Neurology

The prevalence of Zika virus–related birth defects rose fourfold over preoutbreak levels in the areas of the United States hardest hit by the infection in 2016 and 2017, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That spike in the prevalence of brain abnormalities and/or microcephaly or eye abnormalities without brain abnormalities came during January through March 2017, about 6 months after the Zika outbreak’s reported peak in the jurisdictions with widespread local transmission, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, wrote Ashley N. Smoots, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities and associates in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

In those two territories, the prevalence of birth defects potentially related to Zika virus infection was 5.6 per 1,000 live births during January through March 2017, compared with 1.3 per 1,000 in January through March 2016, they reported.

In the southern areas of Florida and Texas, where there was limited local Zika transmission, the highest prevalence of birth defects, 2.7 per 1,000, occurred during October through December 2016, and was only slightly greater than the baseline rate of 2.2 per 1,000 in January through March 2016, the investigators reported.

Among the other 19 jurisdictions (including Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Virginia) involved in the analysis, the rate of Zika virus–related birth defects never reached any higher than the 1.7 per 1,000 recorded at the start of the study period in January through March 2016, they said.

“Population-based birth defects surveillance is critical for identifying infants and fetuses with birth defects potentially related to Zika virus regardless of whether Zika virus testing was conducted, especially given the high prevalence of asymptomatic disease. These data can be used to inform follow-up care and services as well as strengthen surveillance,” the investigators wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Smoots AN et al. MMWR. 2020 Jan 24;69(3):67-71.

The prevalence of Zika virus–related birth defects rose fourfold over preoutbreak levels in the areas of the United States hardest hit by the infection in 2016 and 2017, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That spike in the prevalence of brain abnormalities and/or microcephaly or eye abnormalities without brain abnormalities came during January through March 2017, about 6 months after the Zika outbreak’s reported peak in the jurisdictions with widespread local transmission, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, wrote Ashley N. Smoots, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities and associates in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

In those two territories, the prevalence of birth defects potentially related to Zika virus infection was 5.6 per 1,000 live births during January through March 2017, compared with 1.3 per 1,000 in January through March 2016, they reported.

In the southern areas of Florida and Texas, where there was limited local Zika transmission, the highest prevalence of birth defects, 2.7 per 1,000, occurred during October through December 2016, and was only slightly greater than the baseline rate of 2.2 per 1,000 in January through March 2016, the investigators reported.

Among the other 19 jurisdictions (including Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Virginia) involved in the analysis, the rate of Zika virus–related birth defects never reached any higher than the 1.7 per 1,000 recorded at the start of the study period in January through March 2016, they said.

“Population-based birth defects surveillance is critical for identifying infants and fetuses with birth defects potentially related to Zika virus regardless of whether Zika virus testing was conducted, especially given the high prevalence of asymptomatic disease. These data can be used to inform follow-up care and services as well as strengthen surveillance,” the investigators wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Smoots AN et al. MMWR. 2020 Jan 24;69(3):67-71.

The prevalence of Zika virus–related birth defects rose fourfold over preoutbreak levels in the areas of the United States hardest hit by the infection in 2016 and 2017, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That spike in the prevalence of brain abnormalities and/or microcephaly or eye abnormalities without brain abnormalities came during January through March 2017, about 6 months after the Zika outbreak’s reported peak in the jurisdictions with widespread local transmission, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, wrote Ashley N. Smoots, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities and associates in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

In those two territories, the prevalence of birth defects potentially related to Zika virus infection was 5.6 per 1,000 live births during January through March 2017, compared with 1.3 per 1,000 in January through March 2016, they reported.

In the southern areas of Florida and Texas, where there was limited local Zika transmission, the highest prevalence of birth defects, 2.7 per 1,000, occurred during October through December 2016, and was only slightly greater than the baseline rate of 2.2 per 1,000 in January through March 2016, the investigators reported.

Among the other 19 jurisdictions (including Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Virginia) involved in the analysis, the rate of Zika virus–related birth defects never reached any higher than the 1.7 per 1,000 recorded at the start of the study period in January through March 2016, they said.

“Population-based birth defects surveillance is critical for identifying infants and fetuses with birth defects potentially related to Zika virus regardless of whether Zika virus testing was conducted, especially given the high prevalence of asymptomatic disease. These data can be used to inform follow-up care and services as well as strengthen surveillance,” the investigators wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Smoots AN et al. MMWR. 2020 Jan 24;69(3):67-71.

Patients suffering from chronic pain who take medicinal cannabis to initiate and maintain sleep appear to experience short-term benefit, but long-term use may ultimately disrupt slumber, new research shows.

Investigators found whole-plant medical cannabis use was associated with fewer problems with respect to waking up at night, but they also found that frequent medical cannabis use was associated with more problems initiating and maintaining sleep.

LPETTET/Getty Images

A common problem

Estimates suggest chronic pain affects up to 37% of adults in the developed world. Individuals who suffer chronic pain often experience comorbid insomnia, which includes difficulty initiating sleep, sleep disruption, and early morning wakening.

For its part, medical cannabis to treat chronic pain symptoms and manage sleep problems has been widely reported as a prime motivation for medical cannabis use. Indeed, previous studies have concluded that the endocannabinoid system plays a role in sleep regulation, including sleep promotion and maintenance.

In recent years, investigators have reported the beneficial effects of medical cannabis for sleep. Nevertheless, some preclinical research has also concluded that chronic administration of tetrahydrocannabinol may result in tolerance to the sleep-enhancing effects of cannabis.

With that in mind, the researchers set out to examine the potential impact of whole-plant medicinal cannabis on sleep problems experienced by middle-aged patients suffering from chronic pain.

“People are self-reporting that they’re using cannabis for sleep and that it helps, but as we know, just because people are reporting that it works doesn’t mean that it will hold up in research,” Dr. Sznitman said.

The study included 128 individuals (mean age, 61±6 years; 51% females) with chronic neuropathic pain: 66 were medical cannabis users and 62 were not.

Three indicators of insomnia were measured using the 7-point Likert scale to assess issues with sleep initiation and maintenance.

In addition, investigators collected sociodemographic information, as well as data on daily consumption of tobacco, frequency of alcohol use, and pain severity. Finally, they collected patient data on the use of sleep-aid medications during the past month as well as tricyclic antidepressant use.
 

Frequent use, more sleep problems?

On average, medical cannabis users were 3 years younger than their nonusing counterparts (mean age, 60±6 vs. 63±6 years, respectively, P = .003) and more likely to be male (58% vs 40%, respectively, P = .038). Otherwise, the two groups were comparable.

Medical cannabis users reported taking the drug for an average of 4 years, at an average quantity of 31 g per month. The primary mode of administration was smoking (68.6%), followed by oil extracts (21.4%) and vaporization (20%).

Results showed that, of the total sample, 24.1% reported always waking up early and not falling back to sleep, 20.2% reported always having difficulty falling asleep, and 27.2% reported always waking up during the night.

After adjusting for patient age, sex, pain level, and use of sleep medications and antidepressants, medical cannabis use was associated with fewer problems with waking up at night, compared with nonmedical cannabis use. No differences were found between groups with respect to problems falling asleep or waking up early without being able to fall back to sleep, Dr. Sznitman and associates reported.

The final analysis of a subsample of patients that only included medical cannabis users showed frequency of medical cannabis use was associated with sleep problems, they said.

Specifically, more frequent cannabis use was associated with more problems related to waking up at night, as well as problems falling asleep.

Sleep problems associated with frequent medical cannabis use may signal the development of tolerance to the agent. However, frequent users of medical cannabis also maybsuffer pain or other comorbidities, which, in turn, may be linked to more sleep problems.

Either way, Dr. Sznitman said the study might open the door to another treatment option for patients suffering from chronic pain who struggle with sleep.

“If future research shows that the effect of medical cannabis on sleep is a consistent one, then we may be adding a new therapy for sleep problems, which are huge in society and especially in chronic pain patients,” she said.
 

Early days

Commenting on the findings in an interview, Ryan G. Vandrey, PhD, who was not involved in the study, said the findings are in line with previous research.

“I think the results make sense with respect to the data I’ve collected and from what I’ve seen,” said Dr. Vandrey, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

“We typically only want to use sleep medications for short periods of time,” he continued. “When you think about recommended prescribing practices for any hypnotic medication, it’s usually short term, 2 weeks or less. Longer-term use often leads to tolerance, dependence, and withdrawal symptoms when the medication is stopped, which leads to an exacerbation of disordered sleep,” Dr. Vandrey said.

Nevertheless, he urged caution when interpreting the results.

“I think the study warrants caution about long-term daily use of cannabinoids with respect to sleep,” he said. “But we need more detailed evaluations, as the trial wasn’t testing a defined product, specific dose, or dose regimen.

“In addition, this was all done in the context of people with chronic pain and not treating disordered sleep or insomnia, but the study highlights the importance of recognizing that long-term chronic use of cannabis is not likely to fully resolve sleep problems.”

Dr. Sznitman agreed that the research is still in its very early stages.

“We’re still far from saying we have the evidence to support the use of medical cannabis for sleep,” she said. “For in the end it was just a cross-sectional, observational study, so we cannot say anything about cause and effect. But if these results pan out, they could be far-reaching and exciting.”

The study was funded by the University of Haifa and Rambam Hospital in Israel, and by the Evelyn Lipper Foundation. Dr. Sznitman and Dr. Vandrey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
 

Patients suffering from chronic pain who take medicinal cannabis to initiate and maintain sleep appear to experience short-term benefit, but long-term use may ultimately disrupt slumber, new research shows.

Investigators found whole-plant medical cannabis use was associated with fewer problems with respect to waking up at night, but they also found that frequent medical cannabis use was associated with more problems initiating and maintaining sleep.

LPETTET/Getty Images

A common problem

Estimates suggest chronic pain affects up to 37% of adults in the developed world. Individuals who suffer chronic pain often experience comorbid insomnia, which includes difficulty initiating sleep, sleep disruption, and early morning wakening.

For its part, medical cannabis to treat chronic pain symptoms and manage sleep problems has been widely reported as a prime motivation for medical cannabis use. Indeed, previous studies have concluded that the endocannabinoid system plays a role in sleep regulation, including sleep promotion and maintenance.

In recent years, investigators have reported the beneficial effects of medical cannabis for sleep. Nevertheless, some preclinical research has also concluded that chronic administration of tetrahydrocannabinol may result in tolerance to the sleep-enhancing effects of cannabis.

With that in mind, the researchers set out to examine the potential impact of whole-plant medicinal cannabis on sleep problems experienced by middle-aged patients suffering from chronic pain.

“People are self-reporting that they’re using cannabis for sleep and that it helps, but as we know, just because people are reporting that it works doesn’t mean that it will hold up in research,” Dr. Sznitman said.

The study included 128 individuals (mean age, 61±6 years; 51% females) with chronic neuropathic pain: 66 were medical cannabis users and 62 were not.

Three indicators of insomnia were measured using the 7-point Likert scale to assess issues with sleep initiation and maintenance.

In addition, investigators collected sociodemographic information, as well as data on daily consumption of tobacco, frequency of alcohol use, and pain severity. Finally, they collected patient data on the use of sleep-aid medications during the past month as well as tricyclic antidepressant use.
 

Frequent use, more sleep problems?

On average, medical cannabis users were 3 years younger than their nonusing counterparts (mean age, 60±6 vs. 63±6 years, respectively, P = .003) and more likely to be male (58% vs 40%, respectively, P = .038). Otherwise, the two groups were comparable.

Medical cannabis users reported taking the drug for an average of 4 years, at an average quantity of 31 g per month. The primary mode of administration was smoking (68.6%), followed by oil extracts (21.4%) and vaporization (20%).

Results showed that, of the total sample, 24.1% reported always waking up early and not falling back to sleep, 20.2% reported always having difficulty falling asleep, and 27.2% reported always waking up during the night.

After adjusting for patient age, sex, pain level, and use of sleep medications and antidepressants, medical cannabis use was associated with fewer problems with waking up at night, compared with nonmedical cannabis use. No differences were found between groups with respect to problems falling asleep or waking up early without being able to fall back to sleep, Dr. Sznitman and associates reported.

The final analysis of a subsample of patients that only included medical cannabis users showed frequency of medical cannabis use was associated with sleep problems, they said.

Specifically, more frequent cannabis use was associated with more problems related to waking up at night, as well as problems falling asleep.

Sleep problems associated with frequent medical cannabis use may signal the development of tolerance to the agent. However, frequent users of medical cannabis also maybsuffer pain or other comorbidities, which, in turn, may be linked to more sleep problems.

Either way, Dr. Sznitman said the study might open the door to another treatment option for patients suffering from chronic pain who struggle with sleep.

“If future research shows that the effect of medical cannabis on sleep is a consistent one, then we may be adding a new therapy for sleep problems, which are huge in society and especially in chronic pain patients,” she said.
 

Early days

Commenting on the findings in an interview, Ryan G. Vandrey, PhD, who was not involved in the study, said the findings are in line with previous research.

“I think the results make sense with respect to the data I’ve collected and from what I’ve seen,” said Dr. Vandrey, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

“We typically only want to use sleep medications for short periods of time,” he continued. “When you think about recommended prescribing practices for any hypnotic medication, it’s usually short term, 2 weeks or less. Longer-term use often leads to tolerance, dependence, and withdrawal symptoms when the medication is stopped, which leads to an exacerbation of disordered sleep,” Dr. Vandrey said.

Nevertheless, he urged caution when interpreting the results.

“I think the study warrants caution about long-term daily use of cannabinoids with respect to sleep,” he said. “But we need more detailed evaluations, as the trial wasn’t testing a defined product, specific dose, or dose regimen.

“In addition, this was all done in the context of people with chronic pain and not treating disordered sleep or insomnia, but the study highlights the importance of recognizing that long-term chronic use of cannabis is not likely to fully resolve sleep problems.”

Dr. Sznitman agreed that the research is still in its very early stages.

“We’re still far from saying we have the evidence to support the use of medical cannabis for sleep,” she said. “For in the end it was just a cross-sectional, observational study, so we cannot say anything about cause and effect. But if these results pan out, they could be far-reaching and exciting.”

The study was funded by the University of Haifa and Rambam Hospital in Israel, and by the Evelyn Lipper Foundation. Dr. Sznitman and Dr. Vandrey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
 

Patients suffering from chronic pain who take medicinal cannabis to initiate and maintain sleep appear to experience short-term benefit, but long-term use may ultimately disrupt slumber, new research shows.

