antiplatelet should generally be held and the indication for the medication reassessed. In patients on antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention, the agent may be immediately resumed after endoscopy if bleeding is found to be due to an ulcer with low-risk stigmata. With bleeding resulting from an ulcer with high-risk stigmata, antiplatelet agents employed for secondary prevention may be held initially, with consideration given to early reintroduction, as early as day 3 after endoscopy.¹ In patients at high risk for atherothrombotic events, including those on aspirin for secondary prophylaxis, withholding aspirin leads to a 3-fold increase in the risk of a major adverse cardiac event, with events occurring as early as 5 days after aspirin cessation in some cases.²⁷ A randomized controlled trial of continuing low-dose aspirin versus withholding it for 8 weeks in patients on aspirin for secondary prophylaxis of cardiovascular events who experienced peptic ulcer bleeding that required endoscopic therapy demonstrated lower all-cause mortality (1.3% vs 12.9%), including death from cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, among those who continued aspirin therapy, with a small increased risk of recurrent ulcer bleeding (10.3% vs 5.4%).³⁰ Thus, it is recommended that antiplatelet therapy, when held, be resumed as early as possible when the risk of a cardiovascular or cerebrovascular event is considered to be higher than the risk of bleeding.²⁷

When patients are on DAPT for a history of drug-eluting stent placement, withholding both antiplatelet medications should be avoided, even for a brief period of time, given the risk of in-stent thrombosis. When DAPT is employed for other reasons, it should be continued, if indicated, after bleeding that is found to be due to peptic ulcers with low-risk stigmata. If bleeding is due to a peptic ulcer with high-risk stigmata at endoscopy, then aspirin monotherapy should be continued and consultation should be obtained with a cardiologist to determine optimal timing to resume the second antiplatelet agent.¹ In patients on anticoagulants, anticoagulation should be resumed once hemostasis is achieved when the risk of withholding anticoagulation is thought to be greater than the risk of rebleeding. For example, anticoagulation should be resumed early in a patient with a mechanical heart valve to prevent thrombosis.^1,27 Following upper GIB from peptic ulcer disease, patients who will require long-term aspirin, DAPT, or anticoagulation with either warfarin or DOACs should be maintained on long-term PPI therapy to reduce the risk of recurrent bleeding.^9,27

Failure of Endoscopic Therapy to Control Peptic Ulcer Bleeding

Bleeding recurs in as many as 10% to 20% of patients after initial endoscopic control of peptic ulcer bleeding.^4,31 In this context, repeat upper endoscopy for hemostasis is preferred to surgery, as it leads to less morbidity while providing long-term control of bleeding in more than 70% of cases.^31,32 Two potential endoscopic rescue therapies that may be employed are over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) and hemostatic powder.^32,33

While through-the-scope (TTS) hemostatic clips are often used during endoscopy to control active peptic ulcer bleeding, their use may be limited in large or fibrotic ulcers due to the smaller size of the clips and method of application. OTSCs have several advantages over TTS clips; notably, their larger size allows the endoscopist to achieve deeper mucosal or submucosal clip attachment via suction of the targeted tissue into the endoscopic cap (Figure 2). In a systematic review of OTSCs, successful hemostasis was achieved in 84% of 761 lesions, including 75% of lesions due to peptic ulcer disease.³⁴ Some have argued that OTSCs may be preferred as first-line therapy over epinephrine with TTS clips for hemostasis in bleeding from high-risk peptic ulcers (ie, those with visualized arterial bleeding or a visible vessel) given observed decreases in rebleeding events.³⁵

Despite the advantages of OTSCs, endoscopists should be mindful of the potential complications of OTSC use, including luminal obstruction, particularly in the duodenum, and perforation, which occurs in 0.3% to 2% of cases. Additionally, retrieval of misplaced OTSCs presents a significant challenge. Careful decision-making with consideration of the location, size, and depth of lesions is required when deciding on OTSC placement.^34,36

A newer endoscopic tool developed for refractory bleeding from peptic ulcers and other causes is hemostatic powder. Hemostatic powders accelerate the coagulation cascade, leading to shortened coagulation times and enhanced clot formation.³⁷ A recent meta-analysis showed that immediate hemostasis could be achieved in 95% of cases of bleeding, including in 96% of cases of bleeding from peptic ulcer disease.³⁸ The primary limitation of hemostatic powders is the temporary nature of hemostasis, which requires the underlying etiology of bleeding to be addressed in order to provide long-term hemostasis. In the above meta-analysis, rebleeding occurred in 17% of cases after 30 days.³⁸

Hypotension and ulcer diameter ≥ 2 cm are independent predictors of failure of endoscopic salvage therapy.³¹ When severe bleeding is not controlled with initial endoscopic therapy or bleeding recurs despite salvage endoscopic therapy, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) is the treatment of choice.⁴ Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that compared TAE to surgery have shown that the rate of rebleeding may be higher with TAE, but with less morbidity and either decreased or equivalent rates of mortality, with no increased need for additional interventions.^4,32 In a case series examining 5 years of experience at a single medical center in China, massive GIB from duodenal ulcers was successfully treated with TAE in 27 of 29 cases (93% clinical success rate), with no mucosal ischemic necrosis observed.³⁹

If repeated endoscopic therapy has not led to hemostasis of a bleeding peptic ulcer and TAE is not available, then surgery is the next best option. Bleeding gastric ulcers may be excised, wedge resected, or oversewn after an anterior gastrostomy. Bleeding duodenal ulcers may require use of a Kocher maneuver and linear incision of the anterior duodenum followed by ligation of the gastroduodenal artery. Fortunately, such surgical management is rarely necessary given the availability of TAE at most centers.⁴

Conclusion

Peptic ulcer disease is a common health problem globally, with persistent challenges related to refractory ulcers, antiplatelet and anticoagulant use, and continued bleeding in the face of endoscopic therapy. These challenges should be met with adequate frequency and duration of PPI therapy, vigilant attention to and treatment of ulcer etiology, evidence-based handling of antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications, and utilization of novel endoscopic tools to obtain improved clinical outcomes.

Acknowledgment: We thank Dr. Nipun Reddy from our institution for providing the endoscopic images used in this article.

Corresponding author: Adam L. Edwards, MD, MS; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

From the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.

Abstract

Objective: To review current challenges in the management of peptic ulcer disease.

Methods: Review of the literature.

Results: Peptic ulcer disease affects 5% to 10% of the population worldwide, with recent decreases in lifetime prevalence in high-income countries. Helicobacter pylori infection and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use are the most important drivers of peptic ulcer disease. Current management strategies for peptic ulcer disease focus on ulcer healing; management of complications such as bleeding, perforation, and obstruction; and prevention of ulcer recurrence. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the cornerstone of medical therapy for peptic ulcers, and complement testing for and treatment of H. pylori infection as well as elimination of NSAID use. Although advances have been made in the medical and endoscopic treatment of peptic ulcer disease and the management of ulcer complications, such as bleeding and obstruction, challenges remain.

Conclusion: Peptic ulcer disease is a common health problem globally, with persistent challenges related to refractory ulcers, antiplatelet and anticoagulant use, and continued bleeding in the face of endoscopic therapy. These challenges should be met with PPI therapy of adequate frequency and duration, vigilant attention to and treatment of ulcer etiology, evidence-based handling of antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications, and utilization of novel endoscopic tools to obtain improved clinical outcomes.

Keywords: H. pylori; nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; NSAIDs; proton pump inhibitor; PPI; bleeding; perforation; obstruction; refractory ulcer; salvage endoscopic therapy; transcatheter angiographic embolization.

A peptic ulcer is a fibrin-covered break in the mucosa of the digestive tract extending to the submucosa that is caused by acid injury (Figure 1). Most peptic ulcers occur in the stomach or proximal duodenum, though they may also occur in the esophagus or, less frequently, in a Meckel’s diverticulum.^1,2 The estimated worldwide prevalence of peptic ulcer disease is 5% to 10%, with an annual incidence of 0.1% to 0.3%¹; both rates are declining.³ The annual incidence of peptic ulcer disease requiring medical or surgical treatment is also declining, and currently is estimated to be 0.1% to 0.2%.⁴ The lifetime prevalence of peptic ulcers has been decreasing in high-income countries since the mid-20th century due to both the widespread use of medications that suppress gastric acid secretion and the declining prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection.^1,3

Peptic ulcer disease in most individuals results from H. pylori infection, chronic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including aspirin, or both. A combination of H. pylori factors and host factors lead to mucosal disruption in infected individuals who develop peptic ulcers. H. pylori–specific factors include the expression of virulence factors such as CagA and VacA, which interact with the host inflammatory response to cause mucosal injury. The mucosal inflammatory response is at least partially determined by polymorphisms in the host’s cytokine genes.^1,4 NSAIDs inhibit the production of cyclooxygenase-1-derived prostaglandins, with subsequent decreases in epithelial mucous formation, bicarbonate secretion, cell proliferation, and mucosal blood flow, all of which are key elements in the maintenance of mucosal integrity.^1,5 Less common causes of peptic ulcers include gastrinoma, adenocarcinoma, idiopathic ulcers, use of sympathomimetic drugs (eg, cocaine or methamphetamine), certain anticancer agents, and bariatric surgery.^4,6

This article provides an overview of current management principles for peptic ulcer disease and discusses current challenges in peptic ulcer management, including proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, refractory ulcers, handling of antiplatelet and anticoagulants during and after peptic ulcer bleeding, and ulcer bleeding that continues despite salvage endoscopic therapy.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE using the term peptic ulcer disease in combination with the terms current challenges, epidemiology, bleeding, anticoagulant, antiplatelet, PPI potency, etiology, treatment, management, and refractory. We selected publications from the past 35 years that we judged to be relevant.

Current Management

The goals of peptic ulcer disease management are ulcer healing and prevention of recurrence. The primary interventions used in the management of peptic ulcer disease are medical therapy and implementation of measures that address the underlying etiology of the disease.

Medical Therapy

Introduced in the late 1980s, PPIs are the cornerstone of medical therapy for peptic ulcer disease.⁶ These agents irreversibly inhibit the H+/K+-ATPase pump in the gastric mucosa and thereby inhibit gastric acid secretion, promoting ulcer healing. PPIs improve rates of ulcer healing compared to H2-receptor antagonists.^4,7

Underlying Causes

The underlying cause of peptic ulcer disease should be addressed, in addition to initiating medical therapy. A detailed history of NSAID use should be obtained, and patients with peptic ulcers caused by NSAIDs should be counseled to avoid them, if possible. Patients with peptic ulcer disease who require long-term use of NSAIDs should be placed on long-term PPI therapy.⁶ Any patient with peptic ulcer disease, regardless of any history of H. pylori infection or treatment, should be tested for infection. Tests that identify active infection, such as urea breath test, stool antigen assay, or mucosal biopsy–based testing, are preferred to IgG antibody testing, although the latter is acceptable in the context of peptic ulcer disease with a high pretest probability of infection.⁸ Any evidence of active infection warrants appropriate treatment to allow ulcer healing and prevent recurrence.¹H. pylori infection is most often treated with clarithromycin triple therapy or bismuth quadruple therapy for 14 days, with regimens selected based on the presence or absence of penicillin allergy, prior antibiotic exposure, and local clarithromycin resistance rates, when known.^4,8

Managing Complications

An additional aspect of care in peptic ulcer disease is managing the complications of bleeding, perforation, and gastric outlet obstruction. Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is the most common complication of peptic ulcer disease, which accounts for 40% to 60% of nonvariceal acute upper GIB.^1,6 The first step in the management of acute GIB from a peptic ulcer is fluid resuscitation to ensure hemodynamic stability. If there is associated anemia with a hemoglobin level < 8 g/dL, blood transfusion should be undertaken to target a hemoglobin level > 8 g/dL. In patients with peptic ulcer disease–related acute upper GIB and comorbid cardiovascular disease, the transfusion threshold is higher, with the specific cutoff depending on clinical status, type and severity of cardiovascular disease, and degree of bleeding. Endoscopic management should generally be undertaken within 24 hours of presentation and should not be delayed in patients taking anticoagulants.⁹ Combination endoscopic treatment with through-the-scope clips plus thermocoagulation or sclerosant injection is recommended for acutely bleeding peptic ulcers with high-risk stigmata.

Pharmacologic management of patients with bleeding peptic ulcers with high-risk stigmata includes PPI therapy, with an 80 mg intravenous (IV) loading dose followed by continuous infusion of 8 mg/hr for 72 hours to reduce rebleeding and mortality. Following completion of IV therapy, oral PPI therapy should be continued twice daily for 14 days, followed by once-daily dosing thereafter.⁹Patients with peptic ulcer perforation present with sudden-onset epigastric abdominal pain and have tenderness to palpation, guarding, and rigidity on examination, often along with tachycardia and hypotension.^1,4 Computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen is 98% sensitive for identifying and localizing a perforation. Most perforations occur in the duodenum or antrum.

Management of a peptic ulcer perforation requires consultation with a surgeon to determine whether a nonoperative approach may be employed (eg, a stable patient with a contained perforation), or if surgery is indicated. The surgical approach to peptic ulcer perforation has been impacted by the clinical success of gastric acid suppression with PPIs and H. pylori eradication, but a range of surgical approaches are still used to repair perforations, from omental patch repair with peritoneal drain placement, to more extensive surgeries such as wedge resection or partial gastrectomy.⁴ Perforation carries a high mortality risk, up to 20% to 30%, and is the leading cause of death in patients with peptic ulcer disease.^1,4

Gastric outlet obstruction, a rare complication of peptic ulcer disease, results from recurrent ulcer formation and scarring. Obstruction often presents with hypovolemia and metabolic alkalosis from prolonged vomiting. CT imaging with oral contrast is often the first diagnostic test employed to demonstrate obstruction. Upper endoscopy should be performed to evaluate the appearance and degree of obstruction as well as to obtain biopsies to evaluate for a malignant etiology of the ulcer disease. Endoscopic balloon dilation has become the cornerstone of initial therapy for obstruction from peptic ulcer disease, especially in the case of ulcers due to reversible causes. Surgery is now typically reserved for cases of refractory obstruction, after repeated endoscopic balloon dilation has failed to remove the obstruction. However, because nearly all patients with gastric outlet obstruction present with malnutrition, nutritional deficiencies should be addressed prior to the patient undergoing surgical intervention. Surgical options include pyloroplasty, antrectomy, and gastrojejunostomy.⁴

Current Challenges

Rapid Metabolism of PPIs

High-dose PPI therapy is a key component of therapy for peptic ulcer healing. PPIs are metabolized by the cytochrome P450 system, which is comprised of multiple isoenzymes. CYP2C19, an isoenzyme involved in PPI metabolism, has 21 polymorphisms, which have variable effects leading to ultra-rapid, extensive, intermediate, or poor metabolism of PPIs.¹⁰ With rapid metabolism of PPIs, standard dosing can result in inadequate suppression of acid secretion. Despite this knowledge, routine testing of CYP2C19 phenotype is not recommended due to the cost of testing. Instead, inadequate ulcer healing should prompt consideration of increased PPI dosing to 80 mg orally twice daily, which may be sufficient to overcome rapid PPI metabolism.¹¹

Relative Potency of PPIs

In addition to variation in PPI metabolism, the relative potency of various PPIs has been questioned. A review of all available clinical studies of the effects of PPIs on mean 24-hour intragastric pH reported a quantitative difference in the potency of 5 PPIs, with omeprazole as the reference standard. Potencies ranged from 0.23 omeprazole equivalents for pantoprazole to 1.82 omeprazole equivalents for rabeprazole.¹² An additional study of data from 56 randomized clinical trials confirmed that PPIs vary in potency, which was measured as time that gastric pH is less than 4. A linear increase in intragastric pH time less than 4 was observed from 9 to 64 mg omeprazole equivalents; higher doses yielded no additional benefit. An increase in PPI dosing from once daily to twice daily also increased the duration of intragastric pH time less than 4 from 15 to 21 hours.¹³ Earlier modeling of the relationship between duodenal ulcer healing and antisecretory therapy showed a strong correlation of ulcer healing with the duration of acid suppression, length of therapy, and the degree of acid suppression. Additional benefit was not observed after intragastric pH rose above 3.¹⁴ Thus, as the frequency and duration of acid suppression therapy are more important than PPI potency, PPIs can be used interchangeably.^13,14

Addressing Underlying Causes

Continued NSAID Use. Refractory peptic ulcers are defined as those that do not heal despite adherence to 8 to 12 weeks of standard acid-suppression therapy. A cause of refractory peptic ulcer disease that must be considered is continued NSAID use.^1,15 In a study of patients with refractory peptic ulcers, 27% of patients continued NSAID use, as determined by eventual disclosure by the patients or platelet cyclooxygenase activity assay, despite extensive counseling to avoid NSAIDs at the time of the diagnosis of their refractory ulcer and at subsequent visits.¹⁶ Pain may make NSAID cessation difficult for some patients, while others do not realize that over-the-counter preparations they take contain NSAIDs.¹⁵

Another group of patients with continued NSAID exposure are those who require long-term NSAID therapy for control of arthritis or the management of cardiovascular conditions. If NSAID therapy cannot be discontinued, the risk of NSAID-related gastrointestinal injury can be assessed based on the presence of multiple risk factors, including age > 65 years, high-dose NSAID therapy, a history of peptic ulcer, and concurrent use of aspirin, corticosteroids, or anticoagulants. Individuals with 3 or more of the preceding risk factors or a history of a peptic ulcer with a complication, especially if recent, are considered to be at high risk of developing an NSAID-related ulcer and possible subsequent complications.¹⁷ In these individuals, NSAID therapy should be continued with agents that have the lowest risk for gastrointestinal toxicity and at the lowest possible dose. A meta-analysis comparing nonselective NSAIDs to placebo demonstrated naproxen to have the highest risk of gastrointestinal complications, including GIB, perforation, and obstruction (adjusted rate ratio, 4.2), while diclofenac demonstrated the lowest risk (adjusted rate ratio, 1.89). High-dose NSAID therapy demonstrated a 2-fold increase in risk of peptic ulcer formation as compared to low-dose therapy.¹⁸

In addition to selecting the NSAID with the least gastrointestinal toxicity at the lowest possible dose, additional strategies to prevent peptic ulcer disease and its complications in chronic NSAID users include co-administration of a PPI and substitution of a COX-2 selective NSAID for nonselective NSAIDs.^1,9 Prior double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter trials with patients requiring daily NSAIDs demonstrated an up to 15% absolute reduction in the risk of developing peptic ulcers over 6 months while taking esomeprazole.¹⁹

Persistent Infection. Persistent H. pylori infection, due either to initial false-negative testing or ongoing infection despite first-line therapy, is another cause of refractory peptic ulcer disease.^1,15 Because antibiotics and PPIs can reduce the number of H. pylori bacteria, use of these medications concurrent with H. pylori testing can lead to false-negative results with several testing modalities. When suspicion for H. pylori is high, 2 or more diagnostic tests may be needed to effectively rule out infection.¹⁵

When H. pylori is detected, successful eradication is becoming more difficult due to an increasing prevalence of antibiotic resistance, leading to persistent infection in many cases and maintained risk of peptic ulcer disease, despite appropriate first-line therapy.⁸ Options for salvage therapy for persistent H. pylori, as well as information on the role and best timing of susceptibility testing, are beyond the scope of this review, but are reviewed by Lanas and Chan¹ and in the American College of Gastroenterology guideline on the treatment of H. pylori infection.⁸

Other Causes. In a meta-analysis of rigorously designed studies from North America, 20% of patients experienced ulcer recurrence at 6 months, despite successful H. pylori eradication and no NSAID use.²⁰ In addition, as H. pylori prevalence is decreasing, idiopathic ulcers are increasingly being diagnosed, and such ulcers may be associated with high rates of GIB and mortality.¹ In this subset of patients with non-H. pylori, non-NSAID ulcers, increased effort is required to further evaluate the differential diagnosis for rarer causes of upper GI tract ulcer disease (Table). Certain malignancies, including adenocarcinoma and lymphoma, can cause ulcer formation and should be considered in refractory cases. Repeat biopsy at follow-up endoscopy for persistent ulcers should always be obtained to further evaluate for malignancy.^1,15 Infectious diseases other than H. pylori infection, such as tuberculosis, syphilis, cytomegalovirus, and herpes simplex virus, are also reported as etiologies of refractory ulcers, and require specific antimicrobial treatment over and above PPI monotherapy. Special attention in biopsy sampling and sample processing is often required when infectious etiologies are being considered, as specific histologic stains and cultures may be needed for identification.¹⁵

Systemic conditions, including sarcoidosis,²¹ Behçet disease,²² and polyarteritis nodosa,^15,23 can also cause refractory ulcers. Approximately 15% of patients with Crohn disease have gastroduodenal involvement, which may include ulcers of variable sizes.^1,15,24 The increased gastric acid production seen in Zollinger-Ellison syndrome commonly presents as refractory peptic ulcers in the duodenum beyond the bulb that do not heal with standard doses of PPIs.^1,15 More rare causes of acid hypersecretion leading to refractory ulcers include idiopathic gastric acid hypersecretion and retained gastric antrum syndrome after partial gastrectomy with Billroth II anastomosis.¹⁵ Smoking is a known risk factor for impaired tissue healing throughout the body, and can contribute to impaired healing of peptic ulcers through decreased prostaglandin synthesis²⁵ and reduced gastric mucosal blood flow.²⁶ Smoking should always be addressed in patients with refractory peptic ulcers, and cessation should be strongly encouraged. Other less common causes of refractory upper GI tract ulcers include radiation therapy, crack cocaine use, and mesenteric ischemia.¹⁵

Managing Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Medications

Use of antiplatelets and anticoagulants, alone or in combination, increases the risk of peptic ulcer bleeding. In patients who continue to take aspirin after a peptic ulcer bleed, recurrent bleeding occurs in up to 300 cases per 1000 person-years. The rate of GIB associated with aspirin use ranges from 1.1% to 2.5%, depending on the dose. Prior peptic ulcer disease, age greater than 70 years, and concurrent NSAID, steroid, anticoagulant, or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) use increase the risk of bleeding while on aspirin. The rate of GIB while taking a thienopyridine alone is slightly less than that when taking aspirin, ranging from 0.5% to 1.6%. Studies to date have yielded mixed estimates of the effect of DAPT on the risk of GIB. Estimates of the risk of GIB with DAPT range from an odds ratio for serious GIB of 7.4 to an absolute risk increase of only 1.3% when compared to clopidogrel alone.²⁷

Many patients are also on warfarin or a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC). In a study from the United Kingdom, the adjusted rate ratio of GIB with warfarin alone was 1.94, and this increased to 6.48 when warfarin was used with aspirin.²⁸ The use of warfarin and DAPT, often called triple therapy, further increases the risk of GIB, with a hazard ratio of 5.0 compared to DAPT alone, and 5.38 when compared to warfarin alone. DOACs are increasingly prescribed for the treatment and prevention of thromboembolism, and by 2014 were prescribed as often as warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation in the United States. A meta-analysis showed the risk of major GIB did not differ between DOACs and warfarin or low-molecular-weight heparin, but among DOACs factor Xa inhibitors showed a reduced risk of GIB compared with dabigatran, a direct thrombin inhibitor.²⁹

The use of antiplatelets and anticoagulants in the context of peptic ulcer bleeding is a current management challenge. Data to guide decision-making in patients on antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant therapy who experience peptic ulcer bleeding are scarce. Decision-making in this group of patients requires balancing the severity and risk of bleeding with the risk of thromboembolism.^1,27 In patients on antiplatelet therapy for primary prophylaxis of atherothrombosis who develop bleeding from a peptic ulcer, the antiplatelet should generally be held and the indication for the medication reassessed. In patients on antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention, the agent may be immediately resumed after endoscopy if bleeding is found to be due to an ulcer with low-risk stigmata. With bleeding resulting from an ulcer with high-risk stigmata, antiplatelet agents employed for secondary prevention may be held initially, with consideration given to early reintroduction, as early as day 3 after endoscopy.¹ In patients at high risk for atherothrombotic events, including those on aspirin for secondary prophylaxis, withholding aspirin leads to a 3-fold increase in the risk of a major adverse cardiac event, with events occurring as early as 5 days after aspirin cessation in some cases.²⁷ A randomized controlled trial of continuing low-dose aspirin versus withholding it for 8 weeks in patients on aspirin for secondary prophylaxis of cardiovascular events who experienced peptic ulcer bleeding that required endoscopic therapy demonstrated lower all-cause mortality (1.3% vs 12.9%), including death from cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, among those who continued aspirin therapy, with a small increased risk of recurrent ulcer bleeding (10.3% vs 5.4%).³⁰ Thus, it is recommended that antiplatelet therapy, when held, be resumed as early as possible when the risk of a cardiovascular or cerebrovascular event is considered to be higher than the risk of bleeding.²⁷

When patients are on DAPT for a history of drug-eluting stent placement, withholding both antiplatelet medications should be avoided, even for a brief period of time, given the risk of in-stent thrombosis. When DAPT is employed for other reasons, it should be continued, if indicated, after bleeding that is found to be due to peptic ulcers with low-risk stigmata. If bleeding is due to a peptic ulcer with high-risk stigmata at endoscopy, then aspirin monotherapy should be continued and consultation should be obtained with a cardiologist to determine optimal timing to resume the second antiplatelet agent.¹ In patients on anticoagulants, anticoagulation should be resumed once hemostasis is achieved when the risk of withholding anticoagulation is thought to be greater than the risk of rebleeding. For example, anticoagulation should be resumed early in a patient with a mechanical heart valve to prevent thrombosis.^1,27 Following upper GIB from peptic ulcer disease, patients who will require long-term aspirin, DAPT, or anticoagulation with either warfarin or DOACs should be maintained on long-term PPI therapy to reduce the risk of recurrent bleeding.^9,27

Failure of Endoscopic Therapy to Control Peptic Ulcer Bleeding

Bleeding recurs in as many as 10% to 20% of patients after initial endoscopic control of peptic ulcer bleeding.^4,31 In this context, repeat upper endoscopy for hemostasis is preferred to surgery, as it leads to less morbidity while providing long-term control of bleeding in more than 70% of cases.^31,32 Two potential endoscopic rescue therapies that may be employed are over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) and hemostatic powder.^32,33

While through-the-scope (TTS) hemostatic clips are often used during endoscopy to control active peptic ulcer bleeding, their use may be limited in large or fibrotic ulcers due to the smaller size of the clips and method of application. OTSCs have several advantages over TTS clips; notably, their larger size allows the endoscopist to achieve deeper mucosal or submucosal clip attachment via suction of the targeted tissue into the endoscopic cap (Figure 2). In a systematic review of OTSCs, successful hemostasis was achieved in 84% of 761 lesions, including 75% of lesions due to peptic ulcer disease.³⁴ Some have argued that OTSCs may be preferred as first-line therapy over epinephrine with TTS clips for hemostasis in bleeding from high-risk peptic ulcers (ie, those with visualized arterial bleeding or a visible vessel) given observed decreases in rebleeding events.³⁵

Despite the advantages of OTSCs, endoscopists should be mindful of the potential complications of OTSC use, including luminal obstruction, particularly in the duodenum, and perforation, which occurs in 0.3% to 2% of cases. Additionally, retrieval of misplaced OTSCs presents a significant challenge. Careful decision-making with consideration of the location, size, and depth of lesions is required when deciding on OTSC placement.^34,36

A newer endoscopic tool developed for refractory bleeding from peptic ulcers and other causes is hemostatic powder. Hemostatic powders accelerate the coagulation cascade, leading to shortened coagulation times and enhanced clot formation.³⁷ A recent meta-analysis showed that immediate hemostasis could be achieved in 95% of cases of bleeding, including in 96% of cases of bleeding from peptic ulcer disease.³⁸ The primary limitation of hemostatic powders is the temporary nature of hemostasis, which requires the underlying etiology of bleeding to be addressed in order to provide long-term hemostasis. In the above meta-analysis, rebleeding occurred in 17% of cases after 30 days.³⁸

Hypotension and ulcer diameter ≥ 2 cm are independent predictors of failure of endoscopic salvage therapy.³¹ When severe bleeding is not controlled with initial endoscopic therapy or bleeding recurs despite salvage endoscopic therapy, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) is the treatment of choice.⁴ Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that compared TAE to surgery have shown that the rate of rebleeding may be higher with TAE, but with less morbidity and either decreased or equivalent rates of mortality, with no increased need for additional interventions.^4,32 In a case series examining 5 years of experience at a single medical center in China, massive GIB from duodenal ulcers was successfully treated with TAE in 27 of 29 cases (93% clinical success rate), with no mucosal ischemic necrosis observed.³⁹

If repeated endoscopic therapy has not led to hemostasis of a bleeding peptic ulcer and TAE is not available, then surgery is the next best option. Bleeding gastric ulcers may be excised, wedge resected, or oversewn after an anterior gastrostomy. Bleeding duodenal ulcers may require use of a Kocher maneuver and linear incision of the anterior duodenum followed by ligation of the gastroduodenal artery. Fortunately, such surgical management is rarely necessary given the availability of TAE at most centers.⁴

Conclusion

Peptic ulcer disease is a common health problem globally, with persistent challenges related to refractory ulcers, antiplatelet and anticoagulant use, and continued bleeding in the face of endoscopic therapy. These challenges should be met with adequate frequency and duration of PPI therapy, vigilant attention to and treatment of ulcer etiology, evidence-based handling of antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications, and utilization of novel endoscopic tools to obtain improved clinical outcomes.

Acknowledgment: We thank Dr. Nipun Reddy from our institution for providing the endoscopic images used in this article.

Corresponding author: Adam L. Edwards, MD, MS; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. To examine whether discontinuation of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy and initiation of telephone-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is not worse than continuation of NSAIDs in the management of arthritis pain.

Design. Randomized controlled trial with noninferiority design.

Setting and participants. This study was a multicenter trial conducted across 4 Veterans Affairs health care systems in Boston, Providence, Connecticut, and North Florida/South Georgia that started September 2013 and ended September 2018. Eligibility criteria included being age 20 years or older, radiographic evidence of knee osteoarthritis, and use of an NSAID for knee pain on most days of the month for at least the past 3 months. Exclusion criteria included significant hearing impairments that may impede the conduct of the trial, current opioid prescriptions excluding tramadol, contraindications to NSAID use, recent or scheduled intra-articular injections or surgery, comorbid conditions other than knee pain that limited walking, and bilateral knee replacements or pain only in the replaced knee. Concurrent use of tramadol and other non-NSAID analgesics was permitted.

A total of 490 participants took part in the 2-week run-in period where their NSAID regimen was discontinued and they were started on a standardized dose of the NSAID meloxicam 15 mg daily. During the run-in period, 126 participants were excluded for several reasons, including worsening pain and patient withdrawal, yielding 364 participants who were randomized to continue meloxicam treatment or placebo for 4 weeks with blinding.

Intervention. Subsequent to the 4-week phase 1 placebo controlled trial, participants in the placebo group were given CBT via telephone (unblinded) for 10 weeks, and the meloxicam group continued treatment with meloxicam for phase 2. The CBT group received 10 modules over 10 weeks in 30- to 45-minute telephone contacts with a psychologist using a treatment manual modified for knee osteoarthritis. These modules consisted of 1 introductory module, 8 pain coping skills modules (eg, deep breathing and visual imagery, progressive muscle relaxation, physical activity and bodily mechanics, identifying unhealthy thoughts, balancing unhealthy thoughts, managing stress, time-based pacing, and sleep hygiene), and a final module emphasizing skill consolidation and relapse prevention. Outcomes were assessed at the end of the phase 1 and phase 2 periods.

Main outcome measures. Main study outcome measures included pain as measured with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes included the WOMAC pain score, disability score, and global impression of change after treatment at 14 weeks. The WOMAC pain scale ranges from 0 to 20, and consists of 5 questions regarding severity of pain during walking, stair use, lying in bed at night, sitting, and standing, with 0 indicating no pain; 1, mild pain; 2, moderate pain; 3, severe pain; and 4, very severe pain for each item. The WOMAC disability scale measures self-reported difficulty in performing tasks that reflect lower-extremity physical function, including climbing stairs, rising from a chair, walking, and other activities of daily living. The global impression of change after treatment was measured on a 5-point scale (where 1 indicates much better and 5 indicates much worse). The minimum clinically important difference of the WOMAC pain scale is 2, based on prior literature. With the noninferiority design, the margin was set as a score of 1.

Main results. The placebo group consisted of 180 participants, with an average age of 58.2 years (SD, 11.8 years); 89% of them were male. The meloxicam group consisted of 184 participants, with an average age of 58.6 years (SD, 10 years); 84% of them were male. The average body mass index was 33.9 and 33.4 in each group, respectively. For the primary outcome, the placebo group had a worse pain score than the meloxicam group at 4 weeks (difference of 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.8- 2.0). At 14 weeks, the placebo group (with CBT) had a worse pain score than the meloxicam group (difference of 0.8; 95% CI, 0.2-1.4). There was no statistically significant difference in the disability score or global impression of change after treatment score between the 2 groups. The observed difference in pain score did not, however, exceed the minimum clinically important difference.

Conclusion. Placebo treatment and CBT are inferior to NSAIDs in managing pain for patients with knee osteoarthritis. The difference in pain may not be clinically important, and there were no differences in function at 14 weeks.

Commentary

Osteoarthritis is a common chronic condition that causes pain and disability and is often treated with oral analgesics. NSAIDs, despite few high-quality trials demonstrating their efficacy, are among the most commonly used treatment for osteoarthritis pain.¹ NSAID therapy, however, does have potential side effects, such as gastric reflux and renal dysfunction.² This withdrawal trial with placebo control contributes further evidence of the effectiveness of NSAIDs on knee osteoarthritis, demonstrating that indeed NSAIDs improve pain scores to a greater degree than placebo treatment. Augmenting placebo treatment with nonpharmacologic CBT was inferior to NSAIDs in pain management. The authors pointed out that the difference in pain score may not be clinically important, and that lower-extremity function was not different between the groups, concluding that, despite the higher pain score, CBT could be a treatment option, particularly for those who may have difficulty tolerating NSAID treatment.

The study population had a number of chronic conditions in addition to having knee arthritis, and thus likely were taking multiple medications for chronic disease management. Use of multiple medications is associated with an increased risk of rug interactions and adverse effects of medications.³ Thus, this attempt to assess whether a nonpharmacologic alternative treatment is noninferior to a drug treatment is a step toward building the evidence base for deprescribing and enhancing medication safety.⁴ Previous studies have examined other nonpharmacologic treatments for knee arthritis, such as acupuncture,⁵ and it is worthwhile to consider combining nonpharmacological approaches as an alternative to oral analgesic medication use.

Applications for Clinical Practice

This study advances our understanding of the effect of NSAID use on knee osteoarthritis when compared to placebo with CBT. Although this is a negative study that failed to show that placebo combined with CBT is noninferior to NSAIDs, it did quantify the expected treatment effect of NSAIDs and showed that this effect likely is not clinically important and/or does not alter lower-extremity function. Further studies are needed to identify other nonpharmacologic approaches and test whether combinations of approaches are effective in the management of chronic pain from osteoarthritis.

–William W. Hung, MD, MPH

Study Overview

Objective. To examine whether discontinuation of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy and initiation of telephone-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is not worse than continuation of NSAIDs in the management of arthritis pain.

Design. Randomized controlled trial with noninferiority design.

Setting and participants. This study was a multicenter trial conducted across 4 Veterans Affairs health care systems in Boston, Providence, Connecticut, and North Florida/South Georgia that started September 2013 and ended September 2018. Eligibility criteria included being age 20 years or older, radiographic evidence of knee osteoarthritis, and use of an NSAID for knee pain on most days of the month for at least the past 3 months. Exclusion criteria included significant hearing impairments that may impede the conduct of the trial, current opioid prescriptions excluding tramadol, contraindications to NSAID use, recent or scheduled intra-articular injections or surgery, comorbid conditions other than knee pain that limited walking, and bilateral knee replacements or pain only in the replaced knee. Concurrent use of tramadol and other non-NSAID analgesics was permitted.

A total of 490 participants took part in the 2-week run-in period where their NSAID regimen was discontinued and they were started on a standardized dose of the NSAID meloxicam 15 mg daily. During the run-in period, 126 participants were excluded for several reasons, including worsening pain and patient withdrawal, yielding 364 participants who were randomized to continue meloxicam treatment or placebo for 4 weeks with blinding.

Intervention. Subsequent to the 4-week phase 1 placebo controlled trial, participants in the placebo group were given CBT via telephone (unblinded) for 10 weeks, and the meloxicam group continued treatment with meloxicam for phase 2. The CBT group received 10 modules over 10 weeks in 30- to 45-minute telephone contacts with a psychologist using a treatment manual modified for knee osteoarthritis. These modules consisted of 1 introductory module, 8 pain coping skills modules (eg, deep breathing and visual imagery, progressive muscle relaxation, physical activity and bodily mechanics, identifying unhealthy thoughts, balancing unhealthy thoughts, managing stress, time-based pacing, and sleep hygiene), and a final module emphasizing skill consolidation and relapse prevention. Outcomes were assessed at the end of the phase 1 and phase 2 periods.

Main outcome measures. Main study outcome measures included pain as measured with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes included the WOMAC pain score, disability score, and global impression of change after treatment at 14 weeks. The WOMAC pain scale ranges from 0 to 20, and consists of 5 questions regarding severity of pain during walking, stair use, lying in bed at night, sitting, and standing, with 0 indicating no pain; 1, mild pain; 2, moderate pain; 3, severe pain; and 4, very severe pain for each item. The WOMAC disability scale measures self-reported difficulty in performing tasks that reflect lower-extremity physical function, including climbing stairs, rising from a chair, walking, and other activities of daily living. The global impression of change after treatment was measured on a 5-point scale (where 1 indicates much better and 5 indicates much worse). The minimum clinically important difference of the WOMAC pain scale is 2, based on prior literature. With the noninferiority design, the margin was set as a score of 1.

Main results. The placebo group consisted of 180 participants, with an average age of 58.2 years (SD, 11.8 years); 89% of them were male. The meloxicam group consisted of 184 participants, with an average age of 58.6 years (SD, 10 years); 84% of them were male. The average body mass index was 33.9 and 33.4 in each group, respectively. For the primary outcome, the placebo group had a worse pain score than the meloxicam group at 4 weeks (difference of 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.8- 2.0). At 14 weeks, the placebo group (with CBT) had a worse pain score than the meloxicam group (difference of 0.8; 95% CI, 0.2-1.4). There was no statistically significant difference in the disability score or global impression of change after treatment score between the 2 groups. The observed difference in pain score did not, however, exceed the minimum clinically important difference.

Conclusion. Placebo treatment and CBT are inferior to NSAIDs in managing pain for patients with knee osteoarthritis. The difference in pain may not be clinically important, and there were no differences in function at 14 weeks.

Commentary

Osteoarthritis is a common chronic condition that causes pain and disability and is often treated with oral analgesics. NSAIDs, despite few high-quality trials demonstrating their efficacy, are among the most commonly used treatment for osteoarthritis pain.¹ NSAID therapy, however, does have potential side effects, such as gastric reflux and renal dysfunction.² This withdrawal trial with placebo control contributes further evidence of the effectiveness of NSAIDs on knee osteoarthritis, demonstrating that indeed NSAIDs improve pain scores to a greater degree than placebo treatment. Augmenting placebo treatment with nonpharmacologic CBT was inferior to NSAIDs in pain management. The authors pointed out that the difference in pain score may not be clinically important, and that lower-extremity function was not different between the groups, concluding that, despite the higher pain score, CBT could be a treatment option, particularly for those who may have difficulty tolerating NSAID treatment.

The study population had a number of chronic conditions in addition to having knee arthritis, and thus likely were taking multiple medications for chronic disease management. Use of multiple medications is associated with an increased risk of rug interactions and adverse effects of medications.³ Thus, this attempt to assess whether a nonpharmacologic alternative treatment is noninferior to a drug treatment is a step toward building the evidence base for deprescribing and enhancing medication safety.⁴ Previous studies have examined other nonpharmacologic treatments for knee arthritis, such as acupuncture,⁵ and it is worthwhile to consider combining nonpharmacological approaches as an alternative to oral analgesic medication use.

Applications for Clinical Practice

This study advances our understanding of the effect of NSAID use on knee osteoarthritis when compared to placebo with CBT. Although this is a negative study that failed to show that placebo combined with CBT is noninferior to NSAIDs, it did quantify the expected treatment effect of NSAIDs and showed that this effect likely is not clinically important and/or does not alter lower-extremity function. Further studies are needed to identify other nonpharmacologic approaches and test whether combinations of approaches are effective in the management of chronic pain from osteoarthritis.

–William W. Hung, MD, MPH

Study Overview

Objective. To examine whether discontinuation of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy and initiation of telephone-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is not worse than continuation of NSAIDs in the management of arthritis pain.

Design. Randomized controlled trial with noninferiority design.

Setting and participants. This study was a multicenter trial conducted across 4 Veterans Affairs health care systems in Boston, Providence, Connecticut, and North Florida/South Georgia that started September 2013 and ended September 2018. Eligibility criteria included being age 20 years or older, radiographic evidence of knee osteoarthritis, and use of an NSAID for knee pain on most days of the month for at least the past 3 months. Exclusion criteria included significant hearing impairments that may impede the conduct of the trial, current opioid prescriptions excluding tramadol, contraindications to NSAID use, recent or scheduled intra-articular injections or surgery, comorbid conditions other than knee pain that limited walking, and bilateral knee replacements or pain only in the replaced knee. Concurrent use of tramadol and other non-NSAID analgesics was permitted.

A total of 490 participants took part in the 2-week run-in period where their NSAID regimen was discontinued and they were started on a standardized dose of the NSAID meloxicam 15 mg daily. During the run-in period, 126 participants were excluded for several reasons, including worsening pain and patient withdrawal, yielding 364 participants who were randomized to continue meloxicam treatment or placebo for 4 weeks with blinding.

