Moderna announced today that its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine has received full Food and Drug Administration approval for adults 18 years and older.

The move lifts an FDA emergency use authorization for the vaccine, which started Dec. 18, 2020.

The Moderna vaccine also now has a new trade name: Spikevax.

The FDA approval comes a little more than 5 months after the agency granted full approval to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on Aug. 23. At the time, the Pfizer vaccine received the trade name Comirnaty.

The FDA approved the Moderna vaccine based on how well it works and its safety for 6 months after a second dose, including follow-up data from a phase 3 study, Moderna announced this morning through a news release. The FDA also announced the news.

Spikevax is the first Moderna product to be fully licensed in the United States.

The United States joins more than 70 other countries where regulators have approved the vaccine. A total of 807 million doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine were shipped worldwide in 2021, the company reported.

“The full licensure of Spikevax in the U.S. now joins that in Canada, Japan, the European Union, the U.K., Israel, and other countries, where the adolescent indication is also approved,” Stéphane Bancel, Moderna chief executive officer, said in the release.

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

Moderna announced today that its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine has received full Food and Drug Administration approval for adults 18 years and older.

The move lifts an FDA emergency use authorization for the vaccine, which started Dec. 18, 2020.

The Moderna vaccine also now has a new trade name: Spikevax.

The FDA approval comes a little more than 5 months after the agency granted full approval to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on Aug. 23. At the time, the Pfizer vaccine received the trade name Comirnaty.

The FDA approved the Moderna vaccine based on how well it works and its safety for 6 months after a second dose, including follow-up data from a phase 3 study, Moderna announced this morning through a news release. The FDA also announced the news.

Spikevax is the first Moderna product to be fully licensed in the United States.

The United States joins more than 70 other countries where regulators have approved the vaccine. A total of 807 million doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine were shipped worldwide in 2021, the company reported.

“The full licensure of Spikevax in the U.S. now joins that in Canada, Japan, the European Union, the U.K., Israel, and other countries, where the adolescent indication is also approved,” Stéphane Bancel, Moderna chief executive officer, said in the release.

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

Moderna announced today that its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine has received full Food and Drug Administration approval for adults 18 years and older.

The move lifts an FDA emergency use authorization for the vaccine, which started Dec. 18, 2020.

The Moderna vaccine also now has a new trade name: Spikevax.

The FDA approval comes a little more than 5 months after the agency granted full approval to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on Aug. 23. At the time, the Pfizer vaccine received the trade name Comirnaty.

The FDA approved the Moderna vaccine based on how well it works and its safety for 6 months after a second dose, including follow-up data from a phase 3 study, Moderna announced this morning through a news release. The FDA also announced the news.

Spikevax is the first Moderna product to be fully licensed in the United States.

The United States joins more than 70 other countries where regulators have approved the vaccine. A total of 807 million doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine were shipped worldwide in 2021, the company reported.

“The full licensure of Spikevax in the U.S. now joins that in Canada, Japan, the European Union, the U.K., Israel, and other countries, where the adolescent indication is also approved,” Stéphane Bancel, Moderna chief executive officer, said in the release.

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

I’m in a crowded commercial kitchen, and everywhere I look I see bottles of colorful drinks and jars holding faded vegetables suspended in brine. The smell of fermented cabbage permeates the room. I open a mason jar, which lets out a loud hiss. I’d spent months researching the gut-brain axis during my PhD, hoping to understand the role that fermented food may play in our mental health. So I enrolled in a class on how to make fermented foods.

The teacher is praising these ancient foods as a magical cure for every ailment you can imagine. I’m uncomfortable – not because of the smell, but because I’ve never found a scientific article that definitively supported this idea. I’m subconsciously applying a fact filter and wondering what the other unsuspecting students must think. I let this slide, since I’m here to learn the art of fermentation. I bravely take a spoonful of sauerkraut. The salty brine overwhelms my senses. Gulp!

If you’ve ever eaten sauerkraut, kimchi, tempeh, kombucha, or kefir, then you’ve had a fermented food (or drink). The first time I gave them a proper go (with a mind open to enjoying them), I noticed the sour, vinegar-like taste and the noticeable absence of sugar. It didn’t take me long to get used to the taste. After a while of drinking my bubbly kombucha, I noticed that my palate had adapted and sweet flavors felt overpowering.

Fermentation is a natural process of curdling or culturing that has been used for thousands of years to preserve foods. Fermented foods and drinks are made through “desired microbial growth and enzymatic conversions of food components” (as opposed to undesirable microbial growth, which happens when your food spoils). Fermented foods are made either by the bacteria and yeast already present in the environment/food material or by introducing bacteria or yeast to help start the fermentation process.

For example, when I made sauerkraut, I shredded the cabbage, added salt, then pummeled and squeezed the cabbage until it released its own juices, which also allowed the “probiotic” lactic acid bacteria in the cabbage to kickstart the fermentation process. Probiotic bacteria like Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium are considered probiotic good bugs, and are also present in many yogurts and cheeses.

We can’t necessarily call our sauerkraut a “probiotic food” because we don’t know the exact probiotic strains that are in our sauerkraut and whether they are present in the correct “probiotic” dose. It’s also worth noting that foods and drinks that are produced by fermentation don’t necessarily need to have live bacteria in them when you eat them to still be considered a fermented food. For example, sourdough is born from a bubbly live starter culture that contains yeast and bacteria, but once cooked it might no longer have any live bacteria in it.

So, what about the health claims?

Microbial fermentation may interact with health through multiple different biological pathways. It can enhance the nutritional composition of the final food, create bioactive compounds, and change the composition of the gut microbiota (potentially outcompeting harmful pathogens). The lactic acid bacteria in fermented food might also help to influence your immune system and strengthen your intestinal barrier. Some fermented foods, like tempeh, also contain prebiotics; these are fibers that escape your digestion and are broken down by your gut bacteria, including your lactic acid bacteria, which feed off prebiotic fiber to help grow their colonies. In a recent diet experiment, a high-fiber diet was compared with a diet high in fermented foods (eg, yogurt, fermented vegetables, kefir, fermented cheese); those who ate higher fermented food had lower markers of inflammation and an increased diversity of gut microbiota (which is thought to be a good thing in adults). So, in theory, fermented foods sound good.

Still wanting to understand more, and dispel a few myths, a team of researchers and I investigated what’s known about the link between fermented foods and mental health. We looked at the pathways by which fermented foods might affect mental health, such as by reducing inflammation and strengthening the intestinal barrier. These pathways are relevant because they might reduce your brain’s exposure to certain inflammatory molecules that can impact brain function and mental health.

Fermented foods also contain neurotransmitters that are important to mental health. Research about fermented food and mental health is still in its early infancy. Animal studies provide experimental evidence that fermented foods can help with symptoms of depression and anxiety – but that’s in animals. The problem is in knowing how the animal findings relate to our human experience.

We found eight studies in humans that experimented with fermented foods (for example, fermented milk products) to measure their impact on depression, anxiety, and stress in adults, but the studies were all so different that we were unable to make firm conclusions. It is still difficult to know what the active ingredient in fermented foods is. Is it the microbes? Is it the byproducts? Is it the nutrition? And how much of each is needed, and what are safe levels of each? We really need more studies, with detailed descriptions of exactly what is in each food being tested. At this stage, there is not enough human evidence to make firm clinical recommendations for eating fermented food to improve mental health symptoms.

I’ve since moved on from sauerkraut to making sourdough bread as a COVID lockdown project (as this involves a fermented starter culture). When my delicious fresh bread comes out of the oven, my world is paused for a few minutes, and my family mill around to enjoy the warm, fresh bread. While it may be too soon to tell whether fermented foods help our mental health, my sourdough itself has sure helped us.

Dr. Dawson is a nutritionist and bioinformatician research fellow at the Food & Mood Centre at Deakin University, Geelong, Australia. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

I’m in a crowded commercial kitchen, and everywhere I look I see bottles of colorful drinks and jars holding faded vegetables suspended in brine. The smell of fermented cabbage permeates the room. I open a mason jar, which lets out a loud hiss. I’d spent months researching the gut-brain axis during my PhD, hoping to understand the role that fermented food may play in our mental health. So I enrolled in a class on how to make fermented foods.

The teacher is praising these ancient foods as a magical cure for every ailment you can imagine. I’m uncomfortable – not because of the smell, but because I’ve never found a scientific article that definitively supported this idea. I’m subconsciously applying a fact filter and wondering what the other unsuspecting students must think. I let this slide, since I’m here to learn the art of fermentation. I bravely take a spoonful of sauerkraut. The salty brine overwhelms my senses. Gulp!

If you’ve ever eaten sauerkraut, kimchi, tempeh, kombucha, or kefir, then you’ve had a fermented food (or drink). The first time I gave them a proper go (with a mind open to enjoying them), I noticed the sour, vinegar-like taste and the noticeable absence of sugar. It didn’t take me long to get used to the taste. After a while of drinking my bubbly kombucha, I noticed that my palate had adapted and sweet flavors felt overpowering.

Fermentation is a natural process of curdling or culturing that has been used for thousands of years to preserve foods. Fermented foods and drinks are made through “desired microbial growth and enzymatic conversions of food components” (as opposed to undesirable microbial growth, which happens when your food spoils). Fermented foods are made either by the bacteria and yeast already present in the environment/food material or by introducing bacteria or yeast to help start the fermentation process.

For example, when I made sauerkraut, I shredded the cabbage, added salt, then pummeled and squeezed the cabbage until it released its own juices, which also allowed the “probiotic” lactic acid bacteria in the cabbage to kickstart the fermentation process. Probiotic bacteria like Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium are considered probiotic good bugs, and are also present in many yogurts and cheeses.

We can’t necessarily call our sauerkraut a “probiotic food” because we don’t know the exact probiotic strains that are in our sauerkraut and whether they are present in the correct “probiotic” dose. It’s also worth noting that foods and drinks that are produced by fermentation don’t necessarily need to have live bacteria in them when you eat them to still be considered a fermented food. For example, sourdough is born from a bubbly live starter culture that contains yeast and bacteria, but once cooked it might no longer have any live bacteria in it.

So, what about the health claims?

Microbial fermentation may interact with health through multiple different biological pathways. It can enhance the nutritional composition of the final food, create bioactive compounds, and change the composition of the gut microbiota (potentially outcompeting harmful pathogens). The lactic acid bacteria in fermented food might also help to influence your immune system and strengthen your intestinal barrier. Some fermented foods, like tempeh, also contain prebiotics; these are fibers that escape your digestion and are broken down by your gut bacteria, including your lactic acid bacteria, which feed off prebiotic fiber to help grow their colonies. In a recent diet experiment, a high-fiber diet was compared with a diet high in fermented foods (eg, yogurt, fermented vegetables, kefir, fermented cheese); those who ate higher fermented food had lower markers of inflammation and an increased diversity of gut microbiota (which is thought to be a good thing in adults). So, in theory, fermented foods sound good.

Still wanting to understand more, and dispel a few myths, a team of researchers and I investigated what’s known about the link between fermented foods and mental health. We looked at the pathways by which fermented foods might affect mental health, such as by reducing inflammation and strengthening the intestinal barrier. These pathways are relevant because they might reduce your brain’s exposure to certain inflammatory molecules that can impact brain function and mental health.

Fermented foods also contain neurotransmitters that are important to mental health. Research about fermented food and mental health is still in its early infancy. Animal studies provide experimental evidence that fermented foods can help with symptoms of depression and anxiety – but that’s in animals. The problem is in knowing how the animal findings relate to our human experience.

We found eight studies in humans that experimented with fermented foods (for example, fermented milk products) to measure their impact on depression, anxiety, and stress in adults, but the studies were all so different that we were unable to make firm conclusions. It is still difficult to know what the active ingredient in fermented foods is. Is it the microbes? Is it the byproducts? Is it the nutrition? And how much of each is needed, and what are safe levels of each? We really need more studies, with detailed descriptions of exactly what is in each food being tested. At this stage, there is not enough human evidence to make firm clinical recommendations for eating fermented food to improve mental health symptoms.

I’ve since moved on from sauerkraut to making sourdough bread as a COVID lockdown project (as this involves a fermented starter culture). When my delicious fresh bread comes out of the oven, my world is paused for a few minutes, and my family mill around to enjoy the warm, fresh bread. While it may be too soon to tell whether fermented foods help our mental health, my sourdough itself has sure helped us.

Dr. Dawson is a nutritionist and bioinformatician research fellow at the Food & Mood Centre at Deakin University, Geelong, Australia. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

I’m in a crowded commercial kitchen, and everywhere I look I see bottles of colorful drinks and jars holding faded vegetables suspended in brine. The smell of fermented cabbage permeates the room. I open a mason jar, which lets out a loud hiss. I’d spent months researching the gut-brain axis during my PhD, hoping to understand the role that fermented food may play in our mental health. So I enrolled in a class on how to make fermented foods.

The teacher is praising these ancient foods as a magical cure for every ailment you can imagine. I’m uncomfortable – not because of the smell, but because I’ve never found a scientific article that definitively supported this idea. I’m subconsciously applying a fact filter and wondering what the other unsuspecting students must think. I let this slide, since I’m here to learn the art of fermentation. I bravely take a spoonful of sauerkraut. The salty brine overwhelms my senses. Gulp!

If you’ve ever eaten sauerkraut, kimchi, tempeh, kombucha, or kefir, then you’ve had a fermented food (or drink). The first time I gave them a proper go (with a mind open to enjoying them), I noticed the sour, vinegar-like taste and the noticeable absence of sugar. It didn’t take me long to get used to the taste. After a while of drinking my bubbly kombucha, I noticed that my palate had adapted and sweet flavors felt overpowering.

Fermentation is a natural process of curdling or culturing that has been used for thousands of years to preserve foods. Fermented foods and drinks are made through “desired microbial growth and enzymatic conversions of food components” (as opposed to undesirable microbial growth, which happens when your food spoils). Fermented foods are made either by the bacteria and yeast already present in the environment/food material or by introducing bacteria or yeast to help start the fermentation process.

For example, when I made sauerkraut, I shredded the cabbage, added salt, then pummeled and squeezed the cabbage until it released its own juices, which also allowed the “probiotic” lactic acid bacteria in the cabbage to kickstart the fermentation process. Probiotic bacteria like Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium are considered probiotic good bugs, and are also present in many yogurts and cheeses.

We can’t necessarily call our sauerkraut a “probiotic food” because we don’t know the exact probiotic strains that are in our sauerkraut and whether they are present in the correct “probiotic” dose. It’s also worth noting that foods and drinks that are produced by fermentation don’t necessarily need to have live bacteria in them when you eat them to still be considered a fermented food. For example, sourdough is born from a bubbly live starter culture that contains yeast and bacteria, but once cooked it might no longer have any live bacteria in it.

So, what about the health claims?