Investigators found whole-plant medical cannabis use was associated with fewer problems with respect to waking up at night, but they also found that frequent medical cannabis use was associated with more problems initiating and maintaining sleep.

LPETTET/Getty Images

A common problem

Estimates suggest chronic pain affects up to 37% of adults in the developed world. Individuals who suffer chronic pain often experience comorbid insomnia, which includes difficulty initiating sleep, sleep disruption, and early morning wakening.

For its part, medical cannabis to treat chronic pain symptoms and manage sleep problems has been widely reported as a prime motivation for medical cannabis use. Indeed, previous studies have concluded that the endocannabinoid system plays a role in sleep regulation, including sleep promotion and maintenance.

In recent years, investigators have reported the beneficial effects of medical cannabis for sleep. Nevertheless, some preclinical research has also concluded that chronic administration of tetrahydrocannabinol may result in tolerance to the sleep-enhancing effects of cannabis.

With that in mind, the researchers set out to examine the potential impact of whole-plant medicinal cannabis on sleep problems experienced by middle-aged patients suffering from chronic pain.

“People are self-reporting that they’re using cannabis for sleep and that it helps, but as we know, just because people are reporting that it works doesn’t mean that it will hold up in research,” Dr. Sznitman said.

The study included 128 individuals (mean age, 61±6 years; 51% females) with chronic neuropathic pain: 66 were medical cannabis users and 62 were not.

Three indicators of insomnia were measured using the 7-point Likert scale to assess issues with sleep initiation and maintenance.

In addition, investigators collected sociodemographic information, as well as data on daily consumption of tobacco, frequency of alcohol use, and pain severity. Finally, they collected patient data on the use of sleep-aid medications during the past month as well as tricyclic antidepressant use.
 

Frequent use, more sleep problems?

On average, medical cannabis users were 3 years younger than their nonusing counterparts (mean age, 60±6 vs. 63±6 years, respectively, P = .003) and more likely to be male (58% vs 40%, respectively, P = .038). Otherwise, the two groups were comparable.

Medical cannabis users reported taking the drug for an average of 4 years, at an average quantity of 31 g per month. The primary mode of administration was smoking (68.6%), followed by oil extracts (21.4%) and vaporization (20%).

Results showed that, of the total sample, 24.1% reported always waking up early and not falling back to sleep, 20.2% reported always having difficulty falling asleep, and 27.2% reported always waking up during the night.

After adjusting for patient age, sex, pain level, and use of sleep medications and antidepressants, medical cannabis use was associated with fewer problems with waking up at night, compared with nonmedical cannabis use. No differences were found between groups with respect to problems falling asleep or waking up early without being able to fall back to sleep, Dr. Sznitman and associates reported.

The final analysis of a subsample of patients that only included medical cannabis users showed frequency of medical cannabis use was associated with sleep problems, they said.

Specifically, more frequent cannabis use was associated with more problems related to waking up at night, as well as problems falling asleep.

Sleep problems associated with frequent medical cannabis use may signal the development of tolerance to the agent. However, frequent users of medical cannabis also maybsuffer pain or other comorbidities, which, in turn, may be linked to more sleep problems.

Either way, Dr. Sznitman said the study might open the door to another treatment option for patients suffering from chronic pain who struggle with sleep.

“If future research shows that the effect of medical cannabis on sleep is a consistent one, then we may be adding a new therapy for sleep problems, which are huge in society and especially in chronic pain patients,” she said.
 

Early days

Commenting on the findings in an interview, Ryan G. Vandrey, PhD, who was not involved in the study, said the findings are in line with previous research.

“I think the results make sense with respect to the data I’ve collected and from what I’ve seen,” said Dr. Vandrey, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

“We typically only want to use sleep medications for short periods of time,” he continued. “When you think about recommended prescribing practices for any hypnotic medication, it’s usually short term, 2 weeks or less. Longer-term use often leads to tolerance, dependence, and withdrawal symptoms when the medication is stopped, which leads to an exacerbation of disordered sleep,” Dr. Vandrey said.

Nevertheless, he urged caution when interpreting the results.

“I think the study warrants caution about long-term daily use of cannabinoids with respect to sleep,” he said. “But we need more detailed evaluations, as the trial wasn’t testing a defined product, specific dose, or dose regimen.

“In addition, this was all done in the context of people with chronic pain and not treating disordered sleep or insomnia, but the study highlights the importance of recognizing that long-term chronic use of cannabis is not likely to fully resolve sleep problems.”

Dr. Sznitman agreed that the research is still in its very early stages.

“We’re still far from saying we have the evidence to support the use of medical cannabis for sleep,” she said. “For in the end it was just a cross-sectional, observational study, so we cannot say anything about cause and effect. But if these results pan out, they could be far-reaching and exciting.”

The study was funded by the University of Haifa and Rambam Hospital in Israel, and by the Evelyn Lipper Foundation. Dr. Sznitman and Dr. Vandrey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
 

Among young adults with supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), black race and Hispanic ethnicity are associated with better functional outcomes, compared with white race, researchers reported Jan. 22 in Neurology.

“There has been considerable research on stroke in older people, but there is still much to be learned about stroke in younger people and how it affects people of different races and ethnicities,” study author Daniel Woo, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati, said in a news release. “Our study found that, even when you account for factors that affect outcomes, such as how big the stroke is, race and ethnicity were still independent predictors of how well people would recover.”
 

A subset of ERICH participants

To examine predictors of functional outcome in young patients with ICH, researchers analyzed data from a subset of patients in the Ethnic/Racial Variations in Intracerebral Hemorrhage (ERICH) study. ERICH enrolled patients with nontraumatic ICHs at 42 sites in the United States. It included 1,000 non-Hispanic black patients, 1,000 non-Hispanic white patients, and 1,000 Hispanic patients. Participants self-reported race and ethnicity.

Lead author Laura C. Miyares from Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Conn., and colleagues analyzed data from 418 patients in ERICH who were aged 18-49 years and had supratentorial ICH. The cohort had an average age of 43 years, and 69% were male. In this subset, 41% were black, 12% were white, and 47% were Hispanic.

The primary outcome was modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 3 months after the ICH, and the investigators defined a poor outcome as a score of 4 or greater. At 3 months, 35% had a poor functional outcome. Approximately 18% were unable to walk without assistance and attend to their bodily needs (mRS 4); 8% were bedridden, incontinent, and required nursing care (mRS 5); and 10% had died (mRS 6).

The percentage of patients with a poor functional outcome was 52% among white patients, 35% among black patients, and 31% among Hispanic patients. In a univariable analysis, black patients had a 51% reduction in odds of a poor outcome, compared with white patients, and Hispanic patients had a 59% reduction.

“The association between race/ethnicity and 3-month post-ICH functional outcome remained significant after adjusting for age, sex, premorbid disability, ICH location, ICH volume, [intraventricular hemorrhage] extension, systolic blood pressure, and [Glasgow Coma Scale] score on admission,” the researchers said. “In multivariable analysis, using white patients as the reference category, black patients had a 58% reduction in the odds of poor functional outcome at 3 months and Hispanic patients had a 66% reduction in the same odds.”

Their analysis identified the importance of other risk factors as well. “The volume of the hematoma, the most powerful predictor of outcome in older patients with ICH, was also found to be the most significant predictor of poor outcome in young patients,” they said.
 

Vascular risks and oral anticoagulants

About 80% of the young adults with ICH had a history of diagnosed hypertension. In nearly half, the condition was untreated. “After hypertension, the most common stroke risk factors in the young were diabetes, high cholesterol, smoking, and alcohol abuse,” the authors said. “In combination, these results indicate that vascular risk factors, especially untreated, could explain a large proportion of cases of ICH in the young.”

“Our results also point to treatment with oral anticoagulants before hospitalization as a potential mediator of the effect of race/ethnicity on short-term functional outcomes,” they said. About 8% of the white patients used oral anticoagulants, compared with 4% of the black patients and 1% of the Hispanic patients. Oral anticoagulant treatment “is a known risk factor for ICH and an established predictor of poor outcome in this condition. However, because only a small proportion of enrolled young patients with ICH were on [oral anticoagulants] prior to presentation, these results should be further validated by future studies.”

The study’s limitations include the broad categorization of racial and ethnic groups, the fact that younger patients with supratentorial ICH were more likely to be black or Hispanic and less likely to be white, and the exclusion of a significant proportion of cases of young white patients with smaller ICH volumes because of missing data, the researchers noted. Although the cohort was large, researchers may need to study more patients to capture differences among racial and ethnic groups, the investigators said.

The association between race/ethnicity and functional outcome could relate to “distinct pathophysiologies of the initial bleed or unique mechanisms of secondary injury,” the researchers suggested. “Future studies are necessary to probe the potential biological and social mediators of these findings to elucidate the role of race/ethnicity in ICH severity and functional recovery, and to develop improved prognostication for a racially varied population.”

ERICH is supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Authors disclosed grants from the government, professional societies, and a university.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Miyares LC et al. Neurology. 2020 Jan 22. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008930.

Among young adults with supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), black race and Hispanic ethnicity are associated with better functional outcomes, compared with white race, researchers reported Jan. 22 in Neurology.

“There has been considerable research on stroke in older people, but there is still much to be learned about stroke in younger people and how it affects people of different races and ethnicities,” study author Daniel Woo, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati, said in a news release. “Our study found that, even when you account for factors that affect outcomes, such as how big the stroke is, race and ethnicity were still independent predictors of how well people would recover.”
 

A subset of ERICH participants

To examine predictors of functional outcome in young patients with ICH, researchers analyzed data from a subset of patients in the Ethnic/Racial Variations in Intracerebral Hemorrhage (ERICH) study. ERICH enrolled patients with nontraumatic ICHs at 42 sites in the United States. It included 1,000 non-Hispanic black patients, 1,000 non-Hispanic white patients, and 1,000 Hispanic patients. Participants self-reported race and ethnicity.

Lead author Laura C. Miyares from Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Conn., and colleagues analyzed data from 418 patients in ERICH who were aged 18-49 years and had supratentorial ICH. The cohort had an average age of 43 years, and 69% were male. In this subset, 41% were black, 12% were white, and 47% were Hispanic.

The primary outcome was modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 3 months after the ICH, and the investigators defined a poor outcome as a score of 4 or greater. At 3 months, 35% had a poor functional outcome. Approximately 18% were unable to walk without assistance and attend to their bodily needs (mRS 4); 8% were bedridden, incontinent, and required nursing care (mRS 5); and 10% had died (mRS 6).

The percentage of patients with a poor functional outcome was 52% among white patients, 35% among black patients, and 31% among Hispanic patients. In a univariable analysis, black patients had a 51% reduction in odds of a poor outcome, compared with white patients, and Hispanic patients had a 59% reduction.

“The association between race/ethnicity and 3-month post-ICH functional outcome remained significant after adjusting for age, sex, premorbid disability, ICH location, ICH volume, [intraventricular hemorrhage] extension, systolic blood pressure, and [Glasgow Coma Scale] score on admission,” the researchers said. “In multivariable analysis, using white patients as the reference category, black patients had a 58% reduction in the odds of poor functional outcome at 3 months and Hispanic patients had a 66% reduction in the same odds.”

Their analysis identified the importance of other risk factors as well. “The volume of the hematoma, the most powerful predictor of outcome in older patients with ICH, was also found to be the most significant predictor of poor outcome in young patients,” they said.
 

Vascular risks and oral anticoagulants

About 80% of the young adults with ICH had a history of diagnosed hypertension. In nearly half, the condition was untreated. “After hypertension, the most common stroke risk factors in the young were diabetes, high cholesterol, smoking, and alcohol abuse,” the authors said. “In combination, these results indicate that vascular risk factors, especially untreated, could explain a large proportion of cases of ICH in the young.”

“Our results also point to treatment with oral anticoagulants before hospitalization as a potential mediator of the effect of race/ethnicity on short-term functional outcomes,” they said. About 8% of the white patients used oral anticoagulants, compared with 4% of the black patients and 1% of the Hispanic patients. Oral anticoagulant treatment “is a known risk factor for ICH and an established predictor of poor outcome in this condition. However, because only a small proportion of enrolled young patients with ICH were on [oral anticoagulants] prior to presentation, these results should be further validated by future studies.”

The study’s limitations include the broad categorization of racial and ethnic groups, the fact that younger patients with supratentorial ICH were more likely to be black or Hispanic and less likely to be white, and the exclusion of a significant proportion of cases of young white patients with smaller ICH volumes because of missing data, the researchers noted. Although the cohort was large, researchers may need to study more patients to capture differences among racial and ethnic groups, the investigators said.

The association between race/ethnicity and functional outcome could relate to “distinct pathophysiologies of the initial bleed or unique mechanisms of secondary injury,” the researchers suggested. “Future studies are necessary to probe the potential biological and social mediators of these findings to elucidate the role of race/ethnicity in ICH severity and functional recovery, and to develop improved prognostication for a racially varied population.”

ERICH is supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Authors disclosed grants from the government, professional societies, and a university.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Miyares LC et al. Neurology. 2020 Jan 22. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008930.

Among young adults with supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), black race and Hispanic ethnicity are associated with better functional outcomes, compared with white race, researchers reported Jan. 22 in Neurology.

“There has been considerable research on stroke in older people, but there is still much to be learned about stroke in younger people and how it affects people of different races and ethnicities,” study author Daniel Woo, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati, said in a news release. “Our study found that, even when you account for factors that affect outcomes, such as how big the stroke is, race and ethnicity were still independent predictors of how well people would recover.”
 

A subset of ERICH participants

To examine predictors of functional outcome in young patients with ICH, researchers analyzed data from a subset of patients in the Ethnic/Racial Variations in Intracerebral Hemorrhage (ERICH) study. ERICH enrolled patients with nontraumatic ICHs at 42 sites in the United States. It included 1,000 non-Hispanic black patients, 1,000 non-Hispanic white patients, and 1,000 Hispanic patients. Participants self-reported race and ethnicity.

Lead author Laura C. Miyares from Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Conn., and colleagues analyzed data from 418 patients in ERICH who were aged 18-49 years and had supratentorial ICH. The cohort had an average age of 43 years, and 69% were male. In this subset, 41% were black, 12% were white, and 47% were Hispanic.