Intervention. Subsequent to the 4-week phase 1 placebo controlled trial, participants in the placebo group were given CBT via telephone (unblinded) for 10 weeks, and the meloxicam group continued treatment with meloxicam for phase 2. The CBT group received 10 modules over 10 weeks in 30- to 45-minute telephone contacts with a psychologist using a treatment manual modified for knee osteoarthritis. These modules consisted of 1 introductory module, 8 pain coping skills modules (eg, deep breathing and visual imagery, progressive muscle relaxation, physical activity and bodily mechanics, identifying unhealthy thoughts, balancing unhealthy thoughts, managing stress, time-based pacing, and sleep hygiene), and a final module emphasizing skill consolidation and relapse prevention. Outcomes were assessed at the end of the phase 1 and phase 2 periods.

Main outcome measures. Main study outcome measures included pain as measured with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes included the WOMAC pain score, disability score, and global impression of change after treatment at 14 weeks. The WOMAC pain scale ranges from 0 to 20, and consists of 5 questions regarding severity of pain during walking, stair use, lying in bed at night, sitting, and standing, with 0 indicating no pain; 1, mild pain; 2, moderate pain; 3, severe pain; and 4, very severe pain for each item. The WOMAC disability scale measures self-reported difficulty in performing tasks that reflect lower-extremity physical function, including climbing stairs, rising from a chair, walking, and other activities of daily living. The global impression of change after treatment was measured on a 5-point scale (where 1 indicates much better and 5 indicates much worse). The minimum clinically important difference of the WOMAC pain scale is 2, based on prior literature. With the noninferiority design, the margin was set as a score of 1.

Main results. The placebo group consisted of 180 participants, with an average age of 58.2 years (SD, 11.8 years); 89% of them were male. The meloxicam group consisted of 184 participants, with an average age of 58.6 years (SD, 10 years); 84% of them were male. The average body mass index was 33.9 and 33.4 in each group, respectively. For the primary outcome, the placebo group had a worse pain score than the meloxicam group at 4 weeks (difference of 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.8- 2.0). At 14 weeks, the placebo group (with CBT) had a worse pain score than the meloxicam group (difference of 0.8; 95% CI, 0.2-1.4). There was no statistically significant difference in the disability score or global impression of change after treatment score between the 2 groups. The observed difference in pain score did not, however, exceed the minimum clinically important difference.

Conclusion. Placebo treatment and CBT are inferior to NSAIDs in managing pain for patients with knee osteoarthritis. The difference in pain may not be clinically important, and there were no differences in function at 14 weeks.

Commentary

Osteoarthritis is a common chronic condition that causes pain and disability and is often treated with oral analgesics. NSAIDs, despite few high-quality trials demonstrating their efficacy, are among the most commonly used treatment for osteoarthritis pain.¹ NSAID therapy, however, does have potential side effects, such as gastric reflux and renal dysfunction.² This withdrawal trial with placebo control contributes further evidence of the effectiveness of NSAIDs on knee osteoarthritis, demonstrating that indeed NSAIDs improve pain scores to a greater degree than placebo treatment. Augmenting placebo treatment with nonpharmacologic CBT was inferior to NSAIDs in pain management. The authors pointed out that the difference in pain score may not be clinically important, and that lower-extremity function was not different between the groups, concluding that, despite the higher pain score, CBT could be a treatment option, particularly for those who may have difficulty tolerating NSAID treatment.

The study population had a number of chronic conditions in addition to having knee arthritis, and thus likely were taking multiple medications for chronic disease management. Use of multiple medications is associated with an increased risk of rug interactions and adverse effects of medications.³ Thus, this attempt to assess whether a nonpharmacologic alternative treatment is noninferior to a drug treatment is a step toward building the evidence base for deprescribing and enhancing medication safety.⁴ Previous studies have examined other nonpharmacologic treatments for knee arthritis, such as acupuncture,⁵ and it is worthwhile to consider combining nonpharmacological approaches as an alternative to oral analgesic medication use.

Applications for Clinical Practice

This study advances our understanding of the effect of NSAID use on knee osteoarthritis when compared to placebo with CBT. Although this is a negative study that failed to show that placebo combined with CBT is noninferior to NSAIDs, it did quantify the expected treatment effect of NSAIDs and showed that this effect likely is not clinically important and/or does not alter lower-extremity function. Further studies are needed to identify other nonpharmacologic approaches and test whether combinations of approaches are effective in the management of chronic pain from osteoarthritis.

–William W. Hung, MD, MPH

Study Overview

Objective. To assess whether dapagliflozin added to guideline-recommended therapies is effective and safe over the long-term to reduce the rate of renal and cardiovascular events in patients across multiple chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages, with and without type 2 diabetes.

Design. The Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in CKD (DAPA-CKD) trial (NCT03036150) was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicenter event-driven, clinical trial sponsored by Astra-Zeneca. It was conducted at 386 sites in 21 countries from February 2, 2017, to June 12, 2020. A recruitment period of 24 months and a total study duration of 45 months were initially planned. The primary efficacy analysis was based on the intention-to-treat population. This was the first randomized controlled trial designed to assess the effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with CKD.

Setting and participants. This trial randomly assigned 4304 adult participants with CKD stages 2 to 4 (an estimated glomerular filtration rate [GFR] of 25 to 75 mL/min/1.73 m² of body-surface area) and elevated urinary albumin excretion (urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of 200 to 5000, measured in mg of albumin per g of creatinine) to receive dapagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or placebo. Exclusion criteria included type 1 diabetes, polycystic kidney disease, lupus nephritis, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis, recent immunosuppressive therapy for primary or secondary kidney disease, New York Heart Association class IV congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, stroke or transient ischemic attacks, or recent coronary revascularization or valvular repair/replacement. All participants received a stable dose of renin–angiotensin system inhibitor for 4 weeks prior to screening, and the vast majority received a maximum tolerated dose at enrollment. Randomization was monitored to ensure that at least 30% of participants recruited did not have diabetes and that no more than 10% had stage 2 CKD. Participants were randomly assigned to receive dapagliflozin (n = 2152) or matching placebo (n = 2152) to ensure a 1:1 ratio of the 2 regimens. Dapagliflozin and placebo had identical appearance and administration schedules. All participants and trial personnel (except members of the independent data monitoring committee) were unaware of the trial-group assignments. After randomization, in-person study visits were conducted at 2 weeks, at 2, 4, and 8 months, and at 4-month intervals thereafter.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was a composite of the first occurrence of either a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes. Secondary outcomes, in hierarchical order, were: (1) the composite kidney outcome of a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal causes; (2) a composite cardiovascular outcome defined as hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes; and (3) death from any cause. All outcomes were assessed by time-to-event analyses.

Given the extensive prior experience with dapagliflozin, only selected adverse events were recorded. These included serious adverse events, adverse events resulting in the discontinuation of dapagliflozin or placebo, and adverse events of interest to dapagliflozin (eg, volume depletion symptoms, renal events, major hypoglycemia, fractures, diabetic ketoacidosis, events leading to higher risk of lower limb amputation, and lower limb amputations).

Main results. On March 26, 2020, the independent data monitoring committee recommended stopping the trial because of clear efficacy on the basis of 408 primary outcome events. The participants were 61.8 ± 12.1 years of age, and 1425 participants (33.1%) were female. The baseline mean estimated GFR was 43.1 ± 12.4 mL/min/1.73 m², the median urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio was 949, and 2906 participants (67.5%) had type 2 diabetes. Over a median of 2.4 years, a primary outcome event occurred in 197 participants (9.2%) in the dapagliflozin group and 312 (14.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-0.72; P < 0.001). The number of participants who needed to be treated during the trial period to prevent 1 primary outcome event was 19 (95% CI, 15-27). The beneficial effect of dapagliflozin compared with placebo was consistent across all 8 prespecified subgroups (ie, age, sex, race, geographic region, type 2 diabetes, estimated GFR, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio, and systolic blood pressure) for the primary outcome. The effects of dapagliflozin were similar in participants with type 2 diabetes and in those without type 2 diabetes.

The incidence of each secondary outcome was similarly lower in the dapagliflozin-treated group than in the placebo group. The HR for the composite kidney outcome of a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal causes was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.45-0.68; P < 0.001), and the HR for the composite cardiovascular outcome of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.55-0.92; P = 0.009). Death occurred in 101 participants (4.7%) in the dapagliflozin group and 146 participants (6.8%) in the placebo group (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.88; P = 0.004). The known safety profile of dapagliflozin was confirmed by the similar overall incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events in the dapagliflozin and placebo groups.

Conclusion. In patients with CKD, with or without type 2 diabetes, the risk of a composite of a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes was significantly lowered by dapagliflozin treatment.

Commentary

Although SGLT2 inhibitors were designed to reduce plasma glucose and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) by increasing urinary glucose excretion in a non-insulin-dependent fashion, an increasing number of clinical trials have demonstrated their possible cardiovascular and renal benefits that extend beyond glycemic control. In 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a guidance recommending the evaluation of long-term cardiovascular outcomes prior to approval and commercialization of new antidiabetic therapies to ensure minimum cardiovascular risks following the discovery of cardiovascular safety issues associated with antidiabetic compounds, including rosiglitazone, after drug approval. No one foresaw that this recommendation would lead to the discovery of new classes of antidiabetic drugs (glucagon-like peptide 1 [GLP1] and SGLT2 inhibitors) that improve cardiovascular outcomes. A series of clinical trials of SGLT2 inhibitors, including empagliflozin,¹ canagliflozin,² and dapagliflozin,³ showed a reduction in cardiovascular death and hospitalization due to heart failure among patients with type 2 diabetes. Furthermore, a meta-analysis from 2019 found that SGLT2 inhibitors reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure by 23% and the risk of progression of kidney failure by 45% in patients with diabetes.⁴ Thus, the strong and consistent evidence from these large and well-designed outcome trials led the American Diabetes Association in its most recent guidelines to recommend adding SGLT2 inhibitors to metformin for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with or at high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, or CKD, regardless of baseline HbA1c levels or HbA1c target.⁵ As a result of the compelling effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiovascular outcomes in diabetic patients, as well as increasing evidence that these clinical effects were independent of glycemic control, several subsequent trials were conducted to evaluate whether this new class of drugs may improve clinical outcomes in nondiabetic patients.

The Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF) was the first clinical trial to investigate the effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiovascular disease in nondiabetic patients. Findings from DAPA-HF showed that dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes, independent of the presence of underlying diabetes. This initial finding resonates with a growing body of evidence^6,7 that supports the use of SGLT2 inhibitors as an adjunctive therapy for heart failure in the absence of diabetes.

The Canagliflozin and Renal Events in Diabetes with Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation (CREDENCE) trial showed that long-term administration of canagliflozin conferred cardiovascular, as well as renal, protection in patients with type 2 diabetes with CKD.⁸ Similar to the protective effects on heart failure, the renal benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors appeared to be independent of their blood glucose-lowering effects. Thus, these recent discoveries led to the design of the DAPA-CKD trial to further assess the long-term efficacy and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in patients with CKD precipitated by causes other than type 2 diabetes. Although diabetes is the most common cause for CKD, it nonetheless only accounts for 40% of all CKD etiologies. To date, the only classes of medication that have been shown to slow a decline in kidney function in patients with diabetes are angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). Given that CKD is an important contributor to illness, is associated with diminished quality of life and reduced life expectancy, and increases health care costs, the findings of the DAPA-CKD trial are particularly significant as they show a renal benefit of dapagliflozin treatment across CKD stages that is independent of underlying diabetes. Therefore, SGLT2 inhibitors may offer a new and unique treatment option for millions of patients with CKD worldwide for whom ACE inhibitors and ARBs were otherwise the only treatments to prevent kidney failure. Moreover, with a number-needed-to-treat of 19 to prevent 1 composite renal vascular event over a period of 2.4 years, dapagliflozin requires a much lower number needed to treat compared to ACE inhibitors and ARBs in similar patients.

The trial has several limitations in study design. For example, the management of diabetes and hypertension were left to the discretion of each trial site, in keeping with local clinical practice and guidelines. It is unknown whether this variability in the management of comorbidities that impact kidney function had an effect on the study’s results. In addition, the trial was stopped early as a result of recommendations from an independent committee due to the demonstrated efficacy of dapagliflozin. This may have reduced the statistical power to assess some of the secondary outcomes. Finally, the authors discussed an initial dip in the estimated GFR after initiation of dapagliflozin treatment, similar to that observed in other SGLT2 inhibitor clinical trials. However, they were unable to ascertain the reversibility of this effect after the discontinuation of dapagliflozin because assessment of GFR was not completed after trial closure. Nonetheless, the authors specified that the reversibility of this initial estimated GFR dip had been assessed and observed in other clinical trials involving dapagliflozin.

The nonglycemic benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors, including improvement in renal outcomes, have strong implications for the future management of patients with CKD. If this indication is approved by the FDA and recommended by clinical guidelines, the ease of SGLT2 inhibitor prescription (eg, minimal drug-drug interaction, no titration), treatment administration (orally once daily), and safety profile may lead to wide use of SGLT2 inhibitors by generalists, nephrologists, and endocrinologists in preserving or improving renal outcomes in patients at risk for end-stage kidney disease. Given that SGLT2 inhibitors are a new class of pharmacologic therapeutics, patient education should include a discussion of the possible side effects, such as euglycemic ketoacidosis, genital and urinary tract infection, and foot and leg amputation. Finally, as Strandberg and colleagues reported in a recent commentary,⁹ the safety of SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults with multimorbidity, frailty, and polypharmacy remains unclear. Thus, future studies of SGLT2 inhibitors are needed to better evaluate their clinical effects in older adults.

Applications for Clinical Practice

This trial enrolled a dedicated patient population with CKD and demonstrated a benefit of dapagliflozin in reducing renal and cardiovascular outcomes, regardless of baseline diabetes status. These drugs (dapagliflozin as well as other SGLT2 inhibitors) will likely have a prominent role in future CKD management guidelines. Until then, several barriers remain before SGLT2 inhibitors can be widely used in clinical practice. Among these barriers are FDA approval for their use in patients with and without diabetes with an estimated GFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² and lowering the costs of this class of drugs.

—Rachel Litke, MD, PhD
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To assess whether dapagliflozin added to guideline-recommended therapies is effective and safe over the long-term to reduce the rate of renal and cardiovascular events in patients across multiple chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages, with and without type 2 diabetes.

Design. The Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in CKD (DAPA-CKD) trial (NCT03036150) was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicenter event-driven, clinical trial sponsored by Astra-Zeneca. It was conducted at 386 sites in 21 countries from February 2, 2017, to June 12, 2020. A recruitment period of 24 months and a total study duration of 45 months were initially planned. The primary efficacy analysis was based on the intention-to-treat population. This was the first randomized controlled trial designed to assess the effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with CKD.

Setting and participants. This trial randomly assigned 4304 adult participants with CKD stages 2 to 4 (an estimated glomerular filtration rate [GFR] of 25 to 75 mL/min/1.73 m² of body-surface area) and elevated urinary albumin excretion (urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of 200 to 5000, measured in mg of albumin per g of creatinine) to receive dapagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or placebo. Exclusion criteria included type 1 diabetes, polycystic kidney disease, lupus nephritis, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis, recent immunosuppressive therapy for primary or secondary kidney disease, New York Heart Association class IV congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, stroke or transient ischemic attacks, or recent coronary revascularization or valvular repair/replacement. All participants received a stable dose of renin–angiotensin system inhibitor for 4 weeks prior to screening, and the vast majority received a maximum tolerated dose at enrollment. Randomization was monitored to ensure that at least 30% of participants recruited did not have diabetes and that no more than 10% had stage 2 CKD. Participants were randomly assigned to receive dapagliflozin (n = 2152) or matching placebo (n = 2152) to ensure a 1:1 ratio of the 2 regimens. Dapagliflozin and placebo had identical appearance and administration schedules. All participants and trial personnel (except members of the independent data monitoring committee) were unaware of the trial-group assignments. After randomization, in-person study visits were conducted at 2 weeks, at 2, 4, and 8 months, and at 4-month intervals thereafter.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was a composite of the first occurrence of either a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes. Secondary outcomes, in hierarchical order, were: (1) the composite kidney outcome of a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal causes; (2) a composite cardiovascular outcome defined as hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes; and (3) death from any cause. All outcomes were assessed by time-to-event analyses.

Given the extensive prior experience with dapagliflozin, only selected adverse events were recorded. These included serious adverse events, adverse events resulting in the discontinuation of dapagliflozin or placebo, and adverse events of interest to dapagliflozin (eg, volume depletion symptoms, renal events, major hypoglycemia, fractures, diabetic ketoacidosis, events leading to higher risk of lower limb amputation, and lower limb amputations).

Main results. On March 26, 2020, the independent data monitoring committee recommended stopping the trial because of clear efficacy on the basis of 408 primary outcome events. The participants were 61.8 ± 12.1 years of age, and 1425 participants (33.1%) were female. The baseline mean estimated GFR was 43.1 ± 12.4 mL/min/1.73 m², the median urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio was 949, and 2906 participants (67.5%) had type 2 diabetes. Over a median of 2.4 years, a primary outcome event occurred in 197 participants (9.2%) in the dapagliflozin group and 312 (14.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-0.72; P < 0.001). The number of participants who needed to be treated during the trial period to prevent 1 primary outcome event was 19 (95% CI, 15-27). The beneficial effect of dapagliflozin compared with placebo was consistent across all 8 prespecified subgroups (ie, age, sex, race, geographic region, type 2 diabetes, estimated GFR, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio, and systolic blood pressure) for the primary outcome. The effects of dapagliflozin were similar in participants with type 2 diabetes and in those without type 2 diabetes.

The incidence of each secondary outcome was similarly lower in the dapagliflozin-treated group than in the placebo group. The HR for the composite kidney outcome of a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal causes was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.45-0.68; P < 0.001), and the HR for the composite cardiovascular outcome of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.55-0.92; P = 0.009). Death occurred in 101 participants (4.7%) in the dapagliflozin group and 146 participants (6.8%) in the placebo group (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.88; P = 0.004). The known safety profile of dapagliflozin was confirmed by the similar overall incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events in the dapagliflozin and placebo groups.

Conclusion. In patients with CKD, with or without type 2 diabetes, the risk of a composite of a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes was significantly lowered by dapagliflozin treatment.

Commentary

Although SGLT2 inhibitors were designed to reduce plasma glucose and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) by increasing urinary glucose excretion in a non-insulin-dependent fashion, an increasing number of clinical trials have demonstrated their possible cardiovascular and renal benefits that extend beyond glycemic control. In 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a guidance recommending the evaluation of long-term cardiovascular outcomes prior to approval and commercialization of new antidiabetic therapies to ensure minimum cardiovascular risks following the discovery of cardiovascular safety issues associated with antidiabetic compounds, including rosiglitazone, after drug approval. No one foresaw that this recommendation would lead to the discovery of new classes of antidiabetic drugs (glucagon-like peptide 1 [GLP1] and SGLT2 inhibitors) that improve cardiovascular outcomes. A series of clinical trials of SGLT2 inhibitors, including empagliflozin,¹ canagliflozin,² and dapagliflozin,³ showed a reduction in cardiovascular death and hospitalization due to heart failure among patients with type 2 diabetes. Furthermore, a meta-analysis from 2019 found that SGLT2 inhibitors reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure by 23% and the risk of progression of kidney failure by 45% in patients with diabetes.⁴ Thus, the strong and consistent evidence from these large and well-designed outcome trials led the American Diabetes Association in its most recent guidelines to recommend adding SGLT2 inhibitors to metformin for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with or at high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, or CKD, regardless of baseline HbA1c levels or HbA1c target.⁵ As a result of the compelling effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiovascular outcomes in diabetic patients, as well as increasing evidence that these clinical effects were independent of glycemic control, several subsequent trials were conducted to evaluate whether this new class of drugs may improve clinical outcomes in nondiabetic patients.

The Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF) was the first clinical trial to investigate the effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiovascular disease in nondiabetic patients. Findings from DAPA-HF showed that dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes, independent of the presence of underlying diabetes. This initial finding resonates with a growing body of evidence^6,7 that supports the use of SGLT2 inhibitors as an adjunctive therapy for heart failure in the absence of diabetes.

The Canagliflozin and Renal Events in Diabetes with Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation (CREDENCE) trial showed that long-term administration of canagliflozin conferred cardiovascular, as well as renal, protection in patients with type 2 diabetes with CKD.⁸ Similar to the protective effects on heart failure, the renal benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors appeared to be independent of their blood glucose-lowering effects. Thus, these recent discoveries led to the design of the DAPA-CKD trial to further assess the long-term efficacy and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in patients with CKD precipitated by causes other than type 2 diabetes. Although diabetes is the most common cause for CKD, it nonetheless only accounts for 40% of all CKD etiologies. To date, the only classes of medication that have been shown to slow a decline in kidney function in patients with diabetes are angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). Given that CKD is an important contributor to illness, is associated with diminished quality of life and reduced life expectancy, and increases health care costs, the findings of the DAPA-CKD trial are particularly significant as they show a renal benefit of dapagliflozin treatment across CKD stages that is independent of underlying diabetes. Therefore, SGLT2 inhibitors may offer a new and unique treatment option for millions of patients with CKD worldwide for whom ACE inhibitors and ARBs were otherwise the only treatments to prevent kidney failure. Moreover, with a number-needed-to-treat of 19 to prevent 1 composite renal vascular event over a period of 2.4 years, dapagliflozin requires a much lower number needed to treat compared to ACE inhibitors and ARBs in similar patients.

The trial has several limitations in study design. For example, the management of diabetes and hypertension were left to the discretion of each trial site, in keeping with local clinical practice and guidelines. It is unknown whether this variability in the management of comorbidities that impact kidney function had an effect on the study’s results. In addition, the trial was stopped early as a result of recommendations from an independent committee due to the demonstrated efficacy of dapagliflozin. This may have reduced the statistical power to assess some of the secondary outcomes. Finally, the authors discussed an initial dip in the estimated GFR after initiation of dapagliflozin treatment, similar to that observed in other SGLT2 inhibitor clinical trials. However, they were unable to ascertain the reversibility of this effect after the discontinuation of dapagliflozin because assessment of GFR was not completed after trial closure. Nonetheless, the authors specified that the reversibility of this initial estimated GFR dip had been assessed and observed in other clinical trials involving dapagliflozin.

The nonglycemic benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors, including improvement in renal outcomes, have strong implications for the future management of patients with CKD. If this indication is approved by the FDA and recommended by clinical guidelines, the ease of SGLT2 inhibitor prescription (eg, minimal drug-drug interaction, no titration), treatment administration (orally once daily), and safety profile may lead to wide use of SGLT2 inhibitors by generalists, nephrologists, and endocrinologists in preserving or improving renal outcomes in patients at risk for end-stage kidney disease. Given that SGLT2 inhibitors are a new class of pharmacologic therapeutics, patient education should include a discussion of the possible side effects, such as euglycemic ketoacidosis, genital and urinary tract infection, and foot and leg amputation. Finally, as Strandberg and colleagues reported in a recent commentary,⁹ the safety of SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults with multimorbidity, frailty, and polypharmacy remains unclear. Thus, future studies of SGLT2 inhibitors are needed to better evaluate their clinical effects in older adults.

Applications for Clinical Practice

This trial enrolled a dedicated patient population with CKD and demonstrated a benefit of dapagliflozin in reducing renal and cardiovascular outcomes, regardless of baseline diabetes status. These drugs (dapagliflozin as well as other SGLT2 inhibitors) will likely have a prominent role in future CKD management guidelines. Until then, several barriers remain before SGLT2 inhibitors can be widely used in clinical practice. Among these barriers are FDA approval for their use in patients with and without diabetes with an estimated GFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² and lowering the costs of this class of drugs.

—Rachel Litke, MD, PhD
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To assess whether dapagliflozin added to guideline-recommended therapies is effective and safe over the long-term to reduce the rate of renal and cardiovascular events in patients across multiple chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages, with and without type 2 diabetes.

Design. The Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in CKD (DAPA-CKD) trial (NCT03036150) was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicenter event-driven, clinical trial sponsored by Astra-Zeneca. It was conducted at 386 sites in 21 countries from February 2, 2017, to June 12, 2020. A recruitment period of 24 months and a total study duration of 45 months were initially planned. The primary efficacy analysis was based on the intention-to-treat population. This was the first randomized controlled trial designed to assess the effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with CKD.

Setting and participants. This trial randomly assigned 4304 adult participants with CKD stages 2 to 4 (an estimated glomerular filtration rate [GFR] of 25 to 75 mL/min/1.73 m² of body-surface area) and elevated urinary albumin excretion (urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of 200 to 5000, measured in mg of albumin per g of creatinine) to receive dapagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or placebo. Exclusion criteria included type 1 diabetes, polycystic kidney disease, lupus nephritis, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis, recent immunosuppressive therapy for primary or secondary kidney disease, New York Heart Association class IV congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, stroke or transient ischemic attacks, or recent coronary revascularization or valvular repair/replacement. All participants received a stable dose of renin–angiotensin system inhibitor for 4 weeks prior to screening, and the vast majority received a maximum tolerated dose at enrollment. Randomization was monitored to ensure that at least 30% of participants recruited did not have diabetes and that no more than 10% had stage 2 CKD. Participants were randomly assigned to receive dapagliflozin (n = 2152) or matching placebo (n = 2152) to ensure a 1:1 ratio of the 2 regimens. Dapagliflozin and placebo had identical appearance and administration schedules. All participants and trial personnel (except members of the independent data monitoring committee) were unaware of the trial-group assignments. After randomization, in-person study visits were conducted at 2 weeks, at 2, 4, and 8 months, and at 4-month intervals thereafter.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was a composite of the first occurrence of either a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes. Secondary outcomes, in hierarchical order, were: (1) the composite kidney outcome of a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal causes; (2) a composite cardiovascular outcome defined as hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes; and (3) death from any cause. All outcomes were assessed by time-to-event analyses.

Given the extensive prior experience with dapagliflozin, only selected adverse events were recorded. These included serious adverse events, adverse events resulting in the discontinuation of dapagliflozin or placebo, and adverse events of interest to dapagliflozin (eg, volume depletion symptoms, renal events, major hypoglycemia, fractures, diabetic ketoacidosis, events leading to higher risk of lower limb amputation, and lower limb amputations).

Main results. On March 26, 2020, the independent data monitoring committee recommended stopping the trial because of clear efficacy on the basis of 408 primary outcome events. The participants were 61.8 ± 12.1 years of age, and 1425 participants (33.1%) were female. The baseline mean estimated GFR was 43.1 ± 12.4 mL/min/1.73 m², the median urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio was 949, and 2906 participants (67.5%) had type 2 diabetes. Over a median of 2.4 years, a primary outcome event occurred in 197 participants (9.2%) in the dapagliflozin group and 312 (14.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-0.72; P < 0.001). The number of participants who needed to be treated during the trial period to prevent 1 primary outcome event was 19 (95% CI, 15-27). The beneficial effect of dapagliflozin compared with placebo was consistent across all 8 prespecified subgroups (ie, age, sex, race, geographic region, type 2 diabetes, estimated GFR, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio, and systolic blood pressure) for the primary outcome. The effects of dapagliflozin were similar in participants with type 2 diabetes and in those without type 2 diabetes.

The incidence of each secondary outcome was similarly lower in the dapagliflozin-treated group than in the placebo group. The HR for the composite kidney outcome of a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal causes was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.45-0.68; P < 0.001), and the HR for the composite cardiovascular outcome of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.55-0.92; P = 0.009). Death occurred in 101 participants (4.7%) in the dapagliflozin group and 146 participants (6.8%) in the placebo group (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.88; P = 0.004). The known safety profile of dapagliflozin was confirmed by the similar overall incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events in the dapagliflozin and placebo groups.

Conclusion. In patients with CKD, with or without type 2 diabetes, the risk of a composite of a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes was significantly lowered by dapagliflozin treatment.

Commentary

Although SGLT2 inhibitors were designed to reduce plasma glucose and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) by increasing urinary glucose excretion in a non-insulin-dependent fashion, an increasing number of clinical trials have demonstrated their possible cardiovascular and renal benefits that extend beyond glycemic control. In 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a guidance recommending the evaluation of long-term cardiovascular outcomes prior to approval and commercialization of new antidiabetic therapies to ensure minimum cardiovascular risks following the discovery of cardiovascular safety issues associated with antidiabetic compounds, including rosiglitazone, after drug approval. No one foresaw that this recommendation would lead to the discovery of new classes of antidiabetic drugs (glucagon-like peptide 1 [GLP1] and SGLT2 inhibitors) that improve cardiovascular outcomes. A series of clinical trials of SGLT2 inhibitors, including empagliflozin,¹ canagliflozin,² and dapagliflozin,³ showed a reduction in cardiovascular death and hospitalization due to heart failure among patients with type 2 diabetes. Furthermore, a meta-analysis from 2019 found that SGLT2 inhibitors reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure by 23% and the risk of progression of kidney failure by 45% in patients with diabetes.⁴ Thus, the strong and consistent evidence from these large and well-designed outcome trials led the American Diabetes Association in its most recent guidelines to recommend adding SGLT2 inhibitors to metformin for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with or at high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, or CKD, regardless of baseline HbA1c levels or HbA1c target.⁵ As a result of the compelling effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiovascular outcomes in diabetic patients, as well as increasing evidence that these clinical effects were independent of glycemic control, several subsequent trials were conducted to evaluate whether this new class of drugs may improve clinical outcomes in nondiabetic patients.

The Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF) was the first clinical trial to investigate the effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiovascular disease in nondiabetic patients. Findings from DAPA-HF showed that dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes, independent of the presence of underlying diabetes. This initial finding resonates with a growing body of evidence^6,7 that supports the use of SGLT2 inhibitors as an adjunctive therapy for heart failure in the absence of diabetes.

The Canagliflozin and Renal Events in Diabetes with Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation (CREDENCE) trial showed that long-term administration of canagliflozin conferred cardiovascular, as well as renal, protection in patients with type 2 diabetes with CKD.⁸ Similar to the protective effects on heart failure, the renal benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors appeared to be independent of their blood glucose-lowering effects. Thus, these recent discoveries led to the design of the DAPA-CKD trial to further assess the long-term efficacy and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in patients with CKD precipitated by causes other than type 2 diabetes. Although diabetes is the most common cause for CKD, it nonetheless only accounts for 40% of all CKD etiologies. To date, the only classes of medication that have been shown to slow a decline in kidney function in patients with diabetes are angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). Given that CKD is an important contributor to illness, is associated with diminished quality of life and reduced life expectancy, and increases health care costs, the findings of the DAPA-CKD trial are particularly significant as they show a renal benefit of dapagliflozin treatment across CKD stages that is independent of underlying diabetes. Therefore, SGLT2 inhibitors may offer a new and unique treatment option for millions of patients with CKD worldwide for whom ACE inhibitors and ARBs were otherwise the only treatments to prevent kidney failure. Moreover, with a number-needed-to-treat of 19 to prevent 1 composite renal vascular event over a period of 2.4 years, dapagliflozin requires a much lower number needed to treat compared to ACE inhibitors and ARBs in similar patients.

The trial has several limitations in study design. For example, the management of diabetes and hypertension were left to the discretion of each trial site, in keeping with local clinical practice and guidelines. It is unknown whether this variability in the management of comorbidities that impact kidney function had an effect on the study’s results. In addition, the trial was stopped early as a result of recommendations from an independent committee due to the demonstrated efficacy of dapagliflozin. This may have reduced the statistical power to assess some of the secondary outcomes. Finally, the authors discussed an initial dip in the estimated GFR after initiation of dapagliflozin treatment, similar to that observed in other SGLT2 inhibitor clinical trials. However, they were unable to ascertain the reversibility of this effect after the discontinuation of dapagliflozin because assessment of GFR was not completed after trial closure. Nonetheless, the authors specified that the reversibility of this initial estimated GFR dip had been assessed and observed in other clinical trials involving dapagliflozin.

The nonglycemic benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors, including improvement in renal outcomes, have strong implications for the future management of patients with CKD. If this indication is approved by the FDA and recommended by clinical guidelines, the ease of SGLT2 inhibitor prescription (eg, minimal drug-drug interaction, no titration), treatment administration (orally once daily), and safety profile may lead to wide use of SGLT2 inhibitors by generalists, nephrologists, and endocrinologists in preserving or improving renal outcomes in patients at risk for end-stage kidney disease. Given that SGLT2 inhibitors are a new class of pharmacologic therapeutics, patient education should include a discussion of the possible side effects, such as euglycemic ketoacidosis, genital and urinary tract infection, and foot and leg amputation. Finally, as Strandberg and colleagues reported in a recent commentary,⁹ the safety of SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults with multimorbidity, frailty, and polypharmacy remains unclear. Thus, future studies of SGLT2 inhibitors are needed to better evaluate their clinical effects in older adults.

Applications for Clinical Practice

This trial enrolled a dedicated patient population with CKD and demonstrated a benefit of dapagliflozin in reducing renal and cardiovascular outcomes, regardless of baseline diabetes status. These drugs (dapagliflozin as well as other SGLT2 inhibitors) will likely have a prominent role in future CKD management guidelines. Until then, several barriers remain before SGLT2 inhibitors can be widely used in clinical practice. Among these barriers are FDA approval for their use in patients with and without diabetes with an estimated GFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² and lowering the costs of this class of drugs.

—Rachel Litke, MD, PhD
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy of maintenance avelumab in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who had received first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.

Design. International, open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either maintenance therapy with avelumab 10 mg/kg plus best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone, per local practice. Randomization was stratified according to best response to first-line chemotherapy and metastatic site (visceral vs nonvisceral). Treatment was continued until progression, unacceptable toxicities, or patient withdrawal occurred.

Setting and participants. A total of 700 patients were enrolled at 197 sites (350 in the avelumab group and 350 in the BSC group). All patients had histologically confirmed unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Patients received 4 to 6 cycles of chemotherapy with either gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin and had no evidence of progression after completion. Patients had a treatment-free interval of 4 to 10 weeks prior to starting maintenance therapy. Patients who received neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-based therapy within the prior 12 months were excluded.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) assessed in both the overall population and PD-L1–positive population. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response, time to response, duration of response, and disease control. PD-L1 expression was determined via the Ventana PD-L1 assay (SP263), and patients were classified as PD-L1 positive if they met 1 of the following: (1) at least 25% of tumor cells were positive for PD-L1; (2) at least 25% of immune cells were positive for PD-L1 if more than 1% of the tumor area contained immune cells; and (3) 100% of immune cells stained for PD-L1 if no more than 1% of the tumor area contained immune cells.

Results. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the groups. A total of 51.1% of patients had PD-L1–positive tumors (57.6% in the avelumab group and 56.3% in the control group). At the time of analysis, 24% of patients in the avelumab group were still receiving therapy compared with only 7% in the BSC group. The most common reason for discontinuation of therapy was disease progression; 43.7% of patients in the control group received anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy at progression. The median follow-up was 19 months. OS at 1 year was 71.3% in the avelumab group and 58.4% in the control group. The median OS was 21.4 months in the avelumab group compared with 14.3 months in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.69; confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.86, P = 0.001). In the PD-L1–positive population, OS was also significantly longer in the avelumab group (NE vs 17.1 months, HR, 0.56; CI, 0.40-0.79; P < 0.001). In the PD-L1–negative population, median OS was 18.8 months in the avelumab group versus 13.7 months in the control group (HR, 0.85). PFS was longer in the avelumab group than in the control group, with a median PFS of 3.7 months versus 2 months, respectively. The median PFS was 5.7 months in the avelumab group and 2.1 months in the control group in the PD-L1–positive population.

Adverse events (AEs) of any grade occurred in 98% of patients in the avelumab group and 77% in the control group. Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 47.4% of patients in the avelumab group. AEs led to discontinuation in 11.9% of patients in the avelumab group. Two patients died in the avelumab group as a result of toxicity (urinary tract infection with sepsis and ischemic stroke). Immune-related adverse events occurred in 29.4% of patients in the avelumab group. Of those, 7% were grade 3 in nature, and there were no grade 4 or 5 immune-related AEs. The most commonly seen immune-related AEs were thyroid disorders.

Conclusion. Avelumab maintenance significantly improved OS compared with BSC in patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease did not progress after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.

Commentary

In summary, the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial showed significantly longer OS with the use of maintenance avelumab following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. This survival benefit was seen in all subgroups, including those who received cisplatin or carboplatin therapy, as well as those with stable disease, partial response, or complete response to initial chemotherapy. Furthermore, the survival benefit was seen in both the overall population as well as in the PD-L1–positive population. There did not appear to be any new safety concerns noted in this trial. Based on these findings, avelumab maintenance in those who do not progress on first-line platinum-based therapy certainly represents a potentially new standard of care in this patient population. While the results of this study are promising and potentially practice changing, whether this “switch maintenance” approach is superior to treatment at progression (ie, use of checkpoint inhibition in the second-line setting) remains debatable. Nevertheless, for most patients, this appears to be the preferred approach given the notable longer OS and improved PFS, which is meaningful, particularly if the progression event is symptomatic. Furthermore, a portion of patients will not proceed to second-line therapy for a variety of reasons, and thus will not be exposed to checkpoint inhibitors if one takes a treatment break approach.

In the previous KEYNOTE-45 study evaluating pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in the second-line setting after progression on previous platinum therapy, the median OS was just 10 months in the pembrolizumab arm.¹ This is markedly different from the 21.4-month median OS noted in the current study. While there are many limitations to this comparison, it does appear that switch maintenance leads to meaningful improvements in patient outcomes. It should be noted, however, that a portion of patients will have a durable response to platinum-based therapy, and thus there may be a portion of patients who would be “overtreated” with such an approach.

A similar approach has been explored in a randomized phase 2 trial looking at maintenance pembrolizumab after first-line chemotherapy (HCRN GU14-182).² This trial similarly showed improvement in PFS; however, OS was not yet mature at the time of data analysis. It should be noted that crossover was permitted in the HCRN study, while this was not allowed in the current Javelin 100 study. Certainly, this crossover effect influenced OS data in that trial. Thus, the current study is the first and only to show an OS benefit with such an approach in this population. Numerous ongoing studies are seeking to evaluate the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the first-line setting for advanced urothelial carcinoma, and the results of these studies will help shed additional light regarding the efficacy of this approach.

Applications for Clinical Practice

First-line maintenance avelumab in patients who do not progress on platinum-based chemotherapy improves both progression-free and overall survival. This approach is certainly practice-changing and represents a new standard of care in this patient population. Careful discussion with each patient about the benefits and risks of a switch maintenance approach is warranted.

Daniel Isaac, DO, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy of maintenance avelumab in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who had received first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.

Design. International, open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either maintenance therapy with avelumab 10 mg/kg plus best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone, per local practice. Randomization was stratified according to best response to first-line chemotherapy and metastatic site (visceral vs nonvisceral). Treatment was continued until progression, unacceptable toxicities, or patient withdrawal occurred.

Setting and participants. A total of 700 patients were enrolled at 197 sites (350 in the avelumab group and 350 in the BSC group). All patients had histologically confirmed unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Patients received 4 to 6 cycles of chemotherapy with either gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin and had no evidence of progression after completion. Patients had a treatment-free interval of 4 to 10 weeks prior to starting maintenance therapy. Patients who received neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-based therapy within the prior 12 months were excluded.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) assessed in both the overall population and PD-L1–positive population. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response, time to response, duration of response, and disease control. PD-L1 expression was determined via the Ventana PD-L1 assay (SP263), and patients were classified as PD-L1 positive if they met 1 of the following: (1) at least 25% of tumor cells were positive for PD-L1; (2) at least 25% of immune cells were positive for PD-L1 if more than 1% of the tumor area contained immune cells; and (3) 100% of immune cells stained for PD-L1 if no more than 1% of the tumor area contained immune cells.

Results. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the groups. A total of 51.1% of patients had PD-L1–positive tumors (57.6% in the avelumab group and 56.3% in the control group). At the time of analysis, 24% of patients in the avelumab group were still receiving therapy compared with only 7% in the BSC group. The most common reason for discontinuation of therapy was disease progression; 43.7% of patients in the control group received anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy at progression. The median follow-up was 19 months. OS at 1 year was 71.3% in the avelumab group and 58.4% in the control group. The median OS was 21.4 months in the avelumab group compared with 14.3 months in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.69; confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.86, P = 0.001). In the PD-L1–positive population, OS was also significantly longer in the avelumab group (NE vs 17.1 months, HR, 0.56; CI, 0.40-0.79; P < 0.001). In the PD-L1–negative population, median OS was 18.8 months in the avelumab group versus 13.7 months in the control group (HR, 0.85). PFS was longer in the avelumab group than in the control group, with a median PFS of 3.7 months versus 2 months, respectively. The median PFS was 5.7 months in the avelumab group and 2.1 months in the control group in the PD-L1–positive population.

Adverse events (AEs) of any grade occurred in 98% of patients in the avelumab group and 77% in the control group. Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 47.4% of patients in the avelumab group. AEs led to discontinuation in 11.9% of patients in the avelumab group. Two patients died in the avelumab group as a result of toxicity (urinary tract infection with sepsis and ischemic stroke). Immune-related adverse events occurred in 29.4% of patients in the avelumab group. Of those, 7% were grade 3 in nature, and there were no grade 4 or 5 immune-related AEs. The most commonly seen immune-related AEs were thyroid disorders.

Conclusion. Avelumab maintenance significantly improved OS compared with BSC in patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease did not progress after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.