Microbial fermentation may interact with health through multiple different biological pathways. It can enhance the nutritional composition of the final food, create bioactive compounds, and change the composition of the gut microbiota (potentially outcompeting harmful pathogens). The lactic acid bacteria in fermented food might also help to influence your immune system and strengthen your intestinal barrier. Some fermented foods, like tempeh, also contain prebiotics; these are fibers that escape your digestion and are broken down by your gut bacteria, including your lactic acid bacteria, which feed off prebiotic fiber to help grow their colonies. In a recent diet experiment, a high-fiber diet was compared with a diet high in fermented foods (eg, yogurt, fermented vegetables, kefir, fermented cheese); those who ate higher fermented food had lower markers of inflammation and an increased diversity of gut microbiota (which is thought to be a good thing in adults). So, in theory, fermented foods sound good.

Still wanting to understand more, and dispel a few myths, a team of researchers and I investigated what’s known about the link between fermented foods and mental health. We looked at the pathways by which fermented foods might affect mental health, such as by reducing inflammation and strengthening the intestinal barrier. These pathways are relevant because they might reduce your brain’s exposure to certain inflammatory molecules that can impact brain function and mental health.

Fermented foods also contain neurotransmitters that are important to mental health. Research about fermented food and mental health is still in its early infancy. Animal studies provide experimental evidence that fermented foods can help with symptoms of depression and anxiety – but that’s in animals. The problem is in knowing how the animal findings relate to our human experience.

We found eight studies in humans that experimented with fermented foods (for example, fermented milk products) to measure their impact on depression, anxiety, and stress in adults, but the studies were all so different that we were unable to make firm conclusions. It is still difficult to know what the active ingredient in fermented foods is. Is it the microbes? Is it the byproducts? Is it the nutrition? And how much of each is needed, and what are safe levels of each? We really need more studies, with detailed descriptions of exactly what is in each food being tested. At this stage, there is not enough human evidence to make firm clinical recommendations for eating fermented food to improve mental health symptoms.

I’ve since moved on from sauerkraut to making sourdough bread as a COVID lockdown project (as this involves a fermented starter culture). When my delicious fresh bread comes out of the oven, my world is paused for a few minutes, and my family mill around to enjoy the warm, fresh bread. While it may be too soon to tell whether fermented foods help our mental health, my sourdough itself has sure helped us.

Dr. Dawson is a nutritionist and bioinformatician research fellow at the Food & Mood Centre at Deakin University, Geelong, Australia. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team and star of TV’s Shark Tank, is backing a new online pharmacy that aims to reduce the prices people pay for 100 generic medications.

The Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs Company (MCCPDC) plans to offer the leukemia therapy imatinib for $47 per month, for example, compared with $120 or more with a common voucher and a retail price of $9,657 per month.

Other examples of lower-priced generics include the ulcerative colitis treatment mesalamine, which goes for $32.40 per month on the new online pharmacy versus $940 per month retail. In addition, the MCCPDC will offer the gout treatment colchicine at a lower price, charging $8.70, compared with $182 per month retail.

Likely in part because of claims of significant cost savings and in part because of Mr. Cuban’s celebrity status, the new venture is getting widespread media attention. Forbes, NPR, and TMZ have shared the news since the new digital pharmacy was announced earlier this month.

The new venture plans to charge consumers 15% above the manufacturing cost for the generic medications, plus a $3 fee for pharmacists and $5 for shipping. People will still require a prescription from their doctor to get the medications.
 

Generic pricing and social benefit

The top 100 generic products account for about half of generic sales, and there is enough competition for these high-demand medications that “the prices have come down close to zero,” said William Comanor, PhD, a health economist and professor of health policy and management at the University of California, Los Angeles. The remaining generic agents have lower-volume demand.

One prominent example is Daraprim, a decades-old treatment for the life-threatening parasitic infection toxoplasmosis. The drug jumped into the spotlight in 2015 when Martin Shkreli and his company Vyera Pharmaceuticals bought the rights to make the generic drug and raised the price overnight from $13.50 to $750. In January 2022, a U.S. judge banned Mr. Shkreli from the pharmaceutical industry and ordered him to pay an almost $65 million fine.

Dr. Comanor agreed the price should have been raised – $13.50 “was not economically viable” – but not as steep as $750.

“Say Mark Cuban says he will cut the price from $750 to $300. He will still make money. There is a market for these low-volume products,” he said. “There would also be a social benefit.”
 

A direct-to-consumer digital pharmacy

MCCPDC is “cutting out the middleman” in two ways. The business model calls for charging consumers out of pocket, so insurance companies are not involved. Also, the company created its own pharmacy business manager firm in October 2021, allowing it to negotiate prices with drugmakers in house.

The company also announced plans to complete construction of a 22,000-square-foot pharmaceutical factory in Dallas by the end of 2022.

Reactions on social media ranged from celebratory to people disappointed their generic medication would not cost significantly less or is not provided by the digital pharmacy.

When weighted by the number of prescriptions, prices for generics have declined in the United States.

“Overall, U.S. generic prices are the lowest in the world,” Dr. Comanor said. “People say U.S. drug prices are the highest in the world. That’s true for branded, but it’s not true for generics.

“So if someone asks if U.S. drug prices are the highest or lowest in the world, the answer is both,” he said.

“Maybe there is a role to play for this new pharmacy,” Dr. Comanor said when asked if the initiative seems like a positive development.

The state of California also announced plans to provide its own generic drugs, he said.

“But you won’t see a lot of entrepreneurs getting into this because the volumes are so low. If Cuban called me, I would tell him to provide Daraprim and similar, low-volume products,” Dr. Comanor said of the billionaire. “He’s a rich guy; maybe he can do it.”

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

Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team and star of TV’s Shark Tank, is backing a new online pharmacy that aims to reduce the prices people pay for 100 generic medications.

The Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs Company (MCCPDC) plans to offer the leukemia therapy imatinib for $47 per month, for example, compared with $120 or more with a common voucher and a retail price of $9,657 per month.

Other examples of lower-priced generics include the ulcerative colitis treatment mesalamine, which goes for $32.40 per month on the new online pharmacy versus $940 per month retail. In addition, the MCCPDC will offer the gout treatment colchicine at a lower price, charging $8.70, compared with $182 per month retail.

Likely in part because of claims of significant cost savings and in part because of Mr. Cuban’s celebrity status, the new venture is getting widespread media attention. Forbes, NPR, and TMZ have shared the news since the new digital pharmacy was announced earlier this month.

The new venture plans to charge consumers 15% above the manufacturing cost for the generic medications, plus a $3 fee for pharmacists and $5 for shipping. People will still require a prescription from their doctor to get the medications.
 

Generic pricing and social benefit

The top 100 generic products account for about half of generic sales, and there is enough competition for these high-demand medications that “the prices have come down close to zero,” said William Comanor, PhD, a health economist and professor of health policy and management at the University of California, Los Angeles. The remaining generic agents have lower-volume demand.

One prominent example is Daraprim, a decades-old treatment for the life-threatening parasitic infection toxoplasmosis. The drug jumped into the spotlight in 2015 when Martin Shkreli and his company Vyera Pharmaceuticals bought the rights to make the generic drug and raised the price overnight from $13.50 to $750. In January 2022, a U.S. judge banned Mr. Shkreli from the pharmaceutical industry and ordered him to pay an almost $65 million fine.

Dr. Comanor agreed the price should have been raised – $13.50 “was not economically viable” – but not as steep as $750.

“Say Mark Cuban says he will cut the price from $750 to $300. He will still make money. There is a market for these low-volume products,” he said. “There would also be a social benefit.”
 

A direct-to-consumer digital pharmacy

MCCPDC is “cutting out the middleman” in two ways. The business model calls for charging consumers out of pocket, so insurance companies are not involved. Also, the company created its own pharmacy business manager firm in October 2021, allowing it to negotiate prices with drugmakers in house.

The company also announced plans to complete construction of a 22,000-square-foot pharmaceutical factory in Dallas by the end of 2022.

Reactions on social media ranged from celebratory to people disappointed their generic medication would not cost significantly less or is not provided by the digital pharmacy.

When weighted by the number of prescriptions, prices for generics have declined in the United States.

“Overall, U.S. generic prices are the lowest in the world,” Dr. Comanor said. “People say U.S. drug prices are the highest in the world. That’s true for branded, but it’s not true for generics.

“So if someone asks if U.S. drug prices are the highest or lowest in the world, the answer is both,” he said.

“Maybe there is a role to play for this new pharmacy,” Dr. Comanor said when asked if the initiative seems like a positive development.

The state of California also announced plans to provide its own generic drugs, he said.

“But you won’t see a lot of entrepreneurs getting into this because the volumes are so low. If Cuban called me, I would tell him to provide Daraprim and similar, low-volume products,” Dr. Comanor said of the billionaire. “He’s a rich guy; maybe he can do it.”

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

Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team and star of TV’s Shark Tank, is backing a new online pharmacy that aims to reduce the prices people pay for 100 generic medications.

The Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs Company (MCCPDC) plans to offer the leukemia therapy imatinib for $47 per month, for example, compared with $120 or more with a common voucher and a retail price of $9,657 per month.

Other examples of lower-priced generics include the ulcerative colitis treatment mesalamine, which goes for $32.40 per month on the new online pharmacy versus $940 per month retail. In addition, the MCCPDC will offer the gout treatment colchicine at a lower price, charging $8.70, compared with $182 per month retail.

Likely in part because of claims of significant cost savings and in part because of Mr. Cuban’s celebrity status, the new venture is getting widespread media attention. Forbes, NPR, and TMZ have shared the news since the new digital pharmacy was announced earlier this month.

The new venture plans to charge consumers 15% above the manufacturing cost for the generic medications, plus a $3 fee for pharmacists and $5 for shipping. People will still require a prescription from their doctor to get the medications.
 

Generic pricing and social benefit

The top 100 generic products account for about half of generic sales, and there is enough competition for these high-demand medications that “the prices have come down close to zero,” said William Comanor, PhD, a health economist and professor of health policy and management at the University of California, Los Angeles. The remaining generic agents have lower-volume demand.

One prominent example is Daraprim, a decades-old treatment for the life-threatening parasitic infection toxoplasmosis. The drug jumped into the spotlight in 2015 when Martin Shkreli and his company Vyera Pharmaceuticals bought the rights to make the generic drug and raised the price overnight from $13.50 to $750. In January 2022, a U.S. judge banned Mr. Shkreli from the pharmaceutical industry and ordered him to pay an almost $65 million fine.

Dr. Comanor agreed the price should have been raised – $13.50 “was not economically viable” – but not as steep as $750.

“Say Mark Cuban says he will cut the price from $750 to $300. He will still make money. There is a market for these low-volume products,” he said. “There would also be a social benefit.”
 

A direct-to-consumer digital pharmacy

MCCPDC is “cutting out the middleman” in two ways. The business model calls for charging consumers out of pocket, so insurance companies are not involved. Also, the company created its own pharmacy business manager firm in October 2021, allowing it to negotiate prices with drugmakers in house.

The company also announced plans to complete construction of a 22,000-square-foot pharmaceutical factory in Dallas by the end of 2022.

Reactions on social media ranged from celebratory to people disappointed their generic medication would not cost significantly less or is not provided by the digital pharmacy.

When weighted by the number of prescriptions, prices for generics have declined in the United States.

“Overall, U.S. generic prices are the lowest in the world,” Dr. Comanor said. “People say U.S. drug prices are the highest in the world. That’s true for branded, but it’s not true for generics.

“So if someone asks if U.S. drug prices are the highest or lowest in the world, the answer is both,” he said.

“Maybe there is a role to play for this new pharmacy,” Dr. Comanor said when asked if the initiative seems like a positive development.

The state of California also announced plans to provide its own generic drugs, he said.

“But you won’t see a lot of entrepreneurs getting into this because the volumes are so low. If Cuban called me, I would tell him to provide Daraprim and similar, low-volume products,” Dr. Comanor said of the billionaire. “He’s a rich guy; maybe he can do it.”

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

Human clinical trials have started for an experimental HIV vaccine that uses the same kind of mRNA technology found in Moderna’s successful COVID-19 vaccine, the drug company has announced.

The first vaccinations were given Jan. 27 at George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, the company said in a news release. Phase I trials will also be run at the Hope Clinic of Emory Vaccine Center, Atlanta, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, and the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.

The vaccine is designed to prompt white blood cells to turn into antibodies that can neutralize HIV, ABC News reported. A booster shot to work with the HIV vaccine is also being studied.

For 4 decades, the human immunodeficiency virus has managed to dodge the immune system’s attempts to destroy it. Scientists have not been able to develop a vaccine, though they have made advancements in treatments, such as long-acting injectables for pre- and post-exposure prevention and treatment. HIV can lead to AIDS, which can be fatal.

The release said 56 healthy HIV-negative adults are taking part in the clinical trial, with 48 getting one or two doses of the mRNA vaccine and 32 also getting the booster. Eight people will just get the booster. All of them will be monitored for up to 6 months after receiving a final dose.

The immunogens – antigens that elicit an immune response – that are being tested were developed by the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) and Scripps Research. They will be delivered using the same messenger RNA (mRNA) technology in Moderna’s successful COVID-19 vaccine, the news release said.

About 1.2 million people in the United States had HIV at the end of 2019, according to the CDC, with more than 36,000 people being diagnosed in 2019.

The World Health Organization says 37.7 million people in the world had HIV in 2020.

“We are tremendously excited to be advancing this new direction in HIV vaccine design with Moderna’s mRNA platform,” Mark Feinberg, MD, president and CEO of IAVI, said in the news release. “The search for an HIV vaccine has been long and challenging, and having new tools in terms of immunogens and platforms could be the key to making rapid progress toward an urgently needed, effective HIV vaccine.”

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

Human clinical trials have started for an experimental HIV vaccine that uses the same kind of mRNA technology found in Moderna’s successful COVID-19 vaccine, the drug company has announced.

The first vaccinations were given Jan. 27 at George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, the company said in a news release. Phase I trials will also be run at the Hope Clinic of Emory Vaccine Center, Atlanta, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, and the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.

The vaccine is designed to prompt white blood cells to turn into antibodies that can neutralize HIV, ABC News reported. A booster shot to work with the HIV vaccine is also being studied.

For 4 decades, the human immunodeficiency virus has managed to dodge the immune system’s attempts to destroy it. Scientists have not been able to develop a vaccine, though they have made advancements in treatments, such as long-acting injectables for pre- and post-exposure prevention and treatment. HIV can lead to AIDS, which can be fatal.

The release said 56 healthy HIV-negative adults are taking part in the clinical trial, with 48 getting one or two doses of the mRNA vaccine and 32 also getting the booster. Eight people will just get the booster. All of them will be monitored for up to 6 months after receiving a final dose.

The immunogens – antigens that elicit an immune response – that are being tested were developed by the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) and Scripps Research. They will be delivered using the same messenger RNA (mRNA) technology in Moderna’s successful COVID-19 vaccine, the news release said.

About 1.2 million people in the United States had HIV at the end of 2019, according to the CDC, with more than 36,000 people being diagnosed in 2019.

The World Health Organization says 37.7 million people in the world had HIV in 2020.