The primary outcome was modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 3 months after the ICH, and the investigators defined a poor outcome as a score of 4 or greater. At 3 months, 35% had a poor functional outcome. Approximately 18% were unable to walk without assistance and attend to their bodily needs (mRS 4); 8% were bedridden, incontinent, and required nursing care (mRS 5); and 10% had died (mRS 6).

The percentage of patients with a poor functional outcome was 52% among white patients, 35% among black patients, and 31% among Hispanic patients. In a univariable analysis, black patients had a 51% reduction in odds of a poor outcome, compared with white patients, and Hispanic patients had a 59% reduction.

“The association between race/ethnicity and 3-month post-ICH functional outcome remained significant after adjusting for age, sex, premorbid disability, ICH location, ICH volume, [intraventricular hemorrhage] extension, systolic blood pressure, and [Glasgow Coma Scale] score on admission,” the researchers said. “In multivariable analysis, using white patients as the reference category, black patients had a 58% reduction in the odds of poor functional outcome at 3 months and Hispanic patients had a 66% reduction in the same odds.”

Their analysis identified the importance of other risk factors as well. “The volume of the hematoma, the most powerful predictor of outcome in older patients with ICH, was also found to be the most significant predictor of poor outcome in young patients,” they said.
 

Vascular risks and oral anticoagulants

About 80% of the young adults with ICH had a history of diagnosed hypertension. In nearly half, the condition was untreated. “After hypertension, the most common stroke risk factors in the young were diabetes, high cholesterol, smoking, and alcohol abuse,” the authors said. “In combination, these results indicate that vascular risk factors, especially untreated, could explain a large proportion of cases of ICH in the young.”

“Our results also point to treatment with oral anticoagulants before hospitalization as a potential mediator of the effect of race/ethnicity on short-term functional outcomes,” they said. About 8% of the white patients used oral anticoagulants, compared with 4% of the black patients and 1% of the Hispanic patients. Oral anticoagulant treatment “is a known risk factor for ICH and an established predictor of poor outcome in this condition. However, because only a small proportion of enrolled young patients with ICH were on [oral anticoagulants] prior to presentation, these results should be further validated by future studies.”

The study’s limitations include the broad categorization of racial and ethnic groups, the fact that younger patients with supratentorial ICH were more likely to be black or Hispanic and less likely to be white, and the exclusion of a significant proportion of cases of young white patients with smaller ICH volumes because of missing data, the researchers noted. Although the cohort was large, researchers may need to study more patients to capture differences among racial and ethnic groups, the investigators said.

The association between race/ethnicity and functional outcome could relate to “distinct pathophysiologies of the initial bleed or unique mechanisms of secondary injury,” the researchers suggested. “Future studies are necessary to probe the potential biological and social mediators of these findings to elucidate the role of race/ethnicity in ICH severity and functional recovery, and to develop improved prognostication for a racially varied population.”

ERICH is supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Authors disclosed grants from the government, professional societies, and a university.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Miyares LC et al. Neurology. 2020 Jan 22. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008930.

BALTIMORE – In the absence of MRI evidence of mesial temporal sclerosis (MTS), sparing the hippocampus during anterior temporal lobectomy for refractory epilepsy reduces memory loss without affecting the procedure’s efficacy, according to a review from researchers at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia.

Often, the hippocampus and other mesial structures are removed even if they appear normal. The concern is that even normal looking tissue could harbor epileptogenic elements and leaving them in tact could reduce postoperative seizure control, explained senior investigator and neurologist Michael Sperling, MD, director of the Jefferson Comprehensive Epilepsy Center.

He and his colleagues wanted to see if that was really true, so they compared outcomes in 21 patients who had mesial-sparing lobectomies with 19 patients who had the standard approach. Cases and controls were matched for age, preoperative seizure frequency, side of surgery, and other factors. None of the patients had MTS.

There was no significant difference in postoperative seizure recurrence between the two groups (P = .974). The standard procedure had a slight edge early on, but at 2.5 years, just over 60% of patients in both groups were seizure free. At 5 years, about 50% were seizure free, and almost 40% in both arms at 7.5 years.

About two-thirds of patients in each arm had pre- and postoperative verbal memory testing, with similar duration from surgery to postop evaluation. There was no change among the hippocampus-sparing patients, but a roughly one standard deviation drop in delayed recall and logical memory on the California Verbal Learning Test in the standard group.

Even so, it wasn’t enough to affect employment, which the investigators used as a surrogate for disability; postoperative employment was comparable in both groups. People mostly retained their jobs, and there was no difference in job loss. A few people in each arm actually found jobs after surgery.

The investigators concluded that “it is reasonable to recommend mesial temporal sparing procedure in patients with dominant neocortical temporal lobe epilepsy when the hippocampus appears normal in the MRI. However, as resecting the mesial temporal structures was not associated with a greater chance of becoming unemployed following the surgery, there appears to be no major contraindication to performing an [anterior temporal lobectomy] if clinically warranted.”

The results are reassuring. “My bias walking in was that” seizure recurrence would be worse after hippocampal-sparing surgery. “I was pleased to see that it was about the same. If you want to try to preserve verbal memory and the MRI is normal, you can get away with sparing the mesial temporal structures, and still get a good seizure outcome,” Dr. Sperling said at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society, where the study was presented.

“But if you have to take the hippocampus for whatever reason, the functional consequence of a decline in verbal memory is not severe enough as to be disabling,” which is “one of the big concerns” with temporal lobectomy, he said.

The findings “will make us more likely to recommend mesial-sparing surgery, but at the same time” perhaps not be quite as worried about disability with the standard approach.

Temporal lobe epilepsy with normal mesial structures isn’t very common, which explains the small numbers in the series. It’s possible subtle difference in seizure control and employment outcomes would have been found with a larger series, “but obviously there were no major differences. I think the fundamental questions have been answered to my satisfaction,” Dr. Sperling said.

Overall, “it’s better to operate and try to cure people than to worry that you will make their memory worse when the consequences of having uncontrolled epilepsy is a higher death rate,” he said.

There were about equal numbers of men and women in the review; patients were in their early 30s, on average; and most had left-sided surgery. Just over half in each arm had preoperative tonic-clonic seizures. The mean duration of epilepsy was 14.9 years in the mesial-sparing group, and 8.6 years in the standard arm.

There was no funding for the review, and Dr. Sperling didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Goldstein L et al. AES 2019. Abstract 1.339.

BALTIMORE – In the absence of MRI evidence of mesial temporal sclerosis (MTS), sparing the hippocampus during anterior temporal lobectomy for refractory epilepsy reduces memory loss without affecting the procedure’s efficacy, according to a review from researchers at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia.

Often, the hippocampus and other mesial structures are removed even if they appear normal. The concern is that even normal looking tissue could harbor epileptogenic elements and leaving them in tact could reduce postoperative seizure control, explained senior investigator and neurologist Michael Sperling, MD, director of the Jefferson Comprehensive Epilepsy Center.

He and his colleagues wanted to see if that was really true, so they compared outcomes in 21 patients who had mesial-sparing lobectomies with 19 patients who had the standard approach. Cases and controls were matched for age, preoperative seizure frequency, side of surgery, and other factors. None of the patients had MTS.

There was no significant difference in postoperative seizure recurrence between the two groups (P = .974). The standard procedure had a slight edge early on, but at 2.5 years, just over 60% of patients in both groups were seizure free. At 5 years, about 50% were seizure free, and almost 40% in both arms at 7.5 years.

About two-thirds of patients in each arm had pre- and postoperative verbal memory testing, with similar duration from surgery to postop evaluation. There was no change among the hippocampus-sparing patients, but a roughly one standard deviation drop in delayed recall and logical memory on the California Verbal Learning Test in the standard group.

Even so, it wasn’t enough to affect employment, which the investigators used as a surrogate for disability; postoperative employment was comparable in both groups. People mostly retained their jobs, and there was no difference in job loss. A few people in each arm actually found jobs after surgery.

The investigators concluded that “it is reasonable to recommend mesial temporal sparing procedure in patients with dominant neocortical temporal lobe epilepsy when the hippocampus appears normal in the MRI. However, as resecting the mesial temporal structures was not associated with a greater chance of becoming unemployed following the surgery, there appears to be no major contraindication to performing an [anterior temporal lobectomy] if clinically warranted.”

The results are reassuring. “My bias walking in was that” seizure recurrence would be worse after hippocampal-sparing surgery. “I was pleased to see that it was about the same. If you want to try to preserve verbal memory and the MRI is normal, you can get away with sparing the mesial temporal structures, and still get a good seizure outcome,” Dr. Sperling said at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society, where the study was presented.

“But if you have to take the hippocampus for whatever reason, the functional consequence of a decline in verbal memory is not severe enough as to be disabling,” which is “one of the big concerns” with temporal lobectomy, he said.

The findings “will make us more likely to recommend mesial-sparing surgery, but at the same time” perhaps not be quite as worried about disability with the standard approach.

Temporal lobe epilepsy with normal mesial structures isn’t very common, which explains the small numbers in the series. It’s possible subtle difference in seizure control and employment outcomes would have been found with a larger series, “but obviously there were no major differences. I think the fundamental questions have been answered to my satisfaction,” Dr. Sperling said.

Overall, “it’s better to operate and try to cure people than to worry that you will make their memory worse when the consequences of having uncontrolled epilepsy is a higher death rate,” he said.

There were about equal numbers of men and women in the review; patients were in their early 30s, on average; and most had left-sided surgery. Just over half in each arm had preoperative tonic-clonic seizures. The mean duration of epilepsy was 14.9 years in the mesial-sparing group, and 8.6 years in the standard arm.

There was no funding for the review, and Dr. Sperling didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Goldstein L et al. AES 2019. Abstract 1.339.

BALTIMORE – In the absence of MRI evidence of mesial temporal sclerosis (MTS), sparing the hippocampus during anterior temporal lobectomy for refractory epilepsy reduces memory loss without affecting the procedure’s efficacy, according to a review from researchers at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia.

Often, the hippocampus and other mesial structures are removed even if they appear normal. The concern is that even normal looking tissue could harbor epileptogenic elements and leaving them in tact could reduce postoperative seizure control, explained senior investigator and neurologist Michael Sperling, MD, director of the Jefferson Comprehensive Epilepsy Center.

He and his colleagues wanted to see if that was really true, so they compared outcomes in 21 patients who had mesial-sparing lobectomies with 19 patients who had the standard approach. Cases and controls were matched for age, preoperative seizure frequency, side of surgery, and other factors. None of the patients had MTS.

There was no significant difference in postoperative seizure recurrence between the two groups (P = .974). The standard procedure had a slight edge early on, but at 2.5 years, just over 60% of patients in both groups were seizure free. At 5 years, about 50% were seizure free, and almost 40% in both arms at 7.5 years.

About two-thirds of patients in each arm had pre- and postoperative verbal memory testing, with similar duration from surgery to postop evaluation. There was no change among the hippocampus-sparing patients, but a roughly one standard deviation drop in delayed recall and logical memory on the California Verbal Learning Test in the standard group.

Even so, it wasn’t enough to affect employment, which the investigators used as a surrogate for disability; postoperative employment was comparable in both groups. People mostly retained their jobs, and there was no difference in job loss. A few people in each arm actually found jobs after surgery.

The investigators concluded that “it is reasonable to recommend mesial temporal sparing procedure in patients with dominant neocortical temporal lobe epilepsy when the hippocampus appears normal in the MRI. However, as resecting the mesial temporal structures was not associated with a greater chance of becoming unemployed following the surgery, there appears to be no major contraindication to performing an [anterior temporal lobectomy] if clinically warranted.”

The results are reassuring. “My bias walking in was that” seizure recurrence would be worse after hippocampal-sparing surgery. “I was pleased to see that it was about the same. If you want to try to preserve verbal memory and the MRI is normal, you can get away with sparing the mesial temporal structures, and still get a good seizure outcome,” Dr. Sperling said at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society, where the study was presented.

“But if you have to take the hippocampus for whatever reason, the functional consequence of a decline in verbal memory is not severe enough as to be disabling,” which is “one of the big concerns” with temporal lobectomy, he said.

The findings “will make us more likely to recommend mesial-sparing surgery, but at the same time” perhaps not be quite as worried about disability with the standard approach.

Temporal lobe epilepsy with normal mesial structures isn’t very common, which explains the small numbers in the series. It’s possible subtle difference in seizure control and employment outcomes would have been found with a larger series, “but obviously there were no major differences. I think the fundamental questions have been answered to my satisfaction,” Dr. Sperling said.

Overall, “it’s better to operate and try to cure people than to worry that you will make their memory worse when the consequences of having uncontrolled epilepsy is a higher death rate,” he said.

There were about equal numbers of men and women in the review; patients were in their early 30s, on average; and most had left-sided surgery. Just over half in each arm had preoperative tonic-clonic seizures. The mean duration of epilepsy was 14.9 years in the mesial-sparing group, and 8.6 years in the standard arm.

There was no funding for the review, and Dr. Sperling didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Goldstein L et al. AES 2019. Abstract 1.339.

During an opioid-addiction epidemic, can any new opioid pain drug meet prevailing safety demands to gain regulatory approval?

On Jan. 14 and 15, a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee voted virtually unanimously against two new opioid formulations and evenly split for and against a third; the 2 days of data and discussion showed how high a bar new opioids face these days for getting onto the U.S. market.

The bar’s height is very understandable given how many Americans have become addicted to opioids over the past decade, more often than not by accident while using pain medications as they believed they had been directed, said experts during the sessions held on the FDA’s campus in White Oak, Md.

Among the many upshots of the opioid crisis, the meetings held to discuss these three contender opioids highlighted the bitter irony confronting attempts to bring new, safer opioids to the U.S. market: While less abusable pain-relief medications that still harness the potent analgesic power of mu opioid receptor agonists are desperately desired, new agents in this space now receive withering scrutiny over their safeguards against misuse and abuse, and over whether they add anything meaningfully new to what’s already available. While these demands seem reasonable, perhaps even essential, it’s unclear whether any new opioid-based pain drugs will ever fully meet the safety that researchers, clinicians, and the public now seek.

A special FDA advisory committee that combined the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee with members of the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee considered the application for three different opioid drugs from three separate companies. None received a clear endorsement. Oxycodegol, a new type of orally delivered opioid molecule engineered to slow brain entry and thereby delay an abuser’s high, got voted down without any votes in favor and 27 votes against agency approval. Aximris XR, an extended-release oxycodone formulation that successfully deterred intravenous abuse but had no deterrence efficacy for intranasal or oral abuse failed by a 2-24 vote against. The third agent, CTC, a novel formulation of the schedule IV opioid tramadol with the NSAID celecoxib designed to be analgesic but with limited opioid-abuse appeal, came the closest to meaningful support with a tied 13-13 vote from advisory committee members for and against agency approval. FDA staff takes advisory committee opinions and votes into account when making their final decisions about drug marketing approvals.