Commentary

In summary, the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial showed significantly longer OS with the use of maintenance avelumab following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. This survival benefit was seen in all subgroups, including those who received cisplatin or carboplatin therapy, as well as those with stable disease, partial response, or complete response to initial chemotherapy. Furthermore, the survival benefit was seen in both the overall population as well as in the PD-L1–positive population. There did not appear to be any new safety concerns noted in this trial. Based on these findings, avelumab maintenance in those who do not progress on first-line platinum-based therapy certainly represents a potentially new standard of care in this patient population. While the results of this study are promising and potentially practice changing, whether this “switch maintenance” approach is superior to treatment at progression (ie, use of checkpoint inhibition in the second-line setting) remains debatable. Nevertheless, for most patients, this appears to be the preferred approach given the notable longer OS and improved PFS, which is meaningful, particularly if the progression event is symptomatic. Furthermore, a portion of patients will not proceed to second-line therapy for a variety of reasons, and thus will not be exposed to checkpoint inhibitors if one takes a treatment break approach.

In the previous KEYNOTE-45 study evaluating pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in the second-line setting after progression on previous platinum therapy, the median OS was just 10 months in the pembrolizumab arm.¹ This is markedly different from the 21.4-month median OS noted in the current study. While there are many limitations to this comparison, it does appear that switch maintenance leads to meaningful improvements in patient outcomes. It should be noted, however, that a portion of patients will have a durable response to platinum-based therapy, and thus there may be a portion of patients who would be “overtreated” with such an approach.

A similar approach has been explored in a randomized phase 2 trial looking at maintenance pembrolizumab after first-line chemotherapy (HCRN GU14-182).² This trial similarly showed improvement in PFS; however, OS was not yet mature at the time of data analysis. It should be noted that crossover was permitted in the HCRN study, while this was not allowed in the current Javelin 100 study. Certainly, this crossover effect influenced OS data in that trial. Thus, the current study is the first and only to show an OS benefit with such an approach in this population. Numerous ongoing studies are seeking to evaluate the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the first-line setting for advanced urothelial carcinoma, and the results of these studies will help shed additional light regarding the efficacy of this approach.

Applications for Clinical Practice

First-line maintenance avelumab in patients who do not progress on platinum-based chemotherapy improves both progression-free and overall survival. This approach is certainly practice-changing and represents a new standard of care in this patient population. Careful discussion with each patient about the benefits and risks of a switch maintenance approach is warranted.

Daniel Isaac, DO, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy of maintenance avelumab in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who had received first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.

Design. International, open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either maintenance therapy with avelumab 10 mg/kg plus best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone, per local practice. Randomization was stratified according to best response to first-line chemotherapy and metastatic site (visceral vs nonvisceral). Treatment was continued until progression, unacceptable toxicities, or patient withdrawal occurred.

Setting and participants. A total of 700 patients were enrolled at 197 sites (350 in the avelumab group and 350 in the BSC group). All patients had histologically confirmed unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Patients received 4 to 6 cycles of chemotherapy with either gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin and had no evidence of progression after completion. Patients had a treatment-free interval of 4 to 10 weeks prior to starting maintenance therapy. Patients who received neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-based therapy within the prior 12 months were excluded.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) assessed in both the overall population and PD-L1–positive population. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response, time to response, duration of response, and disease control. PD-L1 expression was determined via the Ventana PD-L1 assay (SP263), and patients were classified as PD-L1 positive if they met 1 of the following: (1) at least 25% of tumor cells were positive for PD-L1; (2) at least 25% of immune cells were positive for PD-L1 if more than 1% of the tumor area contained immune cells; and (3) 100% of immune cells stained for PD-L1 if no more than 1% of the tumor area contained immune cells.

Results. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the groups. A total of 51.1% of patients had PD-L1–positive tumors (57.6% in the avelumab group and 56.3% in the control group). At the time of analysis, 24% of patients in the avelumab group were still receiving therapy compared with only 7% in the BSC group. The most common reason for discontinuation of therapy was disease progression; 43.7% of patients in the control group received anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy at progression. The median follow-up was 19 months. OS at 1 year was 71.3% in the avelumab group and 58.4% in the control group. The median OS was 21.4 months in the avelumab group compared with 14.3 months in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.69; confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.86, P = 0.001). In the PD-L1–positive population, OS was also significantly longer in the avelumab group (NE vs 17.1 months, HR, 0.56; CI, 0.40-0.79; P < 0.001). In the PD-L1–negative population, median OS was 18.8 months in the avelumab group versus 13.7 months in the control group (HR, 0.85). PFS was longer in the avelumab group than in the control group, with a median PFS of 3.7 months versus 2 months, respectively. The median PFS was 5.7 months in the avelumab group and 2.1 months in the control group in the PD-L1–positive population.

Adverse events (AEs) of any grade occurred in 98% of patients in the avelumab group and 77% in the control group. Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 47.4% of patients in the avelumab group. AEs led to discontinuation in 11.9% of patients in the avelumab group. Two patients died in the avelumab group as a result of toxicity (urinary tract infection with sepsis and ischemic stroke). Immune-related adverse events occurred in 29.4% of patients in the avelumab group. Of those, 7% were grade 3 in nature, and there were no grade 4 or 5 immune-related AEs. The most commonly seen immune-related AEs were thyroid disorders.

Conclusion. Avelumab maintenance significantly improved OS compared with BSC in patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease did not progress after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.

Commentary

In summary, the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial showed significantly longer OS with the use of maintenance avelumab following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. This survival benefit was seen in all subgroups, including those who received cisplatin or carboplatin therapy, as well as those with stable disease, partial response, or complete response to initial chemotherapy. Furthermore, the survival benefit was seen in both the overall population as well as in the PD-L1–positive population. There did not appear to be any new safety concerns noted in this trial. Based on these findings, avelumab maintenance in those who do not progress on first-line platinum-based therapy certainly represents a potentially new standard of care in this patient population. While the results of this study are promising and potentially practice changing, whether this “switch maintenance” approach is superior to treatment at progression (ie, use of checkpoint inhibition in the second-line setting) remains debatable. Nevertheless, for most patients, this appears to be the preferred approach given the notable longer OS and improved PFS, which is meaningful, particularly if the progression event is symptomatic. Furthermore, a portion of patients will not proceed to second-line therapy for a variety of reasons, and thus will not be exposed to checkpoint inhibitors if one takes a treatment break approach.

In the previous KEYNOTE-45 study evaluating pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in the second-line setting after progression on previous platinum therapy, the median OS was just 10 months in the pembrolizumab arm.¹ This is markedly different from the 21.4-month median OS noted in the current study. While there are many limitations to this comparison, it does appear that switch maintenance leads to meaningful improvements in patient outcomes. It should be noted, however, that a portion of patients will have a durable response to platinum-based therapy, and thus there may be a portion of patients who would be “overtreated” with such an approach.

A similar approach has been explored in a randomized phase 2 trial looking at maintenance pembrolizumab after first-line chemotherapy (HCRN GU14-182).² This trial similarly showed improvement in PFS; however, OS was not yet mature at the time of data analysis. It should be noted that crossover was permitted in the HCRN study, while this was not allowed in the current Javelin 100 study. Certainly, this crossover effect influenced OS data in that trial. Thus, the current study is the first and only to show an OS benefit with such an approach in this population. Numerous ongoing studies are seeking to evaluate the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the first-line setting for advanced urothelial carcinoma, and the results of these studies will help shed additional light regarding the efficacy of this approach.

Applications for Clinical Practice

First-line maintenance avelumab in patients who do not progress on platinum-based chemotherapy improves both progression-free and overall survival. This approach is certainly practice-changing and represents a new standard of care in this patient population. Careful discussion with each patient about the benefits and risks of a switch maintenance approach is warranted.

Daniel Isaac, DO, MS

From the University of California San Francisco (Dr. Treadwell, Dr. Hessler, Yumei Chen, Swapandeep Mushiana, Dr. Potter, and Dr. Vichinsky), the University of California Los Angeles (Dr. Jacob), and the University of California Berkeley (Alex Chen).

Abstract

• Objective: Adolescents and adults with sickle cell disease (SCD) face pervasive disparities in health resources and outcomes. We explored barriers to and facilitators of care to identify opportunities to support implementation of evidence-based interventions aimed at improving care quality for patients with SCD.
• Methods: We engaged a representative sample of adolescents and adults with SCD (n = 58), health care providers (n = 51), and community stakeholders (health care administrators and community-based organization leads (n = 5) in Northern California in a community-based needs assessment. We conducted group interviews separately with participant groups to obtain in-depth perspectives. Adolescents and adults with SCD completed validated measures of pain interference, quality of care, self-efficacy, and barriers to care. Providers and community stakeholders completed surveys about barriers to SCD care.
• Results: We triangulated qualitative and quantitative data and found that participants with SCD (mean age, 31 ± 8.6 years), providers, and community stakeholders emphasized the social and emotional burden of SCD as barriers. Concrete barriers agreed upon included insurance and lack of resources for addressing pain impact. Adolescents and adults with SCD identified provider issues (lack of knowledge, implicit bias), transportation, and limited social support as barriers. Negative encounters with the health care system contributed to 84% of adolescents and adults with SCD reporting they chose to manage severe pain at home. Providers focused on structural barriers: lack of access to care guidelines, comfort level with and knowledge of SCD management, and poor care coordination.
• Conclusion: Strategies for improving access to compassionate, evidence-based quality care, as well as strategies for minimizing the burden of having SCD, are warranted for this medically complex population.

Keywords: barriers to care; quality of care; care access; care coordination.

Sickle cell disease (SCD), an inherited chronic medical condition, affects about 100,000 individuals in the United States, a population that is predominantly African American.¹ These individuals experience multiple serious and life-threatening complications, most frequently recurrent vaso-occlusive pain episodes,² and they require interactions with multidisciplinary specialists from childhood. Because of advances in treatments, the majority are reaching adulthood; however, there is a dearth of adult health care providers with the training and expertise to manage their complex medical needs.³ Other concrete barriers to adequate SCD care include insurance and distance to comprehensive SCD centers.^4,5

Social, behavioral, and emotional factors may also contribute to challenges with SCD management. SCD may limit daily functional abilities and lead to diminished overall quality of life.^6,7 Some adolescents and adults may require high doses of opioids, which contributes to health care providers’ perceptions that there is a high prevalence of drug addiction in the population.^8,9 These providers express negative attitudes towards adults with SCD, and, consequently, delay medication administration when it is acutely needed and provide otherwise suboptimal treatment.^8,10,11 Adult care providers may also be uncomfortable with prescribing and managing disease-modifying therapies (blood transfusion, hydroxyurea) that have established efficacy.^12-17

As 1 of 8 programs funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s (NHLBI) Sickle Cell Disease Implementation Consortium (SCDIC), we are using implementation science to reduce barriers to care and improve quality of care and health care outcomes in SCD.^18,19 Given that adolescents and adults with SCD experience high mortality, severe pain, and progressive decline in their ability to function day to day, and also face lack of access to knowledgeable, compassionate providers in primary and emergency settings, the SCDIC focuses on individuals aged 15 to 45 years.^6,8,9,11,12

Our regional SCDIC program, the Sickle Cell Care Coordination Initiative (SCCCI), brings together researchers, clinicians, adolescents, and adults with SCD and their families, dedicated community members, policy makers, and administrators to identify and address barriers to health care within 5 counties in Northern California. One of our first steps was to conduct a community-based needs assessment, designed to inform implementation of evidence-based interventions, accounting for unique contextual factors in our region.

Conceptual Framework for Improving Medical Practice

Our needs assessment is guided by Solberg’s Conceptual Framework for Improving Medical Practice (Figure 1).²⁰ Consistent with the overarching principles of the SCDIC, this conceptual framework focuses on the inadequate implementation of evidence-based guidelines, and on the need to first understand multifactorial facilitators and barriers to guideline implementation in order to effect change. The framework identifies 3 main elements that must be present to ensure improvements in quality-of-care processes and patient outcomes: priority, change process capability, and care process content. Priority refers to ample resource allocation for the specific change, as well as freedom from competing priorities for those implementing the change. Change process capability includes strong, effective leadership, adequate infrastructure for managing change (including resources and time), change management skills at all levels, and an established clinical information system. Care process content refers to context and systems-level changes, such as delivery system redesign as needed, support for self-management to lessen the impact of the disease, and decision support.^21-23

The purpose of our community-based needs assessment was to evaluate barriers to care and quality of care in SCD, within Solberg’s conceptual model for improving medical practice. The specific aims were to evaluate access and barriers to care (eg, lack of provider expertise and training, health care system barriers such as poor care coordination and provider communication); evaluate quality of care; and assess patient needs related to pain, pain interference, self-efficacy, and self-management for adolescents and adults with SCD. We gathered the perspectives of a representative community of adolescents and adults with SCD, their providers, and community stakeholders in order to examine barriers, quality of life and care, and patient experiences in our region.

Methods

Design

In this cross-sectional study, adolescents and adults with SCD, their providers, and community stakeholders participated in group or individual qualitative interviews and completed surveys between October 2017 and March 2018.

Setting and Sample

Recruitment flyers were posted on a regional SCD-focused website, and clinical providers or a study coordinator introduced information about the needs assessment to potential participants with SCD during clinic visits at the participating centers. Participants with SCD were eligible if they had any diagnosis of SCD, were aged 15 to 48 years, and received health services within 5 Northern California counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Francisco, and Solano). They were excluded if they did not have a SCD diagnosis or had not received health services within the catchment area. As the project proceeded, participants were asked to refer other adolescents and adults with SCD for the interviews and surveys (snowball sampling). Our goal was to recruit 50 adolescents and adults with SCD into the study, aiming for 10 representatives from each county.

Providers and community stakeholders were recruited via emails, letters and informational flyers. We engaged our partner, the Sickle Cell Data Collection Program,² to generate a list of providers and institutions that had seen patients with SCD in primary, emergency, or inpatient settings in the region. We contacted these institutions to describe the SCCCI and invite participation in the needs assessment. We also invited community-based organization leads and health care administrators who worked with SCD to participate. Providers accessed confidential surveys via a secure link on the study website or completed paper versions. Common data collected across providers included demographics and descriptions of practice settings.

Participants were eligible to be part of the study if they were health care providers (physicians and nurses) representing hematology, primary care, family medicine, internal medicine, or emergency medicine; ancillary staff (social work, psychology, child life); or leaders or administrators of clinical or sickle cell community-based organizations in Northern California (recruitment goal of n = 50). Providers were excluded if they practiced in specialties other than those noted or did not practice within the region.

Data Collection Procedures

After providing assent/consent, participating adolescents and adults with SCD took part in individual and group interviews and completed survey questionnaires. All procedures were conducted in a private space in the sickle cell center or community. Adolescents and adults with SCD completed the survey questionnaire on a tablet, with responses recorded directly in a REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) database,²⁴ or on a paper version. Interviews lasted 60 (individual) to 90 (group) minutes, while survey completion time was 20 to 25 minutes. Each participant received a gift card upon completion as an expression of appreciation. All procedures were approved by the institutional review boards of the participating health care facilities.

Group and Individual Interviews

Participants with SCD and providers were invited to participate in a semi-structured qualitative interview prior to being presented with the surveys. Adolescents and adults with SCD were interviewed about barriers to care, quality of care, and pain-related experiences. Providers were asked about barriers to care and treatments. Interview guides were modified for community-based organization leaders and health care administrators who did not provide clinical services. Interview guides can be found in the Appendix. Interviews were conducted by research coordinators trained in qualitative research methods by the first author (MT). As appropriate with semi-structured interviews, the interviewers could word questions spontaneously, change the order of questions for ease of flow of conversation, and inform simultaneous coding of interviews with new themes as those might arise, as long as they touched on all topics within the interview guide.²⁵ The interview guides were written, per qualitative research standards, based on the aims and purpose of the research,²⁶ and were informed by existing literature on access and barriers to care in SCD, quality of care, and the needs of individuals with SCD, including in relation to impact of the disease, self-efficacy, and self-management.

Interviewees participated in either individual or group interviews, but not both. The decision for which type of interview an individual participated in was based on 2 factors: if there were not comparable participants for group interviews (eg, health care administrator and community-based organization lead), these interviews were done individually; and given that we were drawing participants from a 5-county area in Northern California, scheduling was challenging for individuals with SCD with regard to aligning schedules and traveling to a central location where the group interviews were conducted. Provider group interviews were easier to arrange because we could schedule them at the same time as regularly scheduled meetings at the participants’ health care institutions.

Interview Data Gathering and Analysis

Digital recordings of the interviews were cleaned of any participant identifying data and sent for transcription to an outside service. Transcripts were reviewed for completeness and imported into NVivo (www.qsrinternational.com), a qualitative data management program.

A thematic content analysis and deductive and inductive approaches were used to analyze the verbatim transcripts generated from the interviews. The research team was trained in the use of NVivo software to facilitate the coding process. A deductive coding scheme was initially used based on existing concepts in the literature regarding challenges to optimal SCD care, with new codes added as the thematic content analyses progressed. The initial coding, pattern coding, and use of displays to examine the relationships between different categories were conducted simultaneously.^27,28 Using the constant comparative method, new concepts from participants with SCD and providers could be incorporated into subsequent interviews with other participants. For this study, the only additional concepts added were in relation to participant recruitment and retention in the SCDIC Registry. Research team members coded transcripts separately and came together weekly, constantly comparing codes and developing the consensus coding scheme. Where differences between coders existed, code meanings were discussed and clarified until consensus was reached.²⁹

Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS (v. 25, Chicago, IL). Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, frequencies, percentages) were used to summarize demographics (eg, age, gender, and race), economic status, and type of SCD. No systematic differences were detected from cases with missing values. Scale reliabilities (ie, Cronbach α) were evaluated for self-report measures.

Measurement

Adolescents and adults with SCD completed items from the PhenX Toolkit (consensus measures for Phenotypes and eXposures), assessing sociodemographics (age, sex, race, ethnicity, educational attainment, occupation, marital status, annual income, insurance), and clinical characteristics (sickle cell diagnosis and emergency department [ED] and hospital utilization for pain).³⁰

Pain Interference Short Form (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS]). The Pain Interference Form consists of 8 items that assess the degree to which pain interfered with day-to-day activities in the previous 7 days at home, including impacts on social, cognitive, emotional, and physical functioning; household chores and recreational activities; sleep; and enjoyment in life. Reliability and validity of the PROMIS Pain Interference Scale has been demonstrated, with strong negative correlations with Physical Function Scales (r = 0.717, P < 0.01), indicating that higher scores are associated with lower function (β = 0.707, P < 0.001).³¹ The Cronbach α estimate for the other items on the pain interference scale was 0.99. Validity analysis indicated strong correlations with pain-related domains: BPI Interference Subscale (rho = 0.90), SF-36 Bodily Pain Subscale (rho = –0.84), and 0–10 Numerical Rating of Pain Intensity (rho = 0.48).³²

Adult Sickle Cell Quality of Life Measurement Information System (ASCQ-Me) Quality of Care (QOC). ASCQ-Me QOC consists of 27 items that measure the quality of care that adults with SCD have received from health care providers.³³ There are 3 composites: provider communication (quality of patient and provider communication), ED care (quality of care in the ED), and access (to routine and emergency care). Internal consistency reliability for all 3 composites is greater than 0.70. Strong correlations of the provider communication composite with overall ratings of routine care (r = 0.65) and overall provider ratings (r = 0.83) provided evidence of construct validity. Similarly, the ED care composite was strongly correlated with overall ratings of QOC in the ED, and the access composite was highly correlated with overall evaluations of ED care (r = 0.70). Access, provider interaction, and ED care composites were reliable (Cronbach α, 0.70–0.83) and correlated with ratings of global care (r = 0.32–0.83), further indicating construct validity.³³

Sickle Cell Self-Efficacy Scale (SCSES). The SCSES is a 9-item, self-administered questionnaire measuring perceptions of the ability to manage day-to-day issues resulting from SCD. SCSES items are scored on a 5-point scale ranging from Not sure at all (1) to Very sure (5). Individual item responses are summed to give an overall score, with higher scores indicating greater self-efficacy. The SCSES has acceptable reliability (r = 0.45, P < 0.001) and validity (α = 0.89).^34,35

Sickle Cell Disease Barriers Checklist. This checklist consists of 53 items organized into 8 categories: insurance, transportation, accommodations and accessibility, provider knowledge and attitudes, social support, individual barriers such as forgetting or difficulties understanding instructions, emotional barriers (fear, anger), and disease-related barriers. Participants check applicable barriers, with a total score range of 0 to 53 and higher scores indicating more barriers to care. The SCD Barriers Checklist has demonstrated face validity and test-retest reliability (Pearson r = 0.74, P < 0.05).⁵

ED Provider Checklist. The ED provider survey is a checklist of 14 statements pertaining to issues regarding patient care, with which the provider rates level of agreement. Items representing the attitudes and beliefs of providers towards patients with SCD are rated on a Likert-type scale, with level of agreement indicated as 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The positive attitudes subscale consists of 4 items (Cronbach α= 0.85), and the negative attitudes subscale consists of 6 items (Cronbach α = 0.89). The Red-Flag Behaviors subscale includes 4 items that indicate behavior concerns about drug-seeking, such as requesting specific narcotics and changing behavior when the provider walks in.^8,36,37

Sickle cell and primary care providers also completed a survey consisting of sets of items compiled from existing provider surveys; this survey consisted of a list of 16 barriers to using opioids, which the providers rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1, not a barrier; 5, complete barrier).^13,16,38 Providers indicated their level of experience with caring for patients with SCD; care provided, such as routine health screenings; and comfort level with providing preventive care, managing comorbidities, and managing acute and chronic pain. Providers were asked what potential facilitators might improve care for patients with SCD, including higher reimbursement, case management services, access to pain management specialists, and access to clinical decision-support tools. Providers responded to specific questions about management with hydroxyurea (eg, criteria for, barriers to, and comfort level with prescribing).³⁹ The surveys are included in the Appendix.

Triangulation

Data from the interviews and surveys were triangulated to enhance understanding of results generated from the different data sources.⁴⁰ Convergence of findings, different facets of the same phenomenon, or new perspectives were examined.

Qualitative Data

Adolescents and adults with SCD (n = 55) and health care providers and community stakeholders (n = 56) participated in group or individual interviews to help us gain an in-depth understanding of the needs and barriers related to SCD care in our 5-county region. Participants with SCD described their experiences, which included stigma, racism, labeling, and, consequently, stress. They also identified barriers such as lack of transportation, challenges with insurance, and lack of access to providers who were competent with pain management. They reported that having SCD in a health care system that was unable to meet their needs was burdensome.

Barriers to Care and Treatments. Adolescents and adults indicated that SCD and its sequelae posed significant barriers to health care. Feelings of tiredness and pain make it more difficult for them to seek care. The emotional burden of SCD (fear and anger) was a frequently cited barrier, which was fueled by previous negative encounters with the health care system. All adolescents and adults with SCD reported that they knew of stigma in relation to seeking pain management that was pervasive and long-standing, and the majority reported they had directly experienced stigma. They reported that being labeled as “drug-seekers” was typical when in the ED for pain management. Participants articulated unconscious bias or overt racism among providers: “people with sickle cell are Black ... and Black pain is never as valuable as White pain” (25-year-old male). Respondents with SCD described challenges to the credibility of their pain reports in the ED. They reported that ED providers expressed doubts regarding the existence and/or severity of their pain, consequently creating a feeling of disrespect for patients seeking pain relief. The issue of stigma was mentioned by only 2 of 56 providers during their interviews.

Lack of Access to Knowledgeable, Compassionate Providers. Lack of access to knowledgeable care providers was another prevalent theme expressed by adolescents and adults with SCD. Frustration occurred when providers did not have knowledge of SCD and its management, particularly pain assessment. Adolescents and adults with SCD noted the lack of compassion among providers: “I’ve been kicked out of the hospital because they felt like okay, well we gave you enough medication, you should be all right” (29-year-old female). Providers specifically mentioned lack of compassion and knowledge as barriers to SCD care much less often during their interviews compared with the adolescents and adults with SCD.

Health Care System Barriers. Patient participants often expressed concerns about concrete and structural aspects of care. Getting to their appointments was a challenge for half of the interviewees, as they either did not have access to a vehicle or could not afford to travel the needed distance to obtain quality care. Even when hospitals were accessible by public transportation, those with excruciating pain understandably preferred a more comfortable and private way to travel: “I would like to change that, something that will be much easier, convenient for sickle cell patients that do suffer with pain, that they don’t have to travel always to see the doctor” (30-year-old male).

Insurance and other financial barriers also played an important role in influencing decisions to seek health care services. Medical expenses were not covered, or co-pays were too high. The Medicaid managed care system could prevent access to knowledgeable providers who were not within network. Such a lack of access discouraged some adolescents and adults with SCD from seeking acute and preventive care.

Transition From Pediatric to Adult Care. Interviewees with SCD expressed distress about the gap between pediatric and adult care. They described how they had a long-standing relationship with their medical providers, who were familiar with their medical background and history from childhood. Adolescent interviewees reported an understanding of their own pain management as well as adherence to and satisfaction with their individualized pain plans. However, adults noted that satisfaction plummeted with increasing age due to the limited number of experienced adult SCD providers, which was compounded by negative experiences (stigma, racism, drug-seeking label).

One interviewee emphasized the difficulty of finding knowledgeable providers after transition: “When you’re a pediatric sickle cell [patient], you have the doctors there every step of the way, but not with adult sickle cell… I know when I first transitioned I never felt more alone in my life… you look at that ER doctor kind of with the same mindset as you would your hematologist who just hand walked you through everything. And adult care providers were a lot more blunt and cold and they’re like… ‘I don’t know; I’m not really educated in sickle cell.’” A sickle cell provider shared his insight about the problem of transitioning: “I think it’s particularly challenging because we, as a community, don’t really set them up for success. It’s different from other chronic conditions [in that] it’s much harder to find an adult sickle cell provider. There’s not a lot of adult hematologists that will take care of our adult patients, and so I know statistically, there’s like a drop-down in the overall outcomes of our kids after they age out of our pediatric program.”

Self-Management, Supporting Hydroxyurea Use. Interview participants with SCD reported using a variety of methods to manage pain at home and chose to go to the ED only when the pain became intolerable. Patients and providers expressed awareness of different resources for managing pain at home, yet they also indicated that these resources have not been consolidated in an accessible way for patients and families. Some resources cited included heat therapy, acupuncture, meditation, medical marijuana, virtual reality devices, and pain medications other than opioids.

Patients and providers expressed the need for increasing awareness and education about hydroxyurea. Many interview participants with SCD were concerned about side effects, multiple visits with a provider during dose titration, and ongoing laboratory monitoring. They also expressed difficulties with scheduling multiple appointments, depending on access to transportation and limited provider clinic hours. They were aware of strategies for improving adherence with hydroxyurea, including setting phone alarms, educating family members about hydroxyurea, and eliciting family support, but expressed needing help to consistently implement these strategies.

Safe Opioid Prescribing. Adult care providers expressed concerns about safe opioid prescribing for patients with SCD. They were reluctant to prescribe opioid doses needed to adequately control SCD pain. Providers expressed uncertainty and fear or concern about medical/legal liability or about their judgment about what’s safe and not safe for patients with chronic use/very high doses of opioids. “I know we’re in like this opiate epidemic here in this country but I feel like these patients don’t really fit under that umbrella that the problem is coming from so [I am] just trying to learn more about how to take care of them.”

Care Coordination and Provider Communication. Adolescents and adults with SCD reported having positive experiences—good communication, established trust, and compassionate care—with their usual providers. However, they perceived that ED physicians and nurses did not really care about them. Both interviewees with SCD and providers recognized the importance of good communication in all settings as the key to overcoming barriers to receiving quality care. All agreed on the importance of using individual pain plans so that all providers, especially ED providers, can be more at ease with treating adolescents and adults with SCD.

Quantitative Data: Adolescents and Adults With SCD

Fifty-eight adolescents and adults with SCD (aged 15 to 48 years) completed the survey. Three additional individuals who did not complete the interview completed the survey. Reasons for not completing the interview included scheduling challenges (n = 2) or a sickle cell pain episode (n = 1). The average age of participants was 31 years ± 8.6, more than half (57%) were female, and the majority (93%) were African American (Table 1). Most (71%) had never been married. Half (50%) had some college or an associate degree, and 40% were employed and reported an annual household income of less than $30,000. Insurance coverage was predominantly Medi-Cal (Medicaid, 69%). The majority of participants resided in Alameda (34.5%) or Contra Costa (21%) counties. The majority of sickle cell care was received in Alameda County, whether outpatient (52%), inpatient (40%), or ED care (41%). The majority (71%) had a diagnosis of SCD hemoglobin SS.

Pain. More than one-third of individuals with SCD reported 1 or 2 ED visits for pain in the previous 6 months (34%), and more than 3 hospitalizations (36%) related to pain in the previous year (Table 2). The majority (85%) reported having severe pain at home in the previous 6 months that they did not seek health care for, consistent with their reports in the qualitative interviews. More than half (59%) reported 4 or more of these severe pain episodes that led to inability to perform daily activities for 1 week or more. While pain interference on the PROMIS Pain Interference Short Form on average (T-score, 59.6 ± 8.6) was similar to that of the general population (T-score, 50 ± 10), a higher proportion of patients with SCD reported pain interference compared with the general population. The mean self-efficacy (confidence in ability to manage complications of SCD) score on the SCSES of 30.0 ± 7.3 (range, 9–45) was similar to that of other adults with SCD (mean, 32.2 ± 7.0). Twenty-five percent of the present sample had a low self-efficacy score (< 25).

Barriers to Care and Treatments. Consistent with the qualitative data, SCD-related symptoms such as tiredness (64%) and pain (62%) were reported most often as barriers to care (Table 3). Emotions (> 25%) such as worry/fear, frustration/anger, and lack of confidence were other important barriers to care. Provider knowledge and attitudes were cited next most often, with 38% of the sample indicating “Providers accuse me of drug-seeking” and “It is hard for me to find a provider who has enough experiences with or knowledge about SCD.” Participants expressed that they were not believed when in pain and “I am treated differently from other patients.” Almost half of respondents cited “I am not seen quickly enough when I am in pain” as a barrier to their care.

Consistent with the qualitative data, transportation barriers (not having a vehicle, costs of transportation, public transit not easy to get to) were cited by 55% of participants. About half of participants reported that insurance was an important barrier, with high co-pays and medications and other services not covered. In addition, gathering approvals was a long and fragmented process, particularly for consultations among providers (hematology, primary care provider, pain specialist). Furthermore, insurance provided limited choices about location for services.

Participants reported social support system burnout (22%), help needed with daily activities (21%), and social isolation or generally not having enough support (33%) as ongoing barriers. Difficulties were encountered with self-management (eg, taking medications on time or making follow-up appointments, 19%), with 22% of participants finding the health care system confusing or hard to understand. Thirty percent reported “Places for me to go to learn how to stay well are not close by or easy to get to.” ”Worry about side effects” (33%) was a common barrier to hydroxyurea use. Participants described “forgetting to take the medicine,” “tried before but it did not work,” “heard scary things” about hydroxyurea, and “not interested in taking another medicine” as barriers.

Quality of Care. More than half (51%) of the 53 participants who had accessed health care in the previous year rated their overall health care as poor on the ASCQ-Me QOC measure. This was significantly higher compared to the reports from more than 47,000 adults with Medicaid in 2017 (16%),⁴¹ and to the 2008-2009 report from 556 adults with SCD from across the United States (37%, Figure 2).³³ The major contributor to these poor ratings for participants in our sample was low satisfaction with ED care.

Sixty percent of the 42 participants who had accessed ED care in the past year indicated “never” or “sometimes” to the question “When you went to the ED for care, how often did you get it as soon as you wanted?” compared with only 16% of the 2017 adult Medicaid population responding (n = 25,789) (Figure 3). Forty-seven percent of those with an ED visit indicated that, in the previous 12 months, they had been made to wait “more than 2 hours before receiving treatment for acute pain in the ED.” However, in the previous 12 months, 39% reported that their wait time in the ED had been only “between five minutes and one hour.”

On the ASCQ-Me QOC Access to Care composite measure, 33% of 42 participants responding reported they were seen at a routine appointment as soon as they would have liked. This is significantly lower compared to 56% of the adult Medicaid population responding to the same question. Reports of provider communication (Provider Communication composite) for adolescents and adults with SCD were comparable to reports of adults with SCD from the ASCQ-Me field test,³³ but adults with Medicaid reported higher ratings of quality communication behaviors (Figure 4).^33,41 Nearly 60% of both groups with SCD reported that providers “always” performed quality communication behaviors—listened carefully, spent enough time, treated them with respect, and explained things well—compared with more than 70% of adults with Medicaid.

Participants from all counties reported the same number of barriers to care on average (3.3 ± 2.1). Adolescents and adults who reported more barriers to care also reported lower satisfaction with care (r = –0.47, P < 0.01) and less confidence in their ability to manage their SCD (self-efficacy, r = – 0.36, P < 0.05). Female participants reported more barriers to care on average compared with male participants (2.6 ± 2.4 vs 1.4 ± 2.0, P = 0.05). Participants with higher self-efficacy reported lower pain ratings (r = –0.47, P < 0.001).

Quantitative Data: Health Care Providers

Providers (n = 56) and community stakeholders (2 leaders of community-based organizations and 3 health care administrators) were interviewed, with 29 also completing the survey. The reason for not completing (n = 22) was not having the time once the interview was complete. A link to the survey was sent to any provider not completing at the time of the interview, with 2 follow-up reminders. The majority of providers were between the ages of 31 and 50 years (46.4%), female (71.4%), and white (66.1%) (Table 4). None were of Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish origin. Thirty-six were physicians (64.3%), and 16 were allied health professionals (28.6%). Of the 56 providers, 32 indicated they had expertise caring for patients with SCD (57.1%), 14 were ED providers (25%), and 5 were primary care providers. Most of the providers practiced in an urban setting (91.1%).

Barriers to Care: ED Provider Perspectives. Nine of 14 ED providers interviewed completed the survey on their perspectives regarding barriers to care in the ED, difficulty with follow-ups, ED training resources, and pain control for patients with SCD. ED providers (n = 8) indicated that “provider attitudes” were a barrier to care delivery in the ED for patients with SCD. Some providers (n = 7) indicated that “implicit bias,” “opioid epidemic,” “concern about addiction,” and “patient behavior” were barriers. Respondents indicated that “overcrowding” (n = 6) and “lack of care pathway/protocol” (n = 5) were barriers. When asked to express their level of agreement with statements about SCD care in the ED, respondents disagreed/strongly disagreed (n = 5) that they were “able to make a follow-up appointment” with a sickle cell specialist or primary care provider upon discharge from the ED, and others disagreed/strongly disagreed (n = 4) that they were able to make a “referral to a case management program.”

ED training and resources. Providers agreed/strongly agreed (n = 8) that they had the knowledge and training to care for patients with SCD, that they had access to needed medications, and that they had access to knowledgeable nursing staff with expertise in SCD care. All 9 ED providers indicated that they had sufficient physician/provider staffing to provide good pain management to persons with SCD in the ED.

Pain control in the ED. Seven ED providers indicated that their ED used individualized dosing protocols to treat sickle cell pain, and 5 respondents indicated their ED had a protocol for treating sickle cell pain. Surprisingly, only 3 indicated that they were aware of the NHLBI recommendations for the treatment of vaso-occlusive pain.

Barriers to Care: Primary Care Provider Perspectives. Twenty providers completed the SCD provider section of the survey, including 17 multidisciplinary SCD providers from 4 sickle cell special care centers and 3 community primary care providers. Of the 20, 12 were primary care providers for patients with SCD (Table 4).

Patient needs. Six primary care providers indicated that the medical needs of patients with SCD were being met, but none indicated that the behavioral health or mental health needs were being met.

Managing SCD comorbidities. Five primary care providers indicated they were very comfortable providing preventive ambulatory care to patients with SCD. Six indicated they were very comfortable managing acute pain episodes, but none were very comfortable managing comorbidities such as pulmonary hypertension, diabetes, or chronic pain.

Barriers to opioid use. Only 3 of 12 providers reviewing a list of 15 potential barriers to the use of opioids for SCD pain management indicated a perceived lack of efficacy of opioids, development of tolerance and dependence, and concerns about community perceptions as barriers. Two providers selected potential for diversion as a moderate barrier to opioid use.

Barriers to hydroxyurea use. Eight of 12 providers indicated that the common reasons that patients/families refuse hydroxyurea were “worry about side effects”; 7 chose “don’t want to take another medicine,” and 6 chose “worry about carcinogenic potential.” Others (n = 10) indicated that “patient/family adherence with hydroxyurea” and “patient/family adherence with required blood tests” were important barriers to hydroxyurea use. Eight of the 12 providers indicated that they were comfortable with managing hydroxyurea in patients with SCD.

Care redesign. Twenty SCD and primary care providers completed the Care Redesign section of the survey. Respondents (n = 11) indicated that they would see more patients with SCD if they had accessible case management services available without charge or if patient access to transportation to clinic was also available. Ten indicated that they would see more patients with SCD if they had an accessible community health worker (who understands patient’s/family’s social situation) and access to a pain management specialist on call to answer questions and who would manage chronic pain. All (n = 20) were willing to see more patients with SCD in their practices. Most reported that a clinical decision-support tool for SCD treatment (n = 13) and avoidance of complications (n = 12) would be useful.

Discussion

We evaluated access and barriers to care, quality of care, care coordination, and provider communication from the perspectives of adolescents and adults with SCD, their care providers, and community stakeholders, within the Solberg conceptual model for quality improvement. We found that barriers within the care process content domain (context and systems) were most salient for this population of adolescents and adults with SCD, with lack of provider knowledge and poor attitudes toward adolescents and adults with SCD, particularly in the ED, cited consistently by participant groups. Stigmatization and lack of provider compassion that affected the quality of care were particularly problematic. These findings are consistent with previous reports.^42,43 Adult health care (particularly ED) provider biases and negative attitudes have been recognized as major barriers to optimal pain management in SCD.^8,11,44,45 Interestingly, ED providers in our needs assessment indicated that they felt they had the training and resources to manage patients with SCD. However, only a few actually reported knowing about the NHLBI recommendations for the treatment of vaso-occlusive pain.

Within the care process content domain, we also found that SCD-related complications and associated emotions (fear, worry, anxiety), compounded by lack of access to knowledgeable and compassionate providers, pose a significant burden. Negative encounters with the health care system contributed to a striking 84% of patient participants choosing to manage severe pain at home, with pain seriously interfering with their ability to function on a daily basis. ED providers agreed that provider attitudes and implicit bias pose important barriers to care for adolescents and adults with SCD. Adolescents and adults with SCD wanted, and understood the need, to enhance self-management skills. Both they and their providers agreed that barriers to hydroxyurea uptake included worries about potential side effects, challenges with adherence to repeated laboratory testing, and support with remembering to take the medicine. However, providers uniformly expressed that access to behavioral and mental health services were, if not nonexistent, impossible to access.

Participants with SCD and their providers reported infrastructural challenges (change process capability), as manifested in limitations with accessing acute and preventive care due to transportation- and insurance- related issues. There were health system barriers that were particularly encountered during the transition from pediatric to adult care. These findings are consistent with previous reports that have found fewer interdisciplinary services available in the adult care settings compared with pediatrics.^46,47 Furthermore, adult care providers were less willing to accept adults with SCD because of the complexity of their management, for which the providers did not have the necessary expertise.^3,48-50 In addition, both adolescents and adults with SCD and primary care providers highlighted the inadequacies of the current system in addressing the chronic pain needs of this population. Linking back to the Solberg conceptual framework, our needs assessment results confirm the important role of establishing SCD care as a priority within a health care system—this requires leadership and vision. The vision and priorities must be implemented by effective health care teams. Multilevel approaches or interventions, when implemented, will lead to the desired outcomes.

Findings from our needs assessment within our 5-county region mirror needs assessment results from the broader consortium.⁵¹ The SCDIC has prioritized developing an intervention that addresses the challenges identified within the care process domain by directly enhancing provider access to patient individualized care plans in the electronic health record in the ED. Importantly, ED providers will be asked to view a short video that directly challenges bias and stigma in the ED. Previous studies have indeed found that attitudes can be improved by providers viewing short video segments of adults with SCD discussing their experiences.^36,52 This ED protocol will be one of the interventions that we will roll out in Northern California, given the significance of negative ED encounters reported by needs assessment participants. An additional feature of the intervention is a script for adults with SCD that guides them through introducing their individualized pain plan to their ED providers, thereby enhancing their self-efficacy in a situation that has been so overwhelmingly challenging.

We will implement a second SCDIC intervention that utilizes a mobile app to support self-management on the part of the patient, by supporting motivation and adherence with hydroxyurea.⁵³ A companion app supports hydroxyurea guideline adherence on the part of the provider, in keeping with one of our findings that providers are in need of decision-support tools. Elements of the intervention also align with our findings related to the importance of a support system in managing SCD, in that participants will identify a supportive partner who will play a specific role in supporting their adherence with hydroxyurea.

On our local level, we have, by necessity, partnered with leaders and community stakeholders throughout the region to ensure that these interventions to improve SCD care are prioritized. Grant funds provide initial resources for the SCDIC interventions, but our partnering health care administrators and medical directors must ensure that participating ED and hematology providers are free from competing priorities in order to implement the changes. We have partnered with a SCD community-based organization that is designing additional educational presentations for local emergency medicine providers, with the goal to bring to life very personal stories of bias and stigma within the EDs that directly contribute to decisions to avoid ED care despite severe symptoms.