“We are tremendously excited to be advancing this new direction in HIV vaccine design with Moderna’s mRNA platform,” Mark Feinberg, MD, president and CEO of IAVI, said in the news release. “The search for an HIV vaccine has been long and challenging, and having new tools in terms of immunogens and platforms could be the key to making rapid progress toward an urgently needed, effective HIV vaccine.”

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

Human clinical trials have started for an experimental HIV vaccine that uses the same kind of mRNA technology found in Moderna’s successful COVID-19 vaccine, the drug company has announced.

The first vaccinations were given Jan. 27 at George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, the company said in a news release. Phase I trials will also be run at the Hope Clinic of Emory Vaccine Center, Atlanta, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, and the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.

The vaccine is designed to prompt white blood cells to turn into antibodies that can neutralize HIV, ABC News reported. A booster shot to work with the HIV vaccine is also being studied.

For 4 decades, the human immunodeficiency virus has managed to dodge the immune system’s attempts to destroy it. Scientists have not been able to develop a vaccine, though they have made advancements in treatments, such as long-acting injectables for pre- and post-exposure prevention and treatment. HIV can lead to AIDS, which can be fatal.

The release said 56 healthy HIV-negative adults are taking part in the clinical trial, with 48 getting one or two doses of the mRNA vaccine and 32 also getting the booster. Eight people will just get the booster. All of them will be monitored for up to 6 months after receiving a final dose.

The immunogens – antigens that elicit an immune response – that are being tested were developed by the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) and Scripps Research. They will be delivered using the same messenger RNA (mRNA) technology in Moderna’s successful COVID-19 vaccine, the news release said.

About 1.2 million people in the United States had HIV at the end of 2019, according to the CDC, with more than 36,000 people being diagnosed in 2019.

The World Health Organization says 37.7 million people in the world had HIV in 2020.

“We are tremendously excited to be advancing this new direction in HIV vaccine design with Moderna’s mRNA platform,” Mark Feinberg, MD, president and CEO of IAVI, said in the news release. “The search for an HIV vaccine has been long and challenging, and having new tools in terms of immunogens and platforms could be the key to making rapid progress toward an urgently needed, effective HIV vaccine.”

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

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are at least as effective in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and mild preexisting interstitial lung disease (ILD) as in those without ILD. However, the risk of checkpoint inhibitor pneumonitis (CIP) is higher in patients with the dual diagnoses and they need careful monitoring when introducing an ICI, a systematic review and meta-analysis indicated.

“Patients with preexisting ILD, especially symptomatic ILD, are frequently excluded from clinical trials so almost all the patients [we analyzed] were diagnosed with mild preexisting ILD,” said Yuan Cheng, MD, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.

“At this stage, we think that mild ILD is not a contraindication to the use of anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) and anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) treatment for patients with NSCLC but whether ICIs can be used in patients with moderate to severe ILD needs further study,” she added.

The study was published online Jan. 10 in the journal CHEST.
 

Ten studies

A total of 179 patients from 10 studies were included in the review and meta-analysis. Among these, six were retrospective case-control studies, one was a retrospective noncontrolled study and three were prospective, noncontrolled clinical trials. “All the included studies were from East Asian countries,” the authors noted.

Preexisting ILD was diagnosed by use of CT or high-resolution CT. The mean age of patients was 71 years (range, 33-85 years), 87% were male and 96% of the cohort had a history of smoking. Approximately one-quarter of patients with ILD had usual interstitial pneumonitis (UIP); about the same percentage had possible UIP; one-third were diagnosed with inconsistent UIP; 14% had nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP); and 6% had indeterminate UIP.

Patients received ICIs either as first-, second-, or third-line or higher therapy and all were treated with ICI monotherapy by way of either nivolumab (Opdivo), pembrolizumab (Keytruda), or atezolizumab (Tecentriq). About 10% of patients had a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of less than 1%, one-quarter had a PD-L1 TPS of 1%-49%, and approximately two-thirds had a TPS of 50% or greater.
 

Objective response rates

Some 35% of patients with both NSCLC and preexisting ILD achieved an objective response rate (ORR) to ICI therapy and almost two-thirds of patients achieved disease control. However, there was considerable heterogeneity in ORRs between the studies where it ranged from 5.9% to 70%, the authors cautioned.

On meta-analysis, the pooled ORR was 34% (95% confidence interval, 20%-47%) but again, with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 75.9%). However, on meta-analysis of eligible studies, patients with NSCLC who had preexisting ILD were 99% more likely to achieve an ORR compared to those without ILD (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.31-3.00), the investigators pointed out.

The disease control rate (DCR) also varied considerably between studies from a low of 33.3% to a high of 100%, they added. On meta-analysis, the pooled DCR was 66% (95% CI, 56%-75%). “Meanwhile, in patients without preexisting ILD, the crude ORR and pooled ORR were 24.3% and 24% (95% CI, 17%-31%), respectively” – again with significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 87.4%).

In contrast to the ORR, there was no difference in the DCR between the two groups, with no evidence of heterogeneity. There were no significant differences between the two groups in either median progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). In patients with NSCLC and preexisting ILD, median PFS ranged from 1.4 to 8 months whereas median OS ranged from 15.6 to 27.8 months.

For those without preexisting ILD, the median PFS ranged from 2.3 to 8.1 months while median OS ranged from 17.4 to 25.5 months.
 

ICI safety

In patients with NSCLC and preexisting ILD, the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAes) of any grade was 56.7%, whereas the incidence of irAEs grade 3 and higher was 27.7%. “Among the 179 patients included in the studies, 45 developed any grade of CIP, corresponding to a crude incidence of 25.1%,” the authors noted – very similar to the pooled incidence of 27% on meta-analysis.

The pooled incidence of grade 3 and higher CIP in the same group of patients was 15%. The median time from initiation of ICIs to the development of CIP ranged from 31 to 74 days, but 88% of patients who developed CIP improved with appropriate treatment. In patients with NSCLC who did not have ILD, the pooled incidence of CIP was 10% (95% CI, 6%-13%), again with significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 78.8%). “Generally, CIP can be managed through ICI discontinuation with or without steroid administration,” the authors noted.

However, even if most CIP can be easily managed, “the incidence of severe CIP is higher [in NSCLC patients with preexisting ILD] than in other populations,” Dr. Chen observed. “So patients with preexisting ILD should be closely monitored during ICI therapy,” she added.

Indeed, compared with patients without preexisting ILD, grade 3 or higher CIP in patients with the dual diagnosis was significantly higher at an OR of 3.23 (95%, 2.06-5.06), the investigators emphasized.

A limitation to the review and systematic meta-analysis included the fact that none of the studies analyzed were randomized clinical trials and most of the studies were retrospective and had several other shortcomings.
 

Umbrella diagnosis

Asked to comment on the review, Karthik Suresh, MD, associate professor of medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, pointed out that ILD is really an “umbrella” diagnosis that a few hundred diseases fit under, so the first question he and members of his multidisciplinary team ask is: What is the nature of the ILD in this patient? What is the actual underlying etiology?

It could, for example, be that the patient has undergone prior chemotherapy or radiation therapy and has developed ILD as a result, as Dr. Suresh and his coauthor, Jarushka Naidoo, MD, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, pointed out in their paper on how to approach patients with preexisting lung disease to avoid ICI toxicities. “We’ll go back to their prior CT scans and can see the ILD has been there for years – it’s stable and the patient’s lung function is not changing,” Dr. Suresh related to this news organization.

“That’s a very different story from a [patients] whom there are new interstitial changes, who are progressing and who are symptomatic,” he noted. Essentially, what Dr. Suresh and his team members want to know is: What is the specific subdiagnosis of this disease, how severe is it, and is it progressing? Then they need to take the tumor itself into consideration.

“Some tumors have high PD-L1 expression, others have low PD-L1 expression so response to immunotherapy is usually very different based on tumor histology,” Dr. Suresh pointed out. Thus, the next question that needs to be addressed is: What is the expected response of the tumor to ICI therapy? If a tumor is exquisitely sensitive to immunotherapy, “that changes the game,” Dr. Suresh said, “whereas with other tumors, the oncologist might say there may be some benefit but it won’t be dramatic.”

The third risk factor for ICI toxicity that needs to be evaluated is the patient’s general cardiopulmonary status – for example, if a patient has mild, even moderate, ILD but is still walking 3 miles a day, has no heart problems, and is doing fine. Another patient with the same severity of disease in turn may have mild heart failure, be relatively debilitated, and sedentary: “Performance status also plays a big role in determining treatment,” Dr. Suresh emphasized.

The presence of other pulmonary conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – common in patients with NSCLC – has to be taken into account, too. Lastly, clinicians need to ask themselves if there are any alternative therapies that might work just as well if not better than ICI therapy for this particular patient. If the patient has had genomic testing, results might indicate that the tumor has a mutation that may respond well to targeted therapies. “We put all these factors out on the table,” Dr. Suresh said.

“And you obviously have to involve the patient, too, so they understand the risks of ICI therapy and together we decide, ‘Yes, this patient with ILD should get immunotherapy or no, they should not,’ “ he said.  

The study had no specific funding. The study authors and Dr. Suresh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are at least as effective in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and mild preexisting interstitial lung disease (ILD) as in those without ILD. However, the risk of checkpoint inhibitor pneumonitis (CIP) is higher in patients with the dual diagnoses and they need careful monitoring when introducing an ICI, a systematic review and meta-analysis indicated.

“Patients with preexisting ILD, especially symptomatic ILD, are frequently excluded from clinical trials so almost all the patients [we analyzed] were diagnosed with mild preexisting ILD,” said Yuan Cheng, MD, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.

“At this stage, we think that mild ILD is not a contraindication to the use of anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) and anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) treatment for patients with NSCLC but whether ICIs can be used in patients with moderate to severe ILD needs further study,” she added.

The study was published online Jan. 10 in the journal CHEST.
 

Ten studies

A total of 179 patients from 10 studies were included in the review and meta-analysis. Among these, six were retrospective case-control studies, one was a retrospective noncontrolled study and three were prospective, noncontrolled clinical trials. “All the included studies were from East Asian countries,” the authors noted.

Preexisting ILD was diagnosed by use of CT or high-resolution CT. The mean age of patients was 71 years (range, 33-85 years), 87% were male and 96% of the cohort had a history of smoking. Approximately one-quarter of patients with ILD had usual interstitial pneumonitis (UIP); about the same percentage had possible UIP; one-third were diagnosed with inconsistent UIP; 14% had nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP); and 6% had indeterminate UIP.

Patients received ICIs either as first-, second-, or third-line or higher therapy and all were treated with ICI monotherapy by way of either nivolumab (Opdivo), pembrolizumab (Keytruda), or atezolizumab (Tecentriq). About 10% of patients had a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of less than 1%, one-quarter had a PD-L1 TPS of 1%-49%, and approximately two-thirds had a TPS of 50% or greater.
 

Objective response rates

Some 35% of patients with both NSCLC and preexisting ILD achieved an objective response rate (ORR) to ICI therapy and almost two-thirds of patients achieved disease control. However, there was considerable heterogeneity in ORRs between the studies where it ranged from 5.9% to 70%, the authors cautioned.

On meta-analysis, the pooled ORR was 34% (95% confidence interval, 20%-47%) but again, with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 75.9%). However, on meta-analysis of eligible studies, patients with NSCLC who had preexisting ILD were 99% more likely to achieve an ORR compared to those without ILD (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.31-3.00), the investigators pointed out.

The disease control rate (DCR) also varied considerably between studies from a low of 33.3% to a high of 100%, they added. On meta-analysis, the pooled DCR was 66% (95% CI, 56%-75%). “Meanwhile, in patients without preexisting ILD, the crude ORR and pooled ORR were 24.3% and 24% (95% CI, 17%-31%), respectively” – again with significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 87.4%).

In contrast to the ORR, there was no difference in the DCR between the two groups, with no evidence of heterogeneity. There were no significant differences between the two groups in either median progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). In patients with NSCLC and preexisting ILD, median PFS ranged from 1.4 to 8 months whereas median OS ranged from 15.6 to 27.8 months.

For those without preexisting ILD, the median PFS ranged from 2.3 to 8.1 months while median OS ranged from 17.4 to 25.5 months.
 

ICI safety

In patients with NSCLC and preexisting ILD, the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAes) of any grade was 56.7%, whereas the incidence of irAEs grade 3 and higher was 27.7%. “Among the 179 patients included in the studies, 45 developed any grade of CIP, corresponding to a crude incidence of 25.1%,” the authors noted – very similar to the pooled incidence of 27% on meta-analysis.

The pooled incidence of grade 3 and higher CIP in the same group of patients was 15%. The median time from initiation of ICIs to the development of CIP ranged from 31 to 74 days, but 88% of patients who developed CIP improved with appropriate treatment. In patients with NSCLC who did not have ILD, the pooled incidence of CIP was 10% (95% CI, 6%-13%), again with significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 78.8%). “Generally, CIP can be managed through ICI discontinuation with or without steroid administration,” the authors noted.

However, even if most CIP can be easily managed, “the incidence of severe CIP is higher [in NSCLC patients with preexisting ILD] than in other populations,” Dr. Chen observed. “So patients with preexisting ILD should be closely monitored during ICI therapy,” she added.

Indeed, compared with patients without preexisting ILD, grade 3 or higher CIP in patients with the dual diagnosis was significantly higher at an OR of 3.23 (95%, 2.06-5.06), the investigators emphasized.

A limitation to the review and systematic meta-analysis included the fact that none of the studies analyzed were randomized clinical trials and most of the studies were retrospective and had several other shortcomings.
 

Umbrella diagnosis

Asked to comment on the review, Karthik Suresh, MD, associate professor of medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, pointed out that ILD is really an “umbrella” diagnosis that a few hundred diseases fit under, so the first question he and members of his multidisciplinary team ask is: What is the nature of the ILD in this patient? What is the actual underlying etiology?

It could, for example, be that the patient has undergone prior chemotherapy or radiation therapy and has developed ILD as a result, as Dr. Suresh and his coauthor, Jarushka Naidoo, MD, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, pointed out in their paper on how to approach patients with preexisting lung disease to avoid ICI toxicities. “We’ll go back to their prior CT scans and can see the ILD has been there for years – it’s stable and the patient’s lung function is not changing,” Dr. Suresh related to this news organization.

“That’s a very different story from a [patients] whom there are new interstitial changes, who are progressing and who are symptomatic,” he noted. Essentially, what Dr. Suresh and his team members want to know is: What is the specific subdiagnosis of this disease, how severe is it, and is it progressing? Then they need to take the tumor itself into consideration.

“Some tumors have high PD-L1 expression, others have low PD-L1 expression so response to immunotherapy is usually very different based on tumor histology,” Dr. Suresh pointed out. Thus, the next question that needs to be addressed is: What is the expected response of the tumor to ICI therapy? If a tumor is exquisitely sensitive to immunotherapy, “that changes the game,” Dr. Suresh said, “whereas with other tumors, the oncologist might say there may be some benefit but it won’t be dramatic.”