In each case, the committee members, mostly the same roster assembled for each of the three agents, identified specific concerns with the data purported to show each drug’s safety and efficacy. But the gathered experts and consumer representatives also consistently cited holistic challenges to approving new opioids and the stiffer criteria these agents face amid a continuing wave of opioid misuse and abuse.

“In the context of the public health issues, we don’t want to be perceived in any way of taking shortcuts,” said Linda S. Tyler, PharmD,, an advisory committee member and professor of pharmacy and chief pharmacy officer at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. “There is no question that for a new product to come to market in this space it needs to add to what’s on the market, meet a high bar, and provide advantages compared with what’s already on the market,” she said.

Tramadol plus celecoxib gains some support

The proposed combined formulation of tramadol and celecoxib came closest to meeting that bar, as far as the advisory committee was concerned, coming away with 13 votes favoring approval to match 13 votes against. The premise behind this agent, know as CTC (cocrystal of tramadol and celecoxib), was that it combined a modest dose (44 mg) of the schedule IV opioid tramadol with a 56-mg dose of celecoxib in a twice-daily pill. Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology and director of acute pain management at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia and a speaker at the session on behalf of the applicant company, spelled out the rationale behind CTC: “We are caught in a dilemma. We need to reduce opioid use, but we also need to treat pain. We have an urgent need to have pain treatment options that are effective but have low potential for abuse and dependence. We are looking at multimodal analgesia, that uses combination of agents, recognizing that postoperative pain is a mixed pain syndrome. Multimodal pain treatments are now considered standard care. We want to minimize opioids to the lowest dose possible to produce safe analgesia. Tramadol is the least-preferred opioid for abuse,” and is rated as schedule IV, the U.S. designation for drugs considered to have a low level of potential for causing abuse or dependence. “Opioids used as stand-alone agents have contributed to the current opioid crisis,” Dr. Viscusi told the committee.

In contrast to tramadol’s schedule IV status, the mainstays of recent opioid pain therapy have been hydrocodone and oxycodone, schedule II opioids rated as having a “high potential for abuse.”

Several advisory committee members agreed that CTC minimized patient exposure to an opioid. “This drug isn’t even tramadol; it’s tramadol light. It has about as low a dose [of an opioid] as you can have and still have a drug,” said member Lee A. Hoffer, PhD, a medical anthropologist at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, who studies substance use disorders. “All opioids are dangerous, even at a low dose, but there is a linear relationship based on potency, so if we want to have an opioid for acute pain, I’d like it to have the lowest morphine milligram equivalent possible. The ideal is no opioids, but that is not what happens,” he said. The CTC formulation delivers 17.6 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per pill, the manufacturer’s representatives said. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines a “relatively low” daily opioid dose as 20-50 MME.

Some committee members hailed the CTC formulation as a meaningful step toward cutting opioid consumption.

“We may be very nervous about abuse of scheduled opioids, but a schedule IV opioid in an opioid-sparing formulation is as good as it gets in 2020,” said committee member Kevin L. Zacharoff, MD, a pain medicine specialist at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. “Any opioid has potential for abuse, but this is a safer alternative to the schedule II drugs. There is less public health risk with this,” said committee member Sherif Zaafran, MD, a Houston anesthesiologist. “This represents an incremental but important approach to addressing the opioid crisis, especially if used to replace schedule II opioids,” said Brandon D.L. Marshall, PhD, an epidemiologist and substance abuse researcher at Brown University in Providence, R.I.

But despite agreement that CTC represented a new low in the MME of an opioid given to patients, several committee members still saw the formulation as problematic by introducing any opioid, no matter how small the dose.

“The landscape of tramadol use and prescribing is evolving. There’s been an exponential upturn in tramadol prescribing. It’s perceived [as] safer, but it’s not completely safe. Will this change tramadol abuse and open the door to abuse of other opioids? This is what got us into trouble with opioids in the first place. Patients start with a prescription opioid that they perceive is safe. Patients don’t start with oxycodone or heroin. They start with drugs that are believed to be safe. I feel this combination has less risk for abuse, but I’m worried that it would produce a false sense of security for tolerability and safety,” said committee member Maryann E. Amirshahi, MD, a medical toxicologist at Georgetown University and MedStar Health in Washington.

Several other committee members returned to this point throughout the 2 days of discussions: The majority of Americans who have become hooked on opioids reached that point by taking an opioid pain medication for a legitimate medical reason and using the drug the way they had understood they should.

“I’m most concerned about unintentional misuse leading to addiction and abuse. Most people with an opioid addiction got it inadvertently, misusing it by mistake,” said committee member Suzanne B. Robotti, a consumer representative and executive director of DES Action USA. “I’m concerned about approving an opioid, even an opioid with a low abuse history, without a clearer picture of the human abuse potential data and what would happen if this drug were abused,” she added, referring to the proposed CTC formulation.

“All the patients I work with started [their opioid addiction] as pain patients,” Dr. Hoffer said.

“The most common use and abuse of opioids is orally. We need to avoid having patients who use the drug as prescribed and still end up addicted,” said committee member Friedhelm Sandbrink, MD, a neurologist and director of pain management at the Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center in Washington.

What this means, said several panelists, is functionally clamping down a class-wide lid on new opioids. “The way to reduce deaths from abuse is to reduce addiction, and to have an impact you need to reduce opioid exposure.” said committee member Sonia Hernandez-Diaz, MD, professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.

“In this opioid crisis, we ask for data that we wouldn’t ordinarily ask for. I feel there are unanswered questions about the abuse potential [of CTC]. We have seen a recent reduction in oxycodone use, which is great, but also an increase in tramadol use. We should not be fooled. Tramadol is an opioid, even if it’s schedule IV,” Dr. Tyler said.

Two other opioids faced greater opposition

The other two agents that the committee considered received much less support and sharper skepticism. The application for Aximris XR, an extended release form of oxycodone with a purported abuse-deterrent formulation (ADF) that relies on being difficult to extract for intravenous use as well as possibly having effective deterrence mechanisms for other forms of abuse. But FDA staffers reported that the only effective deterrence they could document was against manipulation for intravenous use, making Aximris XR the first opioid seeking ADF labeling based on deterrence to a single delivery route. This led several committee members, as well as the FDA, to comment on the clinical meaningfulness of ADF for one route. So far, the FDA approved ADF labeling for seven opioids, most notably OxyContin, an extended-release oxycodone with the biggest share of the U.S. market for opioids with ADF labeling.

“For ADF, we label based on what we expect from the premarket data. We don’t really know how that translates into what happens once the drug is on the market. Every company with an ADF in their label is required to do postmarketing studies on the abuse routes that are supposed to be deterred. We see shifts to other routes. Assessment of ADF is incredibly challenging, both scientifically and logistically, because there has not been a lot of uptake of these products, for a variety of reasons,” said Judy Staffa, PhD, associate director for Public Health Initiatives in the Office of Surveillance & Epidemiology in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. The company that markets OxyContin has been the first to submit to the FDA all of its required postmarketing data on ADF efficacy, and the agency is now reviewing this filing, Dr. Staffa said.

The data presented for Aximris XR appeared to generally fail to convince committee members that it provided a meaningful addition to the range of opioids with ADF designations already available, which meant that their decision mostly came down to whether they felt it made sense to bring a me-too opioid to the U.S. market. Their answer was mostly no.

“In the end, it’s another opioid, and I’m not sure we need another opioid,” said committee member Lonnie K. Zeltzer, MD, professor of pediatrics, anesthesiology, psychiatry, and biobehavioral sciences and director of pediatric pain at the University of California, Los Angeles “There are so many options for patients and for people who abuse these drug. I don’t see this formulation as having a profound impact, but I’m very concerned about adding more prescription opioids,” said Martin Garcia-Bunuel, MD, deputy chief of staff for the VA Maryland Health Care System in Baltimore. Another concern of some committee members was that ADF remains a designation with an uncertain meaning, pending the FDA’s analysis of the OxyContin data.

“At the end of the day, we don’t know whether any of the [ADF] stuff makes a difference,” noted Steve B. Meisel, PharmD, system director of medication safety for M Health Fairview in Minneapolis and a committee member,

The third agent, oxycodegol, a molecule designed to pass more slowly across the blood-brain barrier because of an attached polyethylene glycol chain that’s supposed to prevent a rapid high after ingestion and hence cut abuse potential. It received unanimous committee rejection, primarily because its safety and efficacy evidence had so many holes, but the shadow of opioid abuse permeated the committee’s discussion.

“One dogma in the abuse world is that slowing entry into the brain reduces abuse potential, but the opioid crisis showed that this is not the only factor. Some people have become addicted to slow-acting drugs. The abuse potential of this drug, oxycodegol, needs to be considered given where we’ve been with the opioid crisis,” said Jane B. Acri, PhD, chief of the Medications Discovery and Toxicology Branch of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

“During the opioid epidemic, do we want to approve more opioids? If the [pain] efficacy is about the same as oxycodone, is better safety or abuse potential a reason to approve it? We need guidance [from the FDA] about what is ‘better enough.’ No opioid will ever be perfect; there will always be abuse and misuse. But what is good enough to justify bringing another opioid onto the market? What is a good enough improvement? I don’t have an answer,” Dr. Hernandez-Diaz said.

Adviser comments showed that the continued threat of widespread opioid addiction has cooled prospects for new opioid approvals by making FDA advisers skittish over how to properly score the incremental value of a new opioid.

“Do we need to go back to the drawing board on how we make decisions on exposing the American public to these kinds of agents?” Dr. Garcia-Bunuel asked. “I don’t think we have the tools to make these decisions.”

[email protected]

During an opioid-addiction epidemic, can any new opioid pain drug meet prevailing safety demands to gain regulatory approval?

On Jan. 14 and 15, a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee voted virtually unanimously against two new opioid formulations and evenly split for and against a third; the 2 days of data and discussion showed how high a bar new opioids face these days for getting onto the U.S. market.

The bar’s height is very understandable given how many Americans have become addicted to opioids over the past decade, more often than not by accident while using pain medications as they believed they had been directed, said experts during the sessions held on the FDA’s campus in White Oak, Md.

Among the many upshots of the opioid crisis, the meetings held to discuss these three contender opioids highlighted the bitter irony confronting attempts to bring new, safer opioids to the U.S. market: While less abusable pain-relief medications that still harness the potent analgesic power of mu opioid receptor agonists are desperately desired, new agents in this space now receive withering scrutiny over their safeguards against misuse and abuse, and over whether they add anything meaningfully new to what’s already available. While these demands seem reasonable, perhaps even essential, it’s unclear whether any new opioid-based pain drugs will ever fully meet the safety that researchers, clinicians, and the public now seek.

A special FDA advisory committee that combined the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee with members of the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee considered the application for three different opioid drugs from three separate companies. None received a clear endorsement. Oxycodegol, a new type of orally delivered opioid molecule engineered to slow brain entry and thereby delay an abuser’s high, got voted down without any votes in favor and 27 votes against agency approval. Aximris XR, an extended-release oxycodone formulation that successfully deterred intravenous abuse but had no deterrence efficacy for intranasal or oral abuse failed by a 2-24 vote against. The third agent, CTC, a novel formulation of the schedule IV opioid tramadol with the NSAID celecoxib designed to be analgesic but with limited opioid-abuse appeal, came the closest to meaningful support with a tied 13-13 vote from advisory committee members for and against agency approval. FDA staff takes advisory committee opinions and votes into account when making their final decisions about drug marketing approvals.

In each case, the committee members, mostly the same roster assembled for each of the three agents, identified specific concerns with the data purported to show each drug’s safety and efficacy. But the gathered experts and consumer representatives also consistently cited holistic challenges to approving new opioids and the stiffer criteria these agents face amid a continuing wave of opioid misuse and abuse.

“In the context of the public health issues, we don’t want to be perceived in any way of taking shortcuts,” said Linda S. Tyler, PharmD,, an advisory committee member and professor of pharmacy and chief pharmacy officer at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. “There is no question that for a new product to come to market in this space it needs to add to what’s on the market, meet a high bar, and provide advantages compared with what’s already on the market,” she said.

Tramadol plus celecoxib gains some support

The proposed combined formulation of tramadol and celecoxib came closest to meeting that bar, as far as the advisory committee was concerned, coming away with 13 votes favoring approval to match 13 votes against. The premise behind this agent, know as CTC (cocrystal of tramadol and celecoxib), was that it combined a modest dose (44 mg) of the schedule IV opioid tramadol with a 56-mg dose of celecoxib in a twice-daily pill. Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology and director of acute pain management at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia and a speaker at the session on behalf of the applicant company, spelled out the rationale behind CTC: “We are caught in a dilemma. We need to reduce opioid use, but we also need to treat pain. We have an urgent need to have pain treatment options that are effective but have low potential for abuse and dependence. We are looking at multimodal analgesia, that uses combination of agents, recognizing that postoperative pain is a mixed pain syndrome. Multimodal pain treatments are now considered standard care. We want to minimize opioids to the lowest dose possible to produce safe analgesia. Tramadol is the least-preferred opioid for abuse,” and is rated as schedule IV, the U.S. designation for drugs considered to have a low level of potential for causing abuse or dependence. “Opioids used as stand-alone agents have contributed to the current opioid crisis,” Dr. Viscusi told the committee.

In contrast to tramadol’s schedule IV status, the mainstays of recent opioid pain therapy have been hydrocodone and oxycodone, schedule II opioids rated as having a “high potential for abuse.”

Several advisory committee members agreed that CTC minimized patient exposure to an opioid. “This drug isn’t even tramadol; it’s tramadol light. It has about as low a dose [of an opioid] as you can have and still have a drug,” said member Lee A. Hoffer, PhD, a medical anthropologist at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, who studies substance use disorders. “All opioids are dangerous, even at a low dose, but there is a linear relationship based on potency, so if we want to have an opioid for acute pain, I’d like it to have the lowest morphine milligram equivalent possible. The ideal is no opioids, but that is not what happens,” he said. The CTC formulation delivers 17.6 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per pill, the manufacturer’s representatives said. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines a “relatively low” daily opioid dose as 20-50 MME.