Although we attempted to obtain samples of adolescents and adults with SCD and their providers that were representative across the 5-county region, the larger proportion of respondents were from 1 county. We did not assess concerns of age- and race-matched adults in our catchment area, so we cannot definitively say that our findings are unique to SCD. However, our results are consistent with findings from the national sample of adults with SCD who participated in the ASCQ-Me field test, and with results from the SCDIC needs assessment.^33,51 Interviews and surveys are subject to self-report bias and, therefore, may or may not reflect the actual behaviors or thoughts of participants. Confidence is increased in our results given the triangulation of expressed concerns across participant groups and across data collection strategies. The majority of adolescents and adults with SCD (95%) completed both the interview and survey, while 64% of ED providers interviewed completed the survey, compared with 54% of SCD specialists and primary care providers. These response rates are more than acceptable within the realm of survey response rates.^54,55

Although we encourage examining issues with care delivery within the conceptual framework for quality improvement presented, we recognize that grant funding allowed us to conduct an in-depth needs assessment that might not be feasible in other settings. Still, we would like readers to understand the importance of gathering data for improvement in a systematic manner across a range of participant groups, to ultimately inform the development of interventions and provide for evaluation of outcomes as a result of the interventions. This is particularly important for a disease, such as SCD, that is both medically and sociopolitically complex.

Conclusion

Our needs assessment brought into focus the multiple factors contributing to the disparities in health care experienced by adolescents and adults with SCD on our local level, and within the context of inequities in health resources and outcomes on the national level. We propose solutions that include specific interventions developed by a consortium of SCD and implementation science experts. We utilize a quality improvement framework to ensure that the elements of the interventions also address the barriers identified by our local providers and patients that are unique to our community. The pervasive challenges in SCD care, coupled with its medical complexities, may seem insurmountable, but our survey and qualitative results provide us with a road map for the way forward.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank the adolescents and adults with sickle cell disease, the providers, and the community stakeholders who completed the interviews and surveys. The authors also acknowledge the SCCCI co-investigators for their contributions to this project, including Michael Bell, MD, Ward Hagar, MD, Christine Hoehner, FNP, Kimberly Major, MSW, Anne Marsh, MD, Lynne Neumayr, MD, and Ted Wun, MD. We also thank Kamilah Bailey, Jameelah Hodge, Jennifer Kim, Michael Rowland, Adria Stauber, Amber Fearon, and Shanda Robertson, and the Sickle Cell Data Collection Program for their contributions.

Corresponding author: Marsha J. Treadwell, PhD, University of California San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland, 747 52nd St., Oakland, CA 94609; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

Funding/support: This work was supported by grant # 1U01HL134007 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to the University of California San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland.

From the University of California San Francisco (Dr. Treadwell, Dr. Hessler, Yumei Chen, Swapandeep Mushiana, Dr. Potter, and Dr. Vichinsky), the University of California Los Angeles (Dr. Jacob), and the University of California Berkeley (Alex Chen).

Abstract

• Objective: Adolescents and adults with sickle cell disease (SCD) face pervasive disparities in health resources and outcomes. We explored barriers to and facilitators of care to identify opportunities to support implementation of evidence-based interventions aimed at improving care quality for patients with SCD.
• Methods: We engaged a representative sample of adolescents and adults with SCD (n = 58), health care providers (n = 51), and community stakeholders (health care administrators and community-based organization leads (n = 5) in Northern California in a community-based needs assessment. We conducted group interviews separately with participant groups to obtain in-depth perspectives. Adolescents and adults with SCD completed validated measures of pain interference, quality of care, self-efficacy, and barriers to care. Providers and community stakeholders completed surveys about barriers to SCD care.
• Results: We triangulated qualitative and quantitative data and found that participants with SCD (mean age, 31 ± 8.6 years), providers, and community stakeholders emphasized the social and emotional burden of SCD as barriers. Concrete barriers agreed upon included insurance and lack of resources for addressing pain impact. Adolescents and adults with SCD identified provider issues (lack of knowledge, implicit bias), transportation, and limited social support as barriers. Negative encounters with the health care system contributed to 84% of adolescents and adults with SCD reporting they chose to manage severe pain at home. Providers focused on structural barriers: lack of access to care guidelines, comfort level with and knowledge of SCD management, and poor care coordination.
• Conclusion: Strategies for improving access to compassionate, evidence-based quality care, as well as strategies for minimizing the burden of having SCD, are warranted for this medically complex population.

Keywords: barriers to care; quality of care; care access; care coordination.

Sickle cell disease (SCD), an inherited chronic medical condition, affects about 100,000 individuals in the United States, a population that is predominantly African American.¹ These individuals experience multiple serious and life-threatening complications, most frequently recurrent vaso-occlusive pain episodes,² and they require interactions with multidisciplinary specialists from childhood. Because of advances in treatments, the majority are reaching adulthood; however, there is a dearth of adult health care providers with the training and expertise to manage their complex medical needs.³ Other concrete barriers to adequate SCD care include insurance and distance to comprehensive SCD centers.^4,5

Social, behavioral, and emotional factors may also contribute to challenges with SCD management. SCD may limit daily functional abilities and lead to diminished overall quality of life.^6,7 Some adolescents and adults may require high doses of opioids, which contributes to health care providers’ perceptions that there is a high prevalence of drug addiction in the population.^8,9 These providers express negative attitudes towards adults with SCD, and, consequently, delay medication administration when it is acutely needed and provide otherwise suboptimal treatment.^8,10,11 Adult care providers may also be uncomfortable with prescribing and managing disease-modifying therapies (blood transfusion, hydroxyurea) that have established efficacy.^12-17

As 1 of 8 programs funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s (NHLBI) Sickle Cell Disease Implementation Consortium (SCDIC), we are using implementation science to reduce barriers to care and improve quality of care and health care outcomes in SCD.^18,19 Given that adolescents and adults with SCD experience high mortality, severe pain, and progressive decline in their ability to function day to day, and also face lack of access to knowledgeable, compassionate providers in primary and emergency settings, the SCDIC focuses on individuals aged 15 to 45 years.^6,8,9,11,12

Our regional SCDIC program, the Sickle Cell Care Coordination Initiative (SCCCI), brings together researchers, clinicians, adolescents, and adults with SCD and their families, dedicated community members, policy makers, and administrators to identify and address barriers to health care within 5 counties in Northern California. One of our first steps was to conduct a community-based needs assessment, designed to inform implementation of evidence-based interventions, accounting for unique contextual factors in our region.

Conceptual Framework for Improving Medical Practice

Our needs assessment is guided by Solberg’s Conceptual Framework for Improving Medical Practice (Figure 1).²⁰ Consistent with the overarching principles of the SCDIC, this conceptual framework focuses on the inadequate implementation of evidence-based guidelines, and on the need to first understand multifactorial facilitators and barriers to guideline implementation in order to effect change. The framework identifies 3 main elements that must be present to ensure improvements in quality-of-care processes and patient outcomes: priority, change process capability, and care process content. Priority refers to ample resource allocation for the specific change, as well as freedom from competing priorities for those implementing the change. Change process capability includes strong, effective leadership, adequate infrastructure for managing change (including resources and time), change management skills at all levels, and an established clinical information system. Care process content refers to context and systems-level changes, such as delivery system redesign as needed, support for self-management to lessen the impact of the disease, and decision support.^21-23

The purpose of our community-based needs assessment was to evaluate barriers to care and quality of care in SCD, within Solberg’s conceptual model for improving medical practice. The specific aims were to evaluate access and barriers to care (eg, lack of provider expertise and training, health care system barriers such as poor care coordination and provider communication); evaluate quality of care; and assess patient needs related to pain, pain interference, self-efficacy, and self-management for adolescents and adults with SCD. We gathered the perspectives of a representative community of adolescents and adults with SCD, their providers, and community stakeholders in order to examine barriers, quality of life and care, and patient experiences in our region.

Methods

Design

In this cross-sectional study, adolescents and adults with SCD, their providers, and community stakeholders participated in group or individual qualitative interviews and completed surveys between October 2017 and March 2018.

Setting and Sample

Recruitment flyers were posted on a regional SCD-focused website, and clinical providers or a study coordinator introduced information about the needs assessment to potential participants with SCD during clinic visits at the participating centers. Participants with SCD were eligible if they had any diagnosis of SCD, were aged 15 to 48 years, and received health services within 5 Northern California counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Francisco, and Solano). They were excluded if they did not have a SCD diagnosis or had not received health services within the catchment area. As the project proceeded, participants were asked to refer other adolescents and adults with SCD for the interviews and surveys (snowball sampling). Our goal was to recruit 50 adolescents and adults with SCD into the study, aiming for 10 representatives from each county.

Providers and community stakeholders were recruited via emails, letters and informational flyers. We engaged our partner, the Sickle Cell Data Collection Program,² to generate a list of providers and institutions that had seen patients with SCD in primary, emergency, or inpatient settings in the region. We contacted these institutions to describe the SCCCI and invite participation in the needs assessment. We also invited community-based organization leads and health care administrators who worked with SCD to participate. Providers accessed confidential surveys via a secure link on the study website or completed paper versions. Common data collected across providers included demographics and descriptions of practice settings.

Participants were eligible to be part of the study if they were health care providers (physicians and nurses) representing hematology, primary care, family medicine, internal medicine, or emergency medicine; ancillary staff (social work, psychology, child life); or leaders or administrators of clinical or sickle cell community-based organizations in Northern California (recruitment goal of n = 50). Providers were excluded if they practiced in specialties other than those noted or did not practice within the region.

Data Collection Procedures

After providing assent/consent, participating adolescents and adults with SCD took part in individual and group interviews and completed survey questionnaires. All procedures were conducted in a private space in the sickle cell center or community. Adolescents and adults with SCD completed the survey questionnaire on a tablet, with responses recorded directly in a REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) database,²⁴ or on a paper version. Interviews lasted 60 (individual) to 90 (group) minutes, while survey completion time was 20 to 25 minutes. Each participant received a gift card upon completion as an expression of appreciation. All procedures were approved by the institutional review boards of the participating health care facilities.

Group and Individual Interviews

Participants with SCD and providers were invited to participate in a semi-structured qualitative interview prior to being presented with the surveys. Adolescents and adults with SCD were interviewed about barriers to care, quality of care, and pain-related experiences. Providers were asked about barriers to care and treatments. Interview guides were modified for community-based organization leaders and health care administrators who did not provide clinical services. Interview guides can be found in the Appendix. Interviews were conducted by research coordinators trained in qualitative research methods by the first author (MT). As appropriate with semi-structured interviews, the interviewers could word questions spontaneously, change the order of questions for ease of flow of conversation, and inform simultaneous coding of interviews with new themes as those might arise, as long as they touched on all topics within the interview guide.²⁵ The interview guides were written, per qualitative research standards, based on the aims and purpose of the research,²⁶ and were informed by existing literature on access and barriers to care in SCD, quality of care, and the needs of individuals with SCD, including in relation to impact of the disease, self-efficacy, and self-management.

Interviewees participated in either individual or group interviews, but not both. The decision for which type of interview an individual participated in was based on 2 factors: if there were not comparable participants for group interviews (eg, health care administrator and community-based organization lead), these interviews were done individually; and given that we were drawing participants from a 5-county area in Northern California, scheduling was challenging for individuals with SCD with regard to aligning schedules and traveling to a central location where the group interviews were conducted. Provider group interviews were easier to arrange because we could schedule them at the same time as regularly scheduled meetings at the participants’ health care institutions.

Interview Data Gathering and Analysis

Digital recordings of the interviews were cleaned of any participant identifying data and sent for transcription to an outside service. Transcripts were reviewed for completeness and imported into NVivo (www.qsrinternational.com), a qualitative data management program.

A thematic content analysis and deductive and inductive approaches were used to analyze the verbatim transcripts generated from the interviews. The research team was trained in the use of NVivo software to facilitate the coding process. A deductive coding scheme was initially used based on existing concepts in the literature regarding challenges to optimal SCD care, with new codes added as the thematic content analyses progressed. The initial coding, pattern coding, and use of displays to examine the relationships between different categories were conducted simultaneously.^27,28 Using the constant comparative method, new concepts from participants with SCD and providers could be incorporated into subsequent interviews with other participants. For this study, the only additional concepts added were in relation to participant recruitment and retention in the SCDIC Registry. Research team members coded transcripts separately and came together weekly, constantly comparing codes and developing the consensus coding scheme. Where differences between coders existed, code meanings were discussed and clarified until consensus was reached.²⁹

Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS (v. 25, Chicago, IL). Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, frequencies, percentages) were used to summarize demographics (eg, age, gender, and race), economic status, and type of SCD. No systematic differences were detected from cases with missing values. Scale reliabilities (ie, Cronbach α) were evaluated for self-report measures.

Measurement

Adolescents and adults with SCD completed items from the PhenX Toolkit (consensus measures for Phenotypes and eXposures), assessing sociodemographics (age, sex, race, ethnicity, educational attainment, occupation, marital status, annual income, insurance), and clinical characteristics (sickle cell diagnosis and emergency department [ED] and hospital utilization for pain).³⁰

Pain Interference Short Form (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS]). The Pain Interference Form consists of 8 items that assess the degree to which pain interfered with day-to-day activities in the previous 7 days at home, including impacts on social, cognitive, emotional, and physical functioning; household chores and recreational activities; sleep; and enjoyment in life. Reliability and validity of the PROMIS Pain Interference Scale has been demonstrated, with strong negative correlations with Physical Function Scales (r = 0.717, P < 0.01), indicating that higher scores are associated with lower function (β = 0.707, P < 0.001).³¹ The Cronbach α estimate for the other items on the pain interference scale was 0.99. Validity analysis indicated strong correlations with pain-related domains: BPI Interference Subscale (rho = 0.90), SF-36 Bodily Pain Subscale (rho = –0.84), and 0–10 Numerical Rating of Pain Intensity (rho = 0.48).³²

Adult Sickle Cell Quality of Life Measurement Information System (ASCQ-Me) Quality of Care (QOC). ASCQ-Me QOC consists of 27 items that measure the quality of care that adults with SCD have received from health care providers.³³ There are 3 composites: provider communication (quality of patient and provider communication), ED care (quality of care in the ED), and access (to routine and emergency care). Internal consistency reliability for all 3 composites is greater than 0.70. Strong correlations of the provider communication composite with overall ratings of routine care (r = 0.65) and overall provider ratings (r = 0.83) provided evidence of construct validity. Similarly, the ED care composite was strongly correlated with overall ratings of QOC in the ED, and the access composite was highly correlated with overall evaluations of ED care (r = 0.70). Access, provider interaction, and ED care composites were reliable (Cronbach α, 0.70–0.83) and correlated with ratings of global care (r = 0.32–0.83), further indicating construct validity.³³

Sickle Cell Self-Efficacy Scale (SCSES). The SCSES is a 9-item, self-administered questionnaire measuring perceptions of the ability to manage day-to-day issues resulting from SCD. SCSES items are scored on a 5-point scale ranging from Not sure at all (1) to Very sure (5). Individual item responses are summed to give an overall score, with higher scores indicating greater self-efficacy. The SCSES has acceptable reliability (r = 0.45, P < 0.001) and validity (α = 0.89).^34,35

Sickle Cell Disease Barriers Checklist. This checklist consists of 53 items organized into 8 categories: insurance, transportation, accommodations and accessibility, provider knowledge and attitudes, social support, individual barriers such as forgetting or difficulties understanding instructions, emotional barriers (fear, anger), and disease-related barriers. Participants check applicable barriers, with a total score range of 0 to 53 and higher scores indicating more barriers to care. The SCD Barriers Checklist has demonstrated face validity and test-retest reliability (Pearson r = 0.74, P < 0.05).⁵

ED Provider Checklist. The ED provider survey is a checklist of 14 statements pertaining to issues regarding patient care, with which the provider rates level of agreement. Items representing the attitudes and beliefs of providers towards patients with SCD are rated on a Likert-type scale, with level of agreement indicated as 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The positive attitudes subscale consists of 4 items (Cronbach α= 0.85), and the negative attitudes subscale consists of 6 items (Cronbach α = 0.89). The Red-Flag Behaviors subscale includes 4 items that indicate behavior concerns about drug-seeking, such as requesting specific narcotics and changing behavior when the provider walks in.^8,36,37

Sickle cell and primary care providers also completed a survey consisting of sets of items compiled from existing provider surveys; this survey consisted of a list of 16 barriers to using opioids, which the providers rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1, not a barrier; 5, complete barrier).^13,16,38 Providers indicated their level of experience with caring for patients with SCD; care provided, such as routine health screenings; and comfort level with providing preventive care, managing comorbidities, and managing acute and chronic pain. Providers were asked what potential facilitators might improve care for patients with SCD, including higher reimbursement, case management services, access to pain management specialists, and access to clinical decision-support tools. Providers responded to specific questions about management with hydroxyurea (eg, criteria for, barriers to, and comfort level with prescribing).³⁹ The surveys are included in the Appendix.

Triangulation

Data from the interviews and surveys were triangulated to enhance understanding of results generated from the different data sources.⁴⁰ Convergence of findings, different facets of the same phenomenon, or new perspectives were examined.

Qualitative Data

Adolescents and adults with SCD (n = 55) and health care providers and community stakeholders (n = 56) participated in group or individual interviews to help us gain an in-depth understanding of the needs and barriers related to SCD care in our 5-county region. Participants with SCD described their experiences, which included stigma, racism, labeling, and, consequently, stress. They also identified barriers such as lack of transportation, challenges with insurance, and lack of access to providers who were competent with pain management. They reported that having SCD in a health care system that was unable to meet their needs was burdensome.

Barriers to Care and Treatments. Adolescents and adults indicated that SCD and its sequelae posed significant barriers to health care. Feelings of tiredness and pain make it more difficult for them to seek care. The emotional burden of SCD (fear and anger) was a frequently cited barrier, which was fueled by previous negative encounters with the health care system. All adolescents and adults with SCD reported that they knew of stigma in relation to seeking pain management that was pervasive and long-standing, and the majority reported they had directly experienced stigma. They reported that being labeled as “drug-seekers” was typical when in the ED for pain management. Participants articulated unconscious bias or overt racism among providers: “people with sickle cell are Black ... and Black pain is never as valuable as White pain” (25-year-old male). Respondents with SCD described challenges to the credibility of their pain reports in the ED. They reported that ED providers expressed doubts regarding the existence and/or severity of their pain, consequently creating a feeling of disrespect for patients seeking pain relief. The issue of stigma was mentioned by only 2 of 56 providers during their interviews.

Lack of Access to Knowledgeable, Compassionate Providers. Lack of access to knowledgeable care providers was another prevalent theme expressed by adolescents and adults with SCD. Frustration occurred when providers did not have knowledge of SCD and its management, particularly pain assessment. Adolescents and adults with SCD noted the lack of compassion among providers: “I’ve been kicked out of the hospital because they felt like okay, well we gave you enough medication, you should be all right” (29-year-old female). Providers specifically mentioned lack of compassion and knowledge as barriers to SCD care much less often during their interviews compared with the adolescents and adults with SCD.

Health Care System Barriers. Patient participants often expressed concerns about concrete and structural aspects of care. Getting to their appointments was a challenge for half of the interviewees, as they either did not have access to a vehicle or could not afford to travel the needed distance to obtain quality care. Even when hospitals were accessible by public transportation, those with excruciating pain understandably preferred a more comfortable and private way to travel: “I would like to change that, something that will be much easier, convenient for sickle cell patients that do suffer with pain, that they don’t have to travel always to see the doctor” (30-year-old male).

Insurance and other financial barriers also played an important role in influencing decisions to seek health care services. Medical expenses were not covered, or co-pays were too high. The Medicaid managed care system could prevent access to knowledgeable providers who were not within network. Such a lack of access discouraged some adolescents and adults with SCD from seeking acute and preventive care.

Transition From Pediatric to Adult Care. Interviewees with SCD expressed distress about the gap between pediatric and adult care. They described how they had a long-standing relationship with their medical providers, who were familiar with their medical background and history from childhood. Adolescent interviewees reported an understanding of their own pain management as well as adherence to and satisfaction with their individualized pain plans. However, adults noted that satisfaction plummeted with increasing age due to the limited number of experienced adult SCD providers, which was compounded by negative experiences (stigma, racism, drug-seeking label).

One interviewee emphasized the difficulty of finding knowledgeable providers after transition: “When you’re a pediatric sickle cell [patient], you have the doctors there every step of the way, but not with adult sickle cell… I know when I first transitioned I never felt more alone in my life… you look at that ER doctor kind of with the same mindset as you would your hematologist who just hand walked you through everything. And adult care providers were a lot more blunt and cold and they’re like… ‘I don’t know; I’m not really educated in sickle cell.’” A sickle cell provider shared his insight about the problem of transitioning: “I think it’s particularly challenging because we, as a community, don’t really set them up for success. It’s different from other chronic conditions [in that] it’s much harder to find an adult sickle cell provider. There’s not a lot of adult hematologists that will take care of our adult patients, and so I know statistically, there’s like a drop-down in the overall outcomes of our kids after they age out of our pediatric program.”

Self-Management, Supporting Hydroxyurea Use. Interview participants with SCD reported using a variety of methods to manage pain at home and chose to go to the ED only when the pain became intolerable. Patients and providers expressed awareness of different resources for managing pain at home, yet they also indicated that these resources have not been consolidated in an accessible way for patients and families. Some resources cited included heat therapy, acupuncture, meditation, medical marijuana, virtual reality devices, and pain medications other than opioids.

Patients and providers expressed the need for increasing awareness and education about hydroxyurea. Many interview participants with SCD were concerned about side effects, multiple visits with a provider during dose titration, and ongoing laboratory monitoring. They also expressed difficulties with scheduling multiple appointments, depending on access to transportation and limited provider clinic hours. They were aware of strategies for improving adherence with hydroxyurea, including setting phone alarms, educating family members about hydroxyurea, and eliciting family support, but expressed needing help to consistently implement these strategies.

Safe Opioid Prescribing. Adult care providers expressed concerns about safe opioid prescribing for patients with SCD. They were reluctant to prescribe opioid doses needed to adequately control SCD pain. Providers expressed uncertainty and fear or concern about medical/legal liability or about their judgment about what’s safe and not safe for patients with chronic use/very high doses of opioids. “I know we’re in like this opiate epidemic here in this country but I feel like these patients don’t really fit under that umbrella that the problem is coming from so [I am] just trying to learn more about how to take care of them.”

Care Coordination and Provider Communication. Adolescents and adults with SCD reported having positive experiences—good communication, established trust, and compassionate care—with their usual providers. However, they perceived that ED physicians and nurses did not really care about them. Both interviewees with SCD and providers recognized the importance of good communication in all settings as the key to overcoming barriers to receiving quality care. All agreed on the importance of using individual pain plans so that all providers, especially ED providers, can be more at ease with treating adolescents and adults with SCD.

Quantitative Data: Adolescents and Adults With SCD

Fifty-eight adolescents and adults with SCD (aged 15 to 48 years) completed the survey. Three additional individuals who did not complete the interview completed the survey. Reasons for not completing the interview included scheduling challenges (n = 2) or a sickle cell pain episode (n = 1). The average age of participants was 31 years ± 8.6, more than half (57%) were female, and the majority (93%) were African American (Table 1). Most (71%) had never been married. Half (50%) had some college or an associate degree, and 40% were employed and reported an annual household income of less than $30,000. Insurance coverage was predominantly Medi-Cal (Medicaid, 69%). The majority of participants resided in Alameda (34.5%) or Contra Costa (21%) counties. The majority of sickle cell care was received in Alameda County, whether outpatient (52%), inpatient (40%), or ED care (41%). The majority (71%) had a diagnosis of SCD hemoglobin SS.

Pain. More than one-third of individuals with SCD reported 1 or 2 ED visits for pain in the previous 6 months (34%), and more than 3 hospitalizations (36%) related to pain in the previous year (Table 2). The majority (85%) reported having severe pain at home in the previous 6 months that they did not seek health care for, consistent with their reports in the qualitative interviews. More than half (59%) reported 4 or more of these severe pain episodes that led to inability to perform daily activities for 1 week or more. While pain interference on the PROMIS Pain Interference Short Form on average (T-score, 59.6 ± 8.6) was similar to that of the general population (T-score, 50 ± 10), a higher proportion of patients with SCD reported pain interference compared with the general population. The mean self-efficacy (confidence in ability to manage complications of SCD) score on the SCSES of 30.0 ± 7.3 (range, 9–45) was similar to that of other adults with SCD (mean, 32.2 ± 7.0). Twenty-five percent of the present sample had a low self-efficacy score (< 25).

Barriers to Care and Treatments. Consistent with the qualitative data, SCD-related symptoms such as tiredness (64%) and pain (62%) were reported most often as barriers to care (Table 3). Emotions (> 25%) such as worry/fear, frustration/anger, and lack of confidence were other important barriers to care. Provider knowledge and attitudes were cited next most often, with 38% of the sample indicating “Providers accuse me of drug-seeking” and “It is hard for me to find a provider who has enough experiences with or knowledge about SCD.” Participants expressed that they were not believed when in pain and “I am treated differently from other patients.” Almost half of respondents cited “I am not seen quickly enough when I am in pain” as a barrier to their care.

Consistent with the qualitative data, transportation barriers (not having a vehicle, costs of transportation, public transit not easy to get to) were cited by 55% of participants. About half of participants reported that insurance was an important barrier, with high co-pays and medications and other services not covered. In addition, gathering approvals was a long and fragmented process, particularly for consultations among providers (hematology, primary care provider, pain specialist). Furthermore, insurance provided limited choices about location for services.

Participants reported social support system burnout (22%), help needed with daily activities (21%), and social isolation or generally not having enough support (33%) as ongoing barriers. Difficulties were encountered with self-management (eg, taking medications on time or making follow-up appointments, 19%), with 22% of participants finding the health care system confusing or hard to understand. Thirty percent reported “Places for me to go to learn how to stay well are not close by or easy to get to.” ”Worry about side effects” (33%) was a common barrier to hydroxyurea use. Participants described “forgetting to take the medicine,” “tried before but it did not work,” “heard scary things” about hydroxyurea, and “not interested in taking another medicine” as barriers.

Quality of Care. More than half (51%) of the 53 participants who had accessed health care in the previous year rated their overall health care as poor on the ASCQ-Me QOC measure. This was significantly higher compared to the reports from more than 47,000 adults with Medicaid in 2017 (16%),⁴¹ and to the 2008-2009 report from 556 adults with SCD from across the United States (37%, Figure 2).³³ The major contributor to these poor ratings for participants in our sample was low satisfaction with ED care.

Sixty percent of the 42 participants who had accessed ED care in the past year indicated “never” or “sometimes” to the question “When you went to the ED for care, how often did you get it as soon as you wanted?” compared with only 16% of the 2017 adult Medicaid population responding (n = 25,789) (Figure 3). Forty-seven percent of those with an ED visit indicated that, in the previous 12 months, they had been made to wait “more than 2 hours before receiving treatment for acute pain in the ED.” However, in the previous 12 months, 39% reported that their wait time in the ED had been only “between five minutes and one hour.”

On the ASCQ-Me QOC Access to Care composite measure, 33% of 42 participants responding reported they were seen at a routine appointment as soon as they would have liked. This is significantly lower compared to 56% of the adult Medicaid population responding to the same question. Reports of provider communication (Provider Communication composite) for adolescents and adults with SCD were comparable to reports of adults with SCD from the ASCQ-Me field test,³³ but adults with Medicaid reported higher ratings of quality communication behaviors (Figure 4).^33,41 Nearly 60% of both groups with SCD reported that providers “always” performed quality communication behaviors—listened carefully, spent enough time, treated them with respect, and explained things well—compared with more than 70% of adults with Medicaid.

Participants from all counties reported the same number of barriers to care on average (3.3 ± 2.1). Adolescents and adults who reported more barriers to care also reported lower satisfaction with care (r = –0.47, P < 0.01) and less confidence in their ability to manage their SCD (self-efficacy, r = – 0.36, P < 0.05). Female participants reported more barriers to care on average compared with male participants (2.6 ± 2.4 vs 1.4 ± 2.0, P = 0.05). Participants with higher self-efficacy reported lower pain ratings (r = –0.47, P < 0.001).

Quantitative Data: Health Care Providers

Providers (n = 56) and community stakeholders (2 leaders of community-based organizations and 3 health care administrators) were interviewed, with 29 also completing the survey. The reason for not completing (n = 22) was not having the time once the interview was complete. A link to the survey was sent to any provider not completing at the time of the interview, with 2 follow-up reminders. The majority of providers were between the ages of 31 and 50 years (46.4%), female (71.4%), and white (66.1%) (Table 4). None were of Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish origin. Thirty-six were physicians (64.3%), and 16 were allied health professionals (28.6%). Of the 56 providers, 32 indicated they had expertise caring for patients with SCD (57.1%), 14 were ED providers (25%), and 5 were primary care providers. Most of the providers practiced in an urban setting (91.1%).

Barriers to Care: ED Provider Perspectives. Nine of 14 ED providers interviewed completed the survey on their perspectives regarding barriers to care in the ED, difficulty with follow-ups, ED training resources, and pain control for patients with SCD. ED providers (n = 8) indicated that “provider attitudes” were a barrier to care delivery in the ED for patients with SCD. Some providers (n = 7) indicated that “implicit bias,” “opioid epidemic,” “concern about addiction,” and “patient behavior” were barriers. Respondents indicated that “overcrowding” (n = 6) and “lack of care pathway/protocol” (n = 5) were barriers. When asked to express their level of agreement with statements about SCD care in the ED, respondents disagreed/strongly disagreed (n = 5) that they were “able to make a follow-up appointment” with a sickle cell specialist or primary care provider upon discharge from the ED, and others disagreed/strongly disagreed (n = 4) that they were able to make a “referral to a case management program.”

ED training and resources. Providers agreed/strongly agreed (n = 8) that they had the knowledge and training to care for patients with SCD, that they had access to needed medications, and that they had access to knowledgeable nursing staff with expertise in SCD care. All 9 ED providers indicated that they had sufficient physician/provider staffing to provide good pain management to persons with SCD in the ED.

Pain control in the ED. Seven ED providers indicated that their ED used individualized dosing protocols to treat sickle cell pain, and 5 respondents indicated their ED had a protocol for treating sickle cell pain. Surprisingly, only 3 indicated that they were aware of the NHLBI recommendations for the treatment of vaso-occlusive pain.

Barriers to Care: Primary Care Provider Perspectives. Twenty providers completed the SCD provider section of the survey, including 17 multidisciplinary SCD providers from 4 sickle cell special care centers and 3 community primary care providers. Of the 20, 12 were primary care providers for patients with SCD (Table 4).

Patient needs. Six primary care providers indicated that the medical needs of patients with SCD were being met, but none indicated that the behavioral health or mental health needs were being met.

Managing SCD comorbidities. Five primary care providers indicated they were very comfortable providing preventive ambulatory care to patients with SCD. Six indicated they were very comfortable managing acute pain episodes, but none were very comfortable managing comorbidities such as pulmonary hypertension, diabetes, or chronic pain.

Barriers to opioid use. Only 3 of 12 providers reviewing a list of 15 potential barriers to the use of opioids for SCD pain management indicated a perceived lack of efficacy of opioids, development of tolerance and dependence, and concerns about community perceptions as barriers. Two providers selected potential for diversion as a moderate barrier to opioid use.

Barriers to hydroxyurea use. Eight of 12 providers indicated that the common reasons that patients/families refuse hydroxyurea were “worry about side effects”; 7 chose “don’t want to take another medicine,” and 6 chose “worry about carcinogenic potential.” Others (n = 10) indicated that “patient/family adherence with hydroxyurea” and “patient/family adherence with required blood tests” were important barriers to hydroxyurea use. Eight of the 12 providers indicated that they were comfortable with managing hydroxyurea in patients with SCD.

Care redesign. Twenty SCD and primary care providers completed the Care Redesign section of the survey. Respondents (n = 11) indicated that they would see more patients with SCD if they had accessible case management services available without charge or if patient access to transportation to clinic was also available. Ten indicated that they would see more patients with SCD if they had an accessible community health worker (who understands patient’s/family’s social situation) and access to a pain management specialist on call to answer questions and who would manage chronic pain. All (n = 20) were willing to see more patients with SCD in their practices. Most reported that a clinical decision-support tool for SCD treatment (n = 13) and avoidance of complications (n = 12) would be useful.

Discussion

We evaluated access and barriers to care, quality of care, care coordination, and provider communication from the perspectives of adolescents and adults with SCD, their care providers, and community stakeholders, within the Solberg conceptual model for quality improvement. We found that barriers within the care process content domain (context and systems) were most salient for this population of adolescents and adults with SCD, with lack of provider knowledge and poor attitudes toward adolescents and adults with SCD, particularly in the ED, cited consistently by participant groups. Stigmatization and lack of provider compassion that affected the quality of care were particularly problematic. These findings are consistent with previous reports.^42,43 Adult health care (particularly ED) provider biases and negative attitudes have been recognized as major barriers to optimal pain management in SCD.^8,11,44,45 Interestingly, ED providers in our needs assessment indicated that they felt they had the training and resources to manage patients with SCD. However, only a few actually reported knowing about the NHLBI recommendations for the treatment of vaso-occlusive pain.

Within the care process content domain, we also found that SCD-related complications and associated emotions (fear, worry, anxiety), compounded by lack of access to knowledgeable and compassionate providers, pose a significant burden. Negative encounters with the health care system contributed to a striking 84% of patient participants choosing to manage severe pain at home, with pain seriously interfering with their ability to function on a daily basis. ED providers agreed that provider attitudes and implicit bias pose important barriers to care for adolescents and adults with SCD. Adolescents and adults with SCD wanted, and understood the need, to enhance self-management skills. Both they and their providers agreed that barriers to hydroxyurea uptake included worries about potential side effects, challenges with adherence to repeated laboratory testing, and support with remembering to take the medicine. However, providers uniformly expressed that access to behavioral and mental health services were, if not nonexistent, impossible to access.

Participants with SCD and their providers reported infrastructural challenges (change process capability), as manifested in limitations with accessing acute and preventive care due to transportation- and insurance- related issues. There were health system barriers that were particularly encountered during the transition from pediatric to adult care. These findings are consistent with previous reports that have found fewer interdisciplinary services available in the adult care settings compared with pediatrics.^46,47 Furthermore, adult care providers were less willing to accept adults with SCD because of the complexity of their management, for which the providers did not have the necessary expertise.^3,48-50 In addition, both adolescents and adults with SCD and primary care providers highlighted the inadequacies of the current system in addressing the chronic pain needs of this population. Linking back to the Solberg conceptual framework, our needs assessment results confirm the important role of establishing SCD care as a priority within a health care system—this requires leadership and vision. The vision and priorities must be implemented by effective health care teams. Multilevel approaches or interventions, when implemented, will lead to the desired outcomes.

Findings from our needs assessment within our 5-county region mirror needs assessment results from the broader consortium.⁵¹ The SCDIC has prioritized developing an intervention that addresses the challenges identified within the care process domain by directly enhancing provider access to patient individualized care plans in the electronic health record in the ED. Importantly, ED providers will be asked to view a short video that directly challenges bias and stigma in the ED. Previous studies have indeed found that attitudes can be improved by providers viewing short video segments of adults with SCD discussing their experiences.^36,52 This ED protocol will be one of the interventions that we will roll out in Northern California, given the significance of negative ED encounters reported by needs assessment participants. An additional feature of the intervention is a script for adults with SCD that guides them through introducing their individualized pain plan to their ED providers, thereby enhancing their self-efficacy in a situation that has been so overwhelmingly challenging.

We will implement a second SCDIC intervention that utilizes a mobile app to support self-management on the part of the patient, by supporting motivation and adherence with hydroxyurea.⁵³ A companion app supports hydroxyurea guideline adherence on the part of the provider, in keeping with one of our findings that providers are in need of decision-support tools. Elements of the intervention also align with our findings related to the importance of a support system in managing SCD, in that participants will identify a supportive partner who will play a specific role in supporting their adherence with hydroxyurea.

On our local level, we have, by necessity, partnered with leaders and community stakeholders throughout the region to ensure that these interventions to improve SCD care are prioritized. Grant funds provide initial resources for the SCDIC interventions, but our partnering health care administrators and medical directors must ensure that participating ED and hematology providers are free from competing priorities in order to implement the changes. We have partnered with a SCD community-based organization that is designing additional educational presentations for local emergency medicine providers, with the goal to bring to life very personal stories of bias and stigma within the EDs that directly contribute to decisions to avoid ED care despite severe symptoms.

Although we attempted to obtain samples of adolescents and adults with SCD and their providers that were representative across the 5-county region, the larger proportion of respondents were from 1 county. We did not assess concerns of age- and race-matched adults in our catchment area, so we cannot definitively say that our findings are unique to SCD. However, our results are consistent with findings from the national sample of adults with SCD who participated in the ASCQ-Me field test, and with results from the SCDIC needs assessment.^33,51 Interviews and surveys are subject to self-report bias and, therefore, may or may not reflect the actual behaviors or thoughts of participants. Confidence is increased in our results given the triangulation of expressed concerns across participant groups and across data collection strategies. The majority of adolescents and adults with SCD (95%) completed both the interview and survey, while 64% of ED providers interviewed completed the survey, compared with 54% of SCD specialists and primary care providers. These response rates are more than acceptable within the realm of survey response rates.^54,55

Although we encourage examining issues with care delivery within the conceptual framework for quality improvement presented, we recognize that grant funding allowed us to conduct an in-depth needs assessment that might not be feasible in other settings. Still, we would like readers to understand the importance of gathering data for improvement in a systematic manner across a range of participant groups, to ultimately inform the development of interventions and provide for evaluation of outcomes as a result of the interventions. This is particularly important for a disease, such as SCD, that is both medically and sociopolitically complex.

Conclusion

Our needs assessment brought into focus the multiple factors contributing to the disparities in health care experienced by adolescents and adults with SCD on our local level, and within the context of inequities in health resources and outcomes on the national level. We propose solutions that include specific interventions developed by a consortium of SCD and implementation science experts. We utilize a quality improvement framework to ensure that the elements of the interventions also address the barriers identified by our local providers and patients that are unique to our community. The pervasive challenges in SCD care, coupled with its medical complexities, may seem insurmountable, but our survey and qualitative results provide us with a road map for the way forward.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank the adolescents and adults with sickle cell disease, the providers, and the community stakeholders who completed the interviews and surveys. The authors also acknowledge the SCCCI co-investigators for their contributions to this project, including Michael Bell, MD, Ward Hagar, MD, Christine Hoehner, FNP, Kimberly Major, MSW, Anne Marsh, MD, Lynne Neumayr, MD, and Ted Wun, MD. We also thank Kamilah Bailey, Jameelah Hodge, Jennifer Kim, Michael Rowland, Adria Stauber, Amber Fearon, and Shanda Robertson, and the Sickle Cell Data Collection Program for their contributions.

Corresponding author: Marsha J. Treadwell, PhD, University of California San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland, 747 52nd St., Oakland, CA 94609; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

Funding/support: This work was supported by grant # 1U01HL134007 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to the University of California San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland.

From the University of California San Francisco (Dr. Treadwell, Dr. Hessler, Yumei Chen, Swapandeep Mushiana, Dr. Potter, and Dr. Vichinsky), the University of California Los Angeles (Dr. Jacob), and the University of California Berkeley (Alex Chen).

Abstract

• Objective: Adolescents and adults with sickle cell disease (SCD) face pervasive disparities in health resources and outcomes. We explored barriers to and facilitators of care to identify opportunities to support implementation of evidence-based interventions aimed at improving care quality for patients with SCD.
• Methods: We engaged a representative sample of adolescents and adults with SCD (n = 58), health care providers (n = 51), and community stakeholders (health care administrators and community-based organization leads (n = 5) in Northern California in a community-based needs assessment. We conducted group interviews separately with participant groups to obtain in-depth perspectives. Adolescents and adults with SCD completed validated measures of pain interference, quality of care, self-efficacy, and barriers to care. Providers and community stakeholders completed surveys about barriers to SCD care.
• Results: We triangulated qualitative and quantitative data and found that participants with SCD (mean age, 31 ± 8.6 years), providers, and community stakeholders emphasized the social and emotional burden of SCD as barriers. Concrete barriers agreed upon included insurance and lack of resources for addressing pain impact. Adolescents and adults with SCD identified provider issues (lack of knowledge, implicit bias), transportation, and limited social support as barriers. Negative encounters with the health care system contributed to 84% of adolescents and adults with SCD reporting they chose to manage severe pain at home. Providers focused on structural barriers: lack of access to care guidelines, comfort level with and knowledge of SCD management, and poor care coordination.
• Conclusion: Strategies for improving access to compassionate, evidence-based quality care, as well as strategies for minimizing the burden of having SCD, are warranted for this medically complex population.

Keywords: barriers to care; quality of care; care access; care coordination.

Sickle cell disease (SCD), an inherited chronic medical condition, affects about 100,000 individuals in the United States, a population that is predominantly African American.¹ These individuals experience multiple serious and life-threatening complications, most frequently recurrent vaso-occlusive pain episodes,² and they require interactions with multidisciplinary specialists from childhood. Because of advances in treatments, the majority are reaching adulthood; however, there is a dearth of adult health care providers with the training and expertise to manage their complex medical needs.³ Other concrete barriers to adequate SCD care include insurance and distance to comprehensive SCD centers.^4,5

Social, behavioral, and emotional factors may also contribute to challenges with SCD management. SCD may limit daily functional abilities and lead to diminished overall quality of life.^6,7 Some adolescents and adults may require high doses of opioids, which contributes to health care providers’ perceptions that there is a high prevalence of drug addiction in the population.^8,9 These providers express negative attitudes towards adults with SCD, and, consequently, delay medication administration when it is acutely needed and provide otherwise suboptimal treatment.^8,10,11 Adult care providers may also be uncomfortable with prescribing and managing disease-modifying therapies (blood transfusion, hydroxyurea) that have established efficacy.^12-17

As 1 of 8 programs funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s (NHLBI) Sickle Cell Disease Implementation Consortium (SCDIC), we are using implementation science to reduce barriers to care and improve quality of care and health care outcomes in SCD.^18,19 Given that adolescents and adults with SCD experience high mortality, severe pain, and progressive decline in their ability to function day to day, and also face lack of access to knowledgeable, compassionate providers in primary and emergency settings, the SCDIC focuses on individuals aged 15 to 45 years.^6,8,9,11,12

Our regional SCDIC program, the Sickle Cell Care Coordination Initiative (SCCCI), brings together researchers, clinicians, adolescents, and adults with SCD and their families, dedicated community members, policy makers, and administrators to identify and address barriers to health care within 5 counties in Northern California. One of our first steps was to conduct a community-based needs assessment, designed to inform implementation of evidence-based interventions, accounting for unique contextual factors in our region.