The third risk factor for ICI toxicity that needs to be evaluated is the patient’s general cardiopulmonary status – for example, if a patient has mild, even moderate, ILD but is still walking 3 miles a day, has no heart problems, and is doing fine. Another patient with the same severity of disease in turn may have mild heart failure, be relatively debilitated, and sedentary: “Performance status also plays a big role in determining treatment,” Dr. Suresh emphasized.

The presence of other pulmonary conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – common in patients with NSCLC – has to be taken into account, too. Lastly, clinicians need to ask themselves if there are any alternative therapies that might work just as well if not better than ICI therapy for this particular patient. If the patient has had genomic testing, results might indicate that the tumor has a mutation that may respond well to targeted therapies. “We put all these factors out on the table,” Dr. Suresh said.

“And you obviously have to involve the patient, too, so they understand the risks of ICI therapy and together we decide, ‘Yes, this patient with ILD should get immunotherapy or no, they should not,’ “ he said.  

The study had no specific funding. The study authors and Dr. Suresh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are at least as effective in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and mild preexisting interstitial lung disease (ILD) as in those without ILD. However, the risk of checkpoint inhibitor pneumonitis (CIP) is higher in patients with the dual diagnoses and they need careful monitoring when introducing an ICI, a systematic review and meta-analysis indicated.

“Patients with preexisting ILD, especially symptomatic ILD, are frequently excluded from clinical trials so almost all the patients [we analyzed] were diagnosed with mild preexisting ILD,” said Yuan Cheng, MD, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.

“At this stage, we think that mild ILD is not a contraindication to the use of anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) and anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) treatment for patients with NSCLC but whether ICIs can be used in patients with moderate to severe ILD needs further study,” she added.

The study was published online Jan. 10 in the journal CHEST.
 

Ten studies

A total of 179 patients from 10 studies were included in the review and meta-analysis. Among these, six were retrospective case-control studies, one was a retrospective noncontrolled study and three were prospective, noncontrolled clinical trials. “All the included studies were from East Asian countries,” the authors noted.

Preexisting ILD was diagnosed by use of CT or high-resolution CT. The mean age of patients was 71 years (range, 33-85 years), 87% were male and 96% of the cohort had a history of smoking. Approximately one-quarter of patients with ILD had usual interstitial pneumonitis (UIP); about the same percentage had possible UIP; one-third were diagnosed with inconsistent UIP; 14% had nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP); and 6% had indeterminate UIP.

Patients received ICIs either as first-, second-, or third-line or higher therapy and all were treated with ICI monotherapy by way of either nivolumab (Opdivo), pembrolizumab (Keytruda), or atezolizumab (Tecentriq). About 10% of patients had a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of less than 1%, one-quarter had a PD-L1 TPS of 1%-49%, and approximately two-thirds had a TPS of 50% or greater.
 

Objective response rates

Some 35% of patients with both NSCLC and preexisting ILD achieved an objective response rate (ORR) to ICI therapy and almost two-thirds of patients achieved disease control. However, there was considerable heterogeneity in ORRs between the studies where it ranged from 5.9% to 70%, the authors cautioned.

On meta-analysis, the pooled ORR was 34% (95% confidence interval, 20%-47%) but again, with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 75.9%). However, on meta-analysis of eligible studies, patients with NSCLC who had preexisting ILD were 99% more likely to achieve an ORR compared to those without ILD (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.31-3.00), the investigators pointed out.

The disease control rate (DCR) also varied considerably between studies from a low of 33.3% to a high of 100%, they added. On meta-analysis, the pooled DCR was 66% (95% CI, 56%-75%). “Meanwhile, in patients without preexisting ILD, the crude ORR and pooled ORR were 24.3% and 24% (95% CI, 17%-31%), respectively” – again with significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 87.4%).

In contrast to the ORR, there was no difference in the DCR between the two groups, with no evidence of heterogeneity. There were no significant differences between the two groups in either median progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). In patients with NSCLC and preexisting ILD, median PFS ranged from 1.4 to 8 months whereas median OS ranged from 15.6 to 27.8 months.

For those without preexisting ILD, the median PFS ranged from 2.3 to 8.1 months while median OS ranged from 17.4 to 25.5 months.
 

ICI safety

In patients with NSCLC and preexisting ILD, the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAes) of any grade was 56.7%, whereas the incidence of irAEs grade 3 and higher was 27.7%. “Among the 179 patients included in the studies, 45 developed any grade of CIP, corresponding to a crude incidence of 25.1%,” the authors noted – very similar to the pooled incidence of 27% on meta-analysis.

The pooled incidence of grade 3 and higher CIP in the same group of patients was 15%. The median time from initiation of ICIs to the development of CIP ranged from 31 to 74 days, but 88% of patients who developed CIP improved with appropriate treatment. In patients with NSCLC who did not have ILD, the pooled incidence of CIP was 10% (95% CI, 6%-13%), again with significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 78.8%). “Generally, CIP can be managed through ICI discontinuation with or without steroid administration,” the authors noted.

However, even if most CIP can be easily managed, “the incidence of severe CIP is higher [in NSCLC patients with preexisting ILD] than in other populations,” Dr. Chen observed. “So patients with preexisting ILD should be closely monitored during ICI therapy,” she added.

Indeed, compared with patients without preexisting ILD, grade 3 or higher CIP in patients with the dual diagnosis was significantly higher at an OR of 3.23 (95%, 2.06-5.06), the investigators emphasized.

A limitation to the review and systematic meta-analysis included the fact that none of the studies analyzed were randomized clinical trials and most of the studies were retrospective and had several other shortcomings.
 

Umbrella diagnosis

Asked to comment on the review, Karthik Suresh, MD, associate professor of medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, pointed out that ILD is really an “umbrella” diagnosis that a few hundred diseases fit under, so the first question he and members of his multidisciplinary team ask is: What is the nature of the ILD in this patient? What is the actual underlying etiology?

It could, for example, be that the patient has undergone prior chemotherapy or radiation therapy and has developed ILD as a result, as Dr. Suresh and his coauthor, Jarushka Naidoo, MD, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, pointed out in their paper on how to approach patients with preexisting lung disease to avoid ICI toxicities. “We’ll go back to their prior CT scans and can see the ILD has been there for years – it’s stable and the patient’s lung function is not changing,” Dr. Suresh related to this news organization.

“That’s a very different story from a [patients] whom there are new interstitial changes, who are progressing and who are symptomatic,” he noted. Essentially, what Dr. Suresh and his team members want to know is: What is the specific subdiagnosis of this disease, how severe is it, and is it progressing? Then they need to take the tumor itself into consideration.

“Some tumors have high PD-L1 expression, others have low PD-L1 expression so response to immunotherapy is usually very different based on tumor histology,” Dr. Suresh pointed out. Thus, the next question that needs to be addressed is: What is the expected response of the tumor to ICI therapy? If a tumor is exquisitely sensitive to immunotherapy, “that changes the game,” Dr. Suresh said, “whereas with other tumors, the oncologist might say there may be some benefit but it won’t be dramatic.”

The third risk factor for ICI toxicity that needs to be evaluated is the patient’s general cardiopulmonary status – for example, if a patient has mild, even moderate, ILD but is still walking 3 miles a day, has no heart problems, and is doing fine. Another patient with the same severity of disease in turn may have mild heart failure, be relatively debilitated, and sedentary: “Performance status also plays a big role in determining treatment,” Dr. Suresh emphasized.

The presence of other pulmonary conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – common in patients with NSCLC – has to be taken into account, too. Lastly, clinicians need to ask themselves if there are any alternative therapies that might work just as well if not better than ICI therapy for this particular patient. If the patient has had genomic testing, results might indicate that the tumor has a mutation that may respond well to targeted therapies. “We put all these factors out on the table,” Dr. Suresh said.

“And you obviously have to involve the patient, too, so they understand the risks of ICI therapy and together we decide, ‘Yes, this patient with ILD should get immunotherapy or no, they should not,’ “ he said.  

The study had no specific funding. The study authors and Dr. Suresh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Intravenous ketamine is effective for treating depression but is inferior to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), new research suggests.

In the first head-to-head trial, ECT was more effective than intravenous ketamine in hospitalized patients with severe depression, with higher remission rates and a greater reduction in symptoms.

However, ketamine led to remission in nearly half of participants and is a “valuable” option for treating severe depression, particularly in younger patients, the investigators noted.

The high rate of remission for ketamine infusion “indicates that it definitely can be used in a clinical setting, but it is more probable that a patient will achieve remission with ECT compared to ketamine,” principal investigator Pouya Movahed Rad, MD, PhD (pharmacology), senior consultant and researcher in psychiatry, Lund (Sweden) University, said in an interview.

Results of the KetECT study were recently published online in the International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology.
 

Primary focus on remission

The parallel, open-label, noninferiority study included 186 patients aged 18-85 years who were hospitalized with severe unipolar depression and had a score of at least 20 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to thrice-weekly infusions of racemic ketamine (0.5 mg/kg over 40 minutes) or ECT. All patients continued to take their antidepressant medication during the study. The primary outcome was remission, defined as a MADRS score of 10 or less.  

Results showed the remission rate was significantly higher in the ECT group than in the ketamine group (63% vs. 46%, respectively; P = .026). The 95% confidence interval of the difference in remission rates was estimated between 2% and 30%. 

Both ketamine and ECT required a median of six treatment sessions to induce remission.

Post-hoc analysis indicated that age was a factor in the findings. In the ECT group, remission was significantly more likely in older patients (51-85 years), compared with younger patients (18-50 years), with remission rates of 77% and 50%, respectively.

But the opposite was true in the ketamine group, with significantly higher remission rates in younger versus older patients (61% vs. 37%).

The study results also support the safety and efficacy of ketamine in patients with psychotic depression, which was present in 15% of patients in the ECT group and 18% of those in the ketamine group.

In this subgroup, half of patients with psychotic depression remitted after ketamine, with no indications of adverse reactions particular for these patients. The remission rate with ECT was 79%.

During the 12-month follow-up period, rate of relapse among remitters was similar at 64% in the ECT group and 70% in the ketamine group (log rank P = .44).
 

Let the patient decide

As expected, ECT and ketamine had distinct side effect profiles. Subjectively reported prolonged amnesia was more common with ECT and reports of dissociative side effects, anxiety, blurred vision, euphoria, vertigo, and diplopia (double vision) were more common with ketamine. 

“Dissociative symptoms were, as expected, observed during treatment with ketamine, but they were brief and in the majority of cases mild and tolerable,” Dr. Movahed Rad said.

The investigators noted that participating study sites all had long-time experience with ECT but no experience administering ketamine.

“Staffs, and some patients, were familiar with side effects common to ECT but were less prepared for the adverse psychological effects of ketamine. This, and knowing ECT was available after the study, probably contributed to the higher dropout rate in the ketamine group,” they wrote.

If both ECT and ketamine are available, “the patient’s preference should, of course, be taken in account when choosing treatment,” said Dr. Movahed Rad.

“Ketamine should be offered if ECT is not available, or cannot be given due to excessive risks with anesthesia or other somatic risk factor. Patients who have not responded to ECT or have had unacceptable side effects should be offered ketamine infusion and vice versa,” he added.

A good alternative

Commenting on the findings, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, said the data confirm ECT is highly effective for treatment-resistant depression and show that “newcomer” intravenous ketamine also performs “exceptionally well.”

“This is an extremely important study that really establishes the efficacy of ketamine in a very difficult to treat population,” added Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved in the research.

He added that this “rigorous, well-designed study addresses a critical question” about the comparative efficacy of ECT and intravenous ketamine. It also makes “quite a strong statement about the efficacy of ketamine in younger people.”

He cautioned, however, that this study represents the “first data point and, of course, is not the final word on the topic. There are other studies currently still ongoing that are also comparing ECT to IV ketamine and we’ll look forward to seeing the results.”

The fact that 15%-20% of the study patients had psychotic depression is also noteworthy, said Dr. McIntyre.

“We’ve been hesitant to use ketamine in these patients, I think for obvious reasons, but we recently published a paper showing that it is safe and very effective in these patients,” he said.

Having ketamine as a treatment option is important because the majority of patients who could benefit from ECT decline it, often because of the stigma associated with the procedure, which is often portrayed negatively in films and other media.

“I have been recommending ECT almost every day of my professional life and 98 times out of 100 people say: ‘Thanks but no thanks.’ That’s a problem because ECT is so effective,” Dr. McIntyre said.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, Crafoord Foundation, Skåne Regional Council, Königska Foundation, Lions Forskningsfond Skåne, and the OM Perssons donation foundation. Dr. Movahed Rad has received lecturer honoraria from Lundbeck. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation and speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, and other companies. McIntyre is also CEO of AltMed.

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

Intravenous ketamine is effective for treating depression but is inferior to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), new research suggests.

In the first head-to-head trial, ECT was more effective than intravenous ketamine in hospitalized patients with severe depression, with higher remission rates and a greater reduction in symptoms.

However, ketamine led to remission in nearly half of participants and is a “valuable” option for treating severe depression, particularly in younger patients, the investigators noted.

The high rate of remission for ketamine infusion “indicates that it definitely can be used in a clinical setting, but it is more probable that a patient will achieve remission with ECT compared to ketamine,” principal investigator Pouya Movahed Rad, MD, PhD (pharmacology), senior consultant and researcher in psychiatry, Lund (Sweden) University, said in an interview.

Results of the KetECT study were recently published online in the International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology.
 

Primary focus on remission

The parallel, open-label, noninferiority study included 186 patients aged 18-85 years who were hospitalized with severe unipolar depression and had a score of at least 20 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to thrice-weekly infusions of racemic ketamine (0.5 mg/kg over 40 minutes) or ECT. All patients continued to take their antidepressant medication during the study. The primary outcome was remission, defined as a MADRS score of 10 or less.  

Results showed the remission rate was significantly higher in the ECT group than in the ketamine group (63% vs. 46%, respectively; P = .026). The 95% confidence interval of the difference in remission rates was estimated between 2% and 30%. 

Both ketamine and ECT required a median of six treatment sessions to induce remission.

Post-hoc analysis indicated that age was a factor in the findings. In the ECT group, remission was significantly more likely in older patients (51-85 years), compared with younger patients (18-50 years), with remission rates of 77% and 50%, respectively.

But the opposite was true in the ketamine group, with significantly higher remission rates in younger versus older patients (61% vs. 37%).

The study results also support the safety and efficacy of ketamine in patients with psychotic depression, which was present in 15% of patients in the ECT group and 18% of those in the ketamine group.

In this subgroup, half of patients with psychotic depression remitted after ketamine, with no indications of adverse reactions particular for these patients. The remission rate with ECT was 79%.

During the 12-month follow-up period, rate of relapse among remitters was similar at 64% in the ECT group and 70% in the ketamine group (log rank P = .44).
 

Let the patient decide

As expected, ECT and ketamine had distinct side effect profiles. Subjectively reported prolonged amnesia was more common with ECT and reports of dissociative side effects, anxiety, blurred vision, euphoria, vertigo, and diplopia (double vision) were more common with ketamine. 

