User login
How to use lofexidine for quick opioid withdrawal
SAN DIEGO – Lofexidine (Lucemyra), the new kid on the block in the United States for opioid withdrawal, can help patients get through the process in a few days, instead of a week or more, according to Thomas Kosten, MD, a psychiatry professor and director of the division of addictions at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
Lofexidine relieves symptom withdrawal and has significant advantages over clonidine, a similar drug, including easier dosing and no orthostatic hypertension.
In a video interview at the annual Psych Congress, Dr. Kosten went into the nuts and bolts of how to use lofexidine with buprenorphine and naltrexone – plus benzodiazepines when needed – to help people safely go through withdrawal and in just a few days.
Once chronic pain patients are off opioids, the next question is what to do for their pain. In a presentation before the interview, Dr. Kosten said he favors tricyclic antidepressants, especially desipramine because it has the fewest side effects. The effect size with tricyclic antidepressants is larger than with gabapentin and other options. They take a few weeks to kick in, however, so he’s thinking about a unique approach: using ketamine – either infusions or the new nasal spray esketamine (Spravato) – to tide people over in the meantime. It’s becoming well known that ketamine works amazingly fast for depression and suicidality, and there is emerging support that it might do the same for chronic pain. Dr. Kosten is a consultant for US Worldmeds, maker of lofexidine.
SAN DIEGO – Lofexidine (Lucemyra), the new kid on the block in the United States for opioid withdrawal, can help patients get through the process in a few days, instead of a week or more, according to Thomas Kosten, MD, a psychiatry professor and director of the division of addictions at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
Lofexidine relieves symptom withdrawal and has significant advantages over clonidine, a similar drug, including easier dosing and no orthostatic hypertension.
In a video interview at the annual Psych Congress, Dr. Kosten went into the nuts and bolts of how to use lofexidine with buprenorphine and naltrexone – plus benzodiazepines when needed – to help people safely go through withdrawal and in just a few days.
Once chronic pain patients are off opioids, the next question is what to do for their pain. In a presentation before the interview, Dr. Kosten said he favors tricyclic antidepressants, especially desipramine because it has the fewest side effects. The effect size with tricyclic antidepressants is larger than with gabapentin and other options. They take a few weeks to kick in, however, so he’s thinking about a unique approach: using ketamine – either infusions or the new nasal spray esketamine (Spravato) – to tide people over in the meantime. It’s becoming well known that ketamine works amazingly fast for depression and suicidality, and there is emerging support that it might do the same for chronic pain. Dr. Kosten is a consultant for US Worldmeds, maker of lofexidine.
SAN DIEGO – Lofexidine (Lucemyra), the new kid on the block in the United States for opioid withdrawal, can help patients get through the process in a few days, instead of a week or more, according to Thomas Kosten, MD, a psychiatry professor and director of the division of addictions at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
Lofexidine relieves symptom withdrawal and has significant advantages over clonidine, a similar drug, including easier dosing and no orthostatic hypertension.
In a video interview at the annual Psych Congress, Dr. Kosten went into the nuts and bolts of how to use lofexidine with buprenorphine and naltrexone – plus benzodiazepines when needed – to help people safely go through withdrawal and in just a few days.
Once chronic pain patients are off opioids, the next question is what to do for their pain. In a presentation before the interview, Dr. Kosten said he favors tricyclic antidepressants, especially desipramine because it has the fewest side effects. The effect size with tricyclic antidepressants is larger than with gabapentin and other options. They take a few weeks to kick in, however, so he’s thinking about a unique approach: using ketamine – either infusions or the new nasal spray esketamine (Spravato) – to tide people over in the meantime. It’s becoming well known that ketamine works amazingly fast for depression and suicidality, and there is emerging support that it might do the same for chronic pain. Dr. Kosten is a consultant for US Worldmeds, maker of lofexidine.
REPORTING FROM PSYCH CONGRESS 2019
FDA approves benralizumab autoinjector for eosinophilic asthma
according to a press release from AstraZeneca. Benralizumab is already approved as add-on maintenance for this form of asthma, but not for other eosinophilic conditions or for acute bronchospasm or status asthmaticus.
The autoinjector “pen” was tested for usability and pharmacokinetic exposure in two studies, the phase 3 GRECO trial and the phase 1 AMES trial, respectively. The multicenter, open-label GRECO trial was designed to assess patient- or caregiver-reported functionality, and it found that 97% of at-home administrations were successful at week 12 and week 16. The multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group AMES trial compared pharmacokinetic exposure with the subcutaneous administration using either prefilled syringe or prefilled autoinjector; it found that the eosinophils were rapidly depleted in patients with use of either device.
The safety profiles in both trials were comparable to those seen in previous trials. Hypersensitivity reactions have been sometimes observed in the hours following administration of benralizumab; discontinuation is advised in case of any hypersensitivity reaction. The therapy should not be used to treat acute asthma symptoms, such as exacerbations, or bronchospasm, and any reduction in corticosteroid therapy should be gradual and performed under careful supervision of a health care professional. Although benralizumab’s effects on helminth infections are currently unknown, care should be taken with preexisting or incident infections.
Full prescribing information can be found on the AstraZeneca website.
according to a press release from AstraZeneca. Benralizumab is already approved as add-on maintenance for this form of asthma, but not for other eosinophilic conditions or for acute bronchospasm or status asthmaticus.
The autoinjector “pen” was tested for usability and pharmacokinetic exposure in two studies, the phase 3 GRECO trial and the phase 1 AMES trial, respectively. The multicenter, open-label GRECO trial was designed to assess patient- or caregiver-reported functionality, and it found that 97% of at-home administrations were successful at week 12 and week 16. The multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group AMES trial compared pharmacokinetic exposure with the subcutaneous administration using either prefilled syringe or prefilled autoinjector; it found that the eosinophils were rapidly depleted in patients with use of either device.
The safety profiles in both trials were comparable to those seen in previous trials. Hypersensitivity reactions have been sometimes observed in the hours following administration of benralizumab; discontinuation is advised in case of any hypersensitivity reaction. The therapy should not be used to treat acute asthma symptoms, such as exacerbations, or bronchospasm, and any reduction in corticosteroid therapy should be gradual and performed under careful supervision of a health care professional. Although benralizumab’s effects on helminth infections are currently unknown, care should be taken with preexisting or incident infections.
Full prescribing information can be found on the AstraZeneca website.
according to a press release from AstraZeneca. Benralizumab is already approved as add-on maintenance for this form of asthma, but not for other eosinophilic conditions or for acute bronchospasm or status asthmaticus.
The autoinjector “pen” was tested for usability and pharmacokinetic exposure in two studies, the phase 3 GRECO trial and the phase 1 AMES trial, respectively. The multicenter, open-label GRECO trial was designed to assess patient- or caregiver-reported functionality, and it found that 97% of at-home administrations were successful at week 12 and week 16. The multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group AMES trial compared pharmacokinetic exposure with the subcutaneous administration using either prefilled syringe or prefilled autoinjector; it found that the eosinophils were rapidly depleted in patients with use of either device.
The safety profiles in both trials were comparable to those seen in previous trials. Hypersensitivity reactions have been sometimes observed in the hours following administration of benralizumab; discontinuation is advised in case of any hypersensitivity reaction. The therapy should not be used to treat acute asthma symptoms, such as exacerbations, or bronchospasm, and any reduction in corticosteroid therapy should be gradual and performed under careful supervision of a health care professional. Although benralizumab’s effects on helminth infections are currently unknown, care should be taken with preexisting or incident infections.
Full prescribing information can be found on the AstraZeneca website.
Hospitalist comanagement reduced odds of MI, shortened vascular surgery stays
CHICAGO – A care model that uses hospitalists to comanage vascular surgery patients cut myocardial infarction rates by more than half and reduced hospital stays by about 12%, according to results of a study of the hospitalist comanagement model from Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Vascular Surgery Society.
“Hospitalist comanagement was associated with decreased length of stay without affecting readmission for patients undergoing amputation, embolectomy, and infected graft,” said Kaavya Adam, a third-year medical student at Loyola University Chicago. “In the overall population, there was a reduction in cases of MI, 30-day readmissions, and overall length of stay.”