Conceptual Framework for Improving Medical Practice

Our needs assessment is guided by Solberg’s Conceptual Framework for Improving Medical Practice (Figure 1).²⁰ Consistent with the overarching principles of the SCDIC, this conceptual framework focuses on the inadequate implementation of evidence-based guidelines, and on the need to first understand multifactorial facilitators and barriers to guideline implementation in order to effect change. The framework identifies 3 main elements that must be present to ensure improvements in quality-of-care processes and patient outcomes: priority, change process capability, and care process content. Priority refers to ample resource allocation for the specific change, as well as freedom from competing priorities for those implementing the change. Change process capability includes strong, effective leadership, adequate infrastructure for managing change (including resources and time), change management skills at all levels, and an established clinical information system. Care process content refers to context and systems-level changes, such as delivery system redesign as needed, support for self-management to lessen the impact of the disease, and decision support.^21-23

The purpose of our community-based needs assessment was to evaluate barriers to care and quality of care in SCD, within Solberg’s conceptual model for improving medical practice. The specific aims were to evaluate access and barriers to care (eg, lack of provider expertise and training, health care system barriers such as poor care coordination and provider communication); evaluate quality of care; and assess patient needs related to pain, pain interference, self-efficacy, and self-management for adolescents and adults with SCD. We gathered the perspectives of a representative community of adolescents and adults with SCD, their providers, and community stakeholders in order to examine barriers, quality of life and care, and patient experiences in our region.

Methods

Design

In this cross-sectional study, adolescents and adults with SCD, their providers, and community stakeholders participated in group or individual qualitative interviews and completed surveys between October 2017 and March 2018.

Setting and Sample

Recruitment flyers were posted on a regional SCD-focused website, and clinical providers or a study coordinator introduced information about the needs assessment to potential participants with SCD during clinic visits at the participating centers. Participants with SCD were eligible if they had any diagnosis of SCD, were aged 15 to 48 years, and received health services within 5 Northern California counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Francisco, and Solano). They were excluded if they did not have a SCD diagnosis or had not received health services within the catchment area. As the project proceeded, participants were asked to refer other adolescents and adults with SCD for the interviews and surveys (snowball sampling). Our goal was to recruit 50 adolescents and adults with SCD into the study, aiming for 10 representatives from each county.

Providers and community stakeholders were recruited via emails, letters and informational flyers. We engaged our partner, the Sickle Cell Data Collection Program,² to generate a list of providers and institutions that had seen patients with SCD in primary, emergency, or inpatient settings in the region. We contacted these institutions to describe the SCCCI and invite participation in the needs assessment. We also invited community-based organization leads and health care administrators who worked with SCD to participate. Providers accessed confidential surveys via a secure link on the study website or completed paper versions. Common data collected across providers included demographics and descriptions of practice settings.

Participants were eligible to be part of the study if they were health care providers (physicians and nurses) representing hematology, primary care, family medicine, internal medicine, or emergency medicine; ancillary staff (social work, psychology, child life); or leaders or administrators of clinical or sickle cell community-based organizations in Northern California (recruitment goal of n = 50). Providers were excluded if they practiced in specialties other than those noted or did not practice within the region.

Data Collection Procedures

After providing assent/consent, participating adolescents and adults with SCD took part in individual and group interviews and completed survey questionnaires. All procedures were conducted in a private space in the sickle cell center or community. Adolescents and adults with SCD completed the survey questionnaire on a tablet, with responses recorded directly in a REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) database,²⁴ or on a paper version. Interviews lasted 60 (individual) to 90 (group) minutes, while survey completion time was 20 to 25 minutes. Each participant received a gift card upon completion as an expression of appreciation. All procedures were approved by the institutional review boards of the participating health care facilities.

Group and Individual Interviews

Participants with SCD and providers were invited to participate in a semi-structured qualitative interview prior to being presented with the surveys. Adolescents and adults with SCD were interviewed about barriers to care, quality of care, and pain-related experiences. Providers were asked about barriers to care and treatments. Interview guides were modified for community-based organization leaders and health care administrators who did not provide clinical services. Interview guides can be found in the Appendix. Interviews were conducted by research coordinators trained in qualitative research methods by the first author (MT). As appropriate with semi-structured interviews, the interviewers could word questions spontaneously, change the order of questions for ease of flow of conversation, and inform simultaneous coding of interviews with new themes as those might arise, as long as they touched on all topics within the interview guide.²⁵ The interview guides were written, per qualitative research standards, based on the aims and purpose of the research,²⁶ and were informed by existing literature on access and barriers to care in SCD, quality of care, and the needs of individuals with SCD, including in relation to impact of the disease, self-efficacy, and self-management.

Interviewees participated in either individual or group interviews, but not both. The decision for which type of interview an individual participated in was based on 2 factors: if there were not comparable participants for group interviews (eg, health care administrator and community-based organization lead), these interviews were done individually; and given that we were drawing participants from a 5-county area in Northern California, scheduling was challenging for individuals with SCD with regard to aligning schedules and traveling to a central location where the group interviews were conducted. Provider group interviews were easier to arrange because we could schedule them at the same time as regularly scheduled meetings at the participants’ health care institutions.

Interview Data Gathering and Analysis

Digital recordings of the interviews were cleaned of any participant identifying data and sent for transcription to an outside service. Transcripts were reviewed for completeness and imported into NVivo (www.qsrinternational.com), a qualitative data management program.

A thematic content analysis and deductive and inductive approaches were used to analyze the verbatim transcripts generated from the interviews. The research team was trained in the use of NVivo software to facilitate the coding process. A deductive coding scheme was initially used based on existing concepts in the literature regarding challenges to optimal SCD care, with new codes added as the thematic content analyses progressed. The initial coding, pattern coding, and use of displays to examine the relationships between different categories were conducted simultaneously.^27,28 Using the constant comparative method, new concepts from participants with SCD and providers could be incorporated into subsequent interviews with other participants. For this study, the only additional concepts added were in relation to participant recruitment and retention in the SCDIC Registry. Research team members coded transcripts separately and came together weekly, constantly comparing codes and developing the consensus coding scheme. Where differences between coders existed, code meanings were discussed and clarified until consensus was reached.²⁹

Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS (v. 25, Chicago, IL). Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, frequencies, percentages) were used to summarize demographics (eg, age, gender, and race), economic status, and type of SCD. No systematic differences were detected from cases with missing values. Scale reliabilities (ie, Cronbach α) were evaluated for self-report measures.

Measurement

Adolescents and adults with SCD completed items from the PhenX Toolkit (consensus measures for Phenotypes and eXposures), assessing sociodemographics (age, sex, race, ethnicity, educational attainment, occupation, marital status, annual income, insurance), and clinical characteristics (sickle cell diagnosis and emergency department [ED] and hospital utilization for pain).³⁰

Pain Interference Short Form (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS]). The Pain Interference Form consists of 8 items that assess the degree to which pain interfered with day-to-day activities in the previous 7 days at home, including impacts on social, cognitive, emotional, and physical functioning; household chores and recreational activities; sleep; and enjoyment in life. Reliability and validity of the PROMIS Pain Interference Scale has been demonstrated, with strong negative correlations with Physical Function Scales (r = 0.717, P < 0.01), indicating that higher scores are associated with lower function (β = 0.707, P < 0.001).³¹ The Cronbach α estimate for the other items on the pain interference scale was 0.99. Validity analysis indicated strong correlations with pain-related domains: BPI Interference Subscale (rho = 0.90), SF-36 Bodily Pain Subscale (rho = –0.84), and 0–10 Numerical Rating of Pain Intensity (rho = 0.48).³²

Adult Sickle Cell Quality of Life Measurement Information System (ASCQ-Me) Quality of Care (QOC). ASCQ-Me QOC consists of 27 items that measure the quality of care that adults with SCD have received from health care providers.³³ There are 3 composites: provider communication (quality of patient and provider communication), ED care (quality of care in the ED), and access (to routine and emergency care). Internal consistency reliability for all 3 composites is greater than 0.70. Strong correlations of the provider communication composite with overall ratings of routine care (r = 0.65) and overall provider ratings (r = 0.83) provided evidence of construct validity. Similarly, the ED care composite was strongly correlated with overall ratings of QOC in the ED, and the access composite was highly correlated with overall evaluations of ED care (r = 0.70). Access, provider interaction, and ED care composites were reliable (Cronbach α, 0.70–0.83) and correlated with ratings of global care (r = 0.32–0.83), further indicating construct validity.³³

Sickle Cell Self-Efficacy Scale (SCSES). The SCSES is a 9-item, self-administered questionnaire measuring perceptions of the ability to manage day-to-day issues resulting from SCD. SCSES items are scored on a 5-point scale ranging from Not sure at all (1) to Very sure (5). Individual item responses are summed to give an overall score, with higher scores indicating greater self-efficacy. The SCSES has acceptable reliability (r = 0.45, P < 0.001) and validity (α = 0.89).^34,35

Sickle Cell Disease Barriers Checklist. This checklist consists of 53 items organized into 8 categories: insurance, transportation, accommodations and accessibility, provider knowledge and attitudes, social support, individual barriers such as forgetting or difficulties understanding instructions, emotional barriers (fear, anger), and disease-related barriers. Participants check applicable barriers, with a total score range of 0 to 53 and higher scores indicating more barriers to care. The SCD Barriers Checklist has demonstrated face validity and test-retest reliability (Pearson r = 0.74, P < 0.05).⁵

ED Provider Checklist. The ED provider survey is a checklist of 14 statements pertaining to issues regarding patient care, with which the provider rates level of agreement. Items representing the attitudes and beliefs of providers towards patients with SCD are rated on a Likert-type scale, with level of agreement indicated as 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The positive attitudes subscale consists of 4 items (Cronbach α= 0.85), and the negative attitudes subscale consists of 6 items (Cronbach α = 0.89). The Red-Flag Behaviors subscale includes 4 items that indicate behavior concerns about drug-seeking, such as requesting specific narcotics and changing behavior when the provider walks in.^8,36,37

Sickle cell and primary care providers also completed a survey consisting of sets of items compiled from existing provider surveys; this survey consisted of a list of 16 barriers to using opioids, which the providers rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1, not a barrier; 5, complete barrier).^13,16,38 Providers indicated their level of experience with caring for patients with SCD; care provided, such as routine health screenings; and comfort level with providing preventive care, managing comorbidities, and managing acute and chronic pain. Providers were asked what potential facilitators might improve care for patients with SCD, including higher reimbursement, case management services, access to pain management specialists, and access to clinical decision-support tools. Providers responded to specific questions about management with hydroxyurea (eg, criteria for, barriers to, and comfort level with prescribing).³⁹ The surveys are included in the Appendix.

Triangulation

Data from the interviews and surveys were triangulated to enhance understanding of results generated from the different data sources.⁴⁰ Convergence of findings, different facets of the same phenomenon, or new perspectives were examined.

Qualitative Data

Adolescents and adults with SCD (n = 55) and health care providers and community stakeholders (n = 56) participated in group or individual interviews to help us gain an in-depth understanding of the needs and barriers related to SCD care in our 5-county region. Participants with SCD described their experiences, which included stigma, racism, labeling, and, consequently, stress. They also identified barriers such as lack of transportation, challenges with insurance, and lack of access to providers who were competent with pain management. They reported that having SCD in a health care system that was unable to meet their needs was burdensome.

Barriers to Care and Treatments. Adolescents and adults indicated that SCD and its sequelae posed significant barriers to health care. Feelings of tiredness and pain make it more difficult for them to seek care. The emotional burden of SCD (fear and anger) was a frequently cited barrier, which was fueled by previous negative encounters with the health care system. All adolescents and adults with SCD reported that they knew of stigma in relation to seeking pain management that was pervasive and long-standing, and the majority reported they had directly experienced stigma. They reported that being labeled as “drug-seekers” was typical when in the ED for pain management. Participants articulated unconscious bias or overt racism among providers: “people with sickle cell are Black ... and Black pain is never as valuable as White pain” (25-year-old male). Respondents with SCD described challenges to the credibility of their pain reports in the ED. They reported that ED providers expressed doubts regarding the existence and/or severity of their pain, consequently creating a feeling of disrespect for patients seeking pain relief. The issue of stigma was mentioned by only 2 of 56 providers during their interviews.

Lack of Access to Knowledgeable, Compassionate Providers. Lack of access to knowledgeable care providers was another prevalent theme expressed by adolescents and adults with SCD. Frustration occurred when providers did not have knowledge of SCD and its management, particularly pain assessment. Adolescents and adults with SCD noted the lack of compassion among providers: “I’ve been kicked out of the hospital because they felt like okay, well we gave you enough medication, you should be all right” (29-year-old female). Providers specifically mentioned lack of compassion and knowledge as barriers to SCD care much less often during their interviews compared with the adolescents and adults with SCD.

Health Care System Barriers. Patient participants often expressed concerns about concrete and structural aspects of care. Getting to their appointments was a challenge for half of the interviewees, as they either did not have access to a vehicle or could not afford to travel the needed distance to obtain quality care. Even when hospitals were accessible by public transportation, those with excruciating pain understandably preferred a more comfortable and private way to travel: “I would like to change that, something that will be much easier, convenient for sickle cell patients that do suffer with pain, that they don’t have to travel always to see the doctor” (30-year-old male).

Insurance and other financial barriers also played an important role in influencing decisions to seek health care services. Medical expenses were not covered, or co-pays were too high. The Medicaid managed care system could prevent access to knowledgeable providers who were not within network. Such a lack of access discouraged some adolescents and adults with SCD from seeking acute and preventive care.

Transition From Pediatric to Adult Care. Interviewees with SCD expressed distress about the gap between pediatric and adult care. They described how they had a long-standing relationship with their medical providers, who were familiar with their medical background and history from childhood. Adolescent interviewees reported an understanding of their own pain management as well as adherence to and satisfaction with their individualized pain plans. However, adults noted that satisfaction plummeted with increasing age due to the limited number of experienced adult SCD providers, which was compounded by negative experiences (stigma, racism, drug-seeking label).

One interviewee emphasized the difficulty of finding knowledgeable providers after transition: “When you’re a pediatric sickle cell [patient], you have the doctors there every step of the way, but not with adult sickle cell… I know when I first transitioned I never felt more alone in my life… you look at that ER doctor kind of with the same mindset as you would your hematologist who just hand walked you through everything. And adult care providers were a lot more blunt and cold and they’re like… ‘I don’t know; I’m not really educated in sickle cell.’” A sickle cell provider shared his insight about the problem of transitioning: “I think it’s particularly challenging because we, as a community, don’t really set them up for success. It’s different from other chronic conditions [in that] it’s much harder to find an adult sickle cell provider. There’s not a lot of adult hematologists that will take care of our adult patients, and so I know statistically, there’s like a drop-down in the overall outcomes of our kids after they age out of our pediatric program.”

Self-Management, Supporting Hydroxyurea Use. Interview participants with SCD reported using a variety of methods to manage pain at home and chose to go to the ED only when the pain became intolerable. Patients and providers expressed awareness of different resources for managing pain at home, yet they also indicated that these resources have not been consolidated in an accessible way for patients and families. Some resources cited included heat therapy, acupuncture, meditation, medical marijuana, virtual reality devices, and pain medications other than opioids.

Patients and providers expressed the need for increasing awareness and education about hydroxyurea. Many interview participants with SCD were concerned about side effects, multiple visits with a provider during dose titration, and ongoing laboratory monitoring. They also expressed difficulties with scheduling multiple appointments, depending on access to transportation and limited provider clinic hours. They were aware of strategies for improving adherence with hydroxyurea, including setting phone alarms, educating family members about hydroxyurea, and eliciting family support, but expressed needing help to consistently implement these strategies.

Safe Opioid Prescribing. Adult care providers expressed concerns about safe opioid prescribing for patients with SCD. They were reluctant to prescribe opioid doses needed to adequately control SCD pain. Providers expressed uncertainty and fear or concern about medical/legal liability or about their judgment about what’s safe and not safe for patients with chronic use/very high doses of opioids. “I know we’re in like this opiate epidemic here in this country but I feel like these patients don’t really fit under that umbrella that the problem is coming from so [I am] just trying to learn more about how to take care of them.”

Care Coordination and Provider Communication. Adolescents and adults with SCD reported having positive experiences—good communication, established trust, and compassionate care—with their usual providers. However, they perceived that ED physicians and nurses did not really care about them. Both interviewees with SCD and providers recognized the importance of good communication in all settings as the key to overcoming barriers to receiving quality care. All agreed on the importance of using individual pain plans so that all providers, especially ED providers, can be more at ease with treating adolescents and adults with SCD.

Quantitative Data: Adolescents and Adults With SCD

Fifty-eight adolescents and adults with SCD (aged 15 to 48 years) completed the survey. Three additional individuals who did not complete the interview completed the survey. Reasons for not completing the interview included scheduling challenges (n = 2) or a sickle cell pain episode (n = 1). The average age of participants was 31 years ± 8.6, more than half (57%) were female, and the majority (93%) were African American (Table 1). Most (71%) had never been married. Half (50%) had some college or an associate degree, and 40% were employed and reported an annual household income of less than $30,000. Insurance coverage was predominantly Medi-Cal (Medicaid, 69%). The majority of participants resided in Alameda (34.5%) or Contra Costa (21%) counties. The majority of sickle cell care was received in Alameda County, whether outpatient (52%), inpatient (40%), or ED care (41%). The majority (71%) had a diagnosis of SCD hemoglobin SS.

Pain. More than one-third of individuals with SCD reported 1 or 2 ED visits for pain in the previous 6 months (34%), and more than 3 hospitalizations (36%) related to pain in the previous year (Table 2). The majority (85%) reported having severe pain at home in the previous 6 months that they did not seek health care for, consistent with their reports in the qualitative interviews. More than half (59%) reported 4 or more of these severe pain episodes that led to inability to perform daily activities for 1 week or more. While pain interference on the PROMIS Pain Interference Short Form on average (T-score, 59.6 ± 8.6) was similar to that of the general population (T-score, 50 ± 10), a higher proportion of patients with SCD reported pain interference compared with the general population. The mean self-efficacy (confidence in ability to manage complications of SCD) score on the SCSES of 30.0 ± 7.3 (range, 9–45) was similar to that of other adults with SCD (mean, 32.2 ± 7.0). Twenty-five percent of the present sample had a low self-efficacy score (< 25).

Barriers to Care and Treatments. Consistent with the qualitative data, SCD-related symptoms such as tiredness (64%) and pain (62%) were reported most often as barriers to care (Table 3). Emotions (> 25%) such as worry/fear, frustration/anger, and lack of confidence were other important barriers to care. Provider knowledge and attitudes were cited next most often, with 38% of the sample indicating “Providers accuse me of drug-seeking” and “It is hard for me to find a provider who has enough experiences with or knowledge about SCD.” Participants expressed that they were not believed when in pain and “I am treated differently from other patients.” Almost half of respondents cited “I am not seen quickly enough when I am in pain” as a barrier to their care.

Consistent with the qualitative data, transportation barriers (not having a vehicle, costs of transportation, public transit not easy to get to) were cited by 55% of participants. About half of participants reported that insurance was an important barrier, with high co-pays and medications and other services not covered. In addition, gathering approvals was a long and fragmented process, particularly for consultations among providers (hematology, primary care provider, pain specialist). Furthermore, insurance provided limited choices about location for services.

Participants reported social support system burnout (22%), help needed with daily activities (21%), and social isolation or generally not having enough support (33%) as ongoing barriers. Difficulties were encountered with self-management (eg, taking medications on time or making follow-up appointments, 19%), with 22% of participants finding the health care system confusing or hard to understand. Thirty percent reported “Places for me to go to learn how to stay well are not close by or easy to get to.” ”Worry about side effects” (33%) was a common barrier to hydroxyurea use. Participants described “forgetting to take the medicine,” “tried before but it did not work,” “heard scary things” about hydroxyurea, and “not interested in taking another medicine” as barriers.

Quality of Care. More than half (51%) of the 53 participants who had accessed health care in the previous year rated their overall health care as poor on the ASCQ-Me QOC measure. This was significantly higher compared to the reports from more than 47,000 adults with Medicaid in 2017 (16%),⁴¹ and to the 2008-2009 report from 556 adults with SCD from across the United States (37%, Figure 2).³³ The major contributor to these poor ratings for participants in our sample was low satisfaction with ED care.

Sixty percent of the 42 participants who had accessed ED care in the past year indicated “never” or “sometimes” to the question “When you went to the ED for care, how often did you get it as soon as you wanted?” compared with only 16% of the 2017 adult Medicaid population responding (n = 25,789) (Figure 3). Forty-seven percent of those with an ED visit indicated that, in the previous 12 months, they had been made to wait “more than 2 hours before receiving treatment for acute pain in the ED.” However, in the previous 12 months, 39% reported that their wait time in the ED had been only “between five minutes and one hour.”

On the ASCQ-Me QOC Access to Care composite measure, 33% of 42 participants responding reported they were seen at a routine appointment as soon as they would have liked. This is significantly lower compared to 56% of the adult Medicaid population responding to the same question. Reports of provider communication (Provider Communication composite) for adolescents and adults with SCD were comparable to reports of adults with SCD from the ASCQ-Me field test,³³ but adults with Medicaid reported higher ratings of quality communication behaviors (Figure 4).^33,41 Nearly 60% of both groups with SCD reported that providers “always” performed quality communication behaviors—listened carefully, spent enough time, treated them with respect, and explained things well—compared with more than 70% of adults with Medicaid.

Participants from all counties reported the same number of barriers to care on average (3.3 ± 2.1). Adolescents and adults who reported more barriers to care also reported lower satisfaction with care (r = –0.47, P < 0.01) and less confidence in their ability to manage their SCD (self-efficacy, r = – 0.36, P < 0.05). Female participants reported more barriers to care on average compared with male participants (2.6 ± 2.4 vs 1.4 ± 2.0, P = 0.05). Participants with higher self-efficacy reported lower pain ratings (r = –0.47, P < 0.001).

Quantitative Data: Health Care Providers

Providers (n = 56) and community stakeholders (2 leaders of community-based organizations and 3 health care administrators) were interviewed, with 29 also completing the survey. The reason for not completing (n = 22) was not having the time once the interview was complete. A link to the survey was sent to any provider not completing at the time of the interview, with 2 follow-up reminders. The majority of providers were between the ages of 31 and 50 years (46.4%), female (71.4%), and white (66.1%) (Table 4). None were of Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish origin. Thirty-six were physicians (64.3%), and 16 were allied health professionals (28.6%). Of the 56 providers, 32 indicated they had expertise caring for patients with SCD (57.1%), 14 were ED providers (25%), and 5 were primary care providers. Most of the providers practiced in an urban setting (91.1%).

Barriers to Care: ED Provider Perspectives. Nine of 14 ED providers interviewed completed the survey on their perspectives regarding barriers to care in the ED, difficulty with follow-ups, ED training resources, and pain control for patients with SCD. ED providers (n = 8) indicated that “provider attitudes” were a barrier to care delivery in the ED for patients with SCD. Some providers (n = 7) indicated that “implicit bias,” “opioid epidemic,” “concern about addiction,” and “patient behavior” were barriers. Respondents indicated that “overcrowding” (n = 6) and “lack of care pathway/protocol” (n = 5) were barriers. When asked to express their level of agreement with statements about SCD care in the ED, respondents disagreed/strongly disagreed (n = 5) that they were “able to make a follow-up appointment” with a sickle cell specialist or primary care provider upon discharge from the ED, and others disagreed/strongly disagreed (n = 4) that they were able to make a “referral to a case management program.”

ED training and resources. Providers agreed/strongly agreed (n = 8) that they had the knowledge and training to care for patients with SCD, that they had access to needed medications, and that they had access to knowledgeable nursing staff with expertise in SCD care. All 9 ED providers indicated that they had sufficient physician/provider staffing to provide good pain management to persons with SCD in the ED.

Pain control in the ED. Seven ED providers indicated that their ED used individualized dosing protocols to treat sickle cell pain, and 5 respondents indicated their ED had a protocol for treating sickle cell pain. Surprisingly, only 3 indicated that they were aware of the NHLBI recommendations for the treatment of vaso-occlusive pain.

Barriers to Care: Primary Care Provider Perspectives. Twenty providers completed the SCD provider section of the survey, including 17 multidisciplinary SCD providers from 4 sickle cell special care centers and 3 community primary care providers. Of the 20, 12 were primary care providers for patients with SCD (Table 4).

Patient needs. Six primary care providers indicated that the medical needs of patients with SCD were being met, but none indicated that the behavioral health or mental health needs were being met.

Managing SCD comorbidities. Five primary care providers indicated they were very comfortable providing preventive ambulatory care to patients with SCD. Six indicated they were very comfortable managing acute pain episodes, but none were very comfortable managing comorbidities such as pulmonary hypertension, diabetes, or chronic pain.

Barriers to opioid use. Only 3 of 12 providers reviewing a list of 15 potential barriers to the use of opioids for SCD pain management indicated a perceived lack of efficacy of opioids, development of tolerance and dependence, and concerns about community perceptions as barriers. Two providers selected potential for diversion as a moderate barrier to opioid use.

Barriers to hydroxyurea use. Eight of 12 providers indicated that the common reasons that patients/families refuse hydroxyurea were “worry about side effects”; 7 chose “don’t want to take another medicine,” and 6 chose “worry about carcinogenic potential.” Others (n = 10) indicated that “patient/family adherence with hydroxyurea” and “patient/family adherence with required blood tests” were important barriers to hydroxyurea use. Eight of the 12 providers indicated that they were comfortable with managing hydroxyurea in patients with SCD.

Care redesign. Twenty SCD and primary care providers completed the Care Redesign section of the survey. Respondents (n = 11) indicated that they would see more patients with SCD if they had accessible case management services available without charge or if patient access to transportation to clinic was also available. Ten indicated that they would see more patients with SCD if they had an accessible community health worker (who understands patient’s/family’s social situation) and access to a pain management specialist on call to answer questions and who would manage chronic pain. All (n = 20) were willing to see more patients with SCD in their practices. Most reported that a clinical decision-support tool for SCD treatment (n = 13) and avoidance of complications (n = 12) would be useful.

Discussion

We evaluated access and barriers to care, quality of care, care coordination, and provider communication from the perspectives of adolescents and adults with SCD, their care providers, and community stakeholders, within the Solberg conceptual model for quality improvement. We found that barriers within the care process content domain (context and systems) were most salient for this population of adolescents and adults with SCD, with lack of provider knowledge and poor attitudes toward adolescents and adults with SCD, particularly in the ED, cited consistently by participant groups. Stigmatization and lack of provider compassion that affected the quality of care were particularly problematic. These findings are consistent with previous reports.^42,43 Adult health care (particularly ED) provider biases and negative attitudes have been recognized as major barriers to optimal pain management in SCD.^8,11,44,45 Interestingly, ED providers in our needs assessment indicated that they felt they had the training and resources to manage patients with SCD. However, only a few actually reported knowing about the NHLBI recommendations for the treatment of vaso-occlusive pain.

Within the care process content domain, we also found that SCD-related complications and associated emotions (fear, worry, anxiety), compounded by lack of access to knowledgeable and compassionate providers, pose a significant burden. Negative encounters with the health care system contributed to a striking 84% of patient participants choosing to manage severe pain at home, with pain seriously interfering with their ability to function on a daily basis. ED providers agreed that provider attitudes and implicit bias pose important barriers to care for adolescents and adults with SCD. Adolescents and adults with SCD wanted, and understood the need, to enhance self-management skills. Both they and their providers agreed that barriers to hydroxyurea uptake included worries about potential side effects, challenges with adherence to repeated laboratory testing, and support with remembering to take the medicine. However, providers uniformly expressed that access to behavioral and mental health services were, if not nonexistent, impossible to access.

Participants with SCD and their providers reported infrastructural challenges (change process capability), as manifested in limitations with accessing acute and preventive care due to transportation- and insurance- related issues. There were health system barriers that were particularly encountered during the transition from pediatric to adult care. These findings are consistent with previous reports that have found fewer interdisciplinary services available in the adult care settings compared with pediatrics.^46,47 Furthermore, adult care providers were less willing to accept adults with SCD because of the complexity of their management, for which the providers did not have the necessary expertise.^3,48-50 In addition, both adolescents and adults with SCD and primary care providers highlighted the inadequacies of the current system in addressing the chronic pain needs of this population. Linking back to the Solberg conceptual framework, our needs assessment results confirm the important role of establishing SCD care as a priority within a health care system—this requires leadership and vision. The vision and priorities must be implemented by effective health care teams. Multilevel approaches or interventions, when implemented, will lead to the desired outcomes.

Findings from our needs assessment within our 5-county region mirror needs assessment results from the broader consortium.⁵¹ The SCDIC has prioritized developing an intervention that addresses the challenges identified within the care process domain by directly enhancing provider access to patient individualized care plans in the electronic health record in the ED. Importantly, ED providers will be asked to view a short video that directly challenges bias and stigma in the ED. Previous studies have indeed found that attitudes can be improved by providers viewing short video segments of adults with SCD discussing their experiences.^36,52 This ED protocol will be one of the interventions that we will roll out in Northern California, given the significance of negative ED encounters reported by needs assessment participants. An additional feature of the intervention is a script for adults with SCD that guides them through introducing their individualized pain plan to their ED providers, thereby enhancing their self-efficacy in a situation that has been so overwhelmingly challenging.

We will implement a second SCDIC intervention that utilizes a mobile app to support self-management on the part of the patient, by supporting motivation and adherence with hydroxyurea.⁵³ A companion app supports hydroxyurea guideline adherence on the part of the provider, in keeping with one of our findings that providers are in need of decision-support tools. Elements of the intervention also align with our findings related to the importance of a support system in managing SCD, in that participants will identify a supportive partner who will play a specific role in supporting their adherence with hydroxyurea.

On our local level, we have, by necessity, partnered with leaders and community stakeholders throughout the region to ensure that these interventions to improve SCD care are prioritized. Grant funds provide initial resources for the SCDIC interventions, but our partnering health care administrators and medical directors must ensure that participating ED and hematology providers are free from competing priorities in order to implement the changes. We have partnered with a SCD community-based organization that is designing additional educational presentations for local emergency medicine providers, with the goal to bring to life very personal stories of bias and stigma within the EDs that directly contribute to decisions to avoid ED care despite severe symptoms.

Although we attempted to obtain samples of adolescents and adults with SCD and their providers that were representative across the 5-county region, the larger proportion of respondents were from 1 county. We did not assess concerns of age- and race-matched adults in our catchment area, so we cannot definitively say that our findings are unique to SCD. However, our results are consistent with findings from the national sample of adults with SCD who participated in the ASCQ-Me field test, and with results from the SCDIC needs assessment.^33,51 Interviews and surveys are subject to self-report bias and, therefore, may or may not reflect the actual behaviors or thoughts of participants. Confidence is increased in our results given the triangulation of expressed concerns across participant groups and across data collection strategies. The majority of adolescents and adults with SCD (95%) completed both the interview and survey, while 64% of ED providers interviewed completed the survey, compared with 54% of SCD specialists and primary care providers. These response rates are more than acceptable within the realm of survey response rates.^54,55

Although we encourage examining issues with care delivery within the conceptual framework for quality improvement presented, we recognize that grant funding allowed us to conduct an in-depth needs assessment that might not be feasible in other settings. Still, we would like readers to understand the importance of gathering data for improvement in a systematic manner across a range of participant groups, to ultimately inform the development of interventions and provide for evaluation of outcomes as a result of the interventions. This is particularly important for a disease, such as SCD, that is both medically and sociopolitically complex.

Conclusion

Our needs assessment brought into focus the multiple factors contributing to the disparities in health care experienced by adolescents and adults with SCD on our local level, and within the context of inequities in health resources and outcomes on the national level. We propose solutions that include specific interventions developed by a consortium of SCD and implementation science experts. We utilize a quality improvement framework to ensure that the elements of the interventions also address the barriers identified by our local providers and patients that are unique to our community. The pervasive challenges in SCD care, coupled with its medical complexities, may seem insurmountable, but our survey and qualitative results provide us with a road map for the way forward.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank the adolescents and adults with sickle cell disease, the providers, and the community stakeholders who completed the interviews and surveys. The authors also acknowledge the SCCCI co-investigators for their contributions to this project, including Michael Bell, MD, Ward Hagar, MD, Christine Hoehner, FNP, Kimberly Major, MSW, Anne Marsh, MD, Lynne Neumayr, MD, and Ted Wun, MD. We also thank Kamilah Bailey, Jameelah Hodge, Jennifer Kim, Michael Rowland, Adria Stauber, Amber Fearon, and Shanda Robertson, and the Sickle Cell Data Collection Program for their contributions.

Corresponding author: Marsha J. Treadwell, PhD, University of California San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland, 747 52nd St., Oakland, CA 94609; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

Funding/support: This work was supported by grant # 1U01HL134007 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to the University of California San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland.

From the Hospital of Central Connecticut, New Britain, CT (Dr. Caulfield and Dr. Shepard); Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT (Dr. Linder and Dr. Dempsey); and the Hartford HealthCare Research Program, Hartford, CT (Dr. O’Sullivan).

Abstract

• Objective: To assess the utility of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) nasal swab testing in patients with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI).
• Design and setting: Multicenter, retrospective, electronic chart review conducted within the Hartford HealthCare system.
• Participants: Patients who were treated for LRTIs at the Hospital of Central Connecticut or Hartford Hospital between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019.
• Measurements: The primary outcome was anti-MRSA days of therapy (DOT) in patients who underwent MRSA PCR testing versus those who did not. In a subgroup analysis, we compared anti-MRSA DOT among patients with appropriate versus inappropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR test.
• Results: Of the 319 patients treated for LRTIs, 155 (48.6%) had a MRSA PCR ordered, and appropriate utilization occurred in 94 (60.6%) of these patients. Anti-MRSA DOT in the MRSA PCR group (n = 155) was shorter than in the group that did not undergo MRSA PCR testing (n = 164), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (1.68 days [interquartile range {IQR}, 0.80-2.74] vs 1.86 days [IQR, 0.56-3.33], P = 0.458). In the subgroup analysis, anti-MRSA DOT was significantly shorter in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization compared to the inappropriate utilization group (1.16 [IQR, 0.44-1.88] vs 2.68 [IQR, 1.75-3.76], P < 0.001)
• Conclusion: Appropriate utilization of MRSA PCR nasal swab testing can reduce DOT in patients with LRTI. Further education is necessary to expand the appropriate use of the MRSA PCR test across our health system.

Keywords: MRSA; LRTI; pneumonia; antimicrobial stewardship; antibiotic resistance.

More than 300,000 patients were hospitalized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections in the United States in 2017, and at least 10,000 of these cases resulted in mortality.¹ While MRSA infections overall are decreasing, it is crucial to continue to employ antimicrobial stewardship tactics to keep these infections at bay. Recently, strains of S. aureus have become resistant to vancomycin, making this bacterium even more difficult to treat.²

A novel tactic in antimicrobial stewardship involves the use of MRSA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) nasal swab testing to rule out the presence of MRSA in patients with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI). If used appropriately, this approach may decrease the number of days patients are treated with anti-MRSA antimicrobials. Waiting for cultures to speciate can take up to 72 hours,³ meaning that patients may be exposed to 3 days of unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotics. Results of MRSA PCR assay of nasal swab specimens can be available in 1 to 2 hours,⁴ allowing for more rapid de-escalation of therapy. Numerous studies have shown that this test has a negative predictive value (NPV) greater than 95%, indicating that a negative nasal swab result may be useful to guide de-escalation of antibiotic therapy.^5-8 The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of MRSA PCR nasal swab testing in patients with LRTI throughout the Hartford HealthCare system.

Methods

Design

This study was a multicenter, retrospective, electronic chart review. It was approved by the Hartford HealthCare Institutional Review Board (HHC-2019-0169).

Selection of Participants

Patients were identified through electronic medical record reports based on ICD-10 codes. Records were categorized into 2 groups: patients who received a MRSA PCR nasal swab testing and patients who did not. Patients who received the MRSA PCR were further categorized by appropriate or inappropriate utilization. Appropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR was defined as MRSA PCR ordered within 48 hours of a new vancomycin or linezolid order, and anti-MRSA therapy discontinued within 24 hours of a negative result. Inappropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR was defined as MRSA PCR ordered more than 48 hours after a new vancomycin or linezolid order, or continuation of anti-MRSA therapy despite a negative MRSA PCR and no other evidence of a MRSA infection.

Patients were included if they met all of the following criteria: age 18 years or older, with no upper age limit; treated for a LRTI, identified by ICD-10 codes (J13-22, J44, J85); treated with empiric antibiotics active against MRSA, specifically vancomycin or linezolid; and treated at the Hospital of Central Connecticut (HOCC) or Hartford Hospital (HH) between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019, inclusive. Patients were excluded if they met 1 or more of the following criteria: age less than 18 years old; admitted for 48 hours or fewer or discharged from the emergency department; not treated at either facility; treated before July 1, 2018, or after June 30, 2019; treated for ventilator-associated pneumonia; received anti-MRSA therapy within 30 days prior to admission; or treated for a concurrent bacterial infection requiring anti-MRSA therapy.

Outcome Measures

The primary outcome was anti-MRSA days of therapy (DOT) in patients who underwent MRSA PCR testing compared to patients who did not undergo MRSA PCR testing. A subgroup analysis was completed to compare anti-MRSA DOT within patients in the MRSA PCR group. Patients in the subgroup were categorized by appropriate or inappropriate utilization, and anti-MRSA DOT were compared between these groups. Secondary outcomes that were evaluated included length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission rate, and incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI). Thirty-day readmission was defined as admission to HOCC, HH, or any institution within Hartford HealthCare within 30 days of discharge. AKI was defined as an increase in serum creatinine by ≥ 0.3 mg/dL in 48 hours, increase ≥ 1.5 times baseline, or a urine volume < 0.5 mL/kg/hr for 6 hours.

Statistical Analyses

The study was powered for the primary outcome, anti-MRSA DOT, with a clinically meaningful difference of 1 day. Group sample sizes of 240 in the MRSA PCR group and 160 in the no MRSA PCR group would have afforded 92% power to detect that difference, if the null hypothesis was that both group means were 4 days and the alternative hypothesis was that the mean of the MRSA PCR group was 3 days, with estimated group standard deviations of 80% of each mean. This estimate used an alpha level of 0.05 with a 2-sided t-test. Among those who received a MRSA PCR test, a clinically meaningful difference between appropriate and inappropriate utilization was 5%.

Descriptive statistics were provided for all variables as a function of the individual hospital and for the combined data set. Continuous data were summarized with means and standard deviations (SD), or with median and interquartile ranges (IQR), depending on distribution. Categorical variables were reported as frequencies, using percentages. All data were evaluated for normality of distribution. Inferential statistics comprised a Student’s t-test to compare normally distributed, continuous data between groups. Nonparametric distributions were compared using a Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical comparisons were made using a Fisher’s exact test for 2×2 tables and a Pearson chi-square test for comparisons involving more than 2 groups.

Since anti-MRSA DOT (primary outcome) and LOS (secondary outcome) are often non-normally distributed, they have been transformed (eg, log or square root, again depending on distribution). Whichever native variable or transformation variable was appropriate was used as the outcome measure in a linear regression model to account for the influence of factors (covariates) that show significant univariate differences. Given the relatively small sample size, a maximum of 10 variables were included in the model. All factors were iterated in a forward regression model (most influential first) until no significant changes were observed.

All calculations were performed with SPSS v. 21 (IBM; Armonk, NY) using an a priori alpha level of 0.05, such that all results yielding P < 0.05 were deemed statistically significant.

Results

Of the 561 patient records reviewed, 319 patients were included and 242 patients were excluded. Reasons for exclusion included 65 patients admitted for a duration of 48 hours or less or discharged from the emergency department; 61 patients having another infection requiring anti-MRSA therapy; 60 patients not having a diagnosis of a LRTI or not receiving anti-MRSA therapy; 52 patients having received anti-MRSA therapy within 30 days prior to admission; and 4 patients treated outside of the specified date range.

Of the 319 patients included, 155 (48.6%) were in the MRSA PCR group and 164 (51.4%) were in the group that did not undergo MRSA PCR (Table 1). Of the 155 patients with a MRSA PCR ordered, the test was utilized appropriately in 94 (60.6%) patients and inappropriately in 61 (39.4%) patients (Table 2). In the MRSA PCR group, 135 patients had a negative result on PCR assay, with 133 of those patients having negative respiratory cultures, resulting in a NPV of 98.5%. Differences in baseline characteristics between the MRSA PCR and no MRSA PCR groups were observed. The patients in the MRSA PCR group appeared to be significantly more ill than those in the no MRSA PCR group, as indicated by statistically significant differences in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (P = 0.001), positive chest radiographs (P = 0.034), sepsis at time of anti-MRSA initiation (P = 0.013), pulmonary consults placed (P = 0.003), and carbapenem usage (P = 0.047).

Outcomes

Median anti-MRSA DOT in the MRSA PCR group was shorter than DOT in the no MRSA PCR group, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (1.68 [IQR, 0.80-2.74] vs 1.86 days [IQR, 0.56-3.33], P = 0.458; Table 3). LOS in the MRSA PCR group was longer than in the no MRSA PCR group (6.0 [IQR, 4.0-10.0] vs 5.0 [IQR, 3.0-7.0] days, P = 0.001). There was no difference in 30-day readmissions that were related to the previous visit or incidence of AKI between groups.