“Dissociative symptoms were, as expected, observed during treatment with ketamine, but they were brief and in the majority of cases mild and tolerable,” Dr. Movahed Rad said.

The investigators noted that participating study sites all had long-time experience with ECT but no experience administering ketamine.

“Staffs, and some patients, were familiar with side effects common to ECT but were less prepared for the adverse psychological effects of ketamine. This, and knowing ECT was available after the study, probably contributed to the higher dropout rate in the ketamine group,” they wrote.

If both ECT and ketamine are available, “the patient’s preference should, of course, be taken in account when choosing treatment,” said Dr. Movahed Rad.

“Ketamine should be offered if ECT is not available, or cannot be given due to excessive risks with anesthesia or other somatic risk factor. Patients who have not responded to ECT or have had unacceptable side effects should be offered ketamine infusion and vice versa,” he added.

A good alternative

Commenting on the findings, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, said the data confirm ECT is highly effective for treatment-resistant depression and show that “newcomer” intravenous ketamine also performs “exceptionally well.”

“This is an extremely important study that really establishes the efficacy of ketamine in a very difficult to treat population,” added Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved in the research.

He added that this “rigorous, well-designed study addresses a critical question” about the comparative efficacy of ECT and intravenous ketamine. It also makes “quite a strong statement about the efficacy of ketamine in younger people.”

He cautioned, however, that this study represents the “first data point and, of course, is not the final word on the topic. There are other studies currently still ongoing that are also comparing ECT to IV ketamine and we’ll look forward to seeing the results.”

The fact that 15%-20% of the study patients had psychotic depression is also noteworthy, said Dr. McIntyre.

“We’ve been hesitant to use ketamine in these patients, I think for obvious reasons, but we recently published a paper showing that it is safe and very effective in these patients,” he said.

Having ketamine as a treatment option is important because the majority of patients who could benefit from ECT decline it, often because of the stigma associated with the procedure, which is often portrayed negatively in films and other media.

“I have been recommending ECT almost every day of my professional life and 98 times out of 100 people say: ‘Thanks but no thanks.’ That’s a problem because ECT is so effective,” Dr. McIntyre said.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, Crafoord Foundation, Skåne Regional Council, Königska Foundation, Lions Forskningsfond Skåne, and the OM Perssons donation foundation. Dr. Movahed Rad has received lecturer honoraria from Lundbeck. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation and speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, and other companies. McIntyre is also CEO of AltMed.

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

Intravenous ketamine is effective for treating depression but is inferior to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), new research suggests.

In the first head-to-head trial, ECT was more effective than intravenous ketamine in hospitalized patients with severe depression, with higher remission rates and a greater reduction in symptoms.

However, ketamine led to remission in nearly half of participants and is a “valuable” option for treating severe depression, particularly in younger patients, the investigators noted.

The high rate of remission for ketamine infusion “indicates that it definitely can be used in a clinical setting, but it is more probable that a patient will achieve remission with ECT compared to ketamine,” principal investigator Pouya Movahed Rad, MD, PhD (pharmacology), senior consultant and researcher in psychiatry, Lund (Sweden) University, said in an interview.

Results of the KetECT study were recently published online in the International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology.
 

Primary focus on remission

The parallel, open-label, noninferiority study included 186 patients aged 18-85 years who were hospitalized with severe unipolar depression and had a score of at least 20 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to thrice-weekly infusions of racemic ketamine (0.5 mg/kg over 40 minutes) or ECT. All patients continued to take their antidepressant medication during the study. The primary outcome was remission, defined as a MADRS score of 10 or less.  

Results showed the remission rate was significantly higher in the ECT group than in the ketamine group (63% vs. 46%, respectively; P = .026). The 95% confidence interval of the difference in remission rates was estimated between 2% and 30%. 

Both ketamine and ECT required a median of six treatment sessions to induce remission.

Post-hoc analysis indicated that age was a factor in the findings. In the ECT group, remission was significantly more likely in older patients (51-85 years), compared with younger patients (18-50 years), with remission rates of 77% and 50%, respectively.

But the opposite was true in the ketamine group, with significantly higher remission rates in younger versus older patients (61% vs. 37%).

The study results also support the safety and efficacy of ketamine in patients with psychotic depression, which was present in 15% of patients in the ECT group and 18% of those in the ketamine group.

In this subgroup, half of patients with psychotic depression remitted after ketamine, with no indications of adverse reactions particular for these patients. The remission rate with ECT was 79%.

During the 12-month follow-up period, rate of relapse among remitters was similar at 64% in the ECT group and 70% in the ketamine group (log rank P = .44).
 

Let the patient decide

As expected, ECT and ketamine had distinct side effect profiles. Subjectively reported prolonged amnesia was more common with ECT and reports of dissociative side effects, anxiety, blurred vision, euphoria, vertigo, and diplopia (double vision) were more common with ketamine. 

“Dissociative symptoms were, as expected, observed during treatment with ketamine, but they were brief and in the majority of cases mild and tolerable,” Dr. Movahed Rad said.

The investigators noted that participating study sites all had long-time experience with ECT but no experience administering ketamine.

“Staffs, and some patients, were familiar with side effects common to ECT but were less prepared for the adverse psychological effects of ketamine. This, and knowing ECT was available after the study, probably contributed to the higher dropout rate in the ketamine group,” they wrote.

If both ECT and ketamine are available, “the patient’s preference should, of course, be taken in account when choosing treatment,” said Dr. Movahed Rad.

“Ketamine should be offered if ECT is not available, or cannot be given due to excessive risks with anesthesia or other somatic risk factor. Patients who have not responded to ECT or have had unacceptable side effects should be offered ketamine infusion and vice versa,” he added.

A good alternative

Commenting on the findings, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, said the data confirm ECT is highly effective for treatment-resistant depression and show that “newcomer” intravenous ketamine also performs “exceptionally well.”

“This is an extremely important study that really establishes the efficacy of ketamine in a very difficult to treat population,” added Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved in the research.

He added that this “rigorous, well-designed study addresses a critical question” about the comparative efficacy of ECT and intravenous ketamine. It also makes “quite a strong statement about the efficacy of ketamine in younger people.”

He cautioned, however, that this study represents the “first data point and, of course, is not the final word on the topic. There are other studies currently still ongoing that are also comparing ECT to IV ketamine and we’ll look forward to seeing the results.”

The fact that 15%-20% of the study patients had psychotic depression is also noteworthy, said Dr. McIntyre.

“We’ve been hesitant to use ketamine in these patients, I think for obvious reasons, but we recently published a paper showing that it is safe and very effective in these patients,” he said.

Having ketamine as a treatment option is important because the majority of patients who could benefit from ECT decline it, often because of the stigma associated with the procedure, which is often portrayed negatively in films and other media.

“I have been recommending ECT almost every day of my professional life and 98 times out of 100 people say: ‘Thanks but no thanks.’ That’s a problem because ECT is so effective,” Dr. McIntyre said.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, Crafoord Foundation, Skåne Regional Council, Königska Foundation, Lions Forskningsfond Skåne, and the OM Perssons donation foundation. Dr. Movahed Rad has received lecturer honoraria from Lundbeck. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation and speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, and other companies. McIntyre is also CEO of AltMed.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System (Insulet), the third semiautomated closed-loop insulin delivery system in the United States and the first that is tubing free.

Omnipod 5 is cleared for people aged 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes. The system integrates the tubeless insulin delivery Pods with Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitors (CGM) and a smartphone app or a separate controller device to automatically adjust insulin to minimize high and low blood glucose levels via SmartAdjust technology.

Within the app is a SmartBolus calculator that receives Dexcom CGM values every 5 minutes and automatically adjusts insulin up or down or pauses it based on predicted values for 60 minutes into the future and the individual’s customized glucose targets.

The Omnipod 5 becomes the third FDA-cleared semiautomated insulin delivery system in the United States, along with systems by Tandem and Medtronic. Others are available outside the United States. All of the currently marketed systems incorporate insulin pumps with tubing, whereas the tubeless Pods are worn directly on the body and changed every 3 days.

In a statement, JDRF, the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization, said: “Authorization of the Insulet Omnipod 5 is a huge win for the type 1 diabetes community. As the first tubeless hybrid closed-loop system to receive FDA clearance, this is a critical step forward in making day-to-day life better for people living with the disease.”

JDRF, which worked with the FDA to establish regulatory pathways for artificial pancreas technology, supported the development of the Omnipod 5 control algorithm through investigators in the JDRF Artificial Pancreas Consortium.

The Omnipod 5 will be available as a pharmacy product. It will be launched soon in limited market release and broadly thereafter.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System (Insulet), the third semiautomated closed-loop insulin delivery system in the United States and the first that is tubing free.

Omnipod 5 is cleared for people aged 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes. The system integrates the tubeless insulin delivery Pods with Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitors (CGM) and a smartphone app or a separate controller device to automatically adjust insulin to minimize high and low blood glucose levels via SmartAdjust technology.

Within the app is a SmartBolus calculator that receives Dexcom CGM values every 5 minutes and automatically adjusts insulin up or down or pauses it based on predicted values for 60 minutes into the future and the individual’s customized glucose targets.

The Omnipod 5 becomes the third FDA-cleared semiautomated insulin delivery system in the United States, along with systems by Tandem and Medtronic. Others are available outside the United States. All of the currently marketed systems incorporate insulin pumps with tubing, whereas the tubeless Pods are worn directly on the body and changed every 3 days.

In a statement, JDRF, the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization, said: “Authorization of the Insulet Omnipod 5 is a huge win for the type 1 diabetes community. As the first tubeless hybrid closed-loop system to receive FDA clearance, this is a critical step forward in making day-to-day life better for people living with the disease.”

JDRF, which worked with the FDA to establish regulatory pathways for artificial pancreas technology, supported the development of the Omnipod 5 control algorithm through investigators in the JDRF Artificial Pancreas Consortium.

The Omnipod 5 will be available as a pharmacy product. It will be launched soon in limited market release and broadly thereafter.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System (Insulet), the third semiautomated closed-loop insulin delivery system in the United States and the first that is tubing free.

Omnipod 5 is cleared for people aged 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes. The system integrates the tubeless insulin delivery Pods with Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitors (CGM) and a smartphone app or a separate controller device to automatically adjust insulin to minimize high and low blood glucose levels via SmartAdjust technology.

Within the app is a SmartBolus calculator that receives Dexcom CGM values every 5 minutes and automatically adjusts insulin up or down or pauses it based on predicted values for 60 minutes into the future and the individual’s customized glucose targets.

The Omnipod 5 becomes the third FDA-cleared semiautomated insulin delivery system in the United States, along with systems by Tandem and Medtronic. Others are available outside the United States. All of the currently marketed systems incorporate insulin pumps with tubing, whereas the tubeless Pods are worn directly on the body and changed every 3 days.

In a statement, JDRF, the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization, said: “Authorization of the Insulet Omnipod 5 is a huge win for the type 1 diabetes community. As the first tubeless hybrid closed-loop system to receive FDA clearance, this is a critical step forward in making day-to-day life better for people living with the disease.”

JDRF, which worked with the FDA to establish regulatory pathways for artificial pancreas technology, supported the development of the Omnipod 5 control algorithm through investigators in the JDRF Artificial Pancreas Consortium.

The Omnipod 5 will be available as a pharmacy product. It will be launched soon in limited market release and broadly thereafter.

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

Regular practice of a specific yoga maneuver appears to reduce susceptibility to reflex vasovagal syncope, a new study suggests.

The tadasana exercise – a movement-based contemplative practice that gradually corrects orthostatic imbalance by strengthening protective neuromuscular reflexes – practiced for just 15 minutes twice a day, was associated with the complete elimination of episodes of vasovagal syncope for many patients.

“These exercises are very easy to perform, inexpensive, and very effective. This is a very easy fix for a scary and potentially dangerous condition,” lead author Hygriv Rao, MD, said in an interview. “We are excited about these results. We thought it would work, but we did not expect it to be so effective. It seems to work for almost all patients.

“We found that, with the tadasana maneuver, episodes of full syncope, where the patient actually loses consciousness, ceased completely, and episodes of near-syncope, where the patient feels faint but does not completely pass out, were greatly reduced,” Dr. Rao added. “The actual loss of consciousness, which is the most dangerous part, is practically gone. This gives a lot of confidence to patients and their families.”

The researchers reported their initial results from a pilot study of the technique in a letter to JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology that was published online Jan. 26, 2022.

Dr. Rao, a cardiologist at the KIMS Hospitals, Hyderabad, India, explained that vasovagal syncope is a brief loss of consciousness caused by a neurologically induced drop in blood pressure caused by faulty neuromuscular reflexes.

It is typically triggered by emotional stress, prolonged standing, or getting up from a sitting position too quickly.

Very few treatments have been shown effective, with current management approaches involving avoiding triggers, increasing fluids, and if the individual feels an episode coming on, they can take steps to stop it by lying down, raising their legs, or lowering their head to increase blood flow to the brain.

“Recently, there has been a lot of interest in yoga as a preventative therapy for vasovagal syncope,” Dr. Rao noted. “We considered various yoga positions and we chose the tadasana maneuver to study in this context as it resembles exercises sometimes given to patients with vasovagal syncope but with some differences including the addition of synchronized breathing, which may help stabilize autonomic tone.”

For the tadasana maneuver, the individual stands straight with their feet together, arms by their side (against a wall if they need support), and alternatively lift the front and back part of their feet.

They first lift their toes with their weight resting on the ball of their feet, then after a few seconds they raise their heels with their weight on the front of the foot. Then after a few more seconds they lift their arms over their shoulders, stretching upward while standing on their toes.

These movements are synchronized with breathing exercises, with the individual taking a deep breath in as they lift their arms and breathing out again on lowering the arms.

“Each movement takes a few seconds, and each cycle of movements takes about 2 minutes. If this is performed 8 times, then this would take about 15 minutes. We recommend this 15-minute routine twice a day,” Dr. Rao said.

For the current study, 113 patients diagnosed with recurrent vasovagal disorder were counseled to practice standard physical maneuvers and maintain adequate hydration. Medications were prescribed at the discretion of the treating physician.

Of these, 61 patients were additionally trained to practice the tadasana maneuver and asked to practice the movement for 15 minutes twice a day. The mean durations of symptoms and follow-up in the two groups were similar. The average follow-up was about 20 months.

Results showed that episodes of both near-syncope and syncope decreased in both groups but there was a much larger reduction in the patients practicing the tadasana maneuver.

Before treatment, the 52 patients in the conventional group experienced 163 syncope or near-syncope events. At follow-up, 22 symptom recurrences occurred in 12 patients (23%). Total mean events per patient declined from 3 to 0.4.

Full syncope events in this group declined from 65 in 32 patients to 2 in 2 patients (mean per patient, 1.3 to 1), and near-syncope events fell from 98 in 34 patients to 20 in 10 patients (mean per patient, 2.0 to 0.4).