Some committee members hailed the CTC formulation as a meaningful step toward cutting opioid consumption.

“We may be very nervous about abuse of scheduled opioids, but a schedule IV opioid in an opioid-sparing formulation is as good as it gets in 2020,” said committee member Kevin L. Zacharoff, MD, a pain medicine specialist at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. “Any opioid has potential for abuse, but this is a safer alternative to the schedule II drugs. There is less public health risk with this,” said committee member Sherif Zaafran, MD, a Houston anesthesiologist. “This represents an incremental but important approach to addressing the opioid crisis, especially if used to replace schedule II opioids,” said Brandon D.L. Marshall, PhD, an epidemiologist and substance abuse researcher at Brown University in Providence, R.I.

But despite agreement that CTC represented a new low in the MME of an opioid given to patients, several committee members still saw the formulation as problematic by introducing any opioid, no matter how small the dose.

“The landscape of tramadol use and prescribing is evolving. There’s been an exponential upturn in tramadol prescribing. It’s perceived [as] safer, but it’s not completely safe. Will this change tramadol abuse and open the door to abuse of other opioids? This is what got us into trouble with opioids in the first place. Patients start with a prescription opioid that they perceive is safe. Patients don’t start with oxycodone or heroin. They start with drugs that are believed to be safe. I feel this combination has less risk for abuse, but I’m worried that it would produce a false sense of security for tolerability and safety,” said committee member Maryann E. Amirshahi, MD, a medical toxicologist at Georgetown University and MedStar Health in Washington.

Several other committee members returned to this point throughout the 2 days of discussions: The majority of Americans who have become hooked on opioids reached that point by taking an opioid pain medication for a legitimate medical reason and using the drug the way they had understood they should.

“I’m most concerned about unintentional misuse leading to addiction and abuse. Most people with an opioid addiction got it inadvertently, misusing it by mistake,” said committee member Suzanne B. Robotti, a consumer representative and executive director of DES Action USA. “I’m concerned about approving an opioid, even an opioid with a low abuse history, without a clearer picture of the human abuse potential data and what would happen if this drug were abused,” she added, referring to the proposed CTC formulation.

“All the patients I work with started [their opioid addiction] as pain patients,” Dr. Hoffer said.

“The most common use and abuse of opioids is orally. We need to avoid having patients who use the drug as prescribed and still end up addicted,” said committee member Friedhelm Sandbrink, MD, a neurologist and director of pain management at the Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center in Washington.

What this means, said several panelists, is functionally clamping down a class-wide lid on new opioids. “The way to reduce deaths from abuse is to reduce addiction, and to have an impact you need to reduce opioid exposure.” said committee member Sonia Hernandez-Diaz, MD, professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.

“In this opioid crisis, we ask for data that we wouldn’t ordinarily ask for. I feel there are unanswered questions about the abuse potential [of CTC]. We have seen a recent reduction in oxycodone use, which is great, but also an increase in tramadol use. We should not be fooled. Tramadol is an opioid, even if it’s schedule IV,” Dr. Tyler said.

Two other opioids faced greater opposition

The other two agents that the committee considered received much less support and sharper skepticism. The application for Aximris XR, an extended release form of oxycodone with a purported abuse-deterrent formulation (ADF) that relies on being difficult to extract for intravenous use as well as possibly having effective deterrence mechanisms for other forms of abuse. But FDA staffers reported that the only effective deterrence they could document was against manipulation for intravenous use, making Aximris XR the first opioid seeking ADF labeling based on deterrence to a single delivery route. This led several committee members, as well as the FDA, to comment on the clinical meaningfulness of ADF for one route. So far, the FDA approved ADF labeling for seven opioids, most notably OxyContin, an extended-release oxycodone with the biggest share of the U.S. market for opioids with ADF labeling.

“For ADF, we label based on what we expect from the premarket data. We don’t really know how that translates into what happens once the drug is on the market. Every company with an ADF in their label is required to do postmarketing studies on the abuse routes that are supposed to be deterred. We see shifts to other routes. Assessment of ADF is incredibly challenging, both scientifically and logistically, because there has not been a lot of uptake of these products, for a variety of reasons,” said Judy Staffa, PhD, associate director for Public Health Initiatives in the Office of Surveillance & Epidemiology in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. The company that markets OxyContin has been the first to submit to the FDA all of its required postmarketing data on ADF efficacy, and the agency is now reviewing this filing, Dr. Staffa said.

The data presented for Aximris XR appeared to generally fail to convince committee members that it provided a meaningful addition to the range of opioids with ADF designations already available, which meant that their decision mostly came down to whether they felt it made sense to bring a me-too opioid to the U.S. market. Their answer was mostly no.

“In the end, it’s another opioid, and I’m not sure we need another opioid,” said committee member Lonnie K. Zeltzer, MD, professor of pediatrics, anesthesiology, psychiatry, and biobehavioral sciences and director of pediatric pain at the University of California, Los Angeles “There are so many options for patients and for people who abuse these drug. I don’t see this formulation as having a profound impact, but I’m very concerned about adding more prescription opioids,” said Martin Garcia-Bunuel, MD, deputy chief of staff for the VA Maryland Health Care System in Baltimore. Another concern of some committee members was that ADF remains a designation with an uncertain meaning, pending the FDA’s analysis of the OxyContin data.

“At the end of the day, we don’t know whether any of the [ADF] stuff makes a difference,” noted Steve B. Meisel, PharmD, system director of medication safety for M Health Fairview in Minneapolis and a committee member,

The third agent, oxycodegol, a molecule designed to pass more slowly across the blood-brain barrier because of an attached polyethylene glycol chain that’s supposed to prevent a rapid high after ingestion and hence cut abuse potential. It received unanimous committee rejection, primarily because its safety and efficacy evidence had so many holes, but the shadow of opioid abuse permeated the committee’s discussion.

“One dogma in the abuse world is that slowing entry into the brain reduces abuse potential, but the opioid crisis showed that this is not the only factor. Some people have become addicted to slow-acting drugs. The abuse potential of this drug, oxycodegol, needs to be considered given where we’ve been with the opioid crisis,” said Jane B. Acri, PhD, chief of the Medications Discovery and Toxicology Branch of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

“During the opioid epidemic, do we want to approve more opioids? If the [pain] efficacy is about the same as oxycodone, is better safety or abuse potential a reason to approve it? We need guidance [from the FDA] about what is ‘better enough.’ No opioid will ever be perfect; there will always be abuse and misuse. But what is good enough to justify bringing another opioid onto the market? What is a good enough improvement? I don’t have an answer,” Dr. Hernandez-Diaz said.

Adviser comments showed that the continued threat of widespread opioid addiction has cooled prospects for new opioid approvals by making FDA advisers skittish over how to properly score the incremental value of a new opioid.

“Do we need to go back to the drawing board on how we make decisions on exposing the American public to these kinds of agents?” Dr. Garcia-Bunuel asked. “I don’t think we have the tools to make these decisions.”

[email protected]

During an opioid-addiction epidemic, can any new opioid pain drug meet prevailing safety demands to gain regulatory approval?

On Jan. 14 and 15, a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee voted virtually unanimously against two new opioid formulations and evenly split for and against a third; the 2 days of data and discussion showed how high a bar new opioids face these days for getting onto the U.S. market.

The bar’s height is very understandable given how many Americans have become addicted to opioids over the past decade, more often than not by accident while using pain medications as they believed they had been directed, said experts during the sessions held on the FDA’s campus in White Oak, Md.

Among the many upshots of the opioid crisis, the meetings held to discuss these three contender opioids highlighted the bitter irony confronting attempts to bring new, safer opioids to the U.S. market: While less abusable pain-relief medications that still harness the potent analgesic power of mu opioid receptor agonists are desperately desired, new agents in this space now receive withering scrutiny over their safeguards against misuse and abuse, and over whether they add anything meaningfully new to what’s already available. While these demands seem reasonable, perhaps even essential, it’s unclear whether any new opioid-based pain drugs will ever fully meet the safety that researchers, clinicians, and the public now seek.

A special FDA advisory committee that combined the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee with members of the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee considered the application for three different opioid drugs from three separate companies. None received a clear endorsement. Oxycodegol, a new type of orally delivered opioid molecule engineered to slow brain entry and thereby delay an abuser’s high, got voted down without any votes in favor and 27 votes against agency approval. Aximris XR, an extended-release oxycodone formulation that successfully deterred intravenous abuse but had no deterrence efficacy for intranasal or oral abuse failed by a 2-24 vote against. The third agent, CTC, a novel formulation of the schedule IV opioid tramadol with the NSAID celecoxib designed to be analgesic but with limited opioid-abuse appeal, came the closest to meaningful support with a tied 13-13 vote from advisory committee members for and against agency approval. FDA staff takes advisory committee opinions and votes into account when making their final decisions about drug marketing approvals.

In each case, the committee members, mostly the same roster assembled for each of the three agents, identified specific concerns with the data purported to show each drug’s safety and efficacy. But the gathered experts and consumer representatives also consistently cited holistic challenges to approving new opioids and the stiffer criteria these agents face amid a continuing wave of opioid misuse and abuse.

“In the context of the public health issues, we don’t want to be perceived in any way of taking shortcuts,” said Linda S. Tyler, PharmD,, an advisory committee member and professor of pharmacy and chief pharmacy officer at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. “There is no question that for a new product to come to market in this space it needs to add to what’s on the market, meet a high bar, and provide advantages compared with what’s already on the market,” she said.

Tramadol plus celecoxib gains some support

The proposed combined formulation of tramadol and celecoxib came closest to meeting that bar, as far as the advisory committee was concerned, coming away with 13 votes favoring approval to match 13 votes against. The premise behind this agent, know as CTC (cocrystal of tramadol and celecoxib), was that it combined a modest dose (44 mg) of the schedule IV opioid tramadol with a 56-mg dose of celecoxib in a twice-daily pill. Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology and director of acute pain management at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia and a speaker at the session on behalf of the applicant company, spelled out the rationale behind CTC: “We are caught in a dilemma. We need to reduce opioid use, but we also need to treat pain. We have an urgent need to have pain treatment options that are effective but have low potential for abuse and dependence. We are looking at multimodal analgesia, that uses combination of agents, recognizing that postoperative pain is a mixed pain syndrome. Multimodal pain treatments are now considered standard care. We want to minimize opioids to the lowest dose possible to produce safe analgesia. Tramadol is the least-preferred opioid for abuse,” and is rated as schedule IV, the U.S. designation for drugs considered to have a low level of potential for causing abuse or dependence. “Opioids used as stand-alone agents have contributed to the current opioid crisis,” Dr. Viscusi told the committee.

In contrast to tramadol’s schedule IV status, the mainstays of recent opioid pain therapy have been hydrocodone and oxycodone, schedule II opioids rated as having a “high potential for abuse.”

Several advisory committee members agreed that CTC minimized patient exposure to an opioid. “This drug isn’t even tramadol; it’s tramadol light. It has about as low a dose [of an opioid] as you can have and still have a drug,” said member Lee A. Hoffer, PhD, a medical anthropologist at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, who studies substance use disorders. “All opioids are dangerous, even at a low dose, but there is a linear relationship based on potency, so if we want to have an opioid for acute pain, I’d like it to have the lowest morphine milligram equivalent possible. The ideal is no opioids, but that is not what happens,” he said. The CTC formulation delivers 17.6 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per pill, the manufacturer’s representatives said. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines a “relatively low” daily opioid dose as 20-50 MME.

Some committee members hailed the CTC formulation as a meaningful step toward cutting opioid consumption.

“We may be very nervous about abuse of scheduled opioids, but a schedule IV opioid in an opioid-sparing formulation is as good as it gets in 2020,” said committee member Kevin L. Zacharoff, MD, a pain medicine specialist at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. “Any opioid has potential for abuse, but this is a safer alternative to the schedule II drugs. There is less public health risk with this,” said committee member Sherif Zaafran, MD, a Houston anesthesiologist. “This represents an incremental but important approach to addressing the opioid crisis, especially if used to replace schedule II opioids,” said Brandon D.L. Marshall, PhD, an epidemiologist and substance abuse researcher at Brown University in Providence, R.I.

But despite agreement that CTC represented a new low in the MME of an opioid given to patients, several committee members still saw the formulation as problematic by introducing any opioid, no matter how small the dose.

“The landscape of tramadol use and prescribing is evolving. There’s been an exponential upturn in tramadol prescribing. It’s perceived [as] safer, but it’s not completely safe. Will this change tramadol abuse and open the door to abuse of other opioids? This is what got us into trouble with opioids in the first place. Patients start with a prescription opioid that they perceive is safe. Patients don’t start with oxycodone or heroin. They start with drugs that are believed to be safe. I feel this combination has less risk for abuse, but I’m worried that it would produce a false sense of security for tolerability and safety,” said committee member Maryann E. Amirshahi, MD, a medical toxicologist at Georgetown University and MedStar Health in Washington.

Several other committee members returned to this point throughout the 2 days of discussions: The majority of Americans who have become hooked on opioids reached that point by taking an opioid pain medication for a legitimate medical reason and using the drug the way they had understood they should.

“I’m most concerned about unintentional misuse leading to addiction and abuse. Most people with an opioid addiction got it inadvertently, misusing it by mistake,” said committee member Suzanne B. Robotti, a consumer representative and executive director of DES Action USA. “I’m concerned about approving an opioid, even an opioid with a low abuse history, without a clearer picture of the human abuse potential data and what would happen if this drug were abused,” she added, referring to the proposed CTC formulation.

“All the patients I work with started [their opioid addiction] as pain patients,” Dr. Hoffer said.

“The most common use and abuse of opioids is orally. We need to avoid having patients who use the drug as prescribed and still end up addicted,” said committee member Friedhelm Sandbrink, MD, a neurologist and director of pain management at the Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center in Washington.

What this means, said several panelists, is functionally clamping down a class-wide lid on new opioids. “The way to reduce deaths from abuse is to reduce addiction, and to have an impact you need to reduce opioid exposure.” said committee member Sonia Hernandez-Diaz, MD, professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.

“In this opioid crisis, we ask for data that we wouldn’t ordinarily ask for. I feel there are unanswered questions about the abuse potential [of CTC]. We have seen a recent reduction in oxycodone use, which is great, but also an increase in tramadol use. We should not be fooled. Tramadol is an opioid, even if it’s schedule IV,” Dr. Tyler said.