In the subgroup analysis, anti-MRSA DOT in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization was shorter than DOT in the MRSA PCR group with inappropriate utilization (1.16 [IQR, 0.44-1.88] vs 2.68 [IQR, 1.75-3.76] days, P < 0.001; Table 4). LOS in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization was shorter than LOS in the inappropriate utilization group (5.0 [IQR, 4.0-7.0] vs 7.0 [IQR, 5.0-12.0] days, P < 0.001). Thirty-day readmissions that were related to the previous visit were significantly higher in patients in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization (13 vs 2, P = 0.030). There was no difference in incidence of AKI between the groups.

A multivariate analysis was completed to determine whether the sicker MRSA PCR population was confounding outcomes, particularly the secondary outcome of LOS, which was noted to be longer in the MRSA PCR group (Table 5). When comparing LOS in the MRSA PCR and the no MRSA PCR patients, the multivariate analysis showed that admission to the ICU and carbapenem use were associated with a longer LOS (P < 0.001 and P = 0.009, respectively). The incidence of admission to the ICU and carbapenem use were higher in the MRSA PCR group (P = 0.001 and P = 0.047). Therefore, longer LOS in the MRSA PCR patients could be a result of the higher prevalence of ICU admissions and infections requiring carbapenem therapy rather than the result of the MRSA PCR itself.

Discussion

A MRSA PCR nasal swab protocol can be used to minimize a patient’s exposure to unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotics, thereby preventing antimicrobial resistance. Thus, it is important to assess how our health system is utilizing this antimicrobial stewardship tactic. With the MRSA PCR’s high NPV, providers can be confident that MRSA pneumonia is unlikely in the absence of MRSA colonization. Our study established a NPV of 98.5%, which is similar to other studies, all of which have shown NPVs greater than 95%.^5-8 Despite the high NPV, this study demonstrated that only 51.4% of patients with LRTI had orders for a MRSA PCR. Of the 155 patients with a MRSA PCR, the test was utilized appropriately only 60.6% of the time. A majority of the inappropriately utilized tests were due to MRSA PCR orders placed more than 48 hours after anti-MRSA therapy initiation. To our knowledge, no other studies have assessed the clinical utility of MRSA PCR nasal swabs as an antimicrobial stewardship tool in a diverse health system; therefore, these results are useful to guide future practices at our institution. There is a clear need for provider and pharmacist education to increase the use of MRSA PCR nasal swab testing for patients with LRTI being treated with anti-MRSA therapy. Additionally, clinician education regarding the initial timing of the MRSA PCR order and the proper utilization of the results of the MRSA PCR likely will benefit patient outcomes at our institution.

When evaluating anti-MRSA DOT, this study demonstrated a reduction of only 0.18 days (about 4 hours) of anti-MRSA therapy in the patients who received MRSA PCR testing compared to the patients without a MRSA PCR ordered. Our anti-MRSA DOT reduction was lower than what has been reported in similar studies. For example, Baby et al found that the use of the MRSA PCR was associated with 46.6 fewer hours of unnecessary antimicrobial treatment. Willis et al evaluated a pharmacist-driven protocol that resulted in a reduction of 1.8 days of anti-MRSA therapy, despite a protocol compliance rate of only 55%.^9,10 In our study, the patients in the MRSA PCR group appeared to be significantly more ill than those in the no MRSA PCR group, which may be the reason for the incongruences in our results compared to the current literature. Characteristics such as ICU admissions, positive chest radiographs, sepsis cases, pulmonary consults, and carbapenem usage—all of which are indicative of a sicker population—were more prevalent in the MRSA PCR group. This sicker population could have underestimated the reduction of DOT in the MRSA PCR group compared to the no MRSA PCR group.

After isolating the MRSA PCR patients in the subgroup analysis, anti-MRSA DOT was 1.5 days shorter when the test was appropriately utilized, which is more comparable to what has been reported in the literature.^9,10 Only 60.6% of the MRSA PCR patients had their anti-MRSA therapy appropriately managed based on the MRSA PCR. Interestingly, a majority of patients in the inappropriate utilization group had MRSA PCR tests ordered more than 48 hours after beginning anti-MRSA therapy. More prompt and efficient ordering of the MRSA PCR may have resulted in more opportunities for earlier de-escalation of therapy. Due to these factors, the patients in the inappropriate utilization group could have further contributed to the underestimated difference in anti-MRSA DOT between the MRSA PCR and no MRSA PCR patients in the primary outcome. Additionally, there were no notable differences between the appropriate and inappropriate utilization groups, unlike in the MRSA PCR and no MRSA PCR groups, which is why we were able to draw more robust conclusions in the subgroup analysis. Therefore, the subgroup analysis confirmed that if the results of the MRSA PCR are used appropriately to guide anti-MRSA therapy, patients can potentially avoid 36 hours of broad-spectrum antibiotics.

Data on how the utilization of the MRSA PCR nasal swab can affect LOS are limited; however, one study did report a 2.8-day reduction in LOS after implementation of a pharmacist-driven MRSA PCR nasal swab protocol.¹¹ Our study demonstrated that LOS was significantly longer in the MRSA PCR group than in the no MRSA PCR group. This result was likely affected by the aforementioned sicker MRSA PCR population. Our multivariate analysis further confirmed that ICU admissions were associated with a longer LOS, and, given that the MRSA PCR group had a significantly higher ICU population, this likely confounded these results. If our 2 groups had had more evenly distributed characteristics, it is possible that we could have found a shorter LOS in the MRSA PCR group, similar to what is reported in the literature. In the subgroup analysis, LOS was 2 days shorter in the appropriate utilization group compared to the inappropriate utilization group. This further affirms that the results of the MRSA PCR must be used appropriately in order for patient outcomes, like LOS, to benefit.

The effects of the MRSA PCR nasal swab on 30-day readmission rates and incidence of AKI are not well-documented in the literature. One study did report 30-day readmission rates as an outcome, but did not cite any difference after the implementation of a protocol that utilized MRSA PCR nasal swab testing.¹² The outcome of AKI is slightly better represented in the literature, but the results are conflicting. Some studies report no difference after the implementation of a MRSA PCR-based protocol,¹¹ and others report a significant decrease in AKI with the use of the MRSA PCR.⁹ Our study detected no difference in 30-day readmission rates related to the previous admission or in AKI between the MRSA PCR and no MRSA PCR populations. In the subgroup analysis, 30-day readmission rates were significantly higher in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization than in the group with inappropriate utilization; however, our study was not powered to detect a difference in this secondary outcome.

This study had some limitations that may have affected our results. First, this study was a retrospective chart review. Additionally, the baseline characteristics were not well balanced across the different groups. There were sicker patients in the MRSA PCR group, which may have led to an underestimate of the reduction in DOT and LOS in these patients. Finally, we did not include enough patient records to reach power in the MRSA PCR group due to a higher than expected number of patients meeting exclusion criteria. Had we attained sufficient power, there may have been more profound reductions in DOT and LOS.

Conclusion

MRSA infections are a common cause for hospitalization, and there is a growing need for antimicrobial stewardship efforts to limit unnecessary antibiotic usage in order to prevent resistance. As illustrated in our study, appropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR can reduce DOT up to 1.5 days. However, our results suggest that there is room for provider and pharmacist education to increase the use of MRSA PCR nasal swab testing in patients with LRTI receiving anti-MRSA therapy. Further emphasis on the appropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR within our health care system is essential.

Corresponding author: Casey Dempsey, PharmD, BCIDP, 80 Seymour St., Hartford, CT 06106; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

From the Hospital of Central Connecticut, New Britain, CT (Dr. Caulfield and Dr. Shepard); Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT (Dr. Linder and Dr. Dempsey); and the Hartford HealthCare Research Program, Hartford, CT (Dr. O’Sullivan).

Abstract

• Objective: To assess the utility of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) nasal swab testing in patients with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI).
• Design and setting: Multicenter, retrospective, electronic chart review conducted within the Hartford HealthCare system.
• Participants: Patients who were treated for LRTIs at the Hospital of Central Connecticut or Hartford Hospital between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019.
• Measurements: The primary outcome was anti-MRSA days of therapy (DOT) in patients who underwent MRSA PCR testing versus those who did not. In a subgroup analysis, we compared anti-MRSA DOT among patients with appropriate versus inappropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR test.
• Results: Of the 319 patients treated for LRTIs, 155 (48.6%) had a MRSA PCR ordered, and appropriate utilization occurred in 94 (60.6%) of these patients. Anti-MRSA DOT in the MRSA PCR group (n = 155) was shorter than in the group that did not undergo MRSA PCR testing (n = 164), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (1.68 days [interquartile range {IQR}, 0.80-2.74] vs 1.86 days [IQR, 0.56-3.33], P = 0.458). In the subgroup analysis, anti-MRSA DOT was significantly shorter in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization compared to the inappropriate utilization group (1.16 [IQR, 0.44-1.88] vs 2.68 [IQR, 1.75-3.76], P < 0.001)
• Conclusion: Appropriate utilization of MRSA PCR nasal swab testing can reduce DOT in patients with LRTI. Further education is necessary to expand the appropriate use of the MRSA PCR test across our health system.

Keywords: MRSA; LRTI; pneumonia; antimicrobial stewardship; antibiotic resistance.

More than 300,000 patients were hospitalized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections in the United States in 2017, and at least 10,000 of these cases resulted in mortality.¹ While MRSA infections overall are decreasing, it is crucial to continue to employ antimicrobial stewardship tactics to keep these infections at bay. Recently, strains of S. aureus have become resistant to vancomycin, making this bacterium even more difficult to treat.²

A novel tactic in antimicrobial stewardship involves the use of MRSA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) nasal swab testing to rule out the presence of MRSA in patients with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI). If used appropriately, this approach may decrease the number of days patients are treated with anti-MRSA antimicrobials. Waiting for cultures to speciate can take up to 72 hours,³ meaning that patients may be exposed to 3 days of unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotics. Results of MRSA PCR assay of nasal swab specimens can be available in 1 to 2 hours,⁴ allowing for more rapid de-escalation of therapy. Numerous studies have shown that this test has a negative predictive value (NPV) greater than 95%, indicating that a negative nasal swab result may be useful to guide de-escalation of antibiotic therapy.^5-8 The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of MRSA PCR nasal swab testing in patients with LRTI throughout the Hartford HealthCare system.

Methods

Design

This study was a multicenter, retrospective, electronic chart review. It was approved by the Hartford HealthCare Institutional Review Board (HHC-2019-0169).

Selection of Participants

Patients were identified through electronic medical record reports based on ICD-10 codes. Records were categorized into 2 groups: patients who received a MRSA PCR nasal swab testing and patients who did not. Patients who received the MRSA PCR were further categorized by appropriate or inappropriate utilization. Appropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR was defined as MRSA PCR ordered within 48 hours of a new vancomycin or linezolid order, and anti-MRSA therapy discontinued within 24 hours of a negative result. Inappropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR was defined as MRSA PCR ordered more than 48 hours after a new vancomycin or linezolid order, or continuation of anti-MRSA therapy despite a negative MRSA PCR and no other evidence of a MRSA infection.

Patients were included if they met all of the following criteria: age 18 years or older, with no upper age limit; treated for a LRTI, identified by ICD-10 codes (J13-22, J44, J85); treated with empiric antibiotics active against MRSA, specifically vancomycin or linezolid; and treated at the Hospital of Central Connecticut (HOCC) or Hartford Hospital (HH) between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019, inclusive. Patients were excluded if they met 1 or more of the following criteria: age less than 18 years old; admitted for 48 hours or fewer or discharged from the emergency department; not treated at either facility; treated before July 1, 2018, or after June 30, 2019; treated for ventilator-associated pneumonia; received anti-MRSA therapy within 30 days prior to admission; or treated for a concurrent bacterial infection requiring anti-MRSA therapy.

Outcome Measures

The primary outcome was anti-MRSA days of therapy (DOT) in patients who underwent MRSA PCR testing compared to patients who did not undergo MRSA PCR testing. A subgroup analysis was completed to compare anti-MRSA DOT within patients in the MRSA PCR group. Patients in the subgroup were categorized by appropriate or inappropriate utilization, and anti-MRSA DOT were compared between these groups. Secondary outcomes that were evaluated included length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission rate, and incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI). Thirty-day readmission was defined as admission to HOCC, HH, or any institution within Hartford HealthCare within 30 days of discharge. AKI was defined as an increase in serum creatinine by ≥ 0.3 mg/dL in 48 hours, increase ≥ 1.5 times baseline, or a urine volume < 0.5 mL/kg/hr for 6 hours.

Statistical Analyses

The study was powered for the primary outcome, anti-MRSA DOT, with a clinically meaningful difference of 1 day. Group sample sizes of 240 in the MRSA PCR group and 160 in the no MRSA PCR group would have afforded 92% power to detect that difference, if the null hypothesis was that both group means were 4 days and the alternative hypothesis was that the mean of the MRSA PCR group was 3 days, with estimated group standard deviations of 80% of each mean. This estimate used an alpha level of 0.05 with a 2-sided t-test. Among those who received a MRSA PCR test, a clinically meaningful difference between appropriate and inappropriate utilization was 5%.

Descriptive statistics were provided for all variables as a function of the individual hospital and for the combined data set. Continuous data were summarized with means and standard deviations (SD), or with median and interquartile ranges (IQR), depending on distribution. Categorical variables were reported as frequencies, using percentages. All data were evaluated for normality of distribution. Inferential statistics comprised a Student’s t-test to compare normally distributed, continuous data between groups. Nonparametric distributions were compared using a Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical comparisons were made using a Fisher’s exact test for 2×2 tables and a Pearson chi-square test for comparisons involving more than 2 groups.

Since anti-MRSA DOT (primary outcome) and LOS (secondary outcome) are often non-normally distributed, they have been transformed (eg, log or square root, again depending on distribution). Whichever native variable or transformation variable was appropriate was used as the outcome measure in a linear regression model to account for the influence of factors (covariates) that show significant univariate differences. Given the relatively small sample size, a maximum of 10 variables were included in the model. All factors were iterated in a forward regression model (most influential first) until no significant changes were observed.

All calculations were performed with SPSS v. 21 (IBM; Armonk, NY) using an a priori alpha level of 0.05, such that all results yielding P < 0.05 were deemed statistically significant.

Results

Of the 561 patient records reviewed, 319 patients were included and 242 patients were excluded. Reasons for exclusion included 65 patients admitted for a duration of 48 hours or less or discharged from the emergency department; 61 patients having another infection requiring anti-MRSA therapy; 60 patients not having a diagnosis of a LRTI or not receiving anti-MRSA therapy; 52 patients having received anti-MRSA therapy within 30 days prior to admission; and 4 patients treated outside of the specified date range.

Of the 319 patients included, 155 (48.6%) were in the MRSA PCR group and 164 (51.4%) were in the group that did not undergo MRSA PCR (Table 1). Of the 155 patients with a MRSA PCR ordered, the test was utilized appropriately in 94 (60.6%) patients and inappropriately in 61 (39.4%) patients (Table 2). In the MRSA PCR group, 135 patients had a negative result on PCR assay, with 133 of those patients having negative respiratory cultures, resulting in a NPV of 98.5%. Differences in baseline characteristics between the MRSA PCR and no MRSA PCR groups were observed. The patients in the MRSA PCR group appeared to be significantly more ill than those in the no MRSA PCR group, as indicated by statistically significant differences in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (P = 0.001), positive chest radiographs (P = 0.034), sepsis at time of anti-MRSA initiation (P = 0.013), pulmonary consults placed (P = 0.003), and carbapenem usage (P = 0.047).

Outcomes

Median anti-MRSA DOT in the MRSA PCR group was shorter than DOT in the no MRSA PCR group, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (1.68 [IQR, 0.80-2.74] vs 1.86 days [IQR, 0.56-3.33], P = 0.458; Table 3). LOS in the MRSA PCR group was longer than in the no MRSA PCR group (6.0 [IQR, 4.0-10.0] vs 5.0 [IQR, 3.0-7.0] days, P = 0.001). There was no difference in 30-day readmissions that were related to the previous visit or incidence of AKI between groups.

In the subgroup analysis, anti-MRSA DOT in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization was shorter than DOT in the MRSA PCR group with inappropriate utilization (1.16 [IQR, 0.44-1.88] vs 2.68 [IQR, 1.75-3.76] days, P < 0.001; Table 4). LOS in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization was shorter than LOS in the inappropriate utilization group (5.0 [IQR, 4.0-7.0] vs 7.0 [IQR, 5.0-12.0] days, P < 0.001). Thirty-day readmissions that were related to the previous visit were significantly higher in patients in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization (13 vs 2, P = 0.030). There was no difference in incidence of AKI between the groups.

A multivariate analysis was completed to determine whether the sicker MRSA PCR population was confounding outcomes, particularly the secondary outcome of LOS, which was noted to be longer in the MRSA PCR group (Table 5). When comparing LOS in the MRSA PCR and the no MRSA PCR patients, the multivariate analysis showed that admission to the ICU and carbapenem use were associated with a longer LOS (P < 0.001 and P = 0.009, respectively). The incidence of admission to the ICU and carbapenem use were higher in the MRSA PCR group (P = 0.001 and P = 0.047). Therefore, longer LOS in the MRSA PCR patients could be a result of the higher prevalence of ICU admissions and infections requiring carbapenem therapy rather than the result of the MRSA PCR itself.

Discussion

A MRSA PCR nasal swab protocol can be used to minimize a patient’s exposure to unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotics, thereby preventing antimicrobial resistance. Thus, it is important to assess how our health system is utilizing this antimicrobial stewardship tactic. With the MRSA PCR’s high NPV, providers can be confident that MRSA pneumonia is unlikely in the absence of MRSA colonization. Our study established a NPV of 98.5%, which is similar to other studies, all of which have shown NPVs greater than 95%.^5-8 Despite the high NPV, this study demonstrated that only 51.4% of patients with LRTI had orders for a MRSA PCR. Of the 155 patients with a MRSA PCR, the test was utilized appropriately only 60.6% of the time. A majority of the inappropriately utilized tests were due to MRSA PCR orders placed more than 48 hours after anti-MRSA therapy initiation. To our knowledge, no other studies have assessed the clinical utility of MRSA PCR nasal swabs as an antimicrobial stewardship tool in a diverse health system; therefore, these results are useful to guide future practices at our institution. There is a clear need for provider and pharmacist education to increase the use of MRSA PCR nasal swab testing for patients with LRTI being treated with anti-MRSA therapy. Additionally, clinician education regarding the initial timing of the MRSA PCR order and the proper utilization of the results of the MRSA PCR likely will benefit patient outcomes at our institution.

When evaluating anti-MRSA DOT, this study demonstrated a reduction of only 0.18 days (about 4 hours) of anti-MRSA therapy in the patients who received MRSA PCR testing compared to the patients without a MRSA PCR ordered. Our anti-MRSA DOT reduction was lower than what has been reported in similar studies. For example, Baby et al found that the use of the MRSA PCR was associated with 46.6 fewer hours of unnecessary antimicrobial treatment. Willis et al evaluated a pharmacist-driven protocol that resulted in a reduction of 1.8 days of anti-MRSA therapy, despite a protocol compliance rate of only 55%.^9,10 In our study, the patients in the MRSA PCR group appeared to be significantly more ill than those in the no MRSA PCR group, which may be the reason for the incongruences in our results compared to the current literature. Characteristics such as ICU admissions, positive chest radiographs, sepsis cases, pulmonary consults, and carbapenem usage—all of which are indicative of a sicker population—were more prevalent in the MRSA PCR group. This sicker population could have underestimated the reduction of DOT in the MRSA PCR group compared to the no MRSA PCR group.

After isolating the MRSA PCR patients in the subgroup analysis, anti-MRSA DOT was 1.5 days shorter when the test was appropriately utilized, which is more comparable to what has been reported in the literature.^9,10 Only 60.6% of the MRSA PCR patients had their anti-MRSA therapy appropriately managed based on the MRSA PCR. Interestingly, a majority of patients in the inappropriate utilization group had MRSA PCR tests ordered more than 48 hours after beginning anti-MRSA therapy. More prompt and efficient ordering of the MRSA PCR may have resulted in more opportunities for earlier de-escalation of therapy. Due to these factors, the patients in the inappropriate utilization group could have further contributed to the underestimated difference in anti-MRSA DOT between the MRSA PCR and no MRSA PCR patients in the primary outcome. Additionally, there were no notable differences between the appropriate and inappropriate utilization groups, unlike in the MRSA PCR and no MRSA PCR groups, which is why we were able to draw more robust conclusions in the subgroup analysis. Therefore, the subgroup analysis confirmed that if the results of the MRSA PCR are used appropriately to guide anti-MRSA therapy, patients can potentially avoid 36 hours of broad-spectrum antibiotics.

Data on how the utilization of the MRSA PCR nasal swab can affect LOS are limited; however, one study did report a 2.8-day reduction in LOS after implementation of a pharmacist-driven MRSA PCR nasal swab protocol.¹¹ Our study demonstrated that LOS was significantly longer in the MRSA PCR group than in the no MRSA PCR group. This result was likely affected by the aforementioned sicker MRSA PCR population. Our multivariate analysis further confirmed that ICU admissions were associated with a longer LOS, and, given that the MRSA PCR group had a significantly higher ICU population, this likely confounded these results. If our 2 groups had had more evenly distributed characteristics, it is possible that we could have found a shorter LOS in the MRSA PCR group, similar to what is reported in the literature. In the subgroup analysis, LOS was 2 days shorter in the appropriate utilization group compared to the inappropriate utilization group. This further affirms that the results of the MRSA PCR must be used appropriately in order for patient outcomes, like LOS, to benefit.

The effects of the MRSA PCR nasal swab on 30-day readmission rates and incidence of AKI are not well-documented in the literature. One study did report 30-day readmission rates as an outcome, but did not cite any difference after the implementation of a protocol that utilized MRSA PCR nasal swab testing.¹² The outcome of AKI is slightly better represented in the literature, but the results are conflicting. Some studies report no difference after the implementation of a MRSA PCR-based protocol,¹¹ and others report a significant decrease in AKI with the use of the MRSA PCR.⁹ Our study detected no difference in 30-day readmission rates related to the previous admission or in AKI between the MRSA PCR and no MRSA PCR populations. In the subgroup analysis, 30-day readmission rates were significantly higher in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization than in the group with inappropriate utilization; however, our study was not powered to detect a difference in this secondary outcome.

This study had some limitations that may have affected our results. First, this study was a retrospective chart review. Additionally, the baseline characteristics were not well balanced across the different groups. There were sicker patients in the MRSA PCR group, which may have led to an underestimate of the reduction in DOT and LOS in these patients. Finally, we did not include enough patient records to reach power in the MRSA PCR group due to a higher than expected number of patients meeting exclusion criteria. Had we attained sufficient power, there may have been more profound reductions in DOT and LOS.

Conclusion

MRSA infections are a common cause for hospitalization, and there is a growing need for antimicrobial stewardship efforts to limit unnecessary antibiotic usage in order to prevent resistance. As illustrated in our study, appropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR can reduce DOT up to 1.5 days. However, our results suggest that there is room for provider and pharmacist education to increase the use of MRSA PCR nasal swab testing in patients with LRTI receiving anti-MRSA therapy. Further emphasis on the appropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR within our health care system is essential.

Corresponding author: Casey Dempsey, PharmD, BCIDP, 80 Seymour St., Hartford, CT 06106; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

From the Hospital of Central Connecticut, New Britain, CT (Dr. Caulfield and Dr. Shepard); Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT (Dr. Linder and Dr. Dempsey); and the Hartford HealthCare Research Program, Hartford, CT (Dr. O’Sullivan).

Abstract

• Objective: To assess the utility of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) nasal swab testing in patients with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI).
• Design and setting: Multicenter, retrospective, electronic chart review conducted within the Hartford HealthCare system.
• Participants: Patients who were treated for LRTIs at the Hospital of Central Connecticut or Hartford Hospital between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019.
• Measurements: The primary outcome was anti-MRSA days of therapy (DOT) in patients who underwent MRSA PCR testing versus those who did not. In a subgroup analysis, we compared anti-MRSA DOT among patients with appropriate versus inappropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR test.
• Results: Of the 319 patients treated for LRTIs, 155 (48.6%) had a MRSA PCR ordered, and appropriate utilization occurred in 94 (60.6%) of these patients. Anti-MRSA DOT in the MRSA PCR group (n = 155) was shorter than in the group that did not undergo MRSA PCR testing (n = 164), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (1.68 days [interquartile range {IQR}, 0.80-2.74] vs 1.86 days [IQR, 0.56-3.33], P = 0.458). In the subgroup analysis, anti-MRSA DOT was significantly shorter in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization compared to the inappropriate utilization group (1.16 [IQR, 0.44-1.88] vs 2.68 [IQR, 1.75-3.76], P < 0.001)
• Conclusion: Appropriate utilization of MRSA PCR nasal swab testing can reduce DOT in patients with LRTI. Further education is necessary to expand the appropriate use of the MRSA PCR test across our health system.

Keywords: MRSA; LRTI; pneumonia; antimicrobial stewardship; antibiotic resistance.

More than 300,000 patients were hospitalized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections in the United States in 2017, and at least 10,000 of these cases resulted in mortality.¹ While MRSA infections overall are decreasing, it is crucial to continue to employ antimicrobial stewardship tactics to keep these infections at bay. Recently, strains of S. aureus have become resistant to vancomycin, making this bacterium even more difficult to treat.²

A novel tactic in antimicrobial stewardship involves the use of MRSA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) nasal swab testing to rule out the presence of MRSA in patients with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI). If used appropriately, this approach may decrease the number of days patients are treated with anti-MRSA antimicrobials. Waiting for cultures to speciate can take up to 72 hours,³ meaning that patients may be exposed to 3 days of unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotics. Results of MRSA PCR assay of nasal swab specimens can be available in 1 to 2 hours,⁴ allowing for more rapid de-escalation of therapy. Numerous studies have shown that this test has a negative predictive value (NPV) greater than 95%, indicating that a negative nasal swab result may be useful to guide de-escalation of antibiotic therapy.^5-8 The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of MRSA PCR nasal swab testing in patients with LRTI throughout the Hartford HealthCare system.

Methods

Design

This study was a multicenter, retrospective, electronic chart review. It was approved by the Hartford HealthCare Institutional Review Board (HHC-2019-0169).

Selection of Participants

Patients were identified through electronic medical record reports based on ICD-10 codes. Records were categorized into 2 groups: patients who received a MRSA PCR nasal swab testing and patients who did not. Patients who received the MRSA PCR were further categorized by appropriate or inappropriate utilization. Appropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR was defined as MRSA PCR ordered within 48 hours of a new vancomycin or linezolid order, and anti-MRSA therapy discontinued within 24 hours of a negative result. Inappropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR was defined as MRSA PCR ordered more than 48 hours after a new vancomycin or linezolid order, or continuation of anti-MRSA therapy despite a negative MRSA PCR and no other evidence of a MRSA infection.

Patients were included if they met all of the following criteria: age 18 years or older, with no upper age limit; treated for a LRTI, identified by ICD-10 codes (J13-22, J44, J85); treated with empiric antibiotics active against MRSA, specifically vancomycin or linezolid; and treated at the Hospital of Central Connecticut (HOCC) or Hartford Hospital (HH) between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019, inclusive. Patients were excluded if they met 1 or more of the following criteria: age less than 18 years old; admitted for 48 hours or fewer or discharged from the emergency department; not treated at either facility; treated before July 1, 2018, or after June 30, 2019; treated for ventilator-associated pneumonia; received anti-MRSA therapy within 30 days prior to admission; or treated for a concurrent bacterial infection requiring anti-MRSA therapy.

Outcome Measures

The primary outcome was anti-MRSA days of therapy (DOT) in patients who underwent MRSA PCR testing compared to patients who did not undergo MRSA PCR testing. A subgroup analysis was completed to compare anti-MRSA DOT within patients in the MRSA PCR group. Patients in the subgroup were categorized by appropriate or inappropriate utilization, and anti-MRSA DOT were compared between these groups. Secondary outcomes that were evaluated included length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission rate, and incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI). Thirty-day readmission was defined as admission to HOCC, HH, or any institution within Hartford HealthCare within 30 days of discharge. AKI was defined as an increase in serum creatinine by ≥ 0.3 mg/dL in 48 hours, increase ≥ 1.5 times baseline, or a urine volume < 0.5 mL/kg/hr for 6 hours.

Statistical Analyses

The study was powered for the primary outcome, anti-MRSA DOT, with a clinically meaningful difference of 1 day. Group sample sizes of 240 in the MRSA PCR group and 160 in the no MRSA PCR group would have afforded 92% power to detect that difference, if the null hypothesis was that both group means were 4 days and the alternative hypothesis was that the mean of the MRSA PCR group was 3 days, with estimated group standard deviations of 80% of each mean. This estimate used an alpha level of 0.05 with a 2-sided t-test. Among those who received a MRSA PCR test, a clinically meaningful difference between appropriate and inappropriate utilization was 5%.

Descriptive statistics were provided for all variables as a function of the individual hospital and for the combined data set. Continuous data were summarized with means and standard deviations (SD), or with median and interquartile ranges (IQR), depending on distribution. Categorical variables were reported as frequencies, using percentages. All data were evaluated for normality of distribution. Inferential statistics comprised a Student’s t-test to compare normally distributed, continuous data between groups. Nonparametric distributions were compared using a Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical comparisons were made using a Fisher’s exact test for 2×2 tables and a Pearson chi-square test for comparisons involving more than 2 groups.

Since anti-MRSA DOT (primary outcome) and LOS (secondary outcome) are often non-normally distributed, they have been transformed (eg, log or square root, again depending on distribution). Whichever native variable or transformation variable was appropriate was used as the outcome measure in a linear regression model to account for the influence of factors (covariates) that show significant univariate differences. Given the relatively small sample size, a maximum of 10 variables were included in the model. All factors were iterated in a forward regression model (most influential first) until no significant changes were observed.

All calculations were performed with SPSS v. 21 (IBM; Armonk, NY) using an a priori alpha level of 0.05, such that all results yielding P < 0.05 were deemed statistically significant.

Results

Of the 561 patient records reviewed, 319 patients were included and 242 patients were excluded. Reasons for exclusion included 65 patients admitted for a duration of 48 hours or less or discharged from the emergency department; 61 patients having another infection requiring anti-MRSA therapy; 60 patients not having a diagnosis of a LRTI or not receiving anti-MRSA therapy; 52 patients having received anti-MRSA therapy within 30 days prior to admission; and 4 patients treated outside of the specified date range.

Of the 319 patients included, 155 (48.6%) were in the MRSA PCR group and 164 (51.4%) were in the group that did not undergo MRSA PCR (Table 1). Of the 155 patients with a MRSA PCR ordered, the test was utilized appropriately in 94 (60.6%) patients and inappropriately in 61 (39.4%) patients (Table 2). In the MRSA PCR group, 135 patients had a negative result on PCR assay, with 133 of those patients having negative respiratory cultures, resulting in a NPV of 98.5%. Differences in baseline characteristics between the MRSA PCR and no MRSA PCR groups were observed. The patients in the MRSA PCR group appeared to be significantly more ill than those in the no MRSA PCR group, as indicated by statistically significant differences in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (P = 0.001), positive chest radiographs (P = 0.034), sepsis at time of anti-MRSA initiation (P = 0.013), pulmonary consults placed (P = 0.003), and carbapenem usage (P = 0.047).

Outcomes

Median anti-MRSA DOT in the MRSA PCR group was shorter than DOT in the no MRSA PCR group, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (1.68 [IQR, 0.80-2.74] vs 1.86 days [IQR, 0.56-3.33], P = 0.458; Table 3). LOS in the MRSA PCR group was longer than in the no MRSA PCR group (6.0 [IQR, 4.0-10.0] vs 5.0 [IQR, 3.0-7.0] days, P = 0.001). There was no difference in 30-day readmissions that were related to the previous visit or incidence of AKI between groups.

In the subgroup analysis, anti-MRSA DOT in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization was shorter than DOT in the MRSA PCR group with inappropriate utilization (1.16 [IQR, 0.44-1.88] vs 2.68 [IQR, 1.75-3.76] days, P < 0.001; Table 4). LOS in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization was shorter than LOS in the inappropriate utilization group (5.0 [IQR, 4.0-7.0] vs 7.0 [IQR, 5.0-12.0] days, P < 0.001). Thirty-day readmissions that were related to the previous visit were significantly higher in patients in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization (13 vs 2, P = 0.030). There was no difference in incidence of AKI between the groups.

A multivariate analysis was completed to determine whether the sicker MRSA PCR population was confounding outcomes, particularly the secondary outcome of LOS, which was noted to be longer in the MRSA PCR group (Table 5). When comparing LOS in the MRSA PCR and the no MRSA PCR patients, the multivariate analysis showed that admission to the ICU and carbapenem use were associated with a longer LOS (P < 0.001 and P = 0.009, respectively). The incidence of admission to the ICU and carbapenem use were higher in the MRSA PCR group (P = 0.001 and P = 0.047). Therefore, longer LOS in the MRSA PCR patients could be a result of the higher prevalence of ICU admissions and infections requiring carbapenem therapy rather than the result of the MRSA PCR itself.

Discussion

A MRSA PCR nasal swab protocol can be used to minimize a patient’s exposure to unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotics, thereby preventing antimicrobial resistance. Thus, it is important to assess how our health system is utilizing this antimicrobial stewardship tactic. With the MRSA PCR’s high NPV, providers can be confident that MRSA pneumonia is unlikely in the absence of MRSA colonization. Our study established a NPV of 98.5%, which is similar to other studies, all of which have shown NPVs greater than 95%.^5-8 Despite the high NPV, this study demonstrated that only 51.4% of patients with LRTI had orders for a MRSA PCR. Of the 155 patients with a MRSA PCR, the test was utilized appropriately only 60.6% of the time. A majority of the inappropriately utilized tests were due to MRSA PCR orders placed more than 48 hours after anti-MRSA therapy initiation. To our knowledge, no other studies have assessed the clinical utility of MRSA PCR nasal swabs as an antimicrobial stewardship tool in a diverse health system; therefore, these results are useful to guide future practices at our institution. There is a clear need for provider and pharmacist education to increase the use of MRSA PCR nasal swab testing for patients with LRTI being treated with anti-MRSA therapy. Additionally, clinician education regarding the initial timing of the MRSA PCR order and the proper utilization of the results of the MRSA PCR likely will benefit patient outcomes at our institution.

When evaluating anti-MRSA DOT, this study demonstrated a reduction of only 0.18 days (about 4 hours) of anti-MRSA therapy in the patients who received MRSA PCR testing compared to the patients without a MRSA PCR ordered. Our anti-MRSA DOT reduction was lower than what has been reported in similar studies. For example, Baby et al found that the use of the MRSA PCR was associated with 46.6 fewer hours of unnecessary antimicrobial treatment. Willis et al evaluated a pharmacist-driven protocol that resulted in a reduction of 1.8 days of anti-MRSA therapy, despite a protocol compliance rate of only 55%.^9,10 In our study, the patients in the MRSA PCR group appeared to be significantly more ill than those in the no MRSA PCR group, which may be the reason for the incongruences in our results compared to the current literature. Characteristics such as ICU admissions, positive chest radiographs, sepsis cases, pulmonary consults, and carbapenem usage—all of which are indicative of a sicker population—were more prevalent in the MRSA PCR group. This sicker population could have underestimated the reduction of DOT in the MRSA PCR group compared to the no MRSA PCR group.

After isolating the MRSA PCR patients in the subgroup analysis, anti-MRSA DOT was 1.5 days shorter when the test was appropriately utilized, which is more comparable to what has been reported in the literature.^9,10 Only 60.6% of the MRSA PCR patients had their anti-MRSA therapy appropriately managed based on the MRSA PCR. Interestingly, a majority of patients in the inappropriate utilization group had MRSA PCR tests ordered more than 48 hours after beginning anti-MRSA therapy. More prompt and efficient ordering of the MRSA PCR may have resulted in more opportunities for earlier de-escalation of therapy. Due to these factors, the patients in the inappropriate utilization group could have further contributed to the underestimated difference in anti-MRSA DOT between the MRSA PCR and no MRSA PCR patients in the primary outcome. Additionally, there were no notable differences between the appropriate and inappropriate utilization groups, unlike in the MRSA PCR and no MRSA PCR groups, which is why we were able to draw more robust conclusions in the subgroup analysis. Therefore, the subgroup analysis confirmed that if the results of the MRSA PCR are used appropriately to guide anti-MRSA therapy, patients can potentially avoid 36 hours of broad-spectrum antibiotics.

Data on how the utilization of the MRSA PCR nasal swab can affect LOS are limited; however, one study did report a 2.8-day reduction in LOS after implementation of a pharmacist-driven MRSA PCR nasal swab protocol.¹¹ Our study demonstrated that LOS was significantly longer in the MRSA PCR group than in the no MRSA PCR group. This result was likely affected by the aforementioned sicker MRSA PCR population. Our multivariate analysis further confirmed that ICU admissions were associated with a longer LOS, and, given that the MRSA PCR group had a significantly higher ICU population, this likely confounded these results. If our 2 groups had had more evenly distributed characteristics, it is possible that we could have found a shorter LOS in the MRSA PCR group, similar to what is reported in the literature. In the subgroup analysis, LOS was 2 days shorter in the appropriate utilization group compared to the inappropriate utilization group. This further affirms that the results of the MRSA PCR must be used appropriately in order for patient outcomes, like LOS, to benefit.

The effects of the MRSA PCR nasal swab on 30-day readmission rates and incidence of AKI are not well-documented in the literature. One study did report 30-day readmission rates as an outcome, but did not cite any difference after the implementation of a protocol that utilized MRSA PCR nasal swab testing.¹² The outcome of AKI is slightly better represented in the literature, but the results are conflicting. Some studies report no difference after the implementation of a MRSA PCR-based protocol,¹¹ and others report a significant decrease in AKI with the use of the MRSA PCR.⁹ Our study detected no difference in 30-day readmission rates related to the previous admission or in AKI between the MRSA PCR and no MRSA PCR populations. In the subgroup analysis, 30-day readmission rates were significantly higher in the MRSA PCR group with appropriate utilization than in the group with inappropriate utilization; however, our study was not powered to detect a difference in this secondary outcome.

This study had some limitations that may have affected our results. First, this study was a retrospective chart review. Additionally, the baseline characteristics were not well balanced across the different groups. There were sicker patients in the MRSA PCR group, which may have led to an underestimate of the reduction in DOT and LOS in these patients. Finally, we did not include enough patient records to reach power in the MRSA PCR group due to a higher than expected number of patients meeting exclusion criteria. Had we attained sufficient power, there may have been more profound reductions in DOT and LOS.

Conclusion

MRSA infections are a common cause for hospitalization, and there is a growing need for antimicrobial stewardship efforts to limit unnecessary antibiotic usage in order to prevent resistance. As illustrated in our study, appropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR can reduce DOT up to 1.5 days. However, our results suggest that there is room for provider and pharmacist education to increase the use of MRSA PCR nasal swab testing in patients with LRTI receiving anti-MRSA therapy. Further emphasis on the appropriate utilization of the MRSA PCR within our health care system is essential.

Corresponding author: Casey Dempsey, PharmD, BCIDP, 80 Seymour St., Hartford, CT 06106; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the association between administration of systemic corticosteroids, compared with usual care or placebo, and 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Design. Prospective meta-analysis with data from 7 randomized clinical trials conducted in 12 countries.

Setting and participants. This prospective meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials conducted between February 26, 2020, and June 9, 2020, that examined the clinical efficacy of administration of corticosteroids in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were critically ill. Trials were systematically identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, using the search terms COVID-19, corticosteroids, and steroids. Additional trials were identified by experts from the WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group. Senior investigators of these identified trials were asked to participate in weekly calls to develop a protocol for the prospective meta-analysis.¹ Subsequently, trials that had randomly assigned critically ill patients to receive corticosteroids versus usual care or placebo were invited to participate in this meta-analysis. Data were pooled from patients recruited to the participating trials through June 9, 2020, and aggregated in overall and in predefined subgroups.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality up to 30 days after randomization. Because 5 of the included trials reported mortality at 28 days after randomization, the primary outcome was reported as 28-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome was serious adverse events (SAEs). The authors also gathered data on the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients, the number of patients lost to follow-up, and outcomes according to intervention group, overall, and in subgroups (ie, patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or vasoactive medication; age ≤ 60 years or > 60 years [the median across trials]; sex [male or female]; and the duration patients were symptomatic [≤ 7 days or > 7 days]). For each trial, the risk of bias was assessed independently by 4 investigators using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for the overall effects of corticosteroids on mortality and SAEs and the effect of assignment and allocated interventions. Inconsistency between trial results was evaluated using the I² statistic. The trials were classified according to the corticosteroids used in the intervention group and the dose administered using a priori-defined cutoffs (15 mg/day of dexamethasone, 400 mg/day of hydrocortisone, and 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone). The primary analysis utilized was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for overall mortality. Random-effects meta-analyses with Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity were also performed.

Main results. Seven trials (DEXA-COVID 19, CoDEX, RECOVERY, CAPE COVID, COVID STEROID, REMAP-CAP, and Steroids-SARI) were included in the final meta-analysis. The enrolled patients were from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The date of final follow-up was July 6, 2020. The corticosteroids groups included dexamethasone at low (6 mg/day orally or intravenously [IV]) and high (20 mg/day IV) doses; low-dose hydrocortisone (200 mg/day IV or 50 mg every 6 hr IV); and high-dose methylprednisolone (40 mg every 12 hr IV). In total, 1703 patients were randomized, with 678 assigned to the corticosteroids group and 1025 to the usual-care or placebo group. The median age of patients was 60 years (interquartile range, 52-68 years), and 29% were women. The larger number of patients in the usual-care/placebo group was a result of the 1:2 randomization (corticosteroids versus usual care or placebo) in the RECOVERY trial, which contributed 59.1% of patients included in this prospective meta-analysis. The majority of patients were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization (1559 patients). The administration of adjunctive treatments, such as azithromycin or antiviral agents, varied among the trials. The risk of bias was determined as low for 6 of the 7 mortality results.