In the tadasana group, 61 patients had 378 syncope/near-syncope events before treatment; at follow-up, only 6 events occurred in 5 patients (8%). Per patient, total events declined from a mean of 6 to 0.1.

Full syncope events fell from 108 in 48 patients to 0 (mean per patient, 1.8 to 0), and near-syncope events declined from 269 in 33 patients to 6 in 5 patients (mean per patient, 4.4 to 0.1).

“This combination of exercise and breathing influences the neuromuscular reflex malfunction that occurs in vasovagal syncope,” Dr. Rao noted. “The movements focus on strengthening neuromuscular reflexes in the quadriceps and the calf muscles, which can increase the blood circulation and venous return, thus preventing blood pooling in the lower body.”

The researchers said this pilot study offers three main findings. First, both conventional therapy and conventional plus tadasana therapy appeared to benefit patients, compared with their respective baseline symptom burden. Second, application of tadasana as an adjunctive treatment was associated with fewer total event recurrences (that is, syncope and near-syncope combined), and third, tadasana was well tolerated, with no adverse events reported.

“The reduction in total events (i.e., syncope and near-syncope events), compared with pretreatment numbers, was substantial and most tadasana patients were managed without any pharmacotherapy,” the authors reported.

Dr. Rao noted that at baseline almost all patients in both groups were taking medications for the condition, but during the study these medications were reduced as fewer episodes occurred. At the end of the follow-up, 80% of the conventional group were still taking medication, compared with just 14% of those in the tadasana group.

Patients had an initial training session in person with a yoga instructor and then received follow-on training by video online. Dr. Rao said there was a very high rate of compliance, “almost 100%.”

He reports that a total of 200 patients have now been treated with this approach at his hospital with very similar results to those seen in the initial study.

This work was supported in part by a grant from the Dr Earl E. Bakken Family in support of heart-brain research. Dr. Rao disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Regular practice of a specific yoga maneuver appears to reduce susceptibility to reflex vasovagal syncope, a new study suggests.

The tadasana exercise – a movement-based contemplative practice that gradually corrects orthostatic imbalance by strengthening protective neuromuscular reflexes – practiced for just 15 minutes twice a day, was associated with the complete elimination of episodes of vasovagal syncope for many patients.

“These exercises are very easy to perform, inexpensive, and very effective. This is a very easy fix for a scary and potentially dangerous condition,” lead author Hygriv Rao, MD, said in an interview. “We are excited about these results. We thought it would work, but we did not expect it to be so effective. It seems to work for almost all patients.

“We found that, with the tadasana maneuver, episodes of full syncope, where the patient actually loses consciousness, ceased completely, and episodes of near-syncope, where the patient feels faint but does not completely pass out, were greatly reduced,” Dr. Rao added. “The actual loss of consciousness, which is the most dangerous part, is practically gone. This gives a lot of confidence to patients and their families.”

The researchers reported their initial results from a pilot study of the technique in a letter to JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology that was published online Jan. 26, 2022.

Dr. Rao, a cardiologist at the KIMS Hospitals, Hyderabad, India, explained that vasovagal syncope is a brief loss of consciousness caused by a neurologically induced drop in blood pressure caused by faulty neuromuscular reflexes.

It is typically triggered by emotional stress, prolonged standing, or getting up from a sitting position too quickly.

Very few treatments have been shown effective, with current management approaches involving avoiding triggers, increasing fluids, and if the individual feels an episode coming on, they can take steps to stop it by lying down, raising their legs, or lowering their head to increase blood flow to the brain.

“Recently, there has been a lot of interest in yoga as a preventative therapy for vasovagal syncope,” Dr. Rao noted. “We considered various yoga positions and we chose the tadasana maneuver to study in this context as it resembles exercises sometimes given to patients with vasovagal syncope but with some differences including the addition of synchronized breathing, which may help stabilize autonomic tone.”

For the tadasana maneuver, the individual stands straight with their feet together, arms by their side (against a wall if they need support), and alternatively lift the front and back part of their feet.

They first lift their toes with their weight resting on the ball of their feet, then after a few seconds they raise their heels with their weight on the front of the foot. Then after a few more seconds they lift their arms over their shoulders, stretching upward while standing on their toes.

These movements are synchronized with breathing exercises, with the individual taking a deep breath in as they lift their arms and breathing out again on lowering the arms.

“Each movement takes a few seconds, and each cycle of movements takes about 2 minutes. If this is performed 8 times, then this would take about 15 minutes. We recommend this 15-minute routine twice a day,” Dr. Rao said.

For the current study, 113 patients diagnosed with recurrent vasovagal disorder were counseled to practice standard physical maneuvers and maintain adequate hydration. Medications were prescribed at the discretion of the treating physician.

Of these, 61 patients were additionally trained to practice the tadasana maneuver and asked to practice the movement for 15 minutes twice a day. The mean durations of symptoms and follow-up in the two groups were similar. The average follow-up was about 20 months.

Results showed that episodes of both near-syncope and syncope decreased in both groups but there was a much larger reduction in the patients practicing the tadasana maneuver.

Before treatment, the 52 patients in the conventional group experienced 163 syncope or near-syncope events. At follow-up, 22 symptom recurrences occurred in 12 patients (23%). Total mean events per patient declined from 3 to 0.4.

Full syncope events in this group declined from 65 in 32 patients to 2 in 2 patients (mean per patient, 1.3 to 1), and near-syncope events fell from 98 in 34 patients to 20 in 10 patients (mean per patient, 2.0 to 0.4).

In the tadasana group, 61 patients had 378 syncope/near-syncope events before treatment; at follow-up, only 6 events occurred in 5 patients (8%). Per patient, total events declined from a mean of 6 to 0.1.

Full syncope events fell from 108 in 48 patients to 0 (mean per patient, 1.8 to 0), and near-syncope events declined from 269 in 33 patients to 6 in 5 patients (mean per patient, 4.4 to 0.1).

“This combination of exercise and breathing influences the neuromuscular reflex malfunction that occurs in vasovagal syncope,” Dr. Rao noted. “The movements focus on strengthening neuromuscular reflexes in the quadriceps and the calf muscles, which can increase the blood circulation and venous return, thus preventing blood pooling in the lower body.”

The researchers said this pilot study offers three main findings. First, both conventional therapy and conventional plus tadasana therapy appeared to benefit patients, compared with their respective baseline symptom burden. Second, application of tadasana as an adjunctive treatment was associated with fewer total event recurrences (that is, syncope and near-syncope combined), and third, tadasana was well tolerated, with no adverse events reported.

“The reduction in total events (i.e., syncope and near-syncope events), compared with pretreatment numbers, was substantial and most tadasana patients were managed without any pharmacotherapy,” the authors reported.

Dr. Rao noted that at baseline almost all patients in both groups were taking medications for the condition, but during the study these medications were reduced as fewer episodes occurred. At the end of the follow-up, 80% of the conventional group were still taking medication, compared with just 14% of those in the tadasana group.

Patients had an initial training session in person with a yoga instructor and then received follow-on training by video online. Dr. Rao said there was a very high rate of compliance, “almost 100%.”

He reports that a total of 200 patients have now been treated with this approach at his hospital with very similar results to those seen in the initial study.

This work was supported in part by a grant from the Dr Earl E. Bakken Family in support of heart-brain research. Dr. Rao disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Regular practice of a specific yoga maneuver appears to reduce susceptibility to reflex vasovagal syncope, a new study suggests.

The tadasana exercise – a movement-based contemplative practice that gradually corrects orthostatic imbalance by strengthening protective neuromuscular reflexes – practiced for just 15 minutes twice a day, was associated with the complete elimination of episodes of vasovagal syncope for many patients.

“These exercises are very easy to perform, inexpensive, and very effective. This is a very easy fix for a scary and potentially dangerous condition,” lead author Hygriv Rao, MD, said in an interview. “We are excited about these results. We thought it would work, but we did not expect it to be so effective. It seems to work for almost all patients.

“We found that, with the tadasana maneuver, episodes of full syncope, where the patient actually loses consciousness, ceased completely, and episodes of near-syncope, where the patient feels faint but does not completely pass out, were greatly reduced,” Dr. Rao added. “The actual loss of consciousness, which is the most dangerous part, is practically gone. This gives a lot of confidence to patients and their families.”

The researchers reported their initial results from a pilot study of the technique in a letter to JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology that was published online Jan. 26, 2022.

Dr. Rao, a cardiologist at the KIMS Hospitals, Hyderabad, India, explained that vasovagal syncope is a brief loss of consciousness caused by a neurologically induced drop in blood pressure caused by faulty neuromuscular reflexes.

It is typically triggered by emotional stress, prolonged standing, or getting up from a sitting position too quickly.

Very few treatments have been shown effective, with current management approaches involving avoiding triggers, increasing fluids, and if the individual feels an episode coming on, they can take steps to stop it by lying down, raising their legs, or lowering their head to increase blood flow to the brain.

“Recently, there has been a lot of interest in yoga as a preventative therapy for vasovagal syncope,” Dr. Rao noted. “We considered various yoga positions and we chose the tadasana maneuver to study in this context as it resembles exercises sometimes given to patients with vasovagal syncope but with some differences including the addition of synchronized breathing, which may help stabilize autonomic tone.”

For the tadasana maneuver, the individual stands straight with their feet together, arms by their side (against a wall if they need support), and alternatively lift the front and back part of their feet.

They first lift their toes with their weight resting on the ball of their feet, then after a few seconds they raise their heels with their weight on the front of the foot. Then after a few more seconds they lift their arms over their shoulders, stretching upward while standing on their toes.

These movements are synchronized with breathing exercises, with the individual taking a deep breath in as they lift their arms and breathing out again on lowering the arms.

“Each movement takes a few seconds, and each cycle of movements takes about 2 minutes. If this is performed 8 times, then this would take about 15 minutes. We recommend this 15-minute routine twice a day,” Dr. Rao said.

For the current study, 113 patients diagnosed with recurrent vasovagal disorder were counseled to practice standard physical maneuvers and maintain adequate hydration. Medications were prescribed at the discretion of the treating physician.

Of these, 61 patients were additionally trained to practice the tadasana maneuver and asked to practice the movement for 15 minutes twice a day. The mean durations of symptoms and follow-up in the two groups were similar. The average follow-up was about 20 months.

Results showed that episodes of both near-syncope and syncope decreased in both groups but there was a much larger reduction in the patients practicing the tadasana maneuver.

Before treatment, the 52 patients in the conventional group experienced 163 syncope or near-syncope events. At follow-up, 22 symptom recurrences occurred in 12 patients (23%). Total mean events per patient declined from 3 to 0.4.

Full syncope events in this group declined from 65 in 32 patients to 2 in 2 patients (mean per patient, 1.3 to 1), and near-syncope events fell from 98 in 34 patients to 20 in 10 patients (mean per patient, 2.0 to 0.4).

In the tadasana group, 61 patients had 378 syncope/near-syncope events before treatment; at follow-up, only 6 events occurred in 5 patients (8%). Per patient, total events declined from a mean of 6 to 0.1.

Full syncope events fell from 108 in 48 patients to 0 (mean per patient, 1.8 to 0), and near-syncope events declined from 269 in 33 patients to 6 in 5 patients (mean per patient, 4.4 to 0.1).

“This combination of exercise and breathing influences the neuromuscular reflex malfunction that occurs in vasovagal syncope,” Dr. Rao noted. “The movements focus on strengthening neuromuscular reflexes in the quadriceps and the calf muscles, which can increase the blood circulation and venous return, thus preventing blood pooling in the lower body.”

The researchers said this pilot study offers three main findings. First, both conventional therapy and conventional plus tadasana therapy appeared to benefit patients, compared with their respective baseline symptom burden. Second, application of tadasana as an adjunctive treatment was associated with fewer total event recurrences (that is, syncope and near-syncope combined), and third, tadasana was well tolerated, with no adverse events reported.

“The reduction in total events (i.e., syncope and near-syncope events), compared with pretreatment numbers, was substantial and most tadasana patients were managed without any pharmacotherapy,” the authors reported.

Dr. Rao noted that at baseline almost all patients in both groups were taking medications for the condition, but during the study these medications were reduced as fewer episodes occurred. At the end of the follow-up, 80% of the conventional group were still taking medication, compared with just 14% of those in the tadasana group.

Patients had an initial training session in person with a yoga instructor and then received follow-on training by video online. Dr. Rao said there was a very high rate of compliance, “almost 100%.”

He reports that a total of 200 patients have now been treated with this approach at his hospital with very similar results to those seen in the initial study.

This work was supported in part by a grant from the Dr Earl E. Bakken Family in support of heart-brain research. Dr. Rao disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When 2021 began, there appeared to be light at the end of the long and dark COVID-19 pandemic. A vaccine was introduced, the “curve” had been flattened, and by spring, businesses were slowly starting to open. Whereas the medical literature of 2020 seemed to be almost entirely focused on COVID-19, medical writers, researchers, and educators seemed to slowly start turning more attention back to non–COVID-related topics in 2021.

Unfortunately, as I write this, the Omicron variant of the coronavirus is in full swing, and much of our attention has once again turned back to COVID-19. However, we are able to look back on 2021 and acknowledge a wealth of fantastic original research articles and guidelines which have improved patient care in many ways. In this annual recap of my favorite articles of the past year, I will focus on what I believe every acute care physician should read and know, as they will improve patient care.

Specifically, I have chosen articles that did not appear to gain widespread notoriety in emergency medicine but are, nevertheless, worthy of your time and attention. Note that this write-up serves as a summary only, and I encourage interested readers to peruse the full manuscripts for further details. I am limiting my recap to two articles.
 

Recommendations on difficult airway management

Emergency physicians are well trained in airway management, and a major part of that training includes the preintubation anatomic assessment of the airway. However, there are few recommendations on the physiological considerations for airway management.

A set of recommendations from the Society for Airway Management was written primarily with anesthesiologists in mind, but many of the recommendations listed below are very relevant to emergency physicians as well. The authors make recommendations for patients who are hypoxic or hypotensive prior to induction, for patients with right ventricular dysfunction, for patients with severe metabolic acidosis, and for neurologically injured patients. Some of the key pearls follow.
 

Patients with hypoxemia

• The importance of preoxygenation before intubation is once again emphasized, and this can be performed using high-flow oxygen for at least 3 minutes, or (in a cooperative patient) with eight vital capacity breaths.
• Maintenance of oxygenation during the apneic period should be continued. Apneic oxygenation can be provided with a nasal cannula at 15 liters per minute or with a high-flow nasal oxygen system at 40-70 LPM.
• For patients with significant shunt physiology or reduced functional residual capacity (for example, late pregnancy, obesity, or acute respiratory distress syndrome), preoxygenation should be performed with positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) using noninvasive positive pressure ventilation or bag-valve mask ventilation with a PEEP valve. When higher levels of PEEP are required, an extraglottic device should be considered during preoxygenation.
• For patients with refractory hypoxemia, awake intubation to maintain spontaneous respirations should be considered.
• Patients should be preoxygenated in the upright position when possible.
• Ramped-up position (head elevated so as to bring the external auditory canal in the same horizontal line as the sternal notch) should be performed when possible in order to improve the grade of view, improve oxygenation, and reduce aspiration.