Two other opioids faced greater opposition

The other two agents that the committee considered received much less support and sharper skepticism. The application for Aximris XR, an extended release form of oxycodone with a purported abuse-deterrent formulation (ADF) that relies on being difficult to extract for intravenous use as well as possibly having effective deterrence mechanisms for other forms of abuse. But FDA staffers reported that the only effective deterrence they could document was against manipulation for intravenous use, making Aximris XR the first opioid seeking ADF labeling based on deterrence to a single delivery route. This led several committee members, as well as the FDA, to comment on the clinical meaningfulness of ADF for one route. So far, the FDA approved ADF labeling for seven opioids, most notably OxyContin, an extended-release oxycodone with the biggest share of the U.S. market for opioids with ADF labeling.

“For ADF, we label based on what we expect from the premarket data. We don’t really know how that translates into what happens once the drug is on the market. Every company with an ADF in their label is required to do postmarketing studies on the abuse routes that are supposed to be deterred. We see shifts to other routes. Assessment of ADF is incredibly challenging, both scientifically and logistically, because there has not been a lot of uptake of these products, for a variety of reasons,” said Judy Staffa, PhD, associate director for Public Health Initiatives in the Office of Surveillance & Epidemiology in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. The company that markets OxyContin has been the first to submit to the FDA all of its required postmarketing data on ADF efficacy, and the agency is now reviewing this filing, Dr. Staffa said.

The data presented for Aximris XR appeared to generally fail to convince committee members that it provided a meaningful addition to the range of opioids with ADF designations already available, which meant that their decision mostly came down to whether they felt it made sense to bring a me-too opioid to the U.S. market. Their answer was mostly no.

“In the end, it’s another opioid, and I’m not sure we need another opioid,” said committee member Lonnie K. Zeltzer, MD, professor of pediatrics, anesthesiology, psychiatry, and biobehavioral sciences and director of pediatric pain at the University of California, Los Angeles “There are so many options for patients and for people who abuse these drug. I don’t see this formulation as having a profound impact, but I’m very concerned about adding more prescription opioids,” said Martin Garcia-Bunuel, MD, deputy chief of staff for the VA Maryland Health Care System in Baltimore. Another concern of some committee members was that ADF remains a designation with an uncertain meaning, pending the FDA’s analysis of the OxyContin data.

“At the end of the day, we don’t know whether any of the [ADF] stuff makes a difference,” noted Steve B. Meisel, PharmD, system director of medication safety for M Health Fairview in Minneapolis and a committee member,

The third agent, oxycodegol, a molecule designed to pass more slowly across the blood-brain barrier because of an attached polyethylene glycol chain that’s supposed to prevent a rapid high after ingestion and hence cut abuse potential. It received unanimous committee rejection, primarily because its safety and efficacy evidence had so many holes, but the shadow of opioid abuse permeated the committee’s discussion.

“One dogma in the abuse world is that slowing entry into the brain reduces abuse potential, but the opioid crisis showed that this is not the only factor. Some people have become addicted to slow-acting drugs. The abuse potential of this drug, oxycodegol, needs to be considered given where we’ve been with the opioid crisis,” said Jane B. Acri, PhD, chief of the Medications Discovery and Toxicology Branch of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

“During the opioid epidemic, do we want to approve more opioids? If the [pain] efficacy is about the same as oxycodone, is better safety or abuse potential a reason to approve it? We need guidance [from the FDA] about what is ‘better enough.’ No opioid will ever be perfect; there will always be abuse and misuse. But what is good enough to justify bringing another opioid onto the market? What is a good enough improvement? I don’t have an answer,” Dr. Hernandez-Diaz said.

Adviser comments showed that the continued threat of widespread opioid addiction has cooled prospects for new opioid approvals by making FDA advisers skittish over how to properly score the incremental value of a new opioid.

“Do we need to go back to the drawing board on how we make decisions on exposing the American public to these kinds of agents?” Dr. Garcia-Bunuel asked. “I don’t think we have the tools to make these decisions.”

[email protected]

Prescription pricing is a primary reason why Medicaid spending on multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has more than doubled between 2011 and 2017 and the introduction of a generic glatiramer acetate is having nominal effect on pricing and utilization within the class, new research is showing.

Kenishirotie/Thinkstock

“Gross spending on self-administered and infusible MS DMTs in the Medicaid program increased 2.9-fold from $453 million in 2011 to $1.32 billion in 2017,” Daniel Hartung, PharmD, of Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, and his colleagues wrote in a research report published Jan. 15 in Neurology. Net spending after accounting for rebates during this period showed a doubling of spending from $278 million per year to $600 million per year.

Use of MS DMTs during this period overall remained stable, but there was a shift from injectable DMTs to oral DMTs during this time window, the researchers found, with the plurality of utilization attributed to glatiramer acetate.

Sandoz began marketing a generic version of glatiramer acetate 20 mg in the second quarter of 2015, which led to an immediate increase in the cost per prescription of $441 for the branded version of glatiramer acetate 20 mg, although that cost has come down gradually by $52 per prescription over time. Other DMTs saw minimal price changes at that time, Dr. Hartung and his colleagues noted.

The researchers attributed the increased Medicaid spending to rising prices of DMTs.

“Although some of this increase is attributable to the 2014 Medicaid expansion, the primary driver was rising DMT costs per prescription, which doubled over the period,” the researchers wrote. “Thus, we assert that rising prices, not increasing use, are the primary driver of spending for DMTs in the Medicaid program.”

In addition, the introduction of the first generic DMT “appeared to have little effect on the overall trajectory of DMT costs,” they continued. “In fact, the cost of Teva’s 20-mg glatiramer acetate increased significantly following the release of Sandoz’s generic. ... The increase possibly signified efforts to both retain revenue and further push market share to the 40-mg version. Although the costs for generic glatiramer acetate declined over time, its introduction appears not to have fundamentally affected the overall trend in DMT costs.”

Indeed, the researchers’ examination of utilization trends found that Teva executed a successful preemptive strategy of converting 20-mg users of glatiramer acetate to 40-mg users, something that is not interchangeable with the generic product.

“Low generic penetration is also due to the fact that Sandoz’s product was only 15% less expensive than branded glatiramer acetate 20 mg and approximately the same cost as the 40-mg version at launch,” Dr. Hartung and his colleagues stated. “This difference may have been further diminished by rebates that Teva may have provided to maintain preferred status on state Medicaid formularies.”

These factors reflect an “urgent need for robust generic competition within the DMT class,” the authors wrote.

The study was supported by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Lead author Dr. Hartung reported receiving research support from AbbVie.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hartung D et al. Neurology. Jan 15. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008936.

Prescription pricing is a primary reason why Medicaid spending on multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has more than doubled between 2011 and 2017 and the introduction of a generic glatiramer acetate is having nominal effect on pricing and utilization within the class, new research is showing.

Kenishirotie/Thinkstock

“Gross spending on self-administered and infusible MS DMTs in the Medicaid program increased 2.9-fold from $453 million in 2011 to $1.32 billion in 2017,” Daniel Hartung, PharmD, of Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, and his colleagues wrote in a research report published Jan. 15 in Neurology. Net spending after accounting for rebates during this period showed a doubling of spending from $278 million per year to $600 million per year.

Use of MS DMTs during this period overall remained stable, but there was a shift from injectable DMTs to oral DMTs during this time window, the researchers found, with the plurality of utilization attributed to glatiramer acetate.

Sandoz began marketing a generic version of glatiramer acetate 20 mg in the second quarter of 2015, which led to an immediate increase in the cost per prescription of $441 for the branded version of glatiramer acetate 20 mg, although that cost has come down gradually by $52 per prescription over time. Other DMTs saw minimal price changes at that time, Dr. Hartung and his colleagues noted.

The researchers attributed the increased Medicaid spending to rising prices of DMTs.

“Although some of this increase is attributable to the 2014 Medicaid expansion, the primary driver was rising DMT costs per prescription, which doubled over the period,” the researchers wrote. “Thus, we assert that rising prices, not increasing use, are the primary driver of spending for DMTs in the Medicaid program.”

In addition, the introduction of the first generic DMT “appeared to have little effect on the overall trajectory of DMT costs,” they continued. “In fact, the cost of Teva’s 20-mg glatiramer acetate increased significantly following the release of Sandoz’s generic. ... The increase possibly signified efforts to both retain revenue and further push market share to the 40-mg version. Although the costs for generic glatiramer acetate declined over time, its introduction appears not to have fundamentally affected the overall trend in DMT costs.”

Indeed, the researchers’ examination of utilization trends found that Teva executed a successful preemptive strategy of converting 20-mg users of glatiramer acetate to 40-mg users, something that is not interchangeable with the generic product.

“Low generic penetration is also due to the fact that Sandoz’s product was only 15% less expensive than branded glatiramer acetate 20 mg and approximately the same cost as the 40-mg version at launch,” Dr. Hartung and his colleagues stated. “This difference may have been further diminished by rebates that Teva may have provided to maintain preferred status on state Medicaid formularies.”

These factors reflect an “urgent need for robust generic competition within the DMT class,” the authors wrote.

The study was supported by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Lead author Dr. Hartung reported receiving research support from AbbVie.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hartung D et al. Neurology. Jan 15. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008936.

Prescription pricing is a primary reason why Medicaid spending on multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has more than doubled between 2011 and 2017 and the introduction of a generic glatiramer acetate is having nominal effect on pricing and utilization within the class, new research is showing.

Kenishirotie/Thinkstock

“Gross spending on self-administered and infusible MS DMTs in the Medicaid program increased 2.9-fold from $453 million in 2011 to $1.32 billion in 2017,” Daniel Hartung, PharmD, of Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, and his colleagues wrote in a research report published Jan. 15 in Neurology. Net spending after accounting for rebates during this period showed a doubling of spending from $278 million per year to $600 million per year.

Use of MS DMTs during this period overall remained stable, but there was a shift from injectable DMTs to oral DMTs during this time window, the researchers found, with the plurality of utilization attributed to glatiramer acetate.

Sandoz began marketing a generic version of glatiramer acetate 20 mg in the second quarter of 2015, which led to an immediate increase in the cost per prescription of $441 for the branded version of glatiramer acetate 20 mg, although that cost has come down gradually by $52 per prescription over time. Other DMTs saw minimal price changes at that time, Dr. Hartung and his colleagues noted.

The researchers attributed the increased Medicaid spending to rising prices of DMTs.

“Although some of this increase is attributable to the 2014 Medicaid expansion, the primary driver was rising DMT costs per prescription, which doubled over the period,” the researchers wrote. “Thus, we assert that rising prices, not increasing use, are the primary driver of spending for DMTs in the Medicaid program.”

In addition, the introduction of the first generic DMT “appeared to have little effect on the overall trajectory of DMT costs,” they continued. “In fact, the cost of Teva’s 20-mg glatiramer acetate increased significantly following the release of Sandoz’s generic. ... The increase possibly signified efforts to both retain revenue and further push market share to the 40-mg version. Although the costs for generic glatiramer acetate declined over time, its introduction appears not to have fundamentally affected the overall trend in DMT costs.”

Indeed, the researchers’ examination of utilization trends found that Teva executed a successful preemptive strategy of converting 20-mg users of glatiramer acetate to 40-mg users, something that is not interchangeable with the generic product.

“Low generic penetration is also due to the fact that Sandoz’s product was only 15% less expensive than branded glatiramer acetate 20 mg and approximately the same cost as the 40-mg version at launch,” Dr. Hartung and his colleagues stated. “This difference may have been further diminished by rebates that Teva may have provided to maintain preferred status on state Medicaid formularies.”

These factors reflect an “urgent need for robust generic competition within the DMT class,” the authors wrote.

The study was supported by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Lead author Dr. Hartung reported receiving research support from AbbVie.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hartung D et al. Neurology. Jan 15. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008936.

A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee voted 27-0 on Jan. 14 against recommending agency approval of oxycodegol, a new type of opioid molecule designed to slow passage of the drug through the blood-brain barrier and hence cause less of a “high” and potentially blunt the drug’s abuse potential.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

But the panel, which includes members from both the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee, unanimously shared the opinion that the data submitted by the drug developer, Nektar, failed to clearly demonstrate the drug’s safety and efficacy.

“There was a lot of ambiguity [in the data] about safety and efficacy, and this is too important an issue to have so much ambiguity,” summed up Ronald S. Litman, DO, professor of anesthesiology and critical care at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and chair of the combined committee.

“The subliminal message” that would surround oxycodegol if it received FDA approval would be that it is a “safer” opioid, “and that would make it a blockbuster drug, and for that to happen you need data that [prove] the benefits outweigh risks, but we didn’t see those data. It was all speculation, and we can’t approve a potential blockbuster opioid in the middle of a public health opioid crisis based on speculation,” commented Steve B. Meisel, PharmD, system director of medication safety for Fairview Health Services in Minneapolis and a committee member.

According to Nektar, oxycodegol is a new molecular entity that combines a morphinan pharmacophore, oxycodol, with a six-unit chain of polyethylene glycol, a design that slows movement of the drug into the brain by about an hour after an oral dose when compared with oxycodone. It works as a full mu opioid receptor agonist that inhibits the nociceptive pathways while it reduces reinforcing or euphoric effects and other negative CNS-mediated side effects because of its slowed entry into the central nervous system.

But, as became apparent during the course of the day’s presentations and questions, while the clinical evidence in general supported this mechanism, the data were flawed by many limitations and caveats. FDA staffers critiqued the company’s data set for a variety of issues, including testing dosages that were “arbitrary and flawed,” evidence for “high oral abuse potential” in one study, including “a high rate of euphoria” of 17% even at the recommended dosage level (and a higher euphoria incidence at a higher dosage), limited information on additional pain medications that enrolled patients had used both before enrollment and during the study, and possible enrollment bias. Many panel members also raised concerns that included the efficacy data coming from a single randomized study, incomplete data on possible hepatic toxicity, no data to address potential abuse via injection or inhalation, a very modest demonstrated increment in pain relief, and abuse potential studies that relied on a single dose of the drug.

On the other hand, many committee members, and others in the pain field, applauded the general concept behind oxycodegol and urged the developer to run additional studies and collect more data for a future FDA application.