A total of 222 of 678 patients in the corticosteroids group died, and 425 of 1025 patients in the usual care or placebo group died. The summary OR was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.82; P < 0.001) based on a fixed-effect meta-analysis, and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.01; P = 0.053) based on the random-effects meta-analysis, for 28-day all-cause mortality comparing all corticosteroids with usual care or placebo. There was little inconsistency between trial results (I² = 15.6%; P = 0.31). The fixed-effect summary OR for the association with 28-day all-cause mortality was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.82; P < 0.001) for dexamethasone compared with usual care or placebo (3 trials, 1282 patients, and 527 deaths); the OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.43-1.12; P = 0.13) for hydrocortisone (3 trials, 374 patients, and 94 deaths); and the OR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.29-2.87; P = 0.87) for methylprednisolone (1 trial, 47 patients, and 26 deaths). Moreover, in trials that administered low-dose corticosteroids, the overall fixed-effect OR for 28-day all-cause mortality was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.48-0.78; P < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the overall fixed-effect OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55-0.86) in patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization, and the OR was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.19-0.88) in patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization.

Six trials (all except the RECOVERY trial) reported SAEs, with 64 events occurring among 354 patients assigned to the corticosteroids group and 80 SAEs occurring among 342 patients assigned to the usual-care or placebo group. There was no suggestion that the risk of SAEs was higher in patients who were administered corticosteroids.

Conclusion. The administration of systemic corticosteroids was associated with a lower 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 compared to those who received usual care or placebo.

Commentary

Corticosteroids are anti-inflammatory and vasoconstrictive medications that have long been used in intensive care units for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome and septic shock. However, the therapeutic role of corticosteroids for treating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was uncertain at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic due to concerns that this class of medications may cause an impaired immune response in the setting of a life-threatening SARS-CoV-2 infection. Evidence supporting this notion included prior studies showing that corticosteroid therapy was associated with delayed viral clearance of Middle East respiratory syndrome or a higher viral load of SARS-CoV.^2,3 The uncertainty surrounding the therapeutic use of corticosteroids in treating COVID-19 led to a simultaneous global effort to conduct randomized controlled trials to urgently examine this important clinical question. The open-label Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, conducted in the UK, was the first large-scale randomized clinical trial that reported the clinical benefit of corticosteroids in treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Specifically, it showed that low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg/day) administered orally or IV for up to 10 days resulted in a 2.8% absolute reduction in 28-day mortality, with the greatest benefit, an absolute risk reduction of 12.1%, conferred to patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of randomization.⁴ In response to these findings, the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommended the use of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 who are on mechanical ventilation or who require supplemental oxygen, and recommended against the use of dexamethasone for those not requiring supplemental oxygen.⁵

The meta-analysis discussed in this commentary, conducted by the WHO REACT Working Group, has replicated initial findings from the RECOVERY trial. This prospective meta-analysis pooled data from 7 randomized controlled trials of corticosteroid therapy in 1703 critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Similar to findings from the RECOVERY trial, corticosteroids were associated with lower all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization, and this benefit was observed both in critically ill patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation or supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation. Interestingly, while the OR estimates were imprecise, the reduction in mortality rates was similar between patients who were administered dexamethasone and hydrocortisone, which may suggest a general drug class effect. In addition, the mortality benefit of corticosteroids appeared similar for those aged ≤ 60 years and those aged > 60 years, between female and male patients, and those who were symptomatic for ≤ 7 days or > 7 days before randomization. Moreover, the administration of corticosteroids did not appear to increase the risk of SAEs. While more data are needed, results from the RECOVERY trial and this prospective meta-analysis indicate that corticosteroids should be an essential pharmacologic treatment for COVID-19, and suggest its potential role as a standard of care for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

This study has several limitations. First, not all trials systematically identified participated in the meta-analysis. Second, long-term outcomes after hospital discharge were not captured, and thus the effect of corticosteroids on long-term mortality and other adverse outcomes, such as hospital readmission, remain unknown. Third, because children were excluded from study participation, the effect of corticosteroids on pediatric COVID-19 patients is unknown. Fourth, the RECOVERY trial contributed more than 50% of patients in the current analysis, although there was little inconsistency in the effects of corticosteroids on mortality between individual trials. Last, the meta-analysis was unable to establish the optimal dose or duration of corticosteroid intervention in critically ill COVID-19 patients, or determine its efficacy in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, all of which are key clinical questions that will need to be addressed with further clinical investigations.

The development of effective treatments for COVID-19 is critical to mitigating the devastating consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Several recent COVID-19 clinical trials have shown promise in this endeavor. For instance, the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT-1) found that intravenous remdesivir, as compared to placebo, significantly shortened time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.⁶ Moreover, there is some evidence to suggest that convalescent plasma and aerosol inhalation of IFN-κ may have beneficial effects in treating COVID-19.^7,8 Thus, clinical trials designed to investigate combination therapy approaches including corticosteroids, remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and others are urgently needed to help identify interventions that most effectively treat COVID-19.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The use of corticosteroids in critically ill patients with COVID-19 reduces overall mortality. This treatment is inexpensive and available in most care settings, including low-resource regions, and provides hope for better outcomes in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Katerina Oikonomou, MD, PhD
General Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the association between administration of systemic corticosteroids, compared with usual care or placebo, and 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Design. Prospective meta-analysis with data from 7 randomized clinical trials conducted in 12 countries.

Setting and participants. This prospective meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials conducted between February 26, 2020, and June 9, 2020, that examined the clinical efficacy of administration of corticosteroids in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were critically ill. Trials were systematically identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, using the search terms COVID-19, corticosteroids, and steroids. Additional trials were identified by experts from the WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group. Senior investigators of these identified trials were asked to participate in weekly calls to develop a protocol for the prospective meta-analysis.¹ Subsequently, trials that had randomly assigned critically ill patients to receive corticosteroids versus usual care or placebo were invited to participate in this meta-analysis. Data were pooled from patients recruited to the participating trials through June 9, 2020, and aggregated in overall and in predefined subgroups.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality up to 30 days after randomization. Because 5 of the included trials reported mortality at 28 days after randomization, the primary outcome was reported as 28-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome was serious adverse events (SAEs). The authors also gathered data on the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients, the number of patients lost to follow-up, and outcomes according to intervention group, overall, and in subgroups (ie, patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or vasoactive medication; age ≤ 60 years or > 60 years [the median across trials]; sex [male or female]; and the duration patients were symptomatic [≤ 7 days or > 7 days]). For each trial, the risk of bias was assessed independently by 4 investigators using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for the overall effects of corticosteroids on mortality and SAEs and the effect of assignment and allocated interventions. Inconsistency between trial results was evaluated using the I² statistic. The trials were classified according to the corticosteroids used in the intervention group and the dose administered using a priori-defined cutoffs (15 mg/day of dexamethasone, 400 mg/day of hydrocortisone, and 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone). The primary analysis utilized was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for overall mortality. Random-effects meta-analyses with Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity were also performed.

Main results. Seven trials (DEXA-COVID 19, CoDEX, RECOVERY, CAPE COVID, COVID STEROID, REMAP-CAP, and Steroids-SARI) were included in the final meta-analysis. The enrolled patients were from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The date of final follow-up was July 6, 2020. The corticosteroids groups included dexamethasone at low (6 mg/day orally or intravenously [IV]) and high (20 mg/day IV) doses; low-dose hydrocortisone (200 mg/day IV or 50 mg every 6 hr IV); and high-dose methylprednisolone (40 mg every 12 hr IV). In total, 1703 patients were randomized, with 678 assigned to the corticosteroids group and 1025 to the usual-care or placebo group. The median age of patients was 60 years (interquartile range, 52-68 years), and 29% were women. The larger number of patients in the usual-care/placebo group was a result of the 1:2 randomization (corticosteroids versus usual care or placebo) in the RECOVERY trial, which contributed 59.1% of patients included in this prospective meta-analysis. The majority of patients were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization (1559 patients). The administration of adjunctive treatments, such as azithromycin or antiviral agents, varied among the trials. The risk of bias was determined as low for 6 of the 7 mortality results.

A total of 222 of 678 patients in the corticosteroids group died, and 425 of 1025 patients in the usual care or placebo group died. The summary OR was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.82; P < 0.001) based on a fixed-effect meta-analysis, and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.01; P = 0.053) based on the random-effects meta-analysis, for 28-day all-cause mortality comparing all corticosteroids with usual care or placebo. There was little inconsistency between trial results (I² = 15.6%; P = 0.31). The fixed-effect summary OR for the association with 28-day all-cause mortality was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.82; P < 0.001) for dexamethasone compared with usual care or placebo (3 trials, 1282 patients, and 527 deaths); the OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.43-1.12; P = 0.13) for hydrocortisone (3 trials, 374 patients, and 94 deaths); and the OR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.29-2.87; P = 0.87) for methylprednisolone (1 trial, 47 patients, and 26 deaths). Moreover, in trials that administered low-dose corticosteroids, the overall fixed-effect OR for 28-day all-cause mortality was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.48-0.78; P < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the overall fixed-effect OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55-0.86) in patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization, and the OR was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.19-0.88) in patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization.

Six trials (all except the RECOVERY trial) reported SAEs, with 64 events occurring among 354 patients assigned to the corticosteroids group and 80 SAEs occurring among 342 patients assigned to the usual-care or placebo group. There was no suggestion that the risk of SAEs was higher in patients who were administered corticosteroids.

Conclusion. The administration of systemic corticosteroids was associated with a lower 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 compared to those who received usual care or placebo.

Commentary

Corticosteroids are anti-inflammatory and vasoconstrictive medications that have long been used in intensive care units for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome and septic shock. However, the therapeutic role of corticosteroids for treating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was uncertain at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic due to concerns that this class of medications may cause an impaired immune response in the setting of a life-threatening SARS-CoV-2 infection. Evidence supporting this notion included prior studies showing that corticosteroid therapy was associated with delayed viral clearance of Middle East respiratory syndrome or a higher viral load of SARS-CoV.^2,3 The uncertainty surrounding the therapeutic use of corticosteroids in treating COVID-19 led to a simultaneous global effort to conduct randomized controlled trials to urgently examine this important clinical question. The open-label Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, conducted in the UK, was the first large-scale randomized clinical trial that reported the clinical benefit of corticosteroids in treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Specifically, it showed that low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg/day) administered orally or IV for up to 10 days resulted in a 2.8% absolute reduction in 28-day mortality, with the greatest benefit, an absolute risk reduction of 12.1%, conferred to patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of randomization.⁴ In response to these findings, the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommended the use of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 who are on mechanical ventilation or who require supplemental oxygen, and recommended against the use of dexamethasone for those not requiring supplemental oxygen.⁵

The meta-analysis discussed in this commentary, conducted by the WHO REACT Working Group, has replicated initial findings from the RECOVERY trial. This prospective meta-analysis pooled data from 7 randomized controlled trials of corticosteroid therapy in 1703 critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Similar to findings from the RECOVERY trial, corticosteroids were associated with lower all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization, and this benefit was observed both in critically ill patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation or supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation. Interestingly, while the OR estimates were imprecise, the reduction in mortality rates was similar between patients who were administered dexamethasone and hydrocortisone, which may suggest a general drug class effect. In addition, the mortality benefit of corticosteroids appeared similar for those aged ≤ 60 years and those aged > 60 years, between female and male patients, and those who were symptomatic for ≤ 7 days or > 7 days before randomization. Moreover, the administration of corticosteroids did not appear to increase the risk of SAEs. While more data are needed, results from the RECOVERY trial and this prospective meta-analysis indicate that corticosteroids should be an essential pharmacologic treatment for COVID-19, and suggest its potential role as a standard of care for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

This study has several limitations. First, not all trials systematically identified participated in the meta-analysis. Second, long-term outcomes after hospital discharge were not captured, and thus the effect of corticosteroids on long-term mortality and other adverse outcomes, such as hospital readmission, remain unknown. Third, because children were excluded from study participation, the effect of corticosteroids on pediatric COVID-19 patients is unknown. Fourth, the RECOVERY trial contributed more than 50% of patients in the current analysis, although there was little inconsistency in the effects of corticosteroids on mortality between individual trials. Last, the meta-analysis was unable to establish the optimal dose or duration of corticosteroid intervention in critically ill COVID-19 patients, or determine its efficacy in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, all of which are key clinical questions that will need to be addressed with further clinical investigations.

The development of effective treatments for COVID-19 is critical to mitigating the devastating consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Several recent COVID-19 clinical trials have shown promise in this endeavor. For instance, the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT-1) found that intravenous remdesivir, as compared to placebo, significantly shortened time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.⁶ Moreover, there is some evidence to suggest that convalescent plasma and aerosol inhalation of IFN-κ may have beneficial effects in treating COVID-19.^7,8 Thus, clinical trials designed to investigate combination therapy approaches including corticosteroids, remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and others are urgently needed to help identify interventions that most effectively treat COVID-19.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The use of corticosteroids in critically ill patients with COVID-19 reduces overall mortality. This treatment is inexpensive and available in most care settings, including low-resource regions, and provides hope for better outcomes in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Katerina Oikonomou, MD, PhD
General Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the association between administration of systemic corticosteroids, compared with usual care or placebo, and 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Design. Prospective meta-analysis with data from 7 randomized clinical trials conducted in 12 countries.

Setting and participants. This prospective meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials conducted between February 26, 2020, and June 9, 2020, that examined the clinical efficacy of administration of corticosteroids in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were critically ill. Trials were systematically identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, using the search terms COVID-19, corticosteroids, and steroids. Additional trials were identified by experts from the WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group. Senior investigators of these identified trials were asked to participate in weekly calls to develop a protocol for the prospective meta-analysis.¹ Subsequently, trials that had randomly assigned critically ill patients to receive corticosteroids versus usual care or placebo were invited to participate in this meta-analysis. Data were pooled from patients recruited to the participating trials through June 9, 2020, and aggregated in overall and in predefined subgroups.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality up to 30 days after randomization. Because 5 of the included trials reported mortality at 28 days after randomization, the primary outcome was reported as 28-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome was serious adverse events (SAEs). The authors also gathered data on the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients, the number of patients lost to follow-up, and outcomes according to intervention group, overall, and in subgroups (ie, patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or vasoactive medication; age ≤ 60 years or > 60 years [the median across trials]; sex [male or female]; and the duration patients were symptomatic [≤ 7 days or > 7 days]). For each trial, the risk of bias was assessed independently by 4 investigators using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for the overall effects of corticosteroids on mortality and SAEs and the effect of assignment and allocated interventions. Inconsistency between trial results was evaluated using the I² statistic. The trials were classified according to the corticosteroids used in the intervention group and the dose administered using a priori-defined cutoffs (15 mg/day of dexamethasone, 400 mg/day of hydrocortisone, and 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone). The primary analysis utilized was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for overall mortality. Random-effects meta-analyses with Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity were also performed.

Main results. Seven trials (DEXA-COVID 19, CoDEX, RECOVERY, CAPE COVID, COVID STEROID, REMAP-CAP, and Steroids-SARI) were included in the final meta-analysis. The enrolled patients were from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The date of final follow-up was July 6, 2020. The corticosteroids groups included dexamethasone at low (6 mg/day orally or intravenously [IV]) and high (20 mg/day IV) doses; low-dose hydrocortisone (200 mg/day IV or 50 mg every 6 hr IV); and high-dose methylprednisolone (40 mg every 12 hr IV). In total, 1703 patients were randomized, with 678 assigned to the corticosteroids group and 1025 to the usual-care or placebo group. The median age of patients was 60 years (interquartile range, 52-68 years), and 29% were women. The larger number of patients in the usual-care/placebo group was a result of the 1:2 randomization (corticosteroids versus usual care or placebo) in the RECOVERY trial, which contributed 59.1% of patients included in this prospective meta-analysis. The majority of patients were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization (1559 patients). The administration of adjunctive treatments, such as azithromycin or antiviral agents, varied among the trials. The risk of bias was determined as low for 6 of the 7 mortality results.

A total of 222 of 678 patients in the corticosteroids group died, and 425 of 1025 patients in the usual care or placebo group died. The summary OR was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.82; P < 0.001) based on a fixed-effect meta-analysis, and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.01; P = 0.053) based on the random-effects meta-analysis, for 28-day all-cause mortality comparing all corticosteroids with usual care or placebo. There was little inconsistency between trial results (I² = 15.6%; P = 0.31). The fixed-effect summary OR for the association with 28-day all-cause mortality was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.82; P < 0.001) for dexamethasone compared with usual care or placebo (3 trials, 1282 patients, and 527 deaths); the OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.43-1.12; P = 0.13) for hydrocortisone (3 trials, 374 patients, and 94 deaths); and the OR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.29-2.87; P = 0.87) for methylprednisolone (1 trial, 47 patients, and 26 deaths). Moreover, in trials that administered low-dose corticosteroids, the overall fixed-effect OR for 28-day all-cause mortality was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.48-0.78; P < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the overall fixed-effect OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55-0.86) in patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization, and the OR was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.19-0.88) in patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization.

Six trials (all except the RECOVERY trial) reported SAEs, with 64 events occurring among 354 patients assigned to the corticosteroids group and 80 SAEs occurring among 342 patients assigned to the usual-care or placebo group. There was no suggestion that the risk of SAEs was higher in patients who were administered corticosteroids.

Conclusion. The administration of systemic corticosteroids was associated with a lower 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 compared to those who received usual care or placebo.

Commentary

Corticosteroids are anti-inflammatory and vasoconstrictive medications that have long been used in intensive care units for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome and septic shock. However, the therapeutic role of corticosteroids for treating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was uncertain at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic due to concerns that this class of medications may cause an impaired immune response in the setting of a life-threatening SARS-CoV-2 infection. Evidence supporting this notion included prior studies showing that corticosteroid therapy was associated with delayed viral clearance of Middle East respiratory syndrome or a higher viral load of SARS-CoV.^2,3 The uncertainty surrounding the therapeutic use of corticosteroids in treating COVID-19 led to a simultaneous global effort to conduct randomized controlled trials to urgently examine this important clinical question. The open-label Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, conducted in the UK, was the first large-scale randomized clinical trial that reported the clinical benefit of corticosteroids in treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Specifically, it showed that low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg/day) administered orally or IV for up to 10 days resulted in a 2.8% absolute reduction in 28-day mortality, with the greatest benefit, an absolute risk reduction of 12.1%, conferred to patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of randomization.⁴ In response to these findings, the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommended the use of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 who are on mechanical ventilation or who require supplemental oxygen, and recommended against the use of dexamethasone for those not requiring supplemental oxygen.⁵

The meta-analysis discussed in this commentary, conducted by the WHO REACT Working Group, has replicated initial findings from the RECOVERY trial. This prospective meta-analysis pooled data from 7 randomized controlled trials of corticosteroid therapy in 1703 critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Similar to findings from the RECOVERY trial, corticosteroids were associated with lower all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization, and this benefit was observed both in critically ill patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation or supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation. Interestingly, while the OR estimates were imprecise, the reduction in mortality rates was similar between patients who were administered dexamethasone and hydrocortisone, which may suggest a general drug class effect. In addition, the mortality benefit of corticosteroids appeared similar for those aged ≤ 60 years and those aged > 60 years, between female and male patients, and those who were symptomatic for ≤ 7 days or > 7 days before randomization. Moreover, the administration of corticosteroids did not appear to increase the risk of SAEs. While more data are needed, results from the RECOVERY trial and this prospective meta-analysis indicate that corticosteroids should be an essential pharmacologic treatment for COVID-19, and suggest its potential role as a standard of care for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

This study has several limitations. First, not all trials systematically identified participated in the meta-analysis. Second, long-term outcomes after hospital discharge were not captured, and thus the effect of corticosteroids on long-term mortality and other adverse outcomes, such as hospital readmission, remain unknown. Third, because children were excluded from study participation, the effect of corticosteroids on pediatric COVID-19 patients is unknown. Fourth, the RECOVERY trial contributed more than 50% of patients in the current analysis, although there was little inconsistency in the effects of corticosteroids on mortality between individual trials. Last, the meta-analysis was unable to establish the optimal dose or duration of corticosteroid intervention in critically ill COVID-19 patients, or determine its efficacy in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, all of which are key clinical questions that will need to be addressed with further clinical investigations.

The development of effective treatments for COVID-19 is critical to mitigating the devastating consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Several recent COVID-19 clinical trials have shown promise in this endeavor. For instance, the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT-1) found that intravenous remdesivir, as compared to placebo, significantly shortened time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.⁶ Moreover, there is some evidence to suggest that convalescent plasma and aerosol inhalation of IFN-κ may have beneficial effects in treating COVID-19.^7,8 Thus, clinical trials designed to investigate combination therapy approaches including corticosteroids, remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and others are urgently needed to help identify interventions that most effectively treat COVID-19.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The use of corticosteroids in critically ill patients with COVID-19 reduces overall mortality. This treatment is inexpensive and available in most care settings, including low-resource regions, and provides hope for better outcomes in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Katerina Oikonomou, MD, PhD
General Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the effects of dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes.

Design. Multicenter, international, double-blind, prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

Setting and participants. Adult patients with symptomatic heart failure with an ejection fraction of 40% or less and elevated heart failure biomarkers who were already on appropriate guideline-directed therapies were eligible for the study.

Intervention. A total of 4744 patients were randomly assigned to receive dapagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to recommended therapy. Randomization was stratified by the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was the composite of a first episode of worsening heart failure (hospitalization or urgent intravenous therapy) or cardiovascular death.

Main results. Median follow-up was 18.2 months; during this time, the primary outcome occurred in 16.3% (386 of 2373) of patients in the dapagliflozin group and in 21.2% (502 of 2371) of patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.85; P < 0.001). In the dapagliflozin group, 237 patients (10.0%) experienced a first worsening heart failure event, as compared with 326 patients (13.7%) in the placebo group (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.83). The dapagliflozin group hadlower rates of death from cardiovascular causes (9.6% vs 11.5%; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98) and from any causes (11.6% vs 13.9%; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97), compared to the placebo group. Findings in patients with diabetes were similar to those in patients without diabetes.

Conclusion. Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, the risk of worsening heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was lower among those who received dapagliflozin than among those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes.

Inhibitors of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) are a novel class of diabetic medication that decrease renal glucose reabsorption, thereby increasing urinary glucose excretion. In several large clinical trials of these medications for patients with diabetes, which were designed to meet the regulatory requirements for cardiovascular safety in novel diabetic agents, investigators unexpectedly found that SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with a reduction in cardiovascular events, driven by a reduction in heart failure hospitalizations. The results of EMPA-REG OUTCOME, the first of these trials, showed significantly lower risks of both death from any cause and hospitalization for heart failure in patients treated with empagliflozin.¹ This improvement in cardiovascular outcomes was subsequently confirmed as a class effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors in the CANVAS Program (canagliflozin) and DECLARE TIMI 58 (dapagliflozin) trials.^2,3

While these trials were designed for patients with type 2 diabetes who had either established cardiovascular disease or multiple risk factors for it, most patients did not have heart failure at baseline. Accordingly, despite a signal toward benefit of SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure, the trials were not powered to test the hypothesis that SGLT-2 inhibitors benefit patients with heart failure, regardless of diabetes status. Therefore, McMurray et al designed the DAPA-HF trial to investigate whether SGLT-2 inhibitors can improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, with or without diabetes. The trial included 4744 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, who were randomly assigned to dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily or placebo, atop guideline-directed heart failure therapy, with randomization stratified by presence or absence of type 2 diabetes. Investigators found that the composite primary outcome, a first episode of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death, occurred less frequently in patients in the dapagliflozin group compared to the placebo group (16.3% vs 21.2%; HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85; P < 0.001). Individual components of the primary outcome and death from any cause were all significantly lower, and heart failure–related quality of life was significantly improved in the dapagliflozin group compared to placebo.

DAPA-HF was the first randomized study to investigate the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors on patients with heart failure regardless of the presence of diabetes. In addition to the reduction in the above-mentioned primary and secondary endpoints, the study yielded other important findings worth noting. First, the consistent benefit of dapagliflozin on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without diabetes suggests that the cardioprotective effect of dapagliflozin is independent of its glucose-lowering effect. Prior studies have proposed alternative mechanisms, such as diuretic function and related hemodynamic actions, effects on myocardial metabolism, ion transporters, fibrosis, adipokines, vascular function, and the preservation of renal function. Future studies are needed to fully understand the likely pleiotropic effects of this class of medication on patients with heart failure. Second, there was no difference in the safety endpoints between the groups, including renal adverse events and major hypoglycemia, implying dapagliflozin is as safe as placebo.

There are a few limitations of this trial. First, as the authors point out, the study included mostly white males—less than 5% of participants were African Americans—and the finding may not be generalizable to all patient populations. Second, although all patients were already treated with guideline-directed heart failure therapy, only 10% of patients were on sacubitril–valsartan, which is more effective than renin–angiotensin system blockade alone at reducing the incidence of hospitalization for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. Also, mineralocorticoid receptor blockers were used in only 70% of the population. Finally, since the doses were not provided, whether patients were on the maximal tolerated dose of heart failure therapy prior to enrollment is unclear.

Based on the results of the DAPA-HF trial, the Food and Drug Administration approved dapagliflozin for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on May 5, 2020. This is the first diabetic drug approved for the treatment of heart failure.

Applications for Clinical Practice

SGLT-2 inhibitors represent a fourth class of medication that patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction should be initiated on, in addition to beta blocker, ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/neprilysin inhibitor, and mineralocorticoid receptor blocker. SGLT-2 inhibitors may be especially applicable in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and relative hypotension, as these agents are not associated with a significant blood-pressure-lowering effect, which can often limit our ability to initiate or uptitrate the other main 3 classes of guideline-directed medical therapy.

—Rie Hirai, MD, Fukui Kosei Hospital, Fukui, Japan
—Taishi Hirai, MD, University of Missouri Medical Center, Columbia, MO
—Timothy Fendler, MD, St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the effects of dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes.

Design. Multicenter, international, double-blind, prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

Setting and participants. Adult patients with symptomatic heart failure with an ejection fraction of 40% or less and elevated heart failure biomarkers who were already on appropriate guideline-directed therapies were eligible for the study.

Intervention. A total of 4744 patients were randomly assigned to receive dapagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to recommended therapy. Randomization was stratified by the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was the composite of a first episode of worsening heart failure (hospitalization or urgent intravenous therapy) or cardiovascular death.

Main results. Median follow-up was 18.2 months; during this time, the primary outcome occurred in 16.3% (386 of 2373) of patients in the dapagliflozin group and in 21.2% (502 of 2371) of patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.85; P < 0.001). In the dapagliflozin group, 237 patients (10.0%) experienced a first worsening heart failure event, as compared with 326 patients (13.7%) in the placebo group (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.83). The dapagliflozin group hadlower rates of death from cardiovascular causes (9.6% vs 11.5%; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98) and from any causes (11.6% vs 13.9%; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97), compared to the placebo group. Findings in patients with diabetes were similar to those in patients without diabetes.

Conclusion. Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, the risk of worsening heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was lower among those who received dapagliflozin than among those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes.

Inhibitors of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) are a novel class of diabetic medication that decrease renal glucose reabsorption, thereby increasing urinary glucose excretion. In several large clinical trials of these medications for patients with diabetes, which were designed to meet the regulatory requirements for cardiovascular safety in novel diabetic agents, investigators unexpectedly found that SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with a reduction in cardiovascular events, driven by a reduction in heart failure hospitalizations. The results of EMPA-REG OUTCOME, the first of these trials, showed significantly lower risks of both death from any cause and hospitalization for heart failure in patients treated with empagliflozin.¹ This improvement in cardiovascular outcomes was subsequently confirmed as a class effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors in the CANVAS Program (canagliflozin) and DECLARE TIMI 58 (dapagliflozin) trials.^2,3

While these trials were designed for patients with type 2 diabetes who had either established cardiovascular disease or multiple risk factors for it, most patients did not have heart failure at baseline. Accordingly, despite a signal toward benefit of SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure, the trials were not powered to test the hypothesis that SGLT-2 inhibitors benefit patients with heart failure, regardless of diabetes status. Therefore, McMurray et al designed the DAPA-HF trial to investigate whether SGLT-2 inhibitors can improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, with or without diabetes. The trial included 4744 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, who were randomly assigned to dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily or placebo, atop guideline-directed heart failure therapy, with randomization stratified by presence or absence of type 2 diabetes. Investigators found that the composite primary outcome, a first episode of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death, occurred less frequently in patients in the dapagliflozin group compared to the placebo group (16.3% vs 21.2%; HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85; P < 0.001). Individual components of the primary outcome and death from any cause were all significantly lower, and heart failure–related quality of life was significantly improved in the dapagliflozin group compared to placebo.

DAPA-HF was the first randomized study to investigate the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors on patients with heart failure regardless of the presence of diabetes. In addition to the reduction in the above-mentioned primary and secondary endpoints, the study yielded other important findings worth noting. First, the consistent benefit of dapagliflozin on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without diabetes suggests that the cardioprotective effect of dapagliflozin is independent of its glucose-lowering effect. Prior studies have proposed alternative mechanisms, such as diuretic function and related hemodynamic actions, effects on myocardial metabolism, ion transporters, fibrosis, adipokines, vascular function, and the preservation of renal function. Future studies are needed to fully understand the likely pleiotropic effects of this class of medication on patients with heart failure. Second, there was no difference in the safety endpoints between the groups, including renal adverse events and major hypoglycemia, implying dapagliflozin is as safe as placebo.

There are a few limitations of this trial. First, as the authors point out, the study included mostly white males—less than 5% of participants were African Americans—and the finding may not be generalizable to all patient populations. Second, although all patients were already treated with guideline-directed heart failure therapy, only 10% of patients were on sacubitril–valsartan, which is more effective than renin–angiotensin system blockade alone at reducing the incidence of hospitalization for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. Also, mineralocorticoid receptor blockers were used in only 70% of the population. Finally, since the doses were not provided, whether patients were on the maximal tolerated dose of heart failure therapy prior to enrollment is unclear.

Based on the results of the DAPA-HF trial, the Food and Drug Administration approved dapagliflozin for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on May 5, 2020. This is the first diabetic drug approved for the treatment of heart failure.

Applications for Clinical Practice

SGLT-2 inhibitors represent a fourth class of medication that patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction should be initiated on, in addition to beta blocker, ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/neprilysin inhibitor, and mineralocorticoid receptor blocker. SGLT-2 inhibitors may be especially applicable in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and relative hypotension, as these agents are not associated with a significant blood-pressure-lowering effect, which can often limit our ability to initiate or uptitrate the other main 3 classes of guideline-directed medical therapy.

—Rie Hirai, MD, Fukui Kosei Hospital, Fukui, Japan
—Taishi Hirai, MD, University of Missouri Medical Center, Columbia, MO
—Timothy Fendler, MD, St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the effects of dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes.

Design. Multicenter, international, double-blind, prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

Setting and participants. Adult patients with symptomatic heart failure with an ejection fraction of 40% or less and elevated heart failure biomarkers who were already on appropriate guideline-directed therapies were eligible for the study.

Intervention. A total of 4744 patients were randomly assigned to receive dapagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to recommended therapy. Randomization was stratified by the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was the composite of a first episode of worsening heart failure (hospitalization or urgent intravenous therapy) or cardiovascular death.

Main results. Median follow-up was 18.2 months; during this time, the primary outcome occurred in 16.3% (386 of 2373) of patients in the dapagliflozin group and in 21.2% (502 of 2371) of patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.85; P < 0.001). In the dapagliflozin group, 237 patients (10.0%) experienced a first worsening heart failure event, as compared with 326 patients (13.7%) in the placebo group (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.83). The dapagliflozin group hadlower rates of death from cardiovascular causes (9.6% vs 11.5%; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98) and from any causes (11.6% vs 13.9%; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97), compared to the placebo group. Findings in patients with diabetes were similar to those in patients without diabetes.

Conclusion. Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, the risk of worsening heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was lower among those who received dapagliflozin than among those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes.

Inhibitors of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) are a novel class of diabetic medication that decrease renal glucose reabsorption, thereby increasing urinary glucose excretion. In several large clinical trials of these medications for patients with diabetes, which were designed to meet the regulatory requirements for cardiovascular safety in novel diabetic agents, investigators unexpectedly found that SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with a reduction in cardiovascular events, driven by a reduction in heart failure hospitalizations. The results of EMPA-REG OUTCOME, the first of these trials, showed significantly lower risks of both death from any cause and hospitalization for heart failure in patients treated with empagliflozin.¹ This improvement in cardiovascular outcomes was subsequently confirmed as a class effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors in the CANVAS Program (canagliflozin) and DECLARE TIMI 58 (dapagliflozin) trials.^2,3

While these trials were designed for patients with type 2 diabetes who had either established cardiovascular disease or multiple risk factors for it, most patients did not have heart failure at baseline. Accordingly, despite a signal toward benefit of SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure, the trials were not powered to test the hypothesis that SGLT-2 inhibitors benefit patients with heart failure, regardless of diabetes status. Therefore, McMurray et al designed the DAPA-HF trial to investigate whether SGLT-2 inhibitors can improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, with or without diabetes. The trial included 4744 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, who were randomly assigned to dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily or placebo, atop guideline-directed heart failure therapy, with randomization stratified by presence or absence of type 2 diabetes. Investigators found that the composite primary outcome, a first episode of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death, occurred less frequently in patients in the dapagliflozin group compared to the placebo group (16.3% vs 21.2%; HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85; P < 0.001). Individual components of the primary outcome and death from any cause were all significantly lower, and heart failure–related quality of life was significantly improved in the dapagliflozin group compared to placebo.

DAPA-HF was the first randomized study to investigate the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors on patients with heart failure regardless of the presence of diabetes. In addition to the reduction in the above-mentioned primary and secondary endpoints, the study yielded other important findings worth noting. First, the consistent benefit of dapagliflozin on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without diabetes suggests that the cardioprotective effect of dapagliflozin is independent of its glucose-lowering effect. Prior studies have proposed alternative mechanisms, such as diuretic function and related hemodynamic actions, effects on myocardial metabolism, ion transporters, fibrosis, adipokines, vascular function, and the preservation of renal function. Future studies are needed to fully understand the likely pleiotropic effects of this class of medication on patients with heart failure. Second, there was no difference in the safety endpoints between the groups, including renal adverse events and major hypoglycemia, implying dapagliflozin is as safe as placebo.

There are a few limitations of this trial. First, as the authors point out, the study included mostly white males—less than 5% of participants were African Americans—and the finding may not be generalizable to all patient populations. Second, although all patients were already treated with guideline-directed heart failure therapy, only 10% of patients were on sacubitril–valsartan, which is more effective than renin–angiotensin system blockade alone at reducing the incidence of hospitalization for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. Also, mineralocorticoid receptor blockers were used in only 70% of the population. Finally, since the doses were not provided, whether patients were on the maximal tolerated dose of heart failure therapy prior to enrollment is unclear.

Based on the results of the DAPA-HF trial, the Food and Drug Administration approved dapagliflozin for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on May 5, 2020. This is the first diabetic drug approved for the treatment of heart failure.

Applications for Clinical Practice

SGLT-2 inhibitors represent a fourth class of medication that patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction should be initiated on, in addition to beta blocker, ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/neprilysin inhibitor, and mineralocorticoid receptor blocker. SGLT-2 inhibitors may be especially applicable in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and relative hypotension, as these agents are not associated with a significant blood-pressure-lowering effect, which can often limit our ability to initiate or uptitrate the other main 3 classes of guideline-directed medical therapy.

—Rie Hirai, MD, Fukui Kosei Hospital, Fukui, Japan
—Taishi Hirai, MD, University of Missouri Medical Center, Columbia, MO
—Timothy Fendler, MD, St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the highly selective oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist relugolix in men with advanced prostate cancer.

Design. Global, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either relugolix 120 mg once daily after receiving a single loading dose of 360 mg, or 22.5 mg of leuprolide acetate every 3 months. Patients in Japan and Taiwan received 11.25 mg of leuprolide. The randomization was stratified by age (> 75 years or ≤ 75 years), metastatic disease status, and geographic region (Asia, Europe, North and South America). The intervention period was 48 weeks.

Setting and participants. 1327 patients were screened, and 934 patients underwent randomization: 622 patients to the relugolix group and 308 to the leuprolide group. Patients had histologically or cytologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate. All patients had to have 1 of the following: evidence of biochemical or clinical relapse after primary curative therapy, newly diagnosed hormone-sensitive metastatic disease, or advance localized disease unlikely to be cured by local primary intervention. The patients with disease progression or rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) had the option to receive enzalutamide or docetaxel after the confirmation of progression. Patients were excluded if they had a major cardiovascular event within 6 months of enrollment.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was sustained castration rate, defined as the cumulative probability of testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL while on study treatment from week 5 through week 48. Secondary endpoints included noninferiority of relugolix to leuprolide in regard to sustained castration rate. Superiority testing was performed if the noninferiority margin of –10 percentage points was met. Additional secondary endpoints were probability of testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL on day 4 and day 15 and the percentage of patients with a > 50% decrease in PSA at day 15 and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels at the end of week 24.

Main results. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment groups. Approximately 30% of the patients in each group had metastatic disease. Approximately 50% of patients enrolled had biochemical recurrence following primary treatment for prostate cancer. The mean PSA was 104.2 ng/mL in the relugolix group and 68.6 ng/mL in the leuprolide group. The majority of patients had at least 1 cardiovascular risk factor (ie, tobacco use, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, or a history of a major adverse cardiac event [MACE]). Adherence to oral therapy was reported as 99% in both groups. The median follow-up time was 52 weeks; 90% of patients in the relugolix arm and 89% in the leuprolide arm completed 48 weeks of treatment.

Sustained testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL from day 29 through week 48 was seen in 96.7% of patients in the relugolix group and 88.8% in the leuprolide group, which was determined to be noninferior. Additionally, relugolix was also found to be superior to leuprolide in regard to sustained testosterone suppression (P < 0.001). These results were consistent across all subgroups. Relugolix was also found to be superior to leuprolide for all secondary endpoints, including cumulative probability of castration on day 4 (56% vs 0%) and day 15 (98.7% vs 12%) and testosterone suppression to ≤ 20 ng/dL on day 15 (78.4% vs 1%). Confirmed PSA response on day 15 was seen in 79.4% of patients in the relugolix arm and in 19.8% in the leuprolide arm (P < 0.001). FSH suppression was greater in the relugolix arm compared with the leuprolide arm by the end of week 24. An increase of testosterone levels from baseline was noted in the leuprolide patients at day 4, with the level decreasing to castrate level by day 29. In contrast, relugolix patients maintained castrate testosterone levels from day 4 throughout the intervention period. Testosterone recovery at 90 days was seen in 54% of patients in the relugolix group compared with 3% in the leuprolide group (P = 0.002).

The most frequent adverse event seen in both groups was hot flashes (54.3% in the relugolix group and 51.6% in the leuprolide group). The second most common adverse event report was fatigue, which occurred in 21.5% of patients in the relugolix arm and 18.5% in the leuprolide arm. Diarrhea was reported more frequently with relugolix than with leuprolide (12.2% vs 6.8%); however, diarrhea did not lead to discontinuation of therapy in any patient. Fatal events were reported more frequently in the leuprolide group (2.9%) compared with the relugolix group (1.1%). MACE were defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and death from any cause. After completing the intervention period of 48 weeks, the relugolix group had a 2.9% incidence of major cardiovascular events, compared with 6.2% in the leuprolide group. In patients having a medical history of cardiovascular events, the adverse event rate during the trial period was 3.6% in the relugolix group and 17.8% in leuprolide group. This translated into a 54% lower risk of MACE in the relugolix arm compared with the leuprolide arm.

Conclusion. The use of relugolix in advanced prostate cancer led to rapid, sustained suppression and faster recovery of testosterone level compared with leuprolide. Relugolix appeared safer to use for men with a medical history of cardiovascular events and showed a 54% lower risk of MACE than leuprolide.

Commentary

Relugolix is a highly selective oral GnRH antagonist that rapidly inhibits pituitary release of luteinizing hormone and FSH. The current phase 3 HERO trial highlights the efficacy of relugolix in regard to testosterone suppression, adding to potential therapeutic options for these men. Relugolix yielded superior sustained testosterone suppression to less than 50 ng/dL throughout the 48-week study period, meeting its primary endpoint. Additionally, relugolix showed superiority in all secondary endpoints across all subgroups of patients. To date, the only GnRH antagonist on the market is degarelix, which is given as a monthly subcutaneous injection.¹ Injection-site reactions remain an issue with this formulation.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, and it is known that men with prostate cancer have a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease.² While data regarding adverse cardiac outcomes with androgen deprivation therapy have been mixed, it is thought that this therapy increases the risk for MACE. There is mounting evidence that GnRH antagonists may have a less detrimental effect on cardiovascular outcomes compared with GnRH agonists. For example, a pooled analysis of 6 phase 3 trials showed a lower incidence of cardiovascular events in men with preexisting cardiovascular disease using the GnRH antagonist degarelix compared with GnRH agonists after 12 months of treatment.³ Furthermore, a more recent phase 2 randomized trial showed that 20% of patients treated with a GnRH agonist developed cardiovascular events, compared to 3% in the GnRH antagonist group. The absolute risk reduction of cardiovascular events at 12 months was 18%.⁴ The results of the current trial support such findings, showing a 54% reduction in MACE after 48 weeks of therapy when compared with leuprolide (2.9% in relugolix arm vs 6.2% in leuprolide arm). More importantly perhaps, in the subgroup of men with preexisting cardiovascular disease, the benefit was even greater, with a MACE incidence of 3.6% with relugolix compared with 17.8% with leuprolide.