Patients with hypotension

• Patients should be screened for high risk for hemodynamic collapse prior to administration of induction medications and intubation by assessing the stroke index. A stroke index greater than 0.7 predicts a high risk. These patients should receive hemodynamic optimization (for example, intravenous fluids, administration of vasopressors) whenever possible, prior to administration of induction medications and intubation.
• Vasopressor infusions are preferable to bolus-dosed vasopressors. However, if vasopressor infusions are not possible, bolus-dosed vasopressors should be available and used to maintain systemic pressure during and after the intubation until an infusion can be started. When bolus-dosed vasopressors are used, diluted epinephrine should be considered as the vasopressor of choice in patients with depressed myocardial function.

Patients with right ventricular (RV) dysfunction

• Patients should be screened for significant RV dysfunction prior to intubation because of their high risk for hemodynamic decompensation with positive pressure ventilation.
• RV dysfunction may sometimes worsen with fluid administration. Fluid-intolerant patients may instead need RV afterload reduction with inhaled or intravenous pulmonary vasodilators.
• Patients with RV failure–induced shock should be considered for preintubation extracorporeal membrane oxygenation if available.
• Patients with RV volume overload should receive diuresis prior to intubation.
• Ventilator settings should aim to avoid hypercapnia, maintain low airway pressures, and use a higher PEEP to avoid atelectasis.

Patients with severe metabolic acidosis

• Patients with severe metabolic acidosis are at high risk for decompensation after intubation because of volume depletion and inadequate alveolar ventilation, resulting in profound acidosis.
• Patients with high minute ventilation prior to intubation should be considered for awake intubation to maintain spontaneous respirations. Otherwise, consider a spontaneous breathing mode after intubation with a high minute ventilation (that is, use a higher-than-normal respiratory rate on the ventilator in order to reproduce the preintubation minute ventilation). Apnea time should be minimized in order to minimize worsening acidosis.
• Preintubation bicarbonate boluses to prevent worsening acidosis are controversial and lack data showing any benefit.

Neurologically injured patients

• Eucapnia and normoxia should be maintained before, during, and after intubation to maintain stable cerebral blood flow.
• Hemodynamically neutral induction agents should be used.
• Patients should be positioned with the head of bed elevated to 30° upright when possible.
• Limit PEEP post intubation in order to promote venous drainage.

Evidence update for the treatment of anaphylaxis

The treatment of anaphylaxis is considered bread and butter in emergency and acute care medicine, but a great deal of what we have learned over the years is not well supported by the literature. In an article published in Resuscitation, the Anaphylaxis Working Group of the Resuscitation Council of the United Kingdom performed an evidence review regarding the emergency treatment of anaphylaxis.

A summary of key points includes:

• Anaphylaxis is defined as a systemic hypersensitivity reaction, usually rapid in onset, with potentially life-threatening compromise in airway, breathing, and/or circulation.
• The most important treatment is epinephrine (EPI), with an initial recommended dose in adults of 0.5 mg administered via the intramuscular (IM) route. Up to 10% of patients have a suboptimal response to one dose, but 98% will respond by the third dose; therefore, these authors recommend repeating the IM EPI every 5 minutes, if needed, up to three doses. There is no evidence to support any alternative or additional vasopressors, and so they should only be used if EPI is ineffective. Intravenous EPI is not recommended initially except in the perioperative setting where close monitoring can be performed. If intravenous EPI is used, the authors recommend an intravenous infusion rather than bolus dosing.
• Intravenous fluid bolus dosing is recommended in the majority of cases of anaphylaxis, regardless of presence or absence of hemodynamic compromise, because of the profound reduction in venous tone and third-spacing that typically occurs.
• Antihistamines are not recommended in early treatment. They are only effective for reversing skin manifestations of anaphylaxis (which EPI treats as well), and the sedation they produce can confound the proper ongoing evaluation of the patient. Furthermore, the use of antihistamines early in the treatment of anaphylaxis has been found to produce delays in proper use of EPI.
• Steroids are not recommended in early treatment. They help only with the late phase of inflammatory response, but despite that, there is no good evidence that they decrease the biphasic response of anaphylaxis. There is some emerging evidence that the use of steroids may actually be associated with increased morbidity even after correcting for anaphylaxis severity. The authors recommended the use of steroids in anaphylaxis only for patients with poorly controlled asthma and possibly for patients with refractory anaphylaxis. Inhaled beta-agonists are recommended in anaphylaxis only for patients with lower respiratory tract symptoms caused by anaphylaxis, but warned that the inhaled beta-agonists should not delay proper use of EPI.
• The optimal observation period before discharge for stable patients is unknown. The authors noted the recommendations of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology and the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology: Biphasic reactions were more common in patients with severe initial symptoms – for example, those requiring more than one dose of EPI; therefore, these patients are recommended to have “extended observation.” Lower-risk patients with resolved symptoms of anaphylaxis can be observed for 1 hour, which would capture 95% of biphasic reactions in this group of patients.

Summary and other honorable mentions

There you have it. My two favorite practice-changing (non–COVID-19) articles of 2021. Not surprisingly, both articles deal largely with airway and hemodynamic concerns – the ABC’s of emergency medicine. Although these bulleted pearls provide key points from these two articles, the full discussions of those key points in the articles would provide a great deal more education than I can provide in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full articles.

I also encourage readers to peruse the following “honorable mention” articles: Stiell and colleagues published a “Best Practices Checklist” on behalf of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians pertaining to the management of acute atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter; and on behalf of the American Heart Association (in collaboration with several other major organizations), Gulati and colleagues published the 2021 Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain. Both publications show us how we should strive to manage atrial fibrillation and chest pain, respectively, in the emergency department for years to come.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

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

When 2021 began, there appeared to be light at the end of the long and dark COVID-19 pandemic. A vaccine was introduced, the “curve” had been flattened, and by spring, businesses were slowly starting to open. Whereas the medical literature of 2020 seemed to be almost entirely focused on COVID-19, medical writers, researchers, and educators seemed to slowly start turning more attention back to non–COVID-related topics in 2021.

Unfortunately, as I write this, the Omicron variant of the coronavirus is in full swing, and much of our attention has once again turned back to COVID-19. However, we are able to look back on 2021 and acknowledge a wealth of fantastic original research articles and guidelines which have improved patient care in many ways. In this annual recap of my favorite articles of the past year, I will focus on what I believe every acute care physician should read and know, as they will improve patient care.

Specifically, I have chosen articles that did not appear to gain widespread notoriety in emergency medicine but are, nevertheless, worthy of your time and attention. Note that this write-up serves as a summary only, and I encourage interested readers to peruse the full manuscripts for further details. I am limiting my recap to two articles.
 

Recommendations on difficult airway management

Emergency physicians are well trained in airway management, and a major part of that training includes the preintubation anatomic assessment of the airway. However, there are few recommendations on the physiological considerations for airway management.

A set of recommendations from the Society for Airway Management was written primarily with anesthesiologists in mind, but many of the recommendations listed below are very relevant to emergency physicians as well. The authors make recommendations for patients who are hypoxic or hypotensive prior to induction, for patients with right ventricular dysfunction, for patients with severe metabolic acidosis, and for neurologically injured patients. Some of the key pearls follow.
 

Patients with hypoxemia

• The importance of preoxygenation before intubation is once again emphasized, and this can be performed using high-flow oxygen for at least 3 minutes, or (in a cooperative patient) with eight vital capacity breaths.
• Maintenance of oxygenation during the apneic period should be continued. Apneic oxygenation can be provided with a nasal cannula at 15 liters per minute or with a high-flow nasal oxygen system at 40-70 LPM.
• For patients with significant shunt physiology or reduced functional residual capacity (for example, late pregnancy, obesity, or acute respiratory distress syndrome), preoxygenation should be performed with positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) using noninvasive positive pressure ventilation or bag-valve mask ventilation with a PEEP valve. When higher levels of PEEP are required, an extraglottic device should be considered during preoxygenation.
• For patients with refractory hypoxemia, awake intubation to maintain spontaneous respirations should be considered.
• Patients should be preoxygenated in the upright position when possible.
• Ramped-up position (head elevated so as to bring the external auditory canal in the same horizontal line as the sternal notch) should be performed when possible in order to improve the grade of view, improve oxygenation, and reduce aspiration.

Patients with hypotension

• Patients should be screened for high risk for hemodynamic collapse prior to administration of induction medications and intubation by assessing the stroke index. A stroke index greater than 0.7 predicts a high risk. These patients should receive hemodynamic optimization (for example, intravenous fluids, administration of vasopressors) whenever possible, prior to administration of induction medications and intubation.
• Vasopressor infusions are preferable to bolus-dosed vasopressors. However, if vasopressor infusions are not possible, bolus-dosed vasopressors should be available and used to maintain systemic pressure during and after the intubation until an infusion can be started. When bolus-dosed vasopressors are used, diluted epinephrine should be considered as the vasopressor of choice in patients with depressed myocardial function.

Patients with right ventricular (RV) dysfunction

• Patients should be screened for significant RV dysfunction prior to intubation because of their high risk for hemodynamic decompensation with positive pressure ventilation.
• RV dysfunction may sometimes worsen with fluid administration. Fluid-intolerant patients may instead need RV afterload reduction with inhaled or intravenous pulmonary vasodilators.
• Patients with RV failure–induced shock should be considered for preintubation extracorporeal membrane oxygenation if available.
• Patients with RV volume overload should receive diuresis prior to intubation.
• Ventilator settings should aim to avoid hypercapnia, maintain low airway pressures, and use a higher PEEP to avoid atelectasis.

Patients with severe metabolic acidosis

• Patients with severe metabolic acidosis are at high risk for decompensation after intubation because of volume depletion and inadequate alveolar ventilation, resulting in profound acidosis.
• Patients with high minute ventilation prior to intubation should be considered for awake intubation to maintain spontaneous respirations. Otherwise, consider a spontaneous breathing mode after intubation with a high minute ventilation (that is, use a higher-than-normal respiratory rate on the ventilator in order to reproduce the preintubation minute ventilation). Apnea time should be minimized in order to minimize worsening acidosis.
• Preintubation bicarbonate boluses to prevent worsening acidosis are controversial and lack data showing any benefit.

Neurologically injured patients

• Eucapnia and normoxia should be maintained before, during, and after intubation to maintain stable cerebral blood flow.
• Hemodynamically neutral induction agents should be used.
• Patients should be positioned with the head of bed elevated to 30° upright when possible.
• Limit PEEP post intubation in order to promote venous drainage.

Evidence update for the treatment of anaphylaxis

The treatment of anaphylaxis is considered bread and butter in emergency and acute care medicine, but a great deal of what we have learned over the years is not well supported by the literature. In an article published in Resuscitation, the Anaphylaxis Working Group of the Resuscitation Council of the United Kingdom performed an evidence review regarding the emergency treatment of anaphylaxis.

A summary of key points includes:

• Anaphylaxis is defined as a systemic hypersensitivity reaction, usually rapid in onset, with potentially life-threatening compromise in airway, breathing, and/or circulation.
• The most important treatment is epinephrine (EPI), with an initial recommended dose in adults of 0.5 mg administered via the intramuscular (IM) route. Up to 10% of patients have a suboptimal response to one dose, but 98% will respond by the third dose; therefore, these authors recommend repeating the IM EPI every 5 minutes, if needed, up to three doses. There is no evidence to support any alternative or additional vasopressors, and so they should only be used if EPI is ineffective. Intravenous EPI is not recommended initially except in the perioperative setting where close monitoring can be performed. If intravenous EPI is used, the authors recommend an intravenous infusion rather than bolus dosing.
• Intravenous fluid bolus dosing is recommended in the majority of cases of anaphylaxis, regardless of presence or absence of hemodynamic compromise, because of the profound reduction in venous tone and third-spacing that typically occurs.
• Antihistamines are not recommended in early treatment. They are only effective for reversing skin manifestations of anaphylaxis (which EPI treats as well), and the sedation they produce can confound the proper ongoing evaluation of the patient. Furthermore, the use of antihistamines early in the treatment of anaphylaxis has been found to produce delays in proper use of EPI.
• Steroids are not recommended in early treatment. They help only with the late phase of inflammatory response, but despite that, there is no good evidence that they decrease the biphasic response of anaphylaxis. There is some emerging evidence that the use of steroids may actually be associated with increased morbidity even after correcting for anaphylaxis severity. The authors recommended the use of steroids in anaphylaxis only for patients with poorly controlled asthma and possibly for patients with refractory anaphylaxis. Inhaled beta-agonists are recommended in anaphylaxis only for patients with lower respiratory tract symptoms caused by anaphylaxis, but warned that the inhaled beta-agonists should not delay proper use of EPI.
• The optimal observation period before discharge for stable patients is unknown. The authors noted the recommendations of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology and the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology: Biphasic reactions were more common in patients with severe initial symptoms – for example, those requiring more than one dose of EPI; therefore, these patients are recommended to have “extended observation.” Lower-risk patients with resolved symptoms of anaphylaxis can be observed for 1 hour, which would capture 95% of biphasic reactions in this group of patients.

Summary and other honorable mentions

There you have it. My two favorite practice-changing (non–COVID-19) articles of 2021. Not surprisingly, both articles deal largely with airway and hemodynamic concerns – the ABC’s of emergency medicine. Although these bulleted pearls provide key points from these two articles, the full discussions of those key points in the articles would provide a great deal more education than I can provide in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full articles.

I also encourage readers to peruse the following “honorable mention” articles: Stiell and colleagues published a “Best Practices Checklist” on behalf of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians pertaining to the management of acute atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter; and on behalf of the American Heart Association (in collaboration with several other major organizations), Gulati and colleagues published the 2021 Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain. Both publications show us how we should strive to manage atrial fibrillation and chest pain, respectively, in the emergency department for years to come.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

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

When 2021 began, there appeared to be light at the end of the long and dark COVID-19 pandemic. A vaccine was introduced, the “curve” had been flattened, and by spring, businesses were slowly starting to open. Whereas the medical literature of 2020 seemed to be almost entirely focused on COVID-19, medical writers, researchers, and educators seemed to slowly start turning more attention back to non–COVID-related topics in 2021.

Unfortunately, as I write this, the Omicron variant of the coronavirus is in full swing, and much of our attention has once again turned back to COVID-19. However, we are able to look back on 2021 and acknowledge a wealth of fantastic original research articles and guidelines which have improved patient care in many ways. In this annual recap of my favorite articles of the past year, I will focus on what I believe every acute care physician should read and know, as they will improve patient care.

Specifically, I have chosen articles that did not appear to gain widespread notoriety in emergency medicine but are, nevertheless, worthy of your time and attention. Note that this write-up serves as a summary only, and I encourage interested readers to peruse the full manuscripts for further details. I am limiting my recap to two articles.
 