There has been “a lot of controversy” about oxycodegol, often centered on the question “why do we need another opioid,” commented Steven P. Cohen, MD, professor of anesthesiology, neurology, and pain medicine and chief of pain medicine at Johns Hopkins Health in Baltimore. “Having another opioid on the market with a different pain indication and possibly lower abuse potential” would be welcome and “almost certainly would not result in more prescriptions or abuse,” said Dr. Cohen, who was not a committee member but addressed in an interview the need for new and effective pain medications that offer an alternative to conventional opioids. “Patients who might otherwise be prescribed a different opioid might receive oxycodegol instead,” he suggested. But first, the developing company will need to collect a lot more clinical data than it has reported so far.

[email protected]

A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee voted 27-0 on Jan. 14 against recommending agency approval of oxycodegol, a new type of opioid molecule designed to slow passage of the drug through the blood-brain barrier and hence cause less of a “high” and potentially blunt the drug’s abuse potential.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

But the panel, which includes members from both the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee, unanimously shared the opinion that the data submitted by the drug developer, Nektar, failed to clearly demonstrate the drug’s safety and efficacy.

“There was a lot of ambiguity [in the data] about safety and efficacy, and this is too important an issue to have so much ambiguity,” summed up Ronald S. Litman, DO, professor of anesthesiology and critical care at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and chair of the combined committee.

“The subliminal message” that would surround oxycodegol if it received FDA approval would be that it is a “safer” opioid, “and that would make it a blockbuster drug, and for that to happen you need data that [prove] the benefits outweigh risks, but we didn’t see those data. It was all speculation, and we can’t approve a potential blockbuster opioid in the middle of a public health opioid crisis based on speculation,” commented Steve B. Meisel, PharmD, system director of medication safety for Fairview Health Services in Minneapolis and a committee member.

According to Nektar, oxycodegol is a new molecular entity that combines a morphinan pharmacophore, oxycodol, with a six-unit chain of polyethylene glycol, a design that slows movement of the drug into the brain by about an hour after an oral dose when compared with oxycodone. It works as a full mu opioid receptor agonist that inhibits the nociceptive pathways while it reduces reinforcing or euphoric effects and other negative CNS-mediated side effects because of its slowed entry into the central nervous system.

But, as became apparent during the course of the day’s presentations and questions, while the clinical evidence in general supported this mechanism, the data were flawed by many limitations and caveats. FDA staffers critiqued the company’s data set for a variety of issues, including testing dosages that were “arbitrary and flawed,” evidence for “high oral abuse potential” in one study, including “a high rate of euphoria” of 17% even at the recommended dosage level (and a higher euphoria incidence at a higher dosage), limited information on additional pain medications that enrolled patients had used both before enrollment and during the study, and possible enrollment bias. Many panel members also raised concerns that included the efficacy data coming from a single randomized study, incomplete data on possible hepatic toxicity, no data to address potential abuse via injection or inhalation, a very modest demonstrated increment in pain relief, and abuse potential studies that relied on a single dose of the drug.

On the other hand, many committee members, and others in the pain field, applauded the general concept behind oxycodegol and urged the developer to run additional studies and collect more data for a future FDA application.

There has been “a lot of controversy” about oxycodegol, often centered on the question “why do we need another opioid,” commented Steven P. Cohen, MD, professor of anesthesiology, neurology, and pain medicine and chief of pain medicine at Johns Hopkins Health in Baltimore. “Having another opioid on the market with a different pain indication and possibly lower abuse potential” would be welcome and “almost certainly would not result in more prescriptions or abuse,” said Dr. Cohen, who was not a committee member but addressed in an interview the need for new and effective pain medications that offer an alternative to conventional opioids. “Patients who might otherwise be prescribed a different opioid might receive oxycodegol instead,” he suggested. But first, the developing company will need to collect a lot more clinical data than it has reported so far.

[email protected]

A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee voted 27-0 on Jan. 14 against recommending agency approval of oxycodegol, a new type of opioid molecule designed to slow passage of the drug through the blood-brain barrier and hence cause less of a “high” and potentially blunt the drug’s abuse potential.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

But the panel, which includes members from both the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee, unanimously shared the opinion that the data submitted by the drug developer, Nektar, failed to clearly demonstrate the drug’s safety and efficacy.

“There was a lot of ambiguity [in the data] about safety and efficacy, and this is too important an issue to have so much ambiguity,” summed up Ronald S. Litman, DO, professor of anesthesiology and critical care at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and chair of the combined committee.

“The subliminal message” that would surround oxycodegol if it received FDA approval would be that it is a “safer” opioid, “and that would make it a blockbuster drug, and for that to happen you need data that [prove] the benefits outweigh risks, but we didn’t see those data. It was all speculation, and we can’t approve a potential blockbuster opioid in the middle of a public health opioid crisis based on speculation,” commented Steve B. Meisel, PharmD, system director of medication safety for Fairview Health Services in Minneapolis and a committee member.

According to Nektar, oxycodegol is a new molecular entity that combines a morphinan pharmacophore, oxycodol, with a six-unit chain of polyethylene glycol, a design that slows movement of the drug into the brain by about an hour after an oral dose when compared with oxycodone. It works as a full mu opioid receptor agonist that inhibits the nociceptive pathways while it reduces reinforcing or euphoric effects and other negative CNS-mediated side effects because of its slowed entry into the central nervous system.

But, as became apparent during the course of the day’s presentations and questions, while the clinical evidence in general supported this mechanism, the data were flawed by many limitations and caveats. FDA staffers critiqued the company’s data set for a variety of issues, including testing dosages that were “arbitrary and flawed,” evidence for “high oral abuse potential” in one study, including “a high rate of euphoria” of 17% even at the recommended dosage level (and a higher euphoria incidence at a higher dosage), limited information on additional pain medications that enrolled patients had used both before enrollment and during the study, and possible enrollment bias. Many panel members also raised concerns that included the efficacy data coming from a single randomized study, incomplete data on possible hepatic toxicity, no data to address potential abuse via injection or inhalation, a very modest demonstrated increment in pain relief, and abuse potential studies that relied on a single dose of the drug.

On the other hand, many committee members, and others in the pain field, applauded the general concept behind oxycodegol and urged the developer to run additional studies and collect more data for a future FDA application.

There has been “a lot of controversy” about oxycodegol, often centered on the question “why do we need another opioid,” commented Steven P. Cohen, MD, professor of anesthesiology, neurology, and pain medicine and chief of pain medicine at Johns Hopkins Health in Baltimore. “Having another opioid on the market with a different pain indication and possibly lower abuse potential” would be welcome and “almost certainly would not result in more prescriptions or abuse,” said Dr. Cohen, who was not a committee member but addressed in an interview the need for new and effective pain medications that offer an alternative to conventional opioids. “Patients who might otherwise be prescribed a different opioid might receive oxycodegol instead,” he suggested. But first, the developing company will need to collect a lot more clinical data than it has reported so far.

[email protected]

BALTIMORE – The rates of medical and psychiatric comorbidity remain stable for 10 years after diagnosis in patients with childhood-onset epilepsy, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. Compared with controls, however, young adults with childhood-onset epilepsy have higher rates of psychiatric comorbidity.

The findings suggest that “diagnoses that are identified at baseline continue to be a problem over time,” said Jana E. Jones, PhD, associate professor of neuropsychology at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Although neurologists understand that comorbidities are common among patients with childhood-onset epilepsy, “it would be good for us to continue to learn what factors are influencing this,” she added.
 

Investigators sought predictors of outcomes at 10 years

Since 2004, Dr. Jones and her colleagues at the University of Wisconsin have been conducting a study of patients with childhood-onset epilepsy. After the population had completed 10 years of follow-up, the researchers analyzed the data to identify potential patterns of medical and psychiatric comorbidities. One question that they sought to answer was whether any baseline factors could predict outcomes at 10 years.

The researchers analyzed data for 53 patients with childhood-onset epilepsy and 55 controls without epilepsy. At baseline, participants were between ages 8 years and 18 years and had no intellectual disability or neurologic impairment. Within 1 year of epilepsy diagnosis, each participant underwent a psychiatric interview based on the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (K-SADS). Ten years later, participants underwent the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), a psychiatric interview for adults. Information about medical comorbidities was collected through interviews and record review at baseline and through an online survey at the 10-year follow-up.

Participants’ mean age at baseline was 12 years. Mean IQ was 105 for the epilepsy group and 109 for the control group. At 10 years, participants’ mean age was about 23 years. Among patients with epilepsy, 55% had focal epilepsy, and 42% had generalized epilepsy. About 40% of participants with epilepsy were in remission at 10 years, which Dr. Jones and colleagues defined as having achieved 5 years without taking medications and without having seizures. At 10 years after diagnosis, 51% of patients with epilepsy were not taking any seizure medication, including approximately 11% of patients with epilepsy who were not categorized as in remission. Most patients taking medication were on monotherapy.
 

Trends in psychiatric and medical comorbidities

At baseline, approximately 75% of children with epilepsy had a psychiatric or medical diagnosis, compared with 40% of controls. At the 10-year follow-up, 62% of children with epilepsy had a psychiatric diagnosis, compared with 35% of controls. Among controls, 4% had a medical comorbidity (i.e., asthma) alone at baseline. Asthma was the most common medical comorbidity at baseline among patients with epilepsy, and other comorbidities included sleep disorder, head injury, and scoliosis. Six percent of patients had a medical comorbidity alone at baseline. The proportion of patients with both psychiatric and medical comorbidity was 8% at baseline. Patients with epilepsy at baseline had an increased risk of psychiatric comorbidity.

At 10 years, the most common medical comorbidity among patients with epilepsy was head injury (18.9%), followed by allergies and asthma. The rate of migraine was about 13% among controls and slightly less in the epilepsy group. Dr. Jones and colleagues found no significant differences in medical comorbidities between groups at 10 years. At that point, the rate of medical comorbidity was 4% among patients and 11% among controls.

The rate of psychiatric comorbidity remained relatively stable over 10 years, said Dr. Jones. Approximately 47% of patients with epilepsy had a psychiatric diagnosis at 10 years, compared with 29% of controls. In addition, 38% of patients with epilepsy had both psychiatric and medical diagnoses, compared with 29% of controls. Epilepsy increased the risk of psychiatric comorbidity at the 10-year follow-up. Neither medications, remission status, nor seizure type predicted any comorbidity at 10 years.

Dr. Jones and colleagues compared comorbidity rates between the study sample and the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R), which reported population-based data that included an epilepsy sample. About 47% of the epilepsy group had an anxiety disorder, compared with 40.7% in the NCS-R. The rate of anxiety disorders was higher in the control group (45.5%) than in the control group (30.8%) in the NCS-R. Approximately 26.4% of the population in Dr. Jones’s study had a mood disorder, compared with 25.9% in the National Comorbidity Survey.

Dr. Jones and colleagues are conducting 15-year follow-up of their original population. One question they will examine is whether medical comorbidities will increase in patients with childhood-onset epilepsy as they approach age 30 years.

Two of the investigators received funding in the form of a grant from the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kesselmayer RF et al. AES 2019. Abstract 1.288.

BALTIMORE – The rates of medical and psychiatric comorbidity remain stable for 10 years after diagnosis in patients with childhood-onset epilepsy, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. Compared with controls, however, young adults with childhood-onset epilepsy have higher rates of psychiatric comorbidity.

The findings suggest that “diagnoses that are identified at baseline continue to be a problem over time,” said Jana E. Jones, PhD, associate professor of neuropsychology at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Although neurologists understand that comorbidities are common among patients with childhood-onset epilepsy, “it would be good for us to continue to learn what factors are influencing this,” she added.
 

Investigators sought predictors of outcomes at 10 years

Since 2004, Dr. Jones and her colleagues at the University of Wisconsin have been conducting a study of patients with childhood-onset epilepsy. After the population had completed 10 years of follow-up, the researchers analyzed the data to identify potential patterns of medical and psychiatric comorbidities. One question that they sought to answer was whether any baseline factors could predict outcomes at 10 years.

The researchers analyzed data for 53 patients with childhood-onset epilepsy and 55 controls without epilepsy. At baseline, participants were between ages 8 years and 18 years and had no intellectual disability or neurologic impairment. Within 1 year of epilepsy diagnosis, each participant underwent a psychiatric interview based on the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (K-SADS). Ten years later, participants underwent the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), a psychiatric interview for adults. Information about medical comorbidities was collected through interviews and record review at baseline and through an online survey at the 10-year follow-up.

Participants’ mean age at baseline was 12 years. Mean IQ was 105 for the epilepsy group and 109 for the control group. At 10 years, participants’ mean age was about 23 years. Among patients with epilepsy, 55% had focal epilepsy, and 42% had generalized epilepsy. About 40% of participants with epilepsy were in remission at 10 years, which Dr. Jones and colleagues defined as having achieved 5 years without taking medications and without having seizures. At 10 years after diagnosis, 51% of patients with epilepsy were not taking any seizure medication, including approximately 11% of patients with epilepsy who were not categorized as in remission. Most patients taking medication were on monotherapy.
 

Trends in psychiatric and medical comorbidities

At baseline, approximately 75% of children with epilepsy had a psychiatric or medical diagnosis, compared with 40% of controls. At the 10-year follow-up, 62% of children with epilepsy had a psychiatric diagnosis, compared with 35% of controls. Among controls, 4% had a medical comorbidity (i.e., asthma) alone at baseline. Asthma was the most common medical comorbidity at baseline among patients with epilepsy, and other comorbidities included sleep disorder, head injury, and scoliosis. Six percent of patients had a medical comorbidity alone at baseline. The proportion of patients with both psychiatric and medical comorbidity was 8% at baseline. Patients with epilepsy at baseline had an increased risk of psychiatric comorbidity.

At 10 years, the most common medical comorbidity among patients with epilepsy was head injury (18.9%), followed by allergies and asthma. The rate of migraine was about 13% among controls and slightly less in the epilepsy group. Dr. Jones and colleagues found no significant differences in medical comorbidities between groups at 10 years. At that point, the rate of medical comorbidity was 4% among patients and 11% among controls.

The rate of psychiatric comorbidity remained relatively stable over 10 years, said Dr. Jones. Approximately 47% of patients with epilepsy had a psychiatric diagnosis at 10 years, compared with 29% of controls. In addition, 38% of patients with epilepsy had both psychiatric and medical diagnoses, compared with 29% of controls. Epilepsy increased the risk of psychiatric comorbidity at the 10-year follow-up. Neither medications, remission status, nor seizure type predicted any comorbidity at 10 years.