Studies have also shown that second-generation antiandrogens such as enzalutamide are associated with an increased risk of death from cardiovascular causes. For example, data from the recently updated PROSPER trial, which evaluated the use of enzalutamide in men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer, showed an increased risk of adverse events, including falls, fatigue, hypertension, and death from cardiovascular events.⁵ Furthermore, adding second-generation antiandrogens to GnRH-agonist therapy is associated with a high risk of cardiovascular events in men with preexisting cardiovascular disease.³ These results were noted in all of the trials of second-generation antiandrogens, including enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide, in combination with GnRH agonists.^6-8 Taken together, one might consider whether the use of a GnRH antagonist would result in improved cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients.

In light of the efficacy of relugolix in regard to testosterone suppression highlighted in the current trial, it is likely that its efficacy in regard to cancer outcomes will be similar; however, to date there is no level 1 evidence to support this. Nevertheless, there is a clear association of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in men treated with GnRH agonists, and the notable 54% risk reduction seen in the current trial certainly would support considering the use of a GnRH antagonist for the subgroup of patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease or those at high risk for MACE. Further work is needed to define the role of GnRH antagonists in conjunction with second-generation antiandrogens to help mitigate cardiovascular toxicities.

Clinical Implications

The use of GnRH antagonists should be considered in men with advanced prostate cancer who have underlying cardiovascular disease to help mitigate the risk of MACE. Currently, degarelix is the only commercially available agent; however, pending regulatory approval, oral relugolix may be considered an appropriate oral option in such patients, with data supporting superior testosterone suppressive effects. Further follow-up will be needed.

–Saud Alsubait, MD, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
–Daniel Isaac, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the highly selective oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist relugolix in men with advanced prostate cancer.

Design. Global, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either relugolix 120 mg once daily after receiving a single loading dose of 360 mg, or 22.5 mg of leuprolide acetate every 3 months. Patients in Japan and Taiwan received 11.25 mg of leuprolide. The randomization was stratified by age (> 75 years or ≤ 75 years), metastatic disease status, and geographic region (Asia, Europe, North and South America). The intervention period was 48 weeks.

Setting and participants. 1327 patients were screened, and 934 patients underwent randomization: 622 patients to the relugolix group and 308 to the leuprolide group. Patients had histologically or cytologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate. All patients had to have 1 of the following: evidence of biochemical or clinical relapse after primary curative therapy, newly diagnosed hormone-sensitive metastatic disease, or advance localized disease unlikely to be cured by local primary intervention. The patients with disease progression or rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) had the option to receive enzalutamide or docetaxel after the confirmation of progression. Patients were excluded if they had a major cardiovascular event within 6 months of enrollment.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was sustained castration rate, defined as the cumulative probability of testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL while on study treatment from week 5 through week 48. Secondary endpoints included noninferiority of relugolix to leuprolide in regard to sustained castration rate. Superiority testing was performed if the noninferiority margin of –10 percentage points was met. Additional secondary endpoints were probability of testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL on day 4 and day 15 and the percentage of patients with a > 50% decrease in PSA at day 15 and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels at the end of week 24.

Main results. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment groups. Approximately 30% of the patients in each group had metastatic disease. Approximately 50% of patients enrolled had biochemical recurrence following primary treatment for prostate cancer. The mean PSA was 104.2 ng/mL in the relugolix group and 68.6 ng/mL in the leuprolide group. The majority of patients had at least 1 cardiovascular risk factor (ie, tobacco use, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, or a history of a major adverse cardiac event [MACE]). Adherence to oral therapy was reported as 99% in both groups. The median follow-up time was 52 weeks; 90% of patients in the relugolix arm and 89% in the leuprolide arm completed 48 weeks of treatment.

Sustained testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL from day 29 through week 48 was seen in 96.7% of patients in the relugolix group and 88.8% in the leuprolide group, which was determined to be noninferior. Additionally, relugolix was also found to be superior to leuprolide in regard to sustained testosterone suppression (P < 0.001). These results were consistent across all subgroups. Relugolix was also found to be superior to leuprolide for all secondary endpoints, including cumulative probability of castration on day 4 (56% vs 0%) and day 15 (98.7% vs 12%) and testosterone suppression to ≤ 20 ng/dL on day 15 (78.4% vs 1%). Confirmed PSA response on day 15 was seen in 79.4% of patients in the relugolix arm and in 19.8% in the leuprolide arm (P < 0.001). FSH suppression was greater in the relugolix arm compared with the leuprolide arm by the end of week 24. An increase of testosterone levels from baseline was noted in the leuprolide patients at day 4, with the level decreasing to castrate level by day 29. In contrast, relugolix patients maintained castrate testosterone levels from day 4 throughout the intervention period. Testosterone recovery at 90 days was seen in 54% of patients in the relugolix group compared with 3% in the leuprolide group (P = 0.002).

The most frequent adverse event seen in both groups was hot flashes (54.3% in the relugolix group and 51.6% in the leuprolide group). The second most common adverse event report was fatigue, which occurred in 21.5% of patients in the relugolix arm and 18.5% in the leuprolide arm. Diarrhea was reported more frequently with relugolix than with leuprolide (12.2% vs 6.8%); however, diarrhea did not lead to discontinuation of therapy in any patient. Fatal events were reported more frequently in the leuprolide group (2.9%) compared with the relugolix group (1.1%). MACE were defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and death from any cause. After completing the intervention period of 48 weeks, the relugolix group had a 2.9% incidence of major cardiovascular events, compared with 6.2% in the leuprolide group. In patients having a medical history of cardiovascular events, the adverse event rate during the trial period was 3.6% in the relugolix group and 17.8% in leuprolide group. This translated into a 54% lower risk of MACE in the relugolix arm compared with the leuprolide arm.

Conclusion. The use of relugolix in advanced prostate cancer led to rapid, sustained suppression and faster recovery of testosterone level compared with leuprolide. Relugolix appeared safer to use for men with a medical history of cardiovascular events and showed a 54% lower risk of MACE than leuprolide.

Commentary

Relugolix is a highly selective oral GnRH antagonist that rapidly inhibits pituitary release of luteinizing hormone and FSH. The current phase 3 HERO trial highlights the efficacy of relugolix in regard to testosterone suppression, adding to potential therapeutic options for these men. Relugolix yielded superior sustained testosterone suppression to less than 50 ng/dL throughout the 48-week study period, meeting its primary endpoint. Additionally, relugolix showed superiority in all secondary endpoints across all subgroups of patients. To date, the only GnRH antagonist on the market is degarelix, which is given as a monthly subcutaneous injection.¹ Injection-site reactions remain an issue with this formulation.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, and it is known that men with prostate cancer have a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease.² While data regarding adverse cardiac outcomes with androgen deprivation therapy have been mixed, it is thought that this therapy increases the risk for MACE. There is mounting evidence that GnRH antagonists may have a less detrimental effect on cardiovascular outcomes compared with GnRH agonists. For example, a pooled analysis of 6 phase 3 trials showed a lower incidence of cardiovascular events in men with preexisting cardiovascular disease using the GnRH antagonist degarelix compared with GnRH agonists after 12 months of treatment.³ Furthermore, a more recent phase 2 randomized trial showed that 20% of patients treated with a GnRH agonist developed cardiovascular events, compared to 3% in the GnRH antagonist group. The absolute risk reduction of cardiovascular events at 12 months was 18%.⁴ The results of the current trial support such findings, showing a 54% reduction in MACE after 48 weeks of therapy when compared with leuprolide (2.9% in relugolix arm vs 6.2% in leuprolide arm). More importantly perhaps, in the subgroup of men with preexisting cardiovascular disease, the benefit was even greater, with a MACE incidence of 3.6% with relugolix compared with 17.8% with leuprolide.

Studies have also shown that second-generation antiandrogens such as enzalutamide are associated with an increased risk of death from cardiovascular causes. For example, data from the recently updated PROSPER trial, which evaluated the use of enzalutamide in men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer, showed an increased risk of adverse events, including falls, fatigue, hypertension, and death from cardiovascular events.⁵ Furthermore, adding second-generation antiandrogens to GnRH-agonist therapy is associated with a high risk of cardiovascular events in men with preexisting cardiovascular disease.³ These results were noted in all of the trials of second-generation antiandrogens, including enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide, in combination with GnRH agonists.^6-8 Taken together, one might consider whether the use of a GnRH antagonist would result in improved cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients.

In light of the efficacy of relugolix in regard to testosterone suppression highlighted in the current trial, it is likely that its efficacy in regard to cancer outcomes will be similar; however, to date there is no level 1 evidence to support this. Nevertheless, there is a clear association of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in men treated with GnRH agonists, and the notable 54% risk reduction seen in the current trial certainly would support considering the use of a GnRH antagonist for the subgroup of patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease or those at high risk for MACE. Further work is needed to define the role of GnRH antagonists in conjunction with second-generation antiandrogens to help mitigate cardiovascular toxicities.

Clinical Implications

The use of GnRH antagonists should be considered in men with advanced prostate cancer who have underlying cardiovascular disease to help mitigate the risk of MACE. Currently, degarelix is the only commercially available agent; however, pending regulatory approval, oral relugolix may be considered an appropriate oral option in such patients, with data supporting superior testosterone suppressive effects. Further follow-up will be needed.

–Saud Alsubait, MD, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
–Daniel Isaac, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the highly selective oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist relugolix in men with advanced prostate cancer.

Design. Global, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either relugolix 120 mg once daily after receiving a single loading dose of 360 mg, or 22.5 mg of leuprolide acetate every 3 months. Patients in Japan and Taiwan received 11.25 mg of leuprolide. The randomization was stratified by age (> 75 years or ≤ 75 years), metastatic disease status, and geographic region (Asia, Europe, North and South America). The intervention period was 48 weeks.

Setting and participants. 1327 patients were screened, and 934 patients underwent randomization: 622 patients to the relugolix group and 308 to the leuprolide group. Patients had histologically or cytologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate. All patients had to have 1 of the following: evidence of biochemical or clinical relapse after primary curative therapy, newly diagnosed hormone-sensitive metastatic disease, or advance localized disease unlikely to be cured by local primary intervention. The patients with disease progression or rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) had the option to receive enzalutamide or docetaxel after the confirmation of progression. Patients were excluded if they had a major cardiovascular event within 6 months of enrollment.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was sustained castration rate, defined as the cumulative probability of testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL while on study treatment from week 5 through week 48. Secondary endpoints included noninferiority of relugolix to leuprolide in regard to sustained castration rate. Superiority testing was performed if the noninferiority margin of –10 percentage points was met. Additional secondary endpoints were probability of testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL on day 4 and day 15 and the percentage of patients with a > 50% decrease in PSA at day 15 and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels at the end of week 24.

Main results. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment groups. Approximately 30% of the patients in each group had metastatic disease. Approximately 50% of patients enrolled had biochemical recurrence following primary treatment for prostate cancer. The mean PSA was 104.2 ng/mL in the relugolix group and 68.6 ng/mL in the leuprolide group. The majority of patients had at least 1 cardiovascular risk factor (ie, tobacco use, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, or a history of a major adverse cardiac event [MACE]). Adherence to oral therapy was reported as 99% in both groups. The median follow-up time was 52 weeks; 90% of patients in the relugolix arm and 89% in the leuprolide arm completed 48 weeks of treatment.

Sustained testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL from day 29 through week 48 was seen in 96.7% of patients in the relugolix group and 88.8% in the leuprolide group, which was determined to be noninferior. Additionally, relugolix was also found to be superior to leuprolide in regard to sustained testosterone suppression (P < 0.001). These results were consistent across all subgroups. Relugolix was also found to be superior to leuprolide for all secondary endpoints, including cumulative probability of castration on day 4 (56% vs 0%) and day 15 (98.7% vs 12%) and testosterone suppression to ≤ 20 ng/dL on day 15 (78.4% vs 1%). Confirmed PSA response on day 15 was seen in 79.4% of patients in the relugolix arm and in 19.8% in the leuprolide arm (P < 0.001). FSH suppression was greater in the relugolix arm compared with the leuprolide arm by the end of week 24. An increase of testosterone levels from baseline was noted in the leuprolide patients at day 4, with the level decreasing to castrate level by day 29. In contrast, relugolix patients maintained castrate testosterone levels from day 4 throughout the intervention period. Testosterone recovery at 90 days was seen in 54% of patients in the relugolix group compared with 3% in the leuprolide group (P = 0.002).

The most frequent adverse event seen in both groups was hot flashes (54.3% in the relugolix group and 51.6% in the leuprolide group). The second most common adverse event report was fatigue, which occurred in 21.5% of patients in the relugolix arm and 18.5% in the leuprolide arm. Diarrhea was reported more frequently with relugolix than with leuprolide (12.2% vs 6.8%); however, diarrhea did not lead to discontinuation of therapy in any patient. Fatal events were reported more frequently in the leuprolide group (2.9%) compared with the relugolix group (1.1%). MACE were defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and death from any cause. After completing the intervention period of 48 weeks, the relugolix group had a 2.9% incidence of major cardiovascular events, compared with 6.2% in the leuprolide group. In patients having a medical history of cardiovascular events, the adverse event rate during the trial period was 3.6% in the relugolix group and 17.8% in leuprolide group. This translated into a 54% lower risk of MACE in the relugolix arm compared with the leuprolide arm.

Conclusion. The use of relugolix in advanced prostate cancer led to rapid, sustained suppression and faster recovery of testosterone level compared with leuprolide. Relugolix appeared safer to use for men with a medical history of cardiovascular events and showed a 54% lower risk of MACE than leuprolide.

Commentary

Relugolix is a highly selective oral GnRH antagonist that rapidly inhibits pituitary release of luteinizing hormone and FSH. The current phase 3 HERO trial highlights the efficacy of relugolix in regard to testosterone suppression, adding to potential therapeutic options for these men. Relugolix yielded superior sustained testosterone suppression to less than 50 ng/dL throughout the 48-week study period, meeting its primary endpoint. Additionally, relugolix showed superiority in all secondary endpoints across all subgroups of patients. To date, the only GnRH antagonist on the market is degarelix, which is given as a monthly subcutaneous injection.¹ Injection-site reactions remain an issue with this formulation.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, and it is known that men with prostate cancer have a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease.² While data regarding adverse cardiac outcomes with androgen deprivation therapy have been mixed, it is thought that this therapy increases the risk for MACE. There is mounting evidence that GnRH antagonists may have a less detrimental effect on cardiovascular outcomes compared with GnRH agonists. For example, a pooled analysis of 6 phase 3 trials showed a lower incidence of cardiovascular events in men with preexisting cardiovascular disease using the GnRH antagonist degarelix compared with GnRH agonists after 12 months of treatment.³ Furthermore, a more recent phase 2 randomized trial showed that 20% of patients treated with a GnRH agonist developed cardiovascular events, compared to 3% in the GnRH antagonist group. The absolute risk reduction of cardiovascular events at 12 months was 18%.⁴ The results of the current trial support such findings, showing a 54% reduction in MACE after 48 weeks of therapy when compared with leuprolide (2.9% in relugolix arm vs 6.2% in leuprolide arm). More importantly perhaps, in the subgroup of men with preexisting cardiovascular disease, the benefit was even greater, with a MACE incidence of 3.6% with relugolix compared with 17.8% with leuprolide.

Studies have also shown that second-generation antiandrogens such as enzalutamide are associated with an increased risk of death from cardiovascular causes. For example, data from the recently updated PROSPER trial, which evaluated the use of enzalutamide in men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer, showed an increased risk of adverse events, including falls, fatigue, hypertension, and death from cardiovascular events.⁵ Furthermore, adding second-generation antiandrogens to GnRH-agonist therapy is associated with a high risk of cardiovascular events in men with preexisting cardiovascular disease.³ These results were noted in all of the trials of second-generation antiandrogens, including enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide, in combination with GnRH agonists.^6-8 Taken together, one might consider whether the use of a GnRH antagonist would result in improved cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients.

In light of the efficacy of relugolix in regard to testosterone suppression highlighted in the current trial, it is likely that its efficacy in regard to cancer outcomes will be similar; however, to date there is no level 1 evidence to support this. Nevertheless, there is a clear association of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in men treated with GnRH agonists, and the notable 54% risk reduction seen in the current trial certainly would support considering the use of a GnRH antagonist for the subgroup of patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease or those at high risk for MACE. Further work is needed to define the role of GnRH antagonists in conjunction with second-generation antiandrogens to help mitigate cardiovascular toxicities.

Clinical Implications

The use of GnRH antagonists should be considered in men with advanced prostate cancer who have underlying cardiovascular disease to help mitigate the risk of MACE. Currently, degarelix is the only commercially available agent; however, pending regulatory approval, oral relugolix may be considered an appropriate oral option in such patients, with data supporting superior testosterone suppressive effects. Further follow-up will be needed.

–Saud Alsubait, MD, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
–Daniel Isaac, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of remdesivir in hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and with evidence of lower respiratory tract involvement.

Design. Double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial.

Setting and participants. Enrollment for the study took place between February 21, 2020, and April 19, 2020, at 60 trial sites and 13 subsites in the United States, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Greece, Germany, Korea, Mexico, Spain, Japan, and Singapore. Study participants included patients aged ≥ 18 years who were hospitalized and had laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, as determined by a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay on a respiratory specimen. Participants had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection at the time of enrollment; this was defined as radiographic infiltrates by imaging study, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) ≤ 94% on room air, or requiring supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Exclusion criteria for study participation included abnormal liver enzymes (alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase) more than 5 times the upper limit of normal range; impaired renal function or need for hemodialysis or hemofiltration; pregnancy or breastfeeding; or anticipated hospital discharge or transfer to another hospital within 72 hours of enrollment.

Intervention. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the remdesivir group or the placebo group and were administered either intravenous infusions of remdesivir (200-mg loading dose on day 1, followed by a 100-mg maintenance dose daily on days 2 through 10, or until hospital discharge or death) or placebo for up to 10 days. Blinding was maintained by masking infusions with an opaque bag and tubing. Randomization was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrollment. Supportive care was delivered to all participants according to the standard of care at each trial site hospital. Clinical status, determined using an 8-category ordinal scale and the National Early Warning Score, was assessed daily for each participant while hospitalized (day 1 through day 29).

Blood samples for safety laboratory tests were collected, and oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal swab testing was performed for viral RNA detection and quantification on days 1, 3, 5, 8, and 11. All serious adverse events (AEs) and grade 3/4 AEs that represented an increase in severity from day 1 and any grade 2 or higher suspected drug-related hypersensitivity reactions associated with the study drug or placebo administration were recorded.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint measure of this study was time to recovery, defined as the first day during the 28 days after enrollment on which a participant satisfied category 1 (ie, not hospitalized, no limitations of activities), 2 (ie, not hospitalized, limitation of activities, home oxygen requirement, or both), or 3 (ie, hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care; hospitalization was extended for infection-control reason) on the 8-category ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality at 14 and 28 days after enrollment and grade 3/4 AEs and serious AEs that occurred during trial participation. Analysis of the primary outcome was performed using a log-rank test of the time to recovery comparing remdesivir with placebo group, stratified by disease severity.

The study’s primary outcome was initially defined as a difference in clinical status as ascertained by the 8-category ordinal scale between groups of participants who were administered remdesivir versus placebo on day 15. Because of new knowledge gained external to the study about a more protracted COVID-19 clinical course than previously recognized, a change in primary outcome to time to recovery was proposed by trial statisticians, who were unaware of treatment assignments (72 participants had been enrolled) or outcome data (no interim data) on March 22, 2020, with subsequent amendment approval on April 2, 2020. On April 27, 2020, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) reviewed the interim study analysis (with data cutoff date of April 22, 2020) and recommended the report and mortality data to be provided to trial team members from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; these findings were subsequently made public.

Main results. A total of 1107 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 1063 underwent randomization, with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 522 to placebo. Results were unblinded early at the recommendation of DSMB due to findings from the interim analysis that showed reduced time to recovery in the group that received remdesivir. As of April 28, 2020, a total of 391 participants in the remdesivir group and 340 participants in the placebo group had completed the trial (day 29), recovered, or died. The mean age of participants was 58.9 ± 15.0 years, the majority were men (64.3%) and were White (53.2%), and the most common prespecified coexisting conditions were hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37.0%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). The vast majority of participants (88.7%) had severe COVID-19 disease at enrollment, defined as requiring invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, requiring supplemental oxygen, SpO₂ ≤ 94% on room air, or tachypnea (respiratory rate ≥ 24 breaths per minute).

Based on available data from 1059 participants (538 from the remdesivir group and 521 from the placebo group), those in the remdesivir group had a shorter median recovery time of 11 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9-12) as compared to 15 days (95% CI, 13-19) in the placebo group, with a rate ratio for recovery of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.12-1.55; P < 0.001). Moreover, the odds of improvement on day 15 in the 8-category ordinal scale score were higher in the remdesivir group, compared to the placebo group (proportional odds model; odds ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.18-1.91; P = 0.001; 844 participants).

Mortality rate by 14 days was numerically lower in the remdesivir group (7.1%) compared to the placebo group (11.9%), but the difference was not statistically significant (Kaplan-Meier, hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47-1.04). Serious AEs were reported in 114 of the 541 (21.1%) participants in the remdesivir group and 141 of the 522 (27.0%) participants in the placebo group. Moreover, grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 156 (28.8%) participants in the remdesivir group and in 172 (33.0%) in the placebo group.

Conclusion. The study found that remdesivir, compared to placebo, significantly shortened time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.

Commentary

Since the initial reporting of a cluster of cases of pneumonia in Wuhan, China, on December 31, 2019, SARS-CoV-2 has been identified as the cause of this new disease (COVID-19), and to-date SARS-CoV-2 infection has affected more than 15.2 million people globally, with more than 3.9 million cases in the United States alone.¹ Despite an unprecedented global research effort, as well as public-private research partnerships, both in terms of scale and scope, an effective pharmacologic therapy for COVID-19 has so far eluded the scientific and medical community. Early trials of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir did not demonstrate a clinical benefit in patients with COVID-19.^2,3 Moreover, the first randomized controlled trial of remdesivir in COVID-19, a nucleoside analogue prodrug and a broad-spectrum antiviral agent previously shown to have inhibitory effects on pathogenic coronaviruses, was an underpowered study, and thus inconclusive.⁴ Thus, given the persistence of the COVID-19 pandemic and a current lack of effective vaccines or curative treatments, the study reported by Beigel and colleagues is timely and provides much needed knowledge in developing potential therapies for COVID-19.

The present report described the preliminary results of the first stage of the Adaptive Covid-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT-1), which aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous remdesivir, as compared to placebo, in hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The study itself was well-designed and conducted. The successful enrollment of more than 1000 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio within a 2-month recruitment window, involving 60 international trial sites, shortly after the emergence of a new global pandemic was remarkable. This study provided the first evidence that remdesivir, an antiviral, can shorten time to recovery by approximately 31% compared to placebo in COVID-19 patients with lower respiratory tract involvement.

Interestingly, this beneficial effect of remdesivir on time to recovery was primarily observed in participants within the severe disease stratum (those requiring supplemental oxygen) at baseline (12 days in remdesivir group versus 18 days in placebo group), but not in those with mild-moderate disease at the time of study enrollment (5 days in either remdesivir or placebo group). Moreover, the beneficial effects of remdesivir on reducing time to recovery was not observed in participants who required mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment. Thus, these preliminary results suggest that COVID-19 disease severity and timing, particularly in patients who require supplemental oxygen but prior to disease progression towards requiring mechanical ventilation, may present a window of opportunity to initiate remdesivir treatment in order to improve outcomes. Further analysis utilizing data from the entire cohort, including outcomes data from the full 28-day follow-up period, may better delineate the subgroup of hospitalized COVID-19 patients who may benefit most from remdesivir. Last, safety data from the present study, along with that reported by Wang and colleagues,⁴ provides evidence that intravenous remdesivir administration is likely safe in adults during the treatment period.

The preliminary results from the ACCT-1 provide early evidence that remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with pulmonary involvement. In light of these results, the US Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for remdesivir on May 1, 2020, for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in adults and children hospitalized with severe disease.⁵ In addition, remdesivir has also recently been approved as a therapy for COVID-19 in Japan, Taiwan, India, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates, and has received conditional approval for use by the European Commission.⁶

Although these are encouraging developments in the race to identify effective therapeutics for COVID-19, a number of unanswered questions regarding the administration of remdesivir in the treatment of this disease remain. For instance, in an open-label, randomized, multicenter trial of patients with severe COVID-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation, treatment with a 5-day course versus a 10-day course of intravenous remdesivir did not result in a significant difference in efficacy.⁷ Thus, more studies are needed to better determine the shortest effective duration of remdesivir therapy in COVID-19 patients with different disease severity. Also, the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients who were treated with remdesivir remained high in the current study. Therefore, there is ample opportunity to evaluate treatment strategies, including multidrug interventions with remdesivir, to reduce mortality and improve clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who require supplemental oxygen therapy. While much needs to be learned in order to optimize treatment of COVID-19, preliminary findings from the current study provide an important first step towards these discoveries.

–Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of remdesivir in hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and with evidence of lower respiratory tract involvement.

Design. Double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial.

Setting and participants. Enrollment for the study took place between February 21, 2020, and April 19, 2020, at 60 trial sites and 13 subsites in the United States, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Greece, Germany, Korea, Mexico, Spain, Japan, and Singapore. Study participants included patients aged ≥ 18 years who were hospitalized and had laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, as determined by a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay on a respiratory specimen. Participants had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection at the time of enrollment; this was defined as radiographic infiltrates by imaging study, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) ≤ 94% on room air, or requiring supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Exclusion criteria for study participation included abnormal liver enzymes (alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase) more than 5 times the upper limit of normal range; impaired renal function or need for hemodialysis or hemofiltration; pregnancy or breastfeeding; or anticipated hospital discharge or transfer to another hospital within 72 hours of enrollment.

Intervention. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the remdesivir group or the placebo group and were administered either intravenous infusions of remdesivir (200-mg loading dose on day 1, followed by a 100-mg maintenance dose daily on days 2 through 10, or until hospital discharge or death) or placebo for up to 10 days. Blinding was maintained by masking infusions with an opaque bag and tubing. Randomization was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrollment. Supportive care was delivered to all participants according to the standard of care at each trial site hospital. Clinical status, determined using an 8-category ordinal scale and the National Early Warning Score, was assessed daily for each participant while hospitalized (day 1 through day 29).

Blood samples for safety laboratory tests were collected, and oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal swab testing was performed for viral RNA detection and quantification on days 1, 3, 5, 8, and 11. All serious adverse events (AEs) and grade 3/4 AEs that represented an increase in severity from day 1 and any grade 2 or higher suspected drug-related hypersensitivity reactions associated with the study drug or placebo administration were recorded.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint measure of this study was time to recovery, defined as the first day during the 28 days after enrollment on which a participant satisfied category 1 (ie, not hospitalized, no limitations of activities), 2 (ie, not hospitalized, limitation of activities, home oxygen requirement, or both), or 3 (ie, hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care; hospitalization was extended for infection-control reason) on the 8-category ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality at 14 and 28 days after enrollment and grade 3/4 AEs and serious AEs that occurred during trial participation. Analysis of the primary outcome was performed using a log-rank test of the time to recovery comparing remdesivir with placebo group, stratified by disease severity.

The study’s primary outcome was initially defined as a difference in clinical status as ascertained by the 8-category ordinal scale between groups of participants who were administered remdesivir versus placebo on day 15. Because of new knowledge gained external to the study about a more protracted COVID-19 clinical course than previously recognized, a change in primary outcome to time to recovery was proposed by trial statisticians, who were unaware of treatment assignments (72 participants had been enrolled) or outcome data (no interim data) on March 22, 2020, with subsequent amendment approval on April 2, 2020. On April 27, 2020, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) reviewed the interim study analysis (with data cutoff date of April 22, 2020) and recommended the report and mortality data to be provided to trial team members from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; these findings were subsequently made public.

Main results. A total of 1107 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 1063 underwent randomization, with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 522 to placebo. Results were unblinded early at the recommendation of DSMB due to findings from the interim analysis that showed reduced time to recovery in the group that received remdesivir. As of April 28, 2020, a total of 391 participants in the remdesivir group and 340 participants in the placebo group had completed the trial (day 29), recovered, or died. The mean age of participants was 58.9 ± 15.0 years, the majority were men (64.3%) and were White (53.2%), and the most common prespecified coexisting conditions were hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37.0%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). The vast majority of participants (88.7%) had severe COVID-19 disease at enrollment, defined as requiring invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, requiring supplemental oxygen, SpO₂ ≤ 94% on room air, or tachypnea (respiratory rate ≥ 24 breaths per minute).

Based on available data from 1059 participants (538 from the remdesivir group and 521 from the placebo group), those in the remdesivir group had a shorter median recovery time of 11 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9-12) as compared to 15 days (95% CI, 13-19) in the placebo group, with a rate ratio for recovery of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.12-1.55; P < 0.001). Moreover, the odds of improvement on day 15 in the 8-category ordinal scale score were higher in the remdesivir group, compared to the placebo group (proportional odds model; odds ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.18-1.91; P = 0.001; 844 participants).

Mortality rate by 14 days was numerically lower in the remdesivir group (7.1%) compared to the placebo group (11.9%), but the difference was not statistically significant (Kaplan-Meier, hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47-1.04). Serious AEs were reported in 114 of the 541 (21.1%) participants in the remdesivir group and 141 of the 522 (27.0%) participants in the placebo group. Moreover, grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 156 (28.8%) participants in the remdesivir group and in 172 (33.0%) in the placebo group.

Conclusion. The study found that remdesivir, compared to placebo, significantly shortened time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.

Commentary

Since the initial reporting of a cluster of cases of pneumonia in Wuhan, China, on December 31, 2019, SARS-CoV-2 has been identified as the cause of this new disease (COVID-19), and to-date SARS-CoV-2 infection has affected more than 15.2 million people globally, with more than 3.9 million cases in the United States alone.¹ Despite an unprecedented global research effort, as well as public-private research partnerships, both in terms of scale and scope, an effective pharmacologic therapy for COVID-19 has so far eluded the scientific and medical community. Early trials of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir did not demonstrate a clinical benefit in patients with COVID-19.^2,3 Moreover, the first randomized controlled trial of remdesivir in COVID-19, a nucleoside analogue prodrug and a broad-spectrum antiviral agent previously shown to have inhibitory effects on pathogenic coronaviruses, was an underpowered study, and thus inconclusive.⁴ Thus, given the persistence of the COVID-19 pandemic and a current lack of effective vaccines or curative treatments, the study reported by Beigel and colleagues is timely and provides much needed knowledge in developing potential therapies for COVID-19.

The present report described the preliminary results of the first stage of the Adaptive Covid-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT-1), which aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous remdesivir, as compared to placebo, in hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The study itself was well-designed and conducted. The successful enrollment of more than 1000 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio within a 2-month recruitment window, involving 60 international trial sites, shortly after the emergence of a new global pandemic was remarkable. This study provided the first evidence that remdesivir, an antiviral, can shorten time to recovery by approximately 31% compared to placebo in COVID-19 patients with lower respiratory tract involvement.

Interestingly, this beneficial effect of remdesivir on time to recovery was primarily observed in participants within the severe disease stratum (those requiring supplemental oxygen) at baseline (12 days in remdesivir group versus 18 days in placebo group), but not in those with mild-moderate disease at the time of study enrollment (5 days in either remdesivir or placebo group). Moreover, the beneficial effects of remdesivir on reducing time to recovery was not observed in participants who required mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment. Thus, these preliminary results suggest that COVID-19 disease severity and timing, particularly in patients who require supplemental oxygen but prior to disease progression towards requiring mechanical ventilation, may present a window of opportunity to initiate remdesivir treatment in order to improve outcomes. Further analysis utilizing data from the entire cohort, including outcomes data from the full 28-day follow-up period, may better delineate the subgroup of hospitalized COVID-19 patients who may benefit most from remdesivir. Last, safety data from the present study, along with that reported by Wang and colleagues,⁴ provides evidence that intravenous remdesivir administration is likely safe in adults during the treatment period.

The preliminary results from the ACCT-1 provide early evidence that remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with pulmonary involvement. In light of these results, the US Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for remdesivir on May 1, 2020, for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in adults and children hospitalized with severe disease.⁵ In addition, remdesivir has also recently been approved as a therapy for COVID-19 in Japan, Taiwan, India, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates, and has received conditional approval for use by the European Commission.⁶

Although these are encouraging developments in the race to identify effective therapeutics for COVID-19, a number of unanswered questions regarding the administration of remdesivir in the treatment of this disease remain. For instance, in an open-label, randomized, multicenter trial of patients with severe COVID-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation, treatment with a 5-day course versus a 10-day course of intravenous remdesivir did not result in a significant difference in efficacy.⁷ Thus, more studies are needed to better determine the shortest effective duration of remdesivir therapy in COVID-19 patients with different disease severity. Also, the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients who were treated with remdesivir remained high in the current study. Therefore, there is ample opportunity to evaluate treatment strategies, including multidrug interventions with remdesivir, to reduce mortality and improve clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who require supplemental oxygen therapy. While much needs to be learned in order to optimize treatment of COVID-19, preliminary findings from the current study provide an important first step towards these discoveries.

–Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of remdesivir in hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and with evidence of lower respiratory tract involvement.

Design. Double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial.

Setting and participants. Enrollment for the study took place between February 21, 2020, and April 19, 2020, at 60 trial sites and 13 subsites in the United States, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Greece, Germany, Korea, Mexico, Spain, Japan, and Singapore. Study participants included patients aged ≥ 18 years who were hospitalized and had laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, as determined by a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay on a respiratory specimen. Participants had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection at the time of enrollment; this was defined as radiographic infiltrates by imaging study, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) ≤ 94% on room air, or requiring supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Exclusion criteria for study participation included abnormal liver enzymes (alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase) more than 5 times the upper limit of normal range; impaired renal function or need for hemodialysis or hemofiltration; pregnancy or breastfeeding; or anticipated hospital discharge or transfer to another hospital within 72 hours of enrollment.

Intervention. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the remdesivir group or the placebo group and were administered either intravenous infusions of remdesivir (200-mg loading dose on day 1, followed by a 100-mg maintenance dose daily on days 2 through 10, or until hospital discharge or death) or placebo for up to 10 days. Blinding was maintained by masking infusions with an opaque bag and tubing. Randomization was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrollment. Supportive care was delivered to all participants according to the standard of care at each trial site hospital. Clinical status, determined using an 8-category ordinal scale and the National Early Warning Score, was assessed daily for each participant while hospitalized (day 1 through day 29).

Blood samples for safety laboratory tests were collected, and oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal swab testing was performed for viral RNA detection and quantification on days 1, 3, 5, 8, and 11. All serious adverse events (AEs) and grade 3/4 AEs that represented an increase in severity from day 1 and any grade 2 or higher suspected drug-related hypersensitivity reactions associated with the study drug or placebo administration were recorded.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint measure of this study was time to recovery, defined as the first day during the 28 days after enrollment on which a participant satisfied category 1 (ie, not hospitalized, no limitations of activities), 2 (ie, not hospitalized, limitation of activities, home oxygen requirement, or both), or 3 (ie, hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care; hospitalization was extended for infection-control reason) on the 8-category ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality at 14 and 28 days after enrollment and grade 3/4 AEs and serious AEs that occurred during trial participation. Analysis of the primary outcome was performed using a log-rank test of the time to recovery comparing remdesivir with placebo group, stratified by disease severity.

The study’s primary outcome was initially defined as a difference in clinical status as ascertained by the 8-category ordinal scale between groups of participants who were administered remdesivir versus placebo on day 15. Because of new knowledge gained external to the study about a more protracted COVID-19 clinical course than previously recognized, a change in primary outcome to time to recovery was proposed by trial statisticians, who were unaware of treatment assignments (72 participants had been enrolled) or outcome data (no interim data) on March 22, 2020, with subsequent amendment approval on April 2, 2020. On April 27, 2020, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) reviewed the interim study analysis (with data cutoff date of April 22, 2020) and recommended the report and mortality data to be provided to trial team members from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; these findings were subsequently made public.

Main results. A total of 1107 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 1063 underwent randomization, with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 522 to placebo. Results were unblinded early at the recommendation of DSMB due to findings from the interim analysis that showed reduced time to recovery in the group that received remdesivir. As of April 28, 2020, a total of 391 participants in the remdesivir group and 340 participants in the placebo group had completed the trial (day 29), recovered, or died. The mean age of participants was 58.9 ± 15.0 years, the majority were men (64.3%) and were White (53.2%), and the most common prespecified coexisting conditions were hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37.0%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). The vast majority of participants (88.7%) had severe COVID-19 disease at enrollment, defined as requiring invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, requiring supplemental oxygen, SpO₂ ≤ 94% on room air, or tachypnea (respiratory rate ≥ 24 breaths per minute).

Based on available data from 1059 participants (538 from the remdesivir group and 521 from the placebo group), those in the remdesivir group had a shorter median recovery time of 11 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9-12) as compared to 15 days (95% CI, 13-19) in the placebo group, with a rate ratio for recovery of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.12-1.55; P < 0.001). Moreover, the odds of improvement on day 15 in the 8-category ordinal scale score were higher in the remdesivir group, compared to the placebo group (proportional odds model; odds ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.18-1.91; P = 0.001; 844 participants).

Mortality rate by 14 days was numerically lower in the remdesivir group (7.1%) compared to the placebo group (11.9%), but the difference was not statistically significant (Kaplan-Meier, hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47-1.04). Serious AEs were reported in 114 of the 541 (21.1%) participants in the remdesivir group and 141 of the 522 (27.0%) participants in the placebo group. Moreover, grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 156 (28.8%) participants in the remdesivir group and in 172 (33.0%) in the placebo group.

Conclusion. The study found that remdesivir, compared to placebo, significantly shortened time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.

Commentary

Since the initial reporting of a cluster of cases of pneumonia in Wuhan, China, on December 31, 2019, SARS-CoV-2 has been identified as the cause of this new disease (COVID-19), and to-date SARS-CoV-2 infection has affected more than 15.2 million people globally, with more than 3.9 million cases in the United States alone.¹ Despite an unprecedented global research effort, as well as public-private research partnerships, both in terms of scale and scope, an effective pharmacologic therapy for COVID-19 has so far eluded the scientific and medical community. Early trials of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir did not demonstrate a clinical benefit in patients with COVID-19.^2,3 Moreover, the first randomized controlled trial of remdesivir in COVID-19, a nucleoside analogue prodrug and a broad-spectrum antiviral agent previously shown to have inhibitory effects on pathogenic coronaviruses, was an underpowered study, and thus inconclusive.⁴ Thus, given the persistence of the COVID-19 pandemic and a current lack of effective vaccines or curative treatments, the study reported by Beigel and colleagues is timely and provides much needed knowledge in developing potential therapies for COVID-19.

The present report described the preliminary results of the first stage of the Adaptive Covid-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT-1), which aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous remdesivir, as compared to placebo, in hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The study itself was well-designed and conducted. The successful enrollment of more than 1000 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio within a 2-month recruitment window, involving 60 international trial sites, shortly after the emergence of a new global pandemic was remarkable. This study provided the first evidence that remdesivir, an antiviral, can shorten time to recovery by approximately 31% compared to placebo in COVID-19 patients with lower respiratory tract involvement.

Interestingly, this beneficial effect of remdesivir on time to recovery was primarily observed in participants within the severe disease stratum (those requiring supplemental oxygen) at baseline (12 days in remdesivir group versus 18 days in placebo group), but not in those with mild-moderate disease at the time of study enrollment (5 days in either remdesivir or placebo group). Moreover, the beneficial effects of remdesivir on reducing time to recovery was not observed in participants who required mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment. Thus, these preliminary results suggest that COVID-19 disease severity and timing, particularly in patients who require supplemental oxygen but prior to disease progression towards requiring mechanical ventilation, may present a window of opportunity to initiate remdesivir treatment in order to improve outcomes. Further analysis utilizing data from the entire cohort, including outcomes data from the full 28-day follow-up period, may better delineate the subgroup of hospitalized COVID-19 patients who may benefit most from remdesivir. Last, safety data from the present study, along with that reported by Wang and colleagues,⁴ provides evidence that intravenous remdesivir administration is likely safe in adults during the treatment period.

The preliminary results from the ACCT-1 provide early evidence that remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with pulmonary involvement. In light of these results, the US Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for remdesivir on May 1, 2020, for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in adults and children hospitalized with severe disease.⁵ In addition, remdesivir has also recently been approved as a therapy for COVID-19 in Japan, Taiwan, India, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates, and has received conditional approval for use by the European Commission.⁶

Although these are encouraging developments in the race to identify effective therapeutics for COVID-19, a number of unanswered questions regarding the administration of remdesivir in the treatment of this disease remain. For instance, in an open-label, randomized, multicenter trial of patients with severe COVID-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation, treatment with a 5-day course versus a 10-day course of intravenous remdesivir did not result in a significant difference in efficacy.⁷ Thus, more studies are needed to better determine the shortest effective duration of remdesivir therapy in COVID-19 patients with different disease severity. Also, the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients who were treated with remdesivir remained high in the current study. Therefore, there is ample opportunity to evaluate treatment strategies, including multidrug interventions with remdesivir, to reduce mortality and improve clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who require supplemental oxygen therapy. While much needs to be learned in order to optimize treatment of COVID-19, preliminary findings from the current study provide an important first step towards these discoveries.

–Fred Ko, MD, MS