Recommendations on difficult airway management

Emergency physicians are well trained in airway management, and a major part of that training includes the preintubation anatomic assessment of the airway. However, there are few recommendations on the physiological considerations for airway management.

A set of recommendations from the Society for Airway Management was written primarily with anesthesiologists in mind, but many of the recommendations listed below are very relevant to emergency physicians as well. The authors make recommendations for patients who are hypoxic or hypotensive prior to induction, for patients with right ventricular dysfunction, for patients with severe metabolic acidosis, and for neurologically injured patients. Some of the key pearls follow.
 

Patients with hypoxemia

• The importance of preoxygenation before intubation is once again emphasized, and this can be performed using high-flow oxygen for at least 3 minutes, or (in a cooperative patient) with eight vital capacity breaths.
• Maintenance of oxygenation during the apneic period should be continued. Apneic oxygenation can be provided with a nasal cannula at 15 liters per minute or with a high-flow nasal oxygen system at 40-70 LPM.
• For patients with significant shunt physiology or reduced functional residual capacity (for example, late pregnancy, obesity, or acute respiratory distress syndrome), preoxygenation should be performed with positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) using noninvasive positive pressure ventilation or bag-valve mask ventilation with a PEEP valve. When higher levels of PEEP are required, an extraglottic device should be considered during preoxygenation.
• For patients with refractory hypoxemia, awake intubation to maintain spontaneous respirations should be considered.
• Patients should be preoxygenated in the upright position when possible.
• Ramped-up position (head elevated so as to bring the external auditory canal in the same horizontal line as the sternal notch) should be performed when possible in order to improve the grade of view, improve oxygenation, and reduce aspiration.

Patients with hypotension

• Patients should be screened for high risk for hemodynamic collapse prior to administration of induction medications and intubation by assessing the stroke index. A stroke index greater than 0.7 predicts a high risk. These patients should receive hemodynamic optimization (for example, intravenous fluids, administration of vasopressors) whenever possible, prior to administration of induction medications and intubation.
• Vasopressor infusions are preferable to bolus-dosed vasopressors. However, if vasopressor infusions are not possible, bolus-dosed vasopressors should be available and used to maintain systemic pressure during and after the intubation until an infusion can be started. When bolus-dosed vasopressors are used, diluted epinephrine should be considered as the vasopressor of choice in patients with depressed myocardial function.

Patients with right ventricular (RV) dysfunction

• Patients should be screened for significant RV dysfunction prior to intubation because of their high risk for hemodynamic decompensation with positive pressure ventilation.
• RV dysfunction may sometimes worsen with fluid administration. Fluid-intolerant patients may instead need RV afterload reduction with inhaled or intravenous pulmonary vasodilators.
• Patients with RV failure–induced shock should be considered for preintubation extracorporeal membrane oxygenation if available.
• Patients with RV volume overload should receive diuresis prior to intubation.
• Ventilator settings should aim to avoid hypercapnia, maintain low airway pressures, and use a higher PEEP to avoid atelectasis.

Patients with severe metabolic acidosis

• Patients with severe metabolic acidosis are at high risk for decompensation after intubation because of volume depletion and inadequate alveolar ventilation, resulting in profound acidosis.
• Patients with high minute ventilation prior to intubation should be considered for awake intubation to maintain spontaneous respirations. Otherwise, consider a spontaneous breathing mode after intubation with a high minute ventilation (that is, use a higher-than-normal respiratory rate on the ventilator in order to reproduce the preintubation minute ventilation). Apnea time should be minimized in order to minimize worsening acidosis.
• Preintubation bicarbonate boluses to prevent worsening acidosis are controversial and lack data showing any benefit.

Neurologically injured patients

• Eucapnia and normoxia should be maintained before, during, and after intubation to maintain stable cerebral blood flow.
• Hemodynamically neutral induction agents should be used.
• Patients should be positioned with the head of bed elevated to 30° upright when possible.
• Limit PEEP post intubation in order to promote venous drainage.

Evidence update for the treatment of anaphylaxis

The treatment of anaphylaxis is considered bread and butter in emergency and acute care medicine, but a great deal of what we have learned over the years is not well supported by the literature. In an article published in Resuscitation, the Anaphylaxis Working Group of the Resuscitation Council of the United Kingdom performed an evidence review regarding the emergency treatment of anaphylaxis.

A summary of key points includes:

• Anaphylaxis is defined as a systemic hypersensitivity reaction, usually rapid in onset, with potentially life-threatening compromise in airway, breathing, and/or circulation.
• The most important treatment is epinephrine (EPI), with an initial recommended dose in adults of 0.5 mg administered via the intramuscular (IM) route. Up to 10% of patients have a suboptimal response to one dose, but 98% will respond by the third dose; therefore, these authors recommend repeating the IM EPI every 5 minutes, if needed, up to three doses. There is no evidence to support any alternative or additional vasopressors, and so they should only be used if EPI is ineffective. Intravenous EPI is not recommended initially except in the perioperative setting where close monitoring can be performed. If intravenous EPI is used, the authors recommend an intravenous infusion rather than bolus dosing.
• Intravenous fluid bolus dosing is recommended in the majority of cases of anaphylaxis, regardless of presence or absence of hemodynamic compromise, because of the profound reduction in venous tone and third-spacing that typically occurs.
• Antihistamines are not recommended in early treatment. They are only effective for reversing skin manifestations of anaphylaxis (which EPI treats as well), and the sedation they produce can confound the proper ongoing evaluation of the patient. Furthermore, the use of antihistamines early in the treatment of anaphylaxis has been found to produce delays in proper use of EPI.
• Steroids are not recommended in early treatment. They help only with the late phase of inflammatory response, but despite that, there is no good evidence that they decrease the biphasic response of anaphylaxis. There is some emerging evidence that the use of steroids may actually be associated with increased morbidity even after correcting for anaphylaxis severity. The authors recommended the use of steroids in anaphylaxis only for patients with poorly controlled asthma and possibly for patients with refractory anaphylaxis. Inhaled beta-agonists are recommended in anaphylaxis only for patients with lower respiratory tract symptoms caused by anaphylaxis, but warned that the inhaled beta-agonists should not delay proper use of EPI.
• The optimal observation period before discharge for stable patients is unknown. The authors noted the recommendations of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology and the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology: Biphasic reactions were more common in patients with severe initial symptoms – for example, those requiring more than one dose of EPI; therefore, these patients are recommended to have “extended observation.” Lower-risk patients with resolved symptoms of anaphylaxis can be observed for 1 hour, which would capture 95% of biphasic reactions in this group of patients.

Summary and other honorable mentions

There you have it. My two favorite practice-changing (non–COVID-19) articles of 2021. Not surprisingly, both articles deal largely with airway and hemodynamic concerns – the ABC’s of emergency medicine. Although these bulleted pearls provide key points from these two articles, the full discussions of those key points in the articles would provide a great deal more education than I can provide in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full articles.

I also encourage readers to peruse the following “honorable mention” articles: Stiell and colleagues published a “Best Practices Checklist” on behalf of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians pertaining to the management of acute atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter; and on behalf of the American Heart Association (in collaboration with several other major organizations), Gulati and colleagues published the 2021 Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain. Both publications show us how we should strive to manage atrial fibrillation and chest pain, respectively, in the emergency department for years to come.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

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

Takayama et al evaluated 301 Japanese HCC patients who had a Child-Pugh score ≤ 7, no more than 3 HCC nodules (none more than 3 cm in greatest diameter), who were then randomly assigned to undergo either surgery (n=150) or RFA (n=151). The authors reported that though the median procedure duration was longer in the surgery group than in the RFA group (274 versus 40 minutes, P < 0.01) as was the median duration of hospital stay (17 days versus 10 days, P < 0.01), recurrence free survival (RFS) did not differ significantly between the groups. The median RFS was 3.5 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6–5.1) in the surgery group and 3.0 years (95% CI, 2.4–5.6) in the RFA group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.67–1.25; P = 0.58). The overall survival (OS) data for this study are not yet mature.

Cao et al looked at outcomes of patients with periportal HCCs who were treated with RFA. They evaluated 233 patients who had a single nodular HCC that was ≤ 5 cm in greatest diameter who underwent RFA with or without transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) as first-line therapy. In that group, 56 patients had a periportal HCC. The authors reported that patients with periportal HCCs had worse outcomes. Local recurrence rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were significantly higher with periportal HCCs than with nonperiportal HCCs (15.7, 33.7, and 46.9% vs 6.0, 15.7, and 28.7%, respectively, P = 0.0067). The 1-, 3- and 5-year OS rates with periportal HCCs were significantly worse than with nonperiportal HCCs (81.3, 65.1 and 42.9% vs 99.3, 90.4 and 78.1%, respectively, P < 0.0001). In the subgroup of HCC ≤ 3 cm, patients with periportal HCCs showed significantly higher local recurrence rates (P = 0.0006) and OS (P < 0.0001) after RFA than patients with single nonperiportal HCCs. Subgroup analyses revealed that tumor size, periportal HCC and AFP ≥ 400ug/ml were independent prognostic factors for tumor progression after RFA. The authors concluded that periportal HCCs have a worse prognosis, and need better treatment options than are currently available.

Lee at al report a retrospective evaluation of Korean patients with HCC who were either treated with RFA or microwave ablation (MWA). Of 150 HCC patients (100 in the RFA group and 50 in the MWA group), the complete response rate, two-year survival rate, and complication rate were similar between the two groups. However, the MWA group had better one- and two-year disease-free survival than the RFA group (P = 0.035 and P = 0.032, respectively). In addition, there were fewer major complications in the MWA group (P = 0.043). In a subgroup analysis, patients with perivascular tumors, high risk of recurrence, and small tumor size (≤3 cm) were more suitable for MWA than RFA. The authors concluded that in patients with HCC, initial treatment with microwave ablation leads to better 1- and 2-year disease-free survival and a lower risk of major complications than RFA.

Takayama et al evaluated 301 Japanese HCC patients who had a Child-Pugh score ≤ 7, no more than 3 HCC nodules (none more than 3 cm in greatest diameter), who were then randomly assigned to undergo either surgery (n=150) or RFA (n=151). The authors reported that though the median procedure duration was longer in the surgery group than in the RFA group (274 versus 40 minutes, P < 0.01) as was the median duration of hospital stay (17 days versus 10 days, P < 0.01), recurrence free survival (RFS) did not differ significantly between the groups. The median RFS was 3.5 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6–5.1) in the surgery group and 3.0 years (95% CI, 2.4–5.6) in the RFA group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.67–1.25; P = 0.58). The overall survival (OS) data for this study are not yet mature.

Cao et al looked at outcomes of patients with periportal HCCs who were treated with RFA. They evaluated 233 patients who had a single nodular HCC that was ≤ 5 cm in greatest diameter who underwent RFA with or without transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) as first-line therapy. In that group, 56 patients had a periportal HCC. The authors reported that patients with periportal HCCs had worse outcomes. Local recurrence rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were significantly higher with periportal HCCs than with nonperiportal HCCs (15.7, 33.7, and 46.9% vs 6.0, 15.7, and 28.7%, respectively, P = 0.0067). The 1-, 3- and 5-year OS rates with periportal HCCs were significantly worse than with nonperiportal HCCs (81.3, 65.1 and 42.9% vs 99.3, 90.4 and 78.1%, respectively, P < 0.0001). In the subgroup of HCC ≤ 3 cm, patients with periportal HCCs showed significantly higher local recurrence rates (P = 0.0006) and OS (P < 0.0001) after RFA than patients with single nonperiportal HCCs. Subgroup analyses revealed that tumor size, periportal HCC and AFP ≥ 400ug/ml were independent prognostic factors for tumor progression after RFA. The authors concluded that periportal HCCs have a worse prognosis, and need better treatment options than are currently available.

Lee at al report a retrospective evaluation of Korean patients with HCC who were either treated with RFA or microwave ablation (MWA). Of 150 HCC patients (100 in the RFA group and 50 in the MWA group), the complete response rate, two-year survival rate, and complication rate were similar between the two groups. However, the MWA group had better one- and two-year disease-free survival than the RFA group (P = 0.035 and P = 0.032, respectively). In addition, there were fewer major complications in the MWA group (P = 0.043). In a subgroup analysis, patients with perivascular tumors, high risk of recurrence, and small tumor size (≤3 cm) were more suitable for MWA than RFA. The authors concluded that in patients with HCC, initial treatment with microwave ablation leads to better 1- and 2-year disease-free survival and a lower risk of major complications than RFA.

Takayama et al evaluated 301 Japanese HCC patients who had a Child-Pugh score ≤ 7, no more than 3 HCC nodules (none more than 3 cm in greatest diameter), who were then randomly assigned to undergo either surgery (n=150) or RFA (n=151). The authors reported that though the median procedure duration was longer in the surgery group than in the RFA group (274 versus 40 minutes, P < 0.01) as was the median duration of hospital stay (17 days versus 10 days, P < 0.01), recurrence free survival (RFS) did not differ significantly between the groups. The median RFS was 3.5 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6–5.1) in the surgery group and 3.0 years (95% CI, 2.4–5.6) in the RFA group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.67–1.25; P = 0.58). The overall survival (OS) data for this study are not yet mature.

Cao et al looked at outcomes of patients with periportal HCCs who were treated with RFA. They evaluated 233 patients who had a single nodular HCC that was ≤ 5 cm in greatest diameter who underwent RFA with or without transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) as first-line therapy. In that group, 56 patients had a periportal HCC. The authors reported that patients with periportal HCCs had worse outcomes. Local recurrence rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were significantly higher with periportal HCCs than with nonperiportal HCCs (15.7, 33.7, and 46.9% vs 6.0, 15.7, and 28.7%, respectively, P = 0.0067). The 1-, 3- and 5-year OS rates with periportal HCCs were significantly worse than with nonperiportal HCCs (81.3, 65.1 and 42.9% vs 99.3, 90.4 and 78.1%, respectively, P < 0.0001). In the subgroup of HCC ≤ 3 cm, patients with periportal HCCs showed significantly higher local recurrence rates (P = 0.0006) and OS (P < 0.0001) after RFA than patients with single nonperiportal HCCs. Subgroup analyses revealed that tumor size, periportal HCC and AFP ≥ 400ug/ml were independent prognostic factors for tumor progression after RFA. The authors concluded that periportal HCCs have a worse prognosis, and need better treatment options than are currently available.

Lee at al report a retrospective evaluation of Korean patients with HCC who were either treated with RFA or microwave ablation (MWA). Of 150 HCC patients (100 in the RFA group and 50 in the MWA group), the complete response rate, two-year survival rate, and complication rate were similar between the two groups. However, the MWA group had better one- and two-year disease-free survival than the RFA group (P = 0.035 and P = 0.032, respectively). In addition, there were fewer major complications in the MWA group (P = 0.043). In a subgroup analysis, patients with perivascular tumors, high risk of recurrence, and small tumor size (≤3 cm) were more suitable for MWA than RFA. The authors concluded that in patients with HCC, initial treatment with microwave ablation leads to better 1- and 2-year disease-free survival and a lower risk of major complications than RFA.