Dr. Jones and colleagues compared comorbidity rates between the study sample and the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R), which reported population-based data that included an epilepsy sample. About 47% of the epilepsy group had an anxiety disorder, compared with 40.7% in the NCS-R. The rate of anxiety disorders was higher in the control group (45.5%) than in the control group (30.8%) in the NCS-R. Approximately 26.4% of the population in Dr. Jones’s study had a mood disorder, compared with 25.9% in the National Comorbidity Survey.

Dr. Jones and colleagues are conducting 15-year follow-up of their original population. One question they will examine is whether medical comorbidities will increase in patients with childhood-onset epilepsy as they approach age 30 years.

Two of the investigators received funding in the form of a grant from the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kesselmayer RF et al. AES 2019. Abstract 1.288.

BALTIMORE – The rates of medical and psychiatric comorbidity remain stable for 10 years after diagnosis in patients with childhood-onset epilepsy, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. Compared with controls, however, young adults with childhood-onset epilepsy have higher rates of psychiatric comorbidity.

The findings suggest that “diagnoses that are identified at baseline continue to be a problem over time,” said Jana E. Jones, PhD, associate professor of neuropsychology at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Although neurologists understand that comorbidities are common among patients with childhood-onset epilepsy, “it would be good for us to continue to learn what factors are influencing this,” she added.
 

Investigators sought predictors of outcomes at 10 years

Since 2004, Dr. Jones and her colleagues at the University of Wisconsin have been conducting a study of patients with childhood-onset epilepsy. After the population had completed 10 years of follow-up, the researchers analyzed the data to identify potential patterns of medical and psychiatric comorbidities. One question that they sought to answer was whether any baseline factors could predict outcomes at 10 years.

The researchers analyzed data for 53 patients with childhood-onset epilepsy and 55 controls without epilepsy. At baseline, participants were between ages 8 years and 18 years and had no intellectual disability or neurologic impairment. Within 1 year of epilepsy diagnosis, each participant underwent a psychiatric interview based on the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (K-SADS). Ten years later, participants underwent the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), a psychiatric interview for adults. Information about medical comorbidities was collected through interviews and record review at baseline and through an online survey at the 10-year follow-up.

Participants’ mean age at baseline was 12 years. Mean IQ was 105 for the epilepsy group and 109 for the control group. At 10 years, participants’ mean age was about 23 years. Among patients with epilepsy, 55% had focal epilepsy, and 42% had generalized epilepsy. About 40% of participants with epilepsy were in remission at 10 years, which Dr. Jones and colleagues defined as having achieved 5 years without taking medications and without having seizures. At 10 years after diagnosis, 51% of patients with epilepsy were not taking any seizure medication, including approximately 11% of patients with epilepsy who were not categorized as in remission. Most patients taking medication were on monotherapy.
 

Trends in psychiatric and medical comorbidities

At baseline, approximately 75% of children with epilepsy had a psychiatric or medical diagnosis, compared with 40% of controls. At the 10-year follow-up, 62% of children with epilepsy had a psychiatric diagnosis, compared with 35% of controls. Among controls, 4% had a medical comorbidity (i.e., asthma) alone at baseline. Asthma was the most common medical comorbidity at baseline among patients with epilepsy, and other comorbidities included sleep disorder, head injury, and scoliosis. Six percent of patients had a medical comorbidity alone at baseline. The proportion of patients with both psychiatric and medical comorbidity was 8% at baseline. Patients with epilepsy at baseline had an increased risk of psychiatric comorbidity.

At 10 years, the most common medical comorbidity among patients with epilepsy was head injury (18.9%), followed by allergies and asthma. The rate of migraine was about 13% among controls and slightly less in the epilepsy group. Dr. Jones and colleagues found no significant differences in medical comorbidities between groups at 10 years. At that point, the rate of medical comorbidity was 4% among patients and 11% among controls.

The rate of psychiatric comorbidity remained relatively stable over 10 years, said Dr. Jones. Approximately 47% of patients with epilepsy had a psychiatric diagnosis at 10 years, compared with 29% of controls. In addition, 38% of patients with epilepsy had both psychiatric and medical diagnoses, compared with 29% of controls. Epilepsy increased the risk of psychiatric comorbidity at the 10-year follow-up. Neither medications, remission status, nor seizure type predicted any comorbidity at 10 years.

Dr. Jones and colleagues compared comorbidity rates between the study sample and the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R), which reported population-based data that included an epilepsy sample. About 47% of the epilepsy group had an anxiety disorder, compared with 40.7% in the NCS-R. The rate of anxiety disorders was higher in the control group (45.5%) than in the control group (30.8%) in the NCS-R. Approximately 26.4% of the population in Dr. Jones’s study had a mood disorder, compared with 25.9% in the National Comorbidity Survey.

Dr. Jones and colleagues are conducting 15-year follow-up of their original population. One question they will examine is whether medical comorbidities will increase in patients with childhood-onset epilepsy as they approach age 30 years.

Two of the investigators received funding in the form of a grant from the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kesselmayer RF et al. AES 2019. Abstract 1.288.

Neuropsychiatric events occurred in just over half of all patients recently diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus and followed for an average of nearly 8 years in an international study of more than 1,800 patients.

Up to 30% of these neuropsychiatric (NP) events in up to 20% of the followed cohort were directly attributable to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in a representative patient population, wrote John G. Hanly, MD, and associates in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. Their findings were consistent with prior reports, they added.

Another notable finding from follow-up of these 1,827 SLE patients was that among those without a history of SLE-related NP events at baseline, 74% remained free of NP events during the subsequent 10 years, wrote Dr. Hanly, professor of medicine and director of the lupus clinic at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., and coauthors. Among patients free from SLE-associated NP events after 2 years, 84% remained event free during their remaining follow-up. SLE patients with a history of an NP event that subsequently resolved had a 72% rate of freedom from another NP event during 10 years of follow-up.

These findings came from patients recently diagnosed with SLE (within the preceding 15 months) and enrolled at any of 31 participating academic medical centers in North America, Europe, and Asia. The investigators considered preenrollment NP events to include those starting from 6 months prior to diagnosis of SLE until the time patients entered the study. They used case definitions for 19 SLE-associated NP events published by the American College of Rheumatology (Arthritis Rheum. 1999 Apr;42[4]:599-608). All enrolled patients underwent annual assessment for NP events, with follow-up continuing as long as 18 years.

The researchers identified NP events in 955 of the 1,827 enrolled patients, a 52% incidence, including 1,910 unique NP events that included episodes from each of the 19 NP event types, with 92% involving the central nervous system and 8% involving the peripheral nervous system. The percentage of NP events attributable to SLE ranged from 17% to 31%, and they occurred in 14%-21% of the studied patients, with the range reflecting various attribution models used in the analyses. Some patients remained in the same NP state, while others progressed through more than one state.

The study did not receive commercial funding. Dr. Hanly had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hanly JG et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216150.

Neuropsychiatric events occurred in just over half of all patients recently diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus and followed for an average of nearly 8 years in an international study of more than 1,800 patients.

Up to 30% of these neuropsychiatric (NP) events in up to 20% of the followed cohort were directly attributable to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in a representative patient population, wrote John G. Hanly, MD, and associates in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. Their findings were consistent with prior reports, they added.

Another notable finding from follow-up of these 1,827 SLE patients was that among those without a history of SLE-related NP events at baseline, 74% remained free of NP events during the subsequent 10 years, wrote Dr. Hanly, professor of medicine and director of the lupus clinic at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., and coauthors. Among patients free from SLE-associated NP events after 2 years, 84% remained event free during their remaining follow-up. SLE patients with a history of an NP event that subsequently resolved had a 72% rate of freedom from another NP event during 10 years of follow-up.

These findings came from patients recently diagnosed with SLE (within the preceding 15 months) and enrolled at any of 31 participating academic medical centers in North America, Europe, and Asia. The investigators considered preenrollment NP events to include those starting from 6 months prior to diagnosis of SLE until the time patients entered the study. They used case definitions for 19 SLE-associated NP events published by the American College of Rheumatology (Arthritis Rheum. 1999 Apr;42[4]:599-608). All enrolled patients underwent annual assessment for NP events, with follow-up continuing as long as 18 years.

The researchers identified NP events in 955 of the 1,827 enrolled patients, a 52% incidence, including 1,910 unique NP events that included episodes from each of the 19 NP event types, with 92% involving the central nervous system and 8% involving the peripheral nervous system. The percentage of NP events attributable to SLE ranged from 17% to 31%, and they occurred in 14%-21% of the studied patients, with the range reflecting various attribution models used in the analyses. Some patients remained in the same NP state, while others progressed through more than one state.

The study did not receive commercial funding. Dr. Hanly had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hanly JG et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216150.

Neuropsychiatric events occurred in just over half of all patients recently diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus and followed for an average of nearly 8 years in an international study of more than 1,800 patients.

Up to 30% of these neuropsychiatric (NP) events in up to 20% of the followed cohort were directly attributable to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in a representative patient population, wrote John G. Hanly, MD, and associates in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. Their findings were consistent with prior reports, they added.

Another notable finding from follow-up of these 1,827 SLE patients was that among those without a history of SLE-related NP events at baseline, 74% remained free of NP events during the subsequent 10 years, wrote Dr. Hanly, professor of medicine and director of the lupus clinic at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., and coauthors. Among patients free from SLE-associated NP events after 2 years, 84% remained event free during their remaining follow-up. SLE patients with a history of an NP event that subsequently resolved had a 72% rate of freedom from another NP event during 10 years of follow-up.

These findings came from patients recently diagnosed with SLE (within the preceding 15 months) and enrolled at any of 31 participating academic medical centers in North America, Europe, and Asia. The investigators considered preenrollment NP events to include those starting from 6 months prior to diagnosis of SLE until the time patients entered the study. They used case definitions for 19 SLE-associated NP events published by the American College of Rheumatology (Arthritis Rheum. 1999 Apr;42[4]:599-608). All enrolled patients underwent annual assessment for NP events, with follow-up continuing as long as 18 years.

The researchers identified NP events in 955 of the 1,827 enrolled patients, a 52% incidence, including 1,910 unique NP events that included episodes from each of the 19 NP event types, with 92% involving the central nervous system and 8% involving the peripheral nervous system. The percentage of NP events attributable to SLE ranged from 17% to 31%, and they occurred in 14%-21% of the studied patients, with the range reflecting various attribution models used in the analyses. Some patients remained in the same NP state, while others progressed through more than one state.

The study did not receive commercial funding. Dr. Hanly had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hanly JG et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216150.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Valtoco (diazepam nasal) for the acute treatment of seizure clusters in patients with epilepsy aged 6 years and older.

The drug may be administered by a care partner outside of a medical setting for the treatment of intermittent, stereotypic episodes of frequent seizure activity that are distinct from a patient’s usual seizure pattern. The formulation is the first nasal spray approved by the FDA as a rescue treatment for people with epilepsy aged 6 years and older, according to Neurelis, the developer of the drug. Midazolam nasal spray, approved in May 2019, is indicated for patients with epilepsy aged 12 years and older.

Investigators evaluated the safety of diazepam nasal spray in a long-term, open-label, repeat-dose, clinical trial. The study enrolled 130 patients aged 6 years and older; more than 2,000 seizures were treated. The drug generally was safe and well tolerated, and the most common adverse reactions were somnolence, headache, and nasal discomfort.

The FDA has granted Valtoco 7 years of orphan drug exclusivity. In the United States, about 170,000 patients with epilepsy are at risk of cluster or acute repetitive seizures, the company said. Until recently, approved rescue medications had been rectally administered.

Patients may receive a second dose of diazepam nasal spray at least 4 hours after an initial dose if needed, but caregivers should not use more than two doses to treat a single episode, according to the prescribing information. In addition, the prescribing information recommends that diazepam nasal spray be used for no more than one episode every 5 days and no more than five episodes per month.
 

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Valtoco (diazepam nasal) for the acute treatment of seizure clusters in patients with epilepsy aged 6 years and older.

The drug may be administered by a care partner outside of a medical setting for the treatment of intermittent, stereotypic episodes of frequent seizure activity that are distinct from a patient’s usual seizure pattern. The formulation is the first nasal spray approved by the FDA as a rescue treatment for people with epilepsy aged 6 years and older, according to Neurelis, the developer of the drug. Midazolam nasal spray, approved in May 2019, is indicated for patients with epilepsy aged 12 years and older.

Investigators evaluated the safety of diazepam nasal spray in a long-term, open-label, repeat-dose, clinical trial. The study enrolled 130 patients aged 6 years and older; more than 2,000 seizures were treated. The drug generally was safe and well tolerated, and the most common adverse reactions were somnolence, headache, and nasal discomfort.

The FDA has granted Valtoco 7 years of orphan drug exclusivity. In the United States, about 170,000 patients with epilepsy are at risk of cluster or acute repetitive seizures, the company said. Until recently, approved rescue medications had been rectally administered.

Patients may receive a second dose of diazepam nasal spray at least 4 hours after an initial dose if needed, but caregivers should not use more than two doses to treat a single episode, according to the prescribing information. In addition, the prescribing information recommends that diazepam nasal spray be used for no more than one episode every 5 days and no more than five episodes per month.
 

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Valtoco (diazepam nasal) for the acute treatment of seizure clusters in patients with epilepsy aged 6 years and older.

The drug may be administered by a care partner outside of a medical setting for the treatment of intermittent, stereotypic episodes of frequent seizure activity that are distinct from a patient’s usual seizure pattern. The formulation is the first nasal spray approved by the FDA as a rescue treatment for people with epilepsy aged 6 years and older, according to Neurelis, the developer of the drug. Midazolam nasal spray, approved in May 2019, is indicated for patients with epilepsy aged 12 years and older.

Investigators evaluated the safety of diazepam nasal spray in a long-term, open-label, repeat-dose, clinical trial. The study enrolled 130 patients aged 6 years and older; more than 2,000 seizures were treated. The drug generally was safe and well tolerated, and the most common adverse reactions were somnolence, headache, and nasal discomfort.

The FDA has granted Valtoco 7 years of orphan drug exclusivity. In the United States, about 170,000 patients with epilepsy are at risk of cluster or acute repetitive seizures, the company said. Until recently, approved rescue medications had been rectally administered.

Patients may receive a second dose of diazepam nasal spray at least 4 hours after an initial dose if needed, but caregivers should not use more than two doses to treat a single episode, according to the prescribing information. In addition, the prescribing information recommends that diazepam nasal spray be used for no more than one episode every 5 days and no more than five episodes per month.
 

[email protected]