Photo by Chris Horry

A lower threshold for platelet transfusions may be safer for preterm infants with severe thrombocytopenia, a new study suggests.

Researchers randomized preterm infants with severe thrombocytopenia to receive transfusions at platelet count thresholds of 50,000/mm³ or 25,000/mm³.

The team found that patients in the high-threshold group had a significantly higher risk of major bleeding or death.

Anna Curley, MD, of the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin, Ireland, and her colleagues reported this finding in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The researchers studied 660 infants with a mean gestational age of 26.6 weeks. They were randomized to receive platelet transfusions at a high platelet-count threshold of 50,000/mm³ or a low threshold of 25,000/mm³.

Within 28 days of randomization, a new major bleeding episode or death occurred in 26% of the high-threshold group and 19% of the low-threshold group.

When the researchers adjusted for gestational age, intrauterine growth restriction, and trial site, the odds ratio (OR) for major bleeding or death was 1.57 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-2.32; P=0.02).

The OR for death alone was 1.56 (95% CI, 0.95-2.55), and the hazard ratio for at least one major bleeding episode was 1.32 (95% CI, 1.00-1.74).

The rates of serious adverse events, not including major bleeding, were similar between the high- and low-threshold groups—25% and 22%, respectively (OR=1.14; 95% CI, 0.78-1.67).

The researchers said the results of this trial suggest that reducing the transfusion threshold from 50,000/mm³ to 25,000/mm³ may prevent death or major bleeding in 7 of 100 preterm neonates with severe thrombocytopenia.

However, the team also acknowledged that it isn’t clear why reducing the threshold may reduce the risk of mortality or major bleeding in this patient group.

The researchers said a range of factors might play a role in adverse outcomes of platelet transfusion in preterm neonates, including inflammatory consequences, hemodynamic shifts, fragility of the germinal matrix, disturbances in organ and brain blood flow, preterm lungs with a large capillary bed and abundant immune cells, platelet-derived reactive oxygen species, proangiogenic factors, and vessel occlusion by platelet microthrombi.

This study was supported by the National Health Service Blood and Transplant Research and Development Committee, Sanquin Research, Addenbrooke’s Charitable Trust, the Neonatal Breath of Life Fund, and the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network.

One study author reported consulting for Sanquin Research, and another declared travel funds from Cerus Corporation.

Photo by Chris Horry

A lower threshold for platelet transfusions may be safer for preterm infants with severe thrombocytopenia, a new study suggests.

Researchers randomized preterm infants with severe thrombocytopenia to receive transfusions at platelet count thresholds of 50,000/mm³ or 25,000/mm³.

The team found that patients in the high-threshold group had a significantly higher risk of major bleeding or death.

Anna Curley, MD, of the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin, Ireland, and her colleagues reported this finding in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The researchers studied 660 infants with a mean gestational age of 26.6 weeks. They were randomized to receive platelet transfusions at a high platelet-count threshold of 50,000/mm³ or a low threshold of 25,000/mm³.

Within 28 days of randomization, a new major bleeding episode or death occurred in 26% of the high-threshold group and 19% of the low-threshold group.

When the researchers adjusted for gestational age, intrauterine growth restriction, and trial site, the odds ratio (OR) for major bleeding or death was 1.57 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-2.32; P=0.02).

The OR for death alone was 1.56 (95% CI, 0.95-2.55), and the hazard ratio for at least one major bleeding episode was 1.32 (95% CI, 1.00-1.74).

The rates of serious adverse events, not including major bleeding, were similar between the high- and low-threshold groups—25% and 22%, respectively (OR=1.14; 95% CI, 0.78-1.67).

The researchers said the results of this trial suggest that reducing the transfusion threshold from 50,000/mm³ to 25,000/mm³ may prevent death or major bleeding in 7 of 100 preterm neonates with severe thrombocytopenia.

However, the team also acknowledged that it isn’t clear why reducing the threshold may reduce the risk of mortality or major bleeding in this patient group.

The researchers said a range of factors might play a role in adverse outcomes of platelet transfusion in preterm neonates, including inflammatory consequences, hemodynamic shifts, fragility of the germinal matrix, disturbances in organ and brain blood flow, preterm lungs with a large capillary bed and abundant immune cells, platelet-derived reactive oxygen species, proangiogenic factors, and vessel occlusion by platelet microthrombi.

This study was supported by the National Health Service Blood and Transplant Research and Development Committee, Sanquin Research, Addenbrooke’s Charitable Trust, the Neonatal Breath of Life Fund, and the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network.

One study author reported consulting for Sanquin Research, and another declared travel funds from Cerus Corporation.

Photo by Chris Horry

A lower threshold for platelet transfusions may be safer for preterm infants with severe thrombocytopenia, a new study suggests.

Researchers randomized preterm infants with severe thrombocytopenia to receive transfusions at platelet count thresholds of 50,000/mm³ or 25