In 2014, Loyola implemented a program that used 11 hospitalists to rotate through the vascular surgery service. The hospitalists call on any patient who stays more than 24 hours on the non-ICU floors. Adam said hospitalist duties include evaluating patient comorbidities, adjusting medication, talking with family about medical management, seeing patients on the day of surgery, ordering preoperative labs, and meeting with the anesthesiology and vascular surgery teams.
The study compared outcomes in 866 patients admitted during 2007-2013, before the comanagement model was put into place, and 572 admitted during 2014-2017.
Rates of diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, coronary artery disease, hyperlipidemia, and malnutrition were similar between the groups. However, the pre-comanagement group had significantly higher rates of ischemic pain (27.8% vs. 10.7%), gangrene (21.3% vs. 13.6%) and ulceration (30.6% vs. 21.9%), while the comanaged group had significantly higher rates of claudication (34.3% vs. 13.2%). The statistical analysis accounted for these variations, Adam said.
“We did find significant results for the reduction in the odds of MI at 30 days; there was a 61% reduction,” he said.
The reduction in hospital stay was even more pronounced for patients with complex cases, Adam said. In amputation, the length of stay was reduced by 3.77 days (P = .01); in embolectomy, by 7.35 (P = .004); and in infected graft, by 8.35 (P = .007).
Continuing research will evaluate the cost effectiveness of the hospitalist model and define a comanagement model that is most beneficial, Mr. Adam said. He had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Adam K et al. Midwestern Vascular 2019, Abstract 14.
CHICAGO – A care model that uses hospitalists to comanage vascular surgery patients cut myocardial infarction rates by more than half and reduced hospital stays by about 12%, according to results of a study of the hospitalist comanagement model from Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Vascular Surgery Society.
“Hospitalist comanagement was associated with decreased length of stay without affecting readmission for patients undergoing amputation, embolectomy, and infected graft,” said Kaavya Adam, a third-year medical student at Loyola University Chicago. “In the overall population, there was a reduction in cases of MI, 30-day readmissions, and overall length of stay.”
In 2014, Loyola implemented a program that used 11 hospitalists to rotate through the vascular surgery service. The hospitalists call on any patient who stays more than 24 hours on the non-ICU floors. Adam said hospitalist duties include evaluating patient comorbidities, adjusting medication, talking with family about medical management, seeing patients on the day of surgery, ordering preoperative labs, and meeting with the anesthesiology and vascular surgery teams.
The study compared outcomes in 866 patients admitted during 2007-2013, before the comanagement model was put into place, and 572 admitted during 2014-2017.
Rates of diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, coronary artery disease, hyperlipidemia, and malnutrition were similar between the groups. However, the pre-comanagement group had significantly higher rates of ischemic pain (27.8% vs. 10.7%), gangrene (21.3% vs. 13.6%) and ulceration (30.6% vs. 21.9%), while the comanaged group had significantly higher rates of claudication (34.3% vs. 13.2%). The statistical analysis accounted for these variations, Adam said.
“We did find significant results for the reduction in the odds of MI at 30 days; there was a 61% reduction,” he said.
The reduction in hospital stay was even more pronounced for patients with complex cases, Adam said. In amputation, the length of stay was reduced by 3.77 days (P = .01); in embolectomy, by 7.35 (P = .004); and in infected graft, by 8.35 (P = .007).
Continuing research will evaluate the cost effectiveness of the hospitalist model and define a comanagement model that is most beneficial, Mr. Adam said. He had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Adam K et al. Midwestern Vascular 2019, Abstract 14.
CHICAGO – A care model that uses hospitalists to comanage vascular surgery patients cut myocardial infarction rates by more than half and reduced hospital stays by about 12%, according to results of a study of the hospitalist comanagement model from Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Vascular Surgery Society.
“Hospitalist comanagement was associated with decreased length of stay without affecting readmission for patients undergoing amputation, embolectomy, and infected graft,” said Kaavya Adam, a third-year medical student at Loyola University Chicago. “In the overall population, there was a reduction in cases of MI, 30-day readmissions, and overall length of stay.”
In 2014, Loyola implemented a program that used 11 hospitalists to rotate through the vascular surgery service. The hospitalists call on any patient who stays more than 24 hours on the non-ICU floors. Adam said hospitalist duties include evaluating patient comorbidities, adjusting medication, talking with family about medical management, seeing patients on the day of surgery, ordering preoperative labs, and meeting with the anesthesiology and vascular surgery teams.
The study compared outcomes in 866 patients admitted during 2007-2013, before the comanagement model was put into place, and 572 admitted during 2014-2017.
Rates of diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, coronary artery disease, hyperlipidemia, and malnutrition were similar between the groups. However, the pre-comanagement group had significantly higher rates of ischemic pain (27.8% vs. 10.7%), gangrene (21.3% vs. 13.6%) and ulceration (30.6% vs. 21.9%), while the comanaged group had significantly higher rates of claudication (34.3% vs. 13.2%). The statistical analysis accounted for these variations, Adam said.
“We did find significant results for the reduction in the odds of MI at 30 days; there was a 61% reduction,” he said.
The reduction in hospital stay was even more pronounced for patients with complex cases, Adam said. In amputation, the length of stay was reduced by 3.77 days (P = .01); in embolectomy, by 7.35 (P = .004); and in infected graft, by 8.35 (P = .007).
Continuing research will evaluate the cost effectiveness of the hospitalist model and define a comanagement model that is most beneficial, Mr. Adam said. He had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Adam K et al. Midwestern Vascular 2019, Abstract 14.
REPORTING FROM MIDWESTERN VASCULAR 2019
Key clinical point: Hospitalist comanagement of vascular surgery patients reduced hospital stays.
Major finding: Hospitalist comanagement significantly reduced the odds of MI at 30 days; a 61% reduction.
Study details: Database query of 1,438 vascular surgery admissions during 2007-2017.
Disclosures: Mr. Adam had no relevant financial disclosures.
Source: Adam K et al. Midwestern Vascular 2019, Abstract 14.
Guide to the guidelines: Biologics for psoriasis
SEATTLE – The availability of biologics for treating psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis has exploded in recent years, with 11 biologics now approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Targets include four separate mechanisms: inhibition of tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin (IL) 23, IL-12/23, and IL-17. The surfeit of treatment options can be a little overwhelming.
“It can be confusing. We have a lot of choices, but the good news is that most of our choices are excellent, and they treat both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. That’s very important because, when we think of our psoriasis patients, we need to think not only about their skin but also their joint involvement. Assessment of psoriatic arthritis will drive some of our therapeutic [decisions],” April Armstrong, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium.
In April, the American Academy of Dermatology came to the rescue with comprehensive guidelines. Aside from general advice, the guidelines “provide tips for monitoring as well as dose escalation, which will be very helpful in daily practice,” Dr. Armstrong said in an interview.
The best studied of the biologics with respect to psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are the IL-17 inhibitors and TNF inhibitors, she said. While TNF inhibitors have traditionally been the treatment of choice for both conditions, “I think these days, people realize that IL-17 inhibitors can be just as good.”
A head-to-head study of the IL-17 inhibitor ixekizumab and the TNF inhibitor adalimumab, presented at the EULAR Congress, looked at a combined outcome of skin and joints and found ixekizumab to be superior, though the study design’s inclusion of a skin outcome may have favored ixekizumab (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8709).
A few other head-to-head studies have been performed, but properly ranking all 11 biologics would require dozens of clinical trials. At the American Academy of Dermatology meeting last March, Dr. Armstrong presented the results of a network meta-analysis of anti-TNF agents, anti-interleukin agents, anti–phosphodiesterase 4 agents, and fumaric acid esters (J Am Acad Dermatol. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.06.488). That study, funded by AbbVie, compared the individual agents to a collective placebo group and concluded that anti-interleukin agents generate the highest level of PASI 90/100 response rate. Risankizumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, and guselkumab, all IL inhibitors, achieved the best marks over the primary response period.
The AAD guidelines include recommendations for tests to be done upon initiation of a biologic, including a tuberculosis test, complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, and tests for hepatitis B and C. TB testing should be performed annually during treatment.
The guidelines also include recommendations for dose escalation, which can provide leverage for getting coverage approved. “One can use those guidelines to show payers how dose escalation can be done, so that [physicians] can potentially get more access to medications for their patients,” Dr. Armstrong said at the meeting jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education.
The guideline also ranks the existing evidence supporting individual biologics for the treatment of psoriasis subtypes. For example, for the treatment of moderate to severe scalp psoriasis, etanercept and guselkumab have consistent and good-quality patient-oriented evidence supporting them; infliximab, adalimumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab are recommended based on inconsistent or limited quality patient-oriented evidence; and ustekinumab is supported only by consensus opinion, case studies, or disease-oriented evidence. The guidelines provide similar categorization of biologics for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque type palmoplantar psoriasis, moderate to severe psoriasis affecting the nails, adults with pustular or erythrodermic psoriasis, and adults with psoriatic arthritis.
Dr. Armstrong is a research investigator and/or advisor to AbbVie, Janssen, Lily, LEO Pharma, Novartis, UCB, Ortho Dermatologics, Dermera, Regeneron, BMS, Dermavant, and KHK. This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.
SEATTLE – The availability of biologics for treating psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis has exploded in recent years, with 11 biologics now approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Targets include four separate mechanisms: inhibition of tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin (IL) 23, IL-12/23, and IL-17. The surfeit of treatment options can be a little overwhelming.
“It can be confusing. We have a lot of choices, but the good news is that most of our choices are excellent, and they treat both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. That’s very important because, when we think of our psoriasis patients, we need to think not only about their skin but also their joint involvement. Assessment of psoriatic arthritis will drive some of our therapeutic [decisions],” April Armstrong, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium.
In April, the American Academy of Dermatology came to the rescue with comprehensive guidelines. Aside from general advice, the guidelines “provide tips for monitoring as well as dose escalation, which will be very helpful in daily practice,” Dr. Armstrong said in an interview.
The best studied of the biologics with respect to psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are the IL-17 inhibitors and TNF inhibitors, she said. While TNF inhibitors have traditionally been the treatment of choice for both conditions, “I think these days, people realize that IL-17 inhibitors can be just as good.”
A head-to-head study of the IL-17 inhibitor ixekizumab and the TNF inhibitor adalimumab, presented at the EULAR Congress, looked at a combined outcome of skin and joints and found ixekizumab to be superior, though the study design’s inclusion of a skin outcome may have favored ixekizumab (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8709).
A few other head-to-head studies have been performed, but properly ranking all 11 biologics would require dozens of clinical trials. At the American Academy of Dermatology meeting last March, Dr. Armstrong presented the results of a network meta-analysis of anti-TNF agents, anti-interleukin agents, anti–phosphodiesterase 4 agents, and fumaric acid esters (J Am Acad Dermatol. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.06.488). That study, funded by AbbVie, compared the individual agents to a collective placebo group and concluded that anti-interleukin agents generate the highest level of PASI 90/100 response rate. Risankizumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, and guselkumab, all IL inhibitors, achieved the best marks over the primary response period.
The AAD guidelines include recommendations for tests to be done upon initiation of a biologic, including a tuberculosis test, complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, and tests for hepatitis B and C. TB testing should be performed annually during treatment.
The guidelines also include recommendations for dose escalation, which can provide leverage for getting coverage approved. “One can use those guidelines to show payers how dose escalation can be done, so that [physicians] can potentially get more access to medications for their patients,” Dr. Armstrong said at the meeting jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education.
The guideline also ranks the existing evidence supporting individual biologics for the treatment of psoriasis subtypes. For example, for the treatment of moderate to severe scalp psoriasis, etanercept and guselkumab have consistent and good-quality patient-oriented evidence supporting them; infliximab, adalimumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab are recommended based on inconsistent or limited quality patient-oriented evidence; and ustekinumab is supported only by consensus opinion, case studies, or disease-oriented evidence. The guidelines provide similar categorization of biologics for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque type palmoplantar psoriasis, moderate to severe psoriasis affecting the nails, adults with pustular or erythrodermic psoriasis, and adults with psoriatic arthritis.
Dr. Armstrong is a research investigator and/or advisor to AbbVie, Janssen, Lily, LEO Pharma, Novartis, UCB, Ortho Dermatologics, Dermera, Regeneron, BMS, Dermavant, and KHK. This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.
SEATTLE – The availability of biologics for treating psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis has exploded in recent years, with 11 biologics now approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Targets include four separate mechanisms: inhibition of tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin (IL) 23, IL-12/23, and IL-17. The surfeit of treatment options can be a little overwhelming.
“It can be confusing. We have a lot of choices, but the good news is that most of our choices are excellent, and they treat both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. That’s very important because, when we think of our psoriasis patients, we need to think not only about their skin but also their joint involvement. Assessment of psoriatic arthritis will drive some of our therapeutic [decisions],” April Armstrong, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium.
In April, the American Academy of Dermatology came to the rescue with comprehensive guidelines. Aside from general advice, the guidelines “provide tips for monitoring as well as dose escalation, which will be very helpful in daily practice,” Dr. Armstrong said in an interview.
The best studied of the biologics with respect to psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are the IL-17 inhibitors and TNF inhibitors, she said. While TNF inhibitors have traditionally been the treatment of choice for both conditions, “I think these days, people realize that IL-17 inhibitors can be just as good.”
A head-to-head study of the IL-17 inhibitor ixekizumab and the TNF inhibitor adalimumab, presented at the EULAR Congress, looked at a combined outcome of skin and joints and found ixekizumab to be superior, though the study design’s inclusion of a skin outcome may have favored ixekizumab (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8709).
A few other head-to-head studies have been performed, but properly ranking all 11 biologics would require dozens of clinical trials. At the American Academy of Dermatology meeting last March, Dr. Armstrong presented the results of a network meta-analysis of anti-TNF agents, anti-interleukin agents, anti–phosphodiesterase 4 agents, and fumaric acid esters (J Am Acad Dermatol. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.06.488). That study, funded by AbbVie, compared the individual agents to a collective placebo group and concluded that anti-interleukin agents generate the highest level of PASI 90/100 response rate. Risankizumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, and guselkumab, all IL inhibitors, achieved the best marks over the primary response period.
The AAD guidelines include recommendations for tests to be done upon initiation of a biologic, including a tuberculosis test, complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, and tests for hepatitis B and C. TB testing should be performed annually during treatment.
The guidelines also include recommendations for dose escalation, which can provide leverage for getting coverage approved. “One can use those guidelines to show payers how dose escalation can be done, so that [physicians] can potentially get more access to medications for their patients,” Dr. Armstrong said at the meeting jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education.
The guideline also ranks the existing evidence supporting individual biologics for the treatment of psoriasis subtypes. For example, for the treatment of moderate to severe scalp psoriasis, etanercept and guselkumab have consistent and good-quality patient-oriented evidence supporting them; infliximab, adalimumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab are recommended based on inconsistent or limited quality patient-oriented evidence; and ustekinumab is supported only by consensus opinion, case studies, or disease-oriented evidence. The guidelines provide similar categorization of biologics for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque type palmoplantar psoriasis, moderate to severe psoriasis affecting the nails, adults with pustular or erythrodermic psoriasis, and adults with psoriatic arthritis.
Dr. Armstrong is a research investigator and/or advisor to AbbVie, Janssen, Lily, LEO Pharma, Novartis, UCB, Ortho Dermatologics, Dermera, Regeneron, BMS, Dermavant, and KHK. This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM COASTAL DERM
Histologic analysis of vaping-associated lung injury suggests chemical pneumonitis
Vaping-associated lung injury is likely a form of airway-centered chemical pneumonitis, not exogenous lipoid pneumonia, according to Yasmeen M. Butt, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and associates.
Dr. Butt and associates performed a review of lung biopsies from 17 patients (13 men; median age, 35 years) with a history of vaping and either suspected or confirmed vaping-associated lung injury. All cases showed patterns of acute lung injury, including acute fibrinous pneumonitis, diffuse alveolar damage, or organizing pneumonia, the authors noted in a letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
While no histologic findings were specific, foamy macrophages and pneumocyte vacuolization were seen in all cases, the authors added. Pigmented macrophages were occasionally present but not dominant, neutrophils were often prominent, eosinophils were rare, and granulomas were not seen. Two patients eventually died, despite treatment with glucocorticoids and maximum supportive care.
“None of our cases showed histologic evidence of exogenous lipoid pneumonia and no radiologic evidence thereof has been found; this calls into question the diagnostic utility of identifying lipid-laden macrophages or performing oil red O staining on bronchioloalveolar lavage fluid as a marker of vaping-associated lung injury, as has been proposed,” Dr. Butt and associates wrote.
No conflicts of interest were reported.
SOURCE: Butt YM et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 2. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1913069.
Vaping-associated lung injury is likely a form of airway-centered chemical pneumonitis, not exogenous lipoid pneumonia, according to Yasmeen M. Butt, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and associates.
Dr. Butt and associates performed a review of lung biopsies from 17 patients (13 men; median age, 35 years) with a history of vaping and either suspected or confirmed vaping-associated lung injury. All cases showed patterns of acute lung injury, including acute fibrinous pneumonitis, diffuse alveolar damage, or organizing pneumonia, the authors noted in a letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
While no histologic findings were specific, foamy macrophages and pneumocyte vacuolization were seen in all cases, the authors added. Pigmented macrophages were occasionally present but not dominant, neutrophils were often prominent, eosinophils were rare, and granulomas were not seen. Two patients eventually died, despite treatment with glucocorticoids and maximum supportive care.
“None of our cases showed histologic evidence of exogenous lipoid pneumonia and no radiologic evidence thereof has been found; this calls into question the diagnostic utility of identifying lipid-laden macrophages or performing oil red O staining on bronchioloalveolar lavage fluid as a marker of vaping-associated lung injury, as has been proposed,” Dr. Butt and associates wrote.
No conflicts of interest were reported.
SOURCE: Butt YM et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 2. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1913069.
Vaping-associated lung injury is likely a form of airway-centered chemical pneumonitis, not exogenous lipoid pneumonia, according to Yasmeen M. Butt, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and associates.
Dr. Butt and associates performed a review of lung biopsies from 17 patients (13 men; median age, 35 years) with a history of vaping and either suspected or confirmed vaping-associated lung injury. All cases showed patterns of acute lung injury, including acute fibrinous pneumonitis, diffuse alveolar damage, or organizing pneumonia, the authors noted in a letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
While no histologic findings were specific, foamy macrophages and pneumocyte vacuolization were seen in all cases, the authors added. Pigmented macrophages were occasionally present but not dominant, neutrophils were often prominent, eosinophils were rare, and granulomas were not seen. Two patients eventually died, despite treatment with glucocorticoids and maximum supportive care.
“None of our cases showed histologic evidence of exogenous lipoid pneumonia and no radiologic evidence thereof has been found; this calls into question the diagnostic utility of identifying lipid-laden macrophages or performing oil red O staining on bronchioloalveolar lavage fluid as a marker of vaping-associated lung injury, as has been proposed,” Dr. Butt and associates wrote.
No conflicts of interest were reported.
SOURCE: Butt YM et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 2. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1913069.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Measles 2019: Most cases occurred in close-knit, undervaccinated communities
While 22 outbreaks were reported in 17 states during 2019, the majority of measles cases occurred in a pair of outbreaks that started in late 2018, one in New York City and the other in New York state. Theses two outbreaks, which occurred in underimmunized, close-knit communities, accounted for 934 (75%) of the 2019 total. An additional six outbreaks in similar communities accounted for nearly half of the remaining reported cases.
The overall median patient age was 6 years, with 31% being children aged 1-4 years, 27% being school-age children aged 5-17 years, and 29% were adults aged at least 18 years. However, when excluding the New York City (NYC) and New York state outbreaks, the median patient age was 19 years. Outbreak length also differed significantly between the NYC and New York state outbreaks, compared with all other outbreaks; the NYC outbreak lasted for 9.5 months, involving 702 patients from start to finish, the New York state outbreak lasted for 10.5 months and involved 412 cases.
The rate of patients who were either unvaccinated or had unknown vaccination status was similar in the New York outbreaks and in the other U.S. outbreaks, ranging from 87% to 91%. A total of 119 patients were hospitalized, 20% of whom were younger than 1 year; no deaths were reported. A total of 81 cases were internationally imported; the rate of patients who were unvaccinated or had unknown status in this group was 90%.
While most outbreaks in 2019 were similar to those previously seen, the outbreaks in NYC and New York state were more sustained for three reasons, the CDC investigators said: pockets of low vaccination coverage and variable vaccine acceptance, relatively high population density and closed social nature of the community, and repeated importations of measles cases among unvaccinated persons traveling internationally and returning to or visiting the affected communities.
“Public health authorities need to identify pockets of undervaccinated persons to prevent these outbreaks, which require substantial resources to control. A preventive strategy to build vaccine confidence is important, especially one that uses culturally appropriate communication strategies to offset misinformation and disseminate accurate information about the safety and importance of vaccination in advance of outbreaks,” the CDC investigators concluded.
The CDC investigators reported that they had no conflicts of interest.
[email protected]
SOURCE: Patel M et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Oct 4. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6840e2.
While 22 outbreaks were reported in 17 states during 2019, the majority of measles cases occurred in a pair of outbreaks that started in late 2018, one in New York City and the other in New York state. Theses two outbreaks, which occurred in underimmunized, close-knit communities, accounted for 934 (75%) of the 2019 total. An additional six outbreaks in similar communities accounted for nearly half of the remaining reported cases.
The overall median patient age was 6 years, with 31% being children aged 1-4 years, 27% being school-age children aged 5-17 years, and 29% were adults aged at least 18 years. However, when excluding the New York City (NYC) and New York state outbreaks, the median patient age was 19 years. Outbreak length also differed significantly between the NYC and New York state outbreaks, compared with all other outbreaks; the NYC outbreak lasted for 9.5 months, involving 702 patients from start to finish, the New York state outbreak lasted for 10.5 months and involved 412 cases.
The rate of patients who were either unvaccinated or had unknown vaccination status was similar in the New York outbreaks and in the other U.S. outbreaks, ranging from 87% to 91%. A total of 119 patients were hospitalized, 20% of whom were younger than 1 year; no deaths were reported. A total of 81 cases were internationally imported; the rate of patients who were unvaccinated or had unknown status in this group was 90%.
While most outbreaks in 2019 were similar to those previously seen, the outbreaks in NYC and New York state were more sustained for three reasons, the CDC investigators said: pockets of low vaccination coverage and variable vaccine acceptance, relatively high population density and closed social nature of the community, and repeated importations of measles cases among unvaccinated persons traveling internationally and returning to or visiting the affected communities.
“Public health authorities need to identify pockets of undervaccinated persons to prevent these outbreaks, which require substantial resources to control. A preventive strategy to build vaccine confidence is important, especially one that uses culturally appropriate communication strategies to offset misinformation and disseminate accurate information about the safety and importance of vaccination in advance of outbreaks,” the CDC investigators concluded.
The CDC investigators reported that they had no conflicts of interest.
[email protected]
SOURCE: Patel M et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Oct 4. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6840e2.
While 22 outbreaks were reported in 17 states during 2019, the majority of measles cases occurred in a pair of outbreaks that started in late 2018, one in New York City and the other in New York state. Theses two outbreaks, which occurred in underimmunized, close-knit communities, accounted for 934 (75%) of the 2019 total. An additional six outbreaks in similar communities accounted for nearly half of the remaining reported cases.
The overall median patient age was 6 years, with 31% being children aged 1-4 years, 27% being school-age children aged 5-17 years, and 29% were adults aged at least 18 years. However, when excluding the New York City (NYC) and New York state outbreaks, the median patient age was 19 years. Outbreak length also differed significantly between the NYC and New York state outbreaks, compared with all other outbreaks; the NYC outbreak lasted for 9.5 months, involving 702 patients from start to finish, the New York state outbreak lasted for 10.5 months and involved 412 cases.
The rate of patients who were either unvaccinated or had unknown vaccination status was similar in the New York outbreaks and in the other U.S. outbreaks, ranging from 87% to 91%. A total of 119 patients were hospitalized, 20% of whom were younger than 1 year; no deaths were reported. A total of 81 cases were internationally imported; the rate of patients who were unvaccinated or had unknown status in this group was 90%.
While most outbreaks in 2019 were similar to those previously seen, the outbreaks in NYC and New York state were more sustained for three reasons, the CDC investigators said: pockets of low vaccination coverage and variable vaccine acceptance, relatively high population density and closed social nature of the community, and repeated importations of measles cases among unvaccinated persons traveling internationally and returning to or visiting the affected communities.
“Public health authorities need to identify pockets of undervaccinated persons to prevent these outbreaks, which require substantial resources to control. A preventive strategy to build vaccine confidence is important, especially one that uses culturally appropriate communication strategies to offset misinformation and disseminate accurate information about the safety and importance of vaccination in advance of outbreaks,” the CDC investigators concluded.
The CDC investigators reported that they had no conflicts of interest.
[email protected]
SOURCE: Patel M et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Oct 4. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6840e2.
FROM THE MMWR
Oral drug cut viral respiratory tract infections in elderly
WASHINGTON – An investigational, oral, small molecule designed to boost innate antiviral immunity safely cut the incidence of various viral respiratory infections in elderly people during a winter season by nearly a third when administered once daily in a placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase 2 study of 952 patients. Based on these and other findings the drug, RTB101, is now undergoing testing in a phase 3 study, Joan Mannick, MD, said at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.
At a dosage of 10 mg once daily, RTB101 was “well tolerated, upregulated innate antiviral gene expression, and reduced the incidence” of laboratory-confirmed respiratory tract infections caused by several different viruses, said Dr. Mannick, who disclosed that she is a cofounder and chief medical officer of resTORbio, a Boston-based company that’s developing the drug.
During 16 weeks of treatment during the winter virus season, once-daily dosing led to cuts in the rates of respiratory infections compared with placebo by rhinovirus and enterovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, coronavirus, influenza virus, metapneuomovirus, and parainfluenza virus, especially in patients whom the results identified as having the best drug responses: those who were at least 85 years old, and those who were at least 65 years old and also had asthma. Enrolled patients who were at least 65 years old and had other risk factors – current smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or diabetes – had notably less robust responses to treatment, and the phase 3 study is not enrolling elderly people who currently smoke or have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Mannick said in an interview.
RTB101 inhibits the active site of the “mechanistic target of rapamycin” (mTOR) protein, the key player of the TORC1 protein complex that appears to downregulate innate antiviral immunity when active. Hence inhibiting mTOR and TORC1 activity should boost innate antiviral immunity. Once-daily dosing with 10 mg of RTB101 appears to mimic the normal daily cycle of high and low levels of TORC1 activity seen in younger adults but which is missing the elderly who generally have persistently elevated levels of TORC1 activity, Dr. Mannick explained.
The study she reported enrolled a total of 952 people at any of 10 sites in the Southern Hemisphere or 17 Northern Hemisphere study sites. The researchers randomized patients to receive either RTB101 or placebo at either of two once-daily dosages or either of two twice-daily regimens. The best drug performance was among the 356 patients treated with 10 mg once daily or placebo. Those who received the active drug at this level had a 19% incidence of any laboratory-confirmed respiratory tract infection, while those who received placebo had a 28% incidence, a 30.6% relative risk reduction with RTB101 treatment that was statistically significant.
The actively-treated patients showed upregulation for 19 of 20 “antiviral” genes assessed in the study compared with upregulation of just five of these genes in the those who received placebo. Two post hoc analyses showed that the people who received 10 mg once daily had about half the rate of all-cause hospitalizations compared with those on placebo, and among those who had respiratory infections treated patients had alleviation of their moderate or severe symptoms in about half the time compared with patients on placebo.
The 10-mg daily dosage of RTB101 is less than 1% of the maximum-tolerated dose in people, and the safety data collected in the current study showed adverse events occurring at similar rates in the patients who received the active drug and those who got placebo. Discontinuations because of adverse events occurred in 5% of people who received RTB101 and in 6% of those on placebo.
The researchers are planning to run a cost-effectiveness study to see whether the observed prevention of respiratory tract infections and their consequences can offset the cost of taking RTB101 daily for 16 weeks, Dr. Mannick said.
WASHINGTON – An investigational, oral, small molecule designed to boost innate antiviral immunity safely cut the incidence of various viral respiratory infections in elderly people during a winter season by nearly a third when administered once daily in a placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase 2 study of 952 patients. Based on these and other findings the drug, RTB101, is now undergoing testing in a phase 3 study, Joan Mannick, MD, said at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.
At a dosage of 10 mg once daily, RTB101 was “well tolerated, upregulated innate antiviral gene expression, and reduced the incidence” of laboratory-confirmed respiratory tract infections caused by several different viruses, said Dr. Mannick, who disclosed that she is a cofounder and chief medical officer of resTORbio, a Boston-based company that’s developing the drug.
During 16 weeks of treatment during the winter virus season, once-daily dosing led to cuts in the rates of respiratory infections compared with placebo by rhinovirus and enterovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, coronavirus, influenza virus, metapneuomovirus, and parainfluenza virus, especially in patients whom the results identified as having the best drug responses: those who were at least 85 years old, and those who were at least 65 years old and also had asthma. Enrolled patients who were at least 65 years old and had other risk factors – current smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or diabetes – had notably less robust responses to treatment, and the phase 3 study is not enrolling elderly people who currently smoke or have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Mannick said in an interview.
RTB101 inhibits the active site of the “mechanistic target of rapamycin” (mTOR) protein, the key player of the TORC1 protein complex that appears to downregulate innate antiviral immunity when active. Hence inhibiting mTOR and TORC1 activity should boost innate antiviral immunity. Once-daily dosing with 10 mg of RTB101 appears to mimic the normal daily cycle of high and low levels of TORC1 activity seen in younger adults but which is missing the elderly who generally have persistently elevated levels of TORC1 activity, Dr. Mannick explained.
The study she reported enrolled a total of 952 people at any of 10 sites in the Southern Hemisphere or 17 Northern Hemisphere study sites. The researchers randomized patients to receive either RTB101 or placebo at either of two once-daily dosages or either of two twice-daily regimens. The best drug performance was among the 356 patients treated with 10 mg once daily or placebo. Those who received the active drug at this level had a 19% incidence of any laboratory-confirmed respiratory tract infection, while those who received placebo had a 28% incidence, a 30.6% relative risk reduction with RTB101 treatment that was statistically significant.
The actively-treated patients showed upregulation for 19 of 20 “antiviral” genes assessed in the study compared with upregulation of just five of these genes in the those who received placebo. Two post hoc analyses showed that the people who received 10 mg once daily had about half the rate of all-cause hospitalizations compared with those on placebo, and among those who had respiratory infections treated patients had alleviation of their moderate or severe symptoms in about half the time compared with patients on placebo.
The 10-mg daily dosage of RTB101 is less than 1% of the maximum-tolerated dose in people, and the safety data collected in the current study showed adverse events occurring at similar rates in the patients who received the active drug and those who got placebo. Discontinuations because of adverse events occurred in 5% of people who received RTB101 and in 6% of those on placebo.
The researchers are planning to run a cost-effectiveness study to see whether the observed prevention of respiratory tract infections and their consequences can offset the cost of taking RTB101 daily for 16 weeks, Dr. Mannick said.
WASHINGTON – An investigational, oral, small molecule designed to boost innate antiviral immunity safely cut the incidence of various viral respiratory infections in elderly people during a winter season by nearly a third when administered once daily in a placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase 2 study of 952 patients. Based on these and other findings the drug, RTB101, is now undergoing testing in a phase 3 study, Joan Mannick, MD, said at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.
At a dosage of 10 mg once daily, RTB101 was “well tolerated, upregulated innate antiviral gene expression, and reduced the incidence” of laboratory-confirmed respiratory tract infections caused by several different viruses, said Dr. Mannick, who disclosed that she is a cofounder and chief medical officer of resTORbio, a Boston-based company that’s developing the drug.
During 16 weeks of treatment during the winter virus season, once-daily dosing led to cuts in the rates of respiratory infections compared with placebo by rhinovirus and enterovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, coronavirus, influenza virus, metapneuomovirus, and parainfluenza virus, especially in patients whom the results identified as having the best drug responses: those who were at least 85 years old, and those who were at least 65 years old and also had asthma. Enrolled patients who were at least 65 years old and had other risk factors – current smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or diabetes – had notably less robust responses to treatment, and the phase 3 study is not enrolling elderly people who currently smoke or have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Mannick said in an interview.
RTB101 inhibits the active site of the “mechanistic target of rapamycin” (mTOR) protein, the key player of the TORC1 protein complex that appears to downregulate innate antiviral immunity when active. Hence inhibiting mTOR and TORC1 activity should boost innate antiviral immunity. Once-daily dosing with 10 mg of RTB101 appears to mimic the normal daily cycle of high and low levels of TORC1 activity seen in younger adults but which is missing the elderly who generally have persistently elevated levels of TORC1 activity, Dr. Mannick explained.
The study she reported enrolled a total of 952 people at any of 10 sites in the Southern Hemisphere or 17 Northern Hemisphere study sites. The researchers randomized patients to receive either RTB101 or placebo at either of two once-daily dosages or either of two twice-daily regimens. The best drug performance was among the 356 patients treated with 10 mg once daily or placebo. Those who received the active drug at this level had a 19% incidence of any laboratory-confirmed respiratory tract infection, while those who received placebo had a 28% incidence, a 30.6% relative risk reduction with RTB101 treatment that was statistically significant.
The actively-treated patients showed upregulation for 19 of 20 “antiviral” genes assessed in the study compared with upregulation of just five of these genes in the those who received placebo. Two post hoc analyses showed that the people who received 10 mg once daily had about half the rate of all-cause hospitalizations compared with those on placebo, and among those who had respiratory infections treated patients had alleviation of their moderate or severe symptoms in about half the time compared with patients on placebo.
The 10-mg daily dosage of RTB101 is less than 1% of the maximum-tolerated dose in people, and the safety data collected in the current study showed adverse events occurring at similar rates in the patients who received the active drug and those who got placebo. Discontinuations because of adverse events occurred in 5% of people who received RTB101 and in 6% of those on placebo.
The researchers are planning to run a cost-effectiveness study to see whether the observed prevention of respiratory tract infections and their consequences can offset the cost of taking RTB101 daily for 16 weeks, Dr. Mannick said.
REPORTING FROM IDWEEK 2019
Coming soon!
Check back later this month for top news from the 2019 AANEM Annual Meeting in Austin.
Check back later this month for top news from the 2019 AANEM Annual Meeting in Austin.
Check back later this month for top news from the 2019 AANEM Annual Meeting in Austin.
Buprenorphine merits more attention for treatment of opioid use disorder
SAN DIEGO – Prescribing buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder requires strict discernment on the part of clinicians, Arwen Podesta, MD, said at the annual Psych Congress.
She encouraged clinicians to be prepared for a visit from the Drug Enforcement Administration, understand the unique properties of buprenorphine, and make sure that patients grasp the importance of sublingual administration.
Research shows that only 5% of physicians are allowed to prescribe buprenorphine – an opioid – by way of a DEA waiver, Dr. Podesta said. About half do not prescribe the drug. Barriers to prescribing buprenorphine include factors such as low reimbursement and untrained support staff, said Dr. Podesta, a board-certified psychiatrist who subspecializes in addiction medicine and practices in New Orleans.
But she noted that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has recommended that medication-assisted therapy (MAT) – methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone – be considered in all patients with opioid use disorder. The drugs are safe and effective when used correctly, the federal agency has said.
Remember, Dr. Podesta said, that “patients taking MAT are considered to be in recovery.” In the big picture, she added, “we have to improve access to care because we have so many people who don’t have access to treatment.”
Getting permission from the DEA to prescribe buprenorphine – a schedule III controlled substance – comes with a price, Dr. Podesta said. “We have special scrutiny from the DEA,” she said. They come in and want to see your records. It sounds very punitive, although it’s their jobs.”
The best approach is to document that you know what you’re doing, she said. “It’s your job to educate them about why you’re using buprenorphine and produce the records to show that.”
Being aware of buprenorphine’s unique properties is important, she said. The drug is safer on the overdose front than are other opioids, Dr. Podesta said, but it can be very dangerous in patients without opioid tolerance. According to the DEA, as an analgesic, buprenorphine is 20-30 times more potent than morphine. Also, like morphine, patients who take buprenorphine are likely to experience euphoria, papillary restriction, and respiratory depression and sedation.
The buprenorphine/naloxone formulation is preferred to treat opioid use disorder, she noted.
The reason that naloxone, which treats opioid overdoses, is part of the drug combo is because as an add-on, it reduces the risk that buprenorphine will be crushed and snorted for an opioid high, she said. Those who take the combo drug via that method could end up with sudden and nasty withdrawal symptoms.
When the drug combo is administered sublingually, the idea is that the “good stuff” (buprenorphine) is absorbed in the mouth, while the “bad stuff” (naloxone) is harmlessly absorbed in the gut, Dr. Podesta said. This happens because the drugs are absorbed differently.
But patients can mistakenly trigger symptoms of withdrawal if, for example, they put the combo drug on their tongue and then go to sleep. “That’s a peril,” she said, and it’s important to make sure patients know what to do – and what not to do.
Dr. Podesta emphasized the importance of choosing language related to patients with addictions carefully and respectfully.
“We have stigma,” she said. “We have been saying that patients are ‘dirty’ or ‘clean,’ and if they’re ‘clean,’ they’re the opposite of ‘dirty.’
She also suggested that clinicians drop the use of the word “contract” to describe treatment agreements between patients and clinicians. “Call it an ‘agreement,’ ” she said. “It seems more mutual and less punitive or risky for the patient to sign, especially when they’re in a precarious comfort zone.”
And consider that even the words “substance abuse” can be misleading, she said. “Many [patients] are taking the medications that the doctor prescribed and following instructions to the letter.”
Dr. Podesta disclosed consulting with Kaleo, Pear Therapeutics, and JayMac, and serving on the speakers bureau of Alkermes, Orexo, and US WorldMeds. She is the author of “Hooked: A Concise Guide to the Underlying Mechanics of Addiction and Treatment for Patients, Families, and Providers” (Dog Ear Publishing, 2016).
SAN DIEGO – Prescribing buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder requires strict discernment on the part of clinicians, Arwen Podesta, MD, said at the annual Psych Congress.
She encouraged clinicians to be prepared for a visit from the Drug Enforcement Administration, understand the unique properties of buprenorphine, and make sure that patients grasp the importance of sublingual administration.
Research shows that only 5% of physicians are allowed to prescribe buprenorphine – an opioid – by way of a DEA waiver, Dr. Podesta said. About half do not prescribe the drug. Barriers to prescribing buprenorphine include factors such as low reimbursement and untrained support staff, said Dr. Podesta, a board-certified psychiatrist who subspecializes in addiction medicine and practices in New Orleans.
But she noted that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has recommended that medication-assisted therapy (MAT) – methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone – be considered in all patients with opioid use disorder. The drugs are safe and effective when used correctly, the federal agency has said.
Remember, Dr. Podesta said, that “patients taking MAT are considered to be in recovery.” In the big picture, she added, “we have to improve access to care because we have so many people who don’t have access to treatment.”
Getting permission from the DEA to prescribe buprenorphine – a schedule III controlled substance – comes with a price, Dr. Podesta said. “We have special scrutiny from the DEA,” she said. They come in and want to see your records. It sounds very punitive, although it’s their jobs.”
The best approach is to document that you know what you’re doing, she said. “It’s your job to educate them about why you’re using buprenorphine and produce the records to show that.”
Being aware of buprenorphine’s unique properties is important, she said. The drug is safer on the overdose front than are other opioids, Dr. Podesta said, but it can be very dangerous in patients without opioid tolerance. According to the DEA, as an analgesic, buprenorphine is 20-30 times more potent than morphine. Also, like morphine, patients who take buprenorphine are likely to experience euphoria, papillary restriction, and respiratory depression and sedation.
The buprenorphine/naloxone formulation is preferred to treat opioid use disorder, she noted.
The reason that naloxone, which treats opioid overdoses, is part of the drug combo is because as an add-on, it reduces the risk that buprenorphine will be crushed and snorted for an opioid high, she said. Those who take the combo drug via that method could end up with sudden and nasty withdrawal symptoms.
When the drug combo is administered sublingually, the idea is that the “good stuff” (buprenorphine) is absorbed in the mouth, while the “bad stuff” (naloxone) is harmlessly absorbed in the gut, Dr. Podesta said. This happens because the drugs are absorbed differently.
But patients can mistakenly trigger symptoms of withdrawal if, for example, they put the combo drug on their tongue and then go to sleep. “That’s a peril,” she said, and it’s important to make sure patients know what to do – and what not to do.
Dr. Podesta emphasized the importance of choosing language related to patients with addictions carefully and respectfully.
“We have stigma,” she said. “We have been saying that patients are ‘dirty’ or ‘clean,’ and if they’re ‘clean,’ they’re the opposite of ‘dirty.’
She also suggested that clinicians drop the use of the word “contract” to describe treatment agreements between patients and clinicians. “Call it an ‘agreement,’ ” she said. “It seems more mutual and less punitive or risky for the patient to sign, especially when they’re in a precarious comfort zone.”
And consider that even the words “substance abuse” can be misleading, she said. “Many [patients] are taking the medications that the doctor prescribed and following instructions to the letter.”
Dr. Podesta disclosed consulting with Kaleo, Pear Therapeutics, and JayMac, and serving on the speakers bureau of Alkermes, Orexo, and US WorldMeds. She is the author of “Hooked: A Concise Guide to the Underlying Mechanics of Addiction and Treatment for Patients, Families, and Providers” (Dog Ear Publishing, 2016).
SAN DIEGO – Prescribing buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder requires strict discernment on the part of clinicians, Arwen Podesta, MD, said at the annual Psych Congress.
She encouraged clinicians to be prepared for a visit from the Drug Enforcement Administration, understand the unique properties of buprenorphine, and make sure that patients grasp the importance of sublingual administration.
Research shows that only 5% of physicians are allowed to prescribe buprenorphine – an opioid – by way of a DEA waiver, Dr. Podesta said. About half do not prescribe the drug. Barriers to prescribing buprenorphine include factors such as low reimbursement and untrained support staff, said Dr. Podesta, a board-certified psychiatrist who subspecializes in addiction medicine and practices in New Orleans.
But she noted that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has recommended that medication-assisted therapy (MAT) – methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone – be considered in all patients with opioid use disorder. The drugs are safe and effective when used correctly, the federal agency has said.
Remember, Dr. Podesta said, that “patients taking MAT are considered to be in recovery.” In the big picture, she added, “we have to improve access to care because we have so many people who don’t have access to treatment.”
Getting permission from the DEA to prescribe buprenorphine – a schedule III controlled substance – comes with a price, Dr. Podesta said. “We have special scrutiny from the DEA,” she said. They come in and want to see your records. It sounds very punitive, although it’s their jobs.”
The best approach is to document that you know what you’re doing, she said. “It’s your job to educate them about why you’re using buprenorphine and produce the records to show that.”
Being aware of buprenorphine’s unique properties is important, she said. The drug is safer on the overdose front than are other opioids, Dr. Podesta said, but it can be very dangerous in patients without opioid tolerance. According to the DEA, as an analgesic, buprenorphine is 20-30 times more potent than morphine. Also, like morphine, patients who take buprenorphine are likely to experience euphoria, papillary restriction, and respiratory depression and sedation.
The buprenorphine/naloxone formulation is preferred to treat opioid use disorder, she noted.
The reason that naloxone, which treats opioid overdoses, is part of the drug combo is because as an add-on, it reduces the risk that buprenorphine will be crushed and snorted for an opioid high, she said. Those who take the combo drug via that method could end up with sudden and nasty withdrawal symptoms.
When the drug combo is administered sublingually, the idea is that the “good stuff” (buprenorphine) is absorbed in the mouth, while the “bad stuff” (naloxone) is harmlessly absorbed in the gut, Dr. Podesta said. This happens because the drugs are absorbed differently.
But patients can mistakenly trigger symptoms of withdrawal if, for example, they put the combo drug on their tongue and then go to sleep. “That’s a peril,” she said, and it’s important to make sure patients know what to do – and what not to do.
Dr. Podesta emphasized the importance of choosing language related to patients with addictions carefully and respectfully.
“We have stigma,” she said. “We have been saying that patients are ‘dirty’ or ‘clean,’ and if they’re ‘clean,’ they’re the opposite of ‘dirty.’
She also suggested that clinicians drop the use of the word “contract” to describe treatment agreements between patients and clinicians. “Call it an ‘agreement,’ ” she said. “It seems more mutual and less punitive or risky for the patient to sign, especially when they’re in a precarious comfort zone.”
And consider that even the words “substance abuse” can be misleading, she said. “Many [patients] are taking the medications that the doctor prescribed and following instructions to the letter.”
Dr. Podesta disclosed consulting with Kaleo, Pear Therapeutics, and JayMac, and serving on the speakers bureau of Alkermes, Orexo, and US WorldMeds. She is the author of “Hooked: A Concise Guide to the Underlying Mechanics of Addiction and Treatment for Patients, Families, and Providers” (Dog Ear Publishing, 2016).
REPORTING FROM PSYCH CONGRESS 2019
Continuous NSAID use for ankylosing spondylitis may raise hypertension risk
Continuous use of NSAIDs could increase the risk of incident hypertension among patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), according to findings from a recent prospective study.
Against expectations, data also suggested that tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) therapy could increase blood pressure, although this finding was not significant across all methods of analysis, reported lead author Jean W. Liew, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues.
The investigators noted that patients with AS already have a greater risk of cardiovascular disease than that of the general population, making any added risks that much more concerning.
“[T]he evidence for increased cardiovascular disease burden and cardiovascular risk in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases is well recognized,” the investigators wrote in Arthritis Care & Research. “Multiple population-based studies have demonstrated increased cardiovascular events and cardiovascular-related mortality in AS. There is a high prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors among individuals with AS, particularly hypertension.”
Exacerbation of this risk by NSAIDs has been previously studied with mixed results, according to the investigators. Meta-analyses have suggested that NSAIDs increase blood pressure in normotensive and hypertensive individuals, but some data point to a cardioprotective effect among those with AS, possibly as a consequence of dampened inflammation, and/or improved physical activity, which could lead to a secondary CV benefit. Still, the relationship between NSAIDs and CV risk was unclear, prompting the current study.
The investigators enrolled 1,282 patients with AS at five centers in the United States and Australia. Using a combination of clinical evaluations and self-reporting, enrollees were monitored at regular intervals. Disease activity was tracked with the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), while the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) was used for functional impairments. Patients were also checked for a variety of comorbidities such as hypertension, coronary artery disease, mental health conditions, and renal disorders. Medication data included type, dosage, frequency, duration, and number of missed doses.
Including only baseline normotensive patients with at least 1 year of follow-up, 628 participants were eligible for analysis, of whom 200 used NSAIDs continuously. After a median of 7 years follow-up, 129 out of 628 patients developed hypertension. This translated to a hazard ratio (HR) for incident hypertension of 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.20), compared with nonusers or those who took NSAIDs intermittently. This relationship did not differ across subgroups defined by age, disease activity, body mass index, or TNFi use. Multiple sensitivity analyses added support to the association between continuous NSAID use and hypertension.
“The association of NSAIDs and incident hypertension remains particularly concerning, as the early development of hypertension may portend a higher risk of premature CV events due to cumulative exposure,” the investigators wrote.
In contrast with NSAIDs, TNFi therapy was not associated with hypertension across all models; however, against expectations, two models of analysis pointed to an 8% increased risk.
“Although TNFi use did not reach statistical significance in the main model, the direction of association was opposite that hypothesized based on prior data, specifically that TNFi use reduces CV risk by suppressing chronic inflammation,” the investigators wrote.
Considering the present findings, and previous studies, which have reported conflicting associations between TNFi use and hypertension, the investigators suggested that more research is needed, and offered specific methods to approach the topic.
“The association of TNFi use and incident hypertension requires further clarification in future studies,” they wrote, “which may be done by applying a marginal structural modeling (MSM) framework and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) statistical analyses to account for the relationships between TNFi use, disease activity, and NSAID use.”
In their concluding remarks, the investigators further emphasized the current knowledge gap in this area.
“There is an unmet need to clarify how treatment choices, particularly the use of NSAIDs and TNFi, impact CV risk factors and CV events in AS,” they wrote. “Further studies are needed to focus on precision medicine and predicting risk and benefit for patients in whom continuous NSAIDs are being considered. These further studies can inform the revision of guidelines to address the management of CV risk factors and CV disease in AS and axial spondyloarthritis more broadly.”
The investigators reported funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society, the Spondylitis Association of America, and the Russel Engleman Rheumatology Research Center at the University of California, San Francisco. Some authors reported ties with Eli Lilly, Novartis, and other pharmaceutical companies..
SOURCE: Liew et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1002/acr.24070.
Continuous use of NSAIDs could increase the risk of incident hypertension among patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), according to findings from a recent prospective study.
Against expectations, data also suggested that tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) therapy could increase blood pressure, although this finding was not significant across all methods of analysis, reported lead author Jean W. Liew, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues.
The investigators noted that patients with AS already have a greater risk of cardiovascular disease than that of the general population, making any added risks that much more concerning.
“[T]he evidence for increased cardiovascular disease burden and cardiovascular risk in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases is well recognized,” the investigators wrote in Arthritis Care & Research. “Multiple population-based studies have demonstrated increased cardiovascular events and cardiovascular-related mortality in AS. There is a high prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors among individuals with AS, particularly hypertension.”
Exacerbation of this risk by NSAIDs has been previously studied with mixed results, according to the investigators. Meta-analyses have suggested that NSAIDs increase blood pressure in normotensive and hypertensive individuals, but some data point to a cardioprotective effect among those with AS, possibly as a consequence of dampened inflammation, and/or improved physical activity, which could lead to a secondary CV benefit. Still, the relationship between NSAIDs and CV risk was unclear, prompting the current study.
The investigators enrolled 1,282 patients with AS at five centers in the United States and Australia. Using a combination of clinical evaluations and self-reporting, enrollees were monitored at regular intervals. Disease activity was tracked with the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), while the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) was used for functional impairments. Patients were also checked for a variety of comorbidities such as hypertension, coronary artery disease, mental health conditions, and renal disorders. Medication data included type, dosage, frequency, duration, and number of missed doses.
Including only baseline normotensive patients with at least 1 year of follow-up, 628 participants were eligible for analysis, of whom 200 used NSAIDs continuously. After a median of 7 years follow-up, 129 out of 628 patients developed hypertension. This translated to a hazard ratio (HR) for incident hypertension of 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.20), compared with nonusers or those who took NSAIDs intermittently. This relationship did not differ across subgroups defined by age, disease activity, body mass index, or TNFi use. Multiple sensitivity analyses added support to the association between continuous NSAID use and hypertension.
“The association of NSAIDs and incident hypertension remains particularly concerning, as the early development of hypertension may portend a higher risk of premature CV events due to cumulative exposure,” the investigators wrote.
In contrast with NSAIDs, TNFi therapy was not associated with hypertension across all models; however, against expectations, two models of analysis pointed to an 8% increased risk.
“Although TNFi use did not reach statistical significance in the main model, the direction of association was opposite that hypothesized based on prior data, specifically that TNFi use reduces CV risk by suppressing chronic inflammation,” the investigators wrote.
Considering the present findings, and previous studies, which have reported conflicting associations between TNFi use and hypertension, the investigators suggested that more research is needed, and offered specific methods to approach the topic.
“The association of TNFi use and incident hypertension requires further clarification in future studies,” they wrote, “which may be done by applying a marginal structural modeling (MSM) framework and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) statistical analyses to account for the relationships between TNFi use, disease activity, and NSAID use.”
In their concluding remarks, the investigators further emphasized the current knowledge gap in this area.
“There is an unmet need to clarify how treatment choices, particularly the use of NSAIDs and TNFi, impact CV risk factors and CV events in AS,” they wrote. “Further studies are needed to focus on precision medicine and predicting risk and benefit for patients in whom continuous NSAIDs are being considered. These further studies can inform the revision of guidelines to address the management of CV risk factors and CV disease in AS and axial spondyloarthritis more broadly.”
The investigators reported funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society, the Spondylitis Association of America, and the Russel Engleman Rheumatology Research Center at the University of California, San Francisco. Some authors reported ties with Eli Lilly, Novartis, and other pharmaceutical companies..
SOURCE: Liew et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1002/acr.24070.
Continuous use of NSAIDs could increase the risk of incident hypertension among patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), according to findings from a recent prospective study.
Against expectations, data also suggested that tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) therapy could increase blood pressure, although this finding was not significant across all methods of analysis, reported lead author Jean W. Liew, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues.
The investigators noted that patients with AS already have a greater risk of cardiovascular disease than that of the general population, making any added risks that much more concerning.
“[T]he evidence for increased cardiovascular disease burden and cardiovascular risk in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases is well recognized,” the investigators wrote in Arthritis Care & Research. “Multiple population-based studies have demonstrated increased cardiovascular events and cardiovascular-related mortality in AS. There is a high prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors among individuals with AS, particularly hypertension.”
Exacerbation of this risk by NSAIDs has been previously studied with mixed results, according to the investigators. Meta-analyses have suggested that NSAIDs increase blood pressure in normotensive and hypertensive individuals, but some data point to a cardioprotective effect among those with AS, possibly as a consequence of dampened inflammation, and/or improved physical activity, which could lead to a secondary CV benefit. Still, the relationship between NSAIDs and CV risk was unclear, prompting the current study.
The investigators enrolled 1,282 patients with AS at five centers in the United States and Australia. Using a combination of clinical evaluations and self-reporting, enrollees were monitored at regular intervals. Disease activity was tracked with the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), while the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) was used for functional impairments. Patients were also checked for a variety of comorbidities such as hypertension, coronary artery disease, mental health conditions, and renal disorders. Medication data included type, dosage, frequency, duration, and number of missed doses.
Including only baseline normotensive patients with at least 1 year of follow-up, 628 participants were eligible for analysis, of whom 200 used NSAIDs continuously. After a median of 7 years follow-up, 129 out of 628 patients developed hypertension. This translated to a hazard ratio (HR) for incident hypertension of 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.20), compared with nonusers or those who took NSAIDs intermittently. This relationship did not differ across subgroups defined by age, disease activity, body mass index, or TNFi use. Multiple sensitivity analyses added support to the association between continuous NSAID use and hypertension.
“The association of NSAIDs and incident hypertension remains particularly concerning, as the early development of hypertension may portend a higher risk of premature CV events due to cumulative exposure,” the investigators wrote.
In contrast with NSAIDs, TNFi therapy was not associated with hypertension across all models; however, against expectations, two models of analysis pointed to an 8% increased risk.
“Although TNFi use did not reach statistical significance in the main model, the direction of association was opposite that hypothesized based on prior data, specifically that TNFi use reduces CV risk by suppressing chronic inflammation,” the investigators wrote.
Considering the present findings, and previous studies, which have reported conflicting associations between TNFi use and hypertension, the investigators suggested that more research is needed, and offered specific methods to approach the topic.
“The association of TNFi use and incident hypertension requires further clarification in future studies,” they wrote, “which may be done by applying a marginal structural modeling (MSM) framework and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) statistical analyses to account for the relationships between TNFi use, disease activity, and NSAID use.”
In their concluding remarks, the investigators further emphasized the current knowledge gap in this area.
“There is an unmet need to clarify how treatment choices, particularly the use of NSAIDs and TNFi, impact CV risk factors and CV events in AS,” they wrote. “Further studies are needed to focus on precision medicine and predicting risk and benefit for patients in whom continuous NSAIDs are being considered. These further studies can inform the revision of guidelines to address the management of CV risk factors and CV disease in AS and axial spondyloarthritis more broadly.”
The investigators reported funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society, the Spondylitis Association of America, and the Russel Engleman Rheumatology Research Center at the University of California, San Francisco. Some authors reported ties with Eli Lilly, Novartis, and other pharmaceutical companies..
SOURCE: Liew et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1002/acr.24070.
FROM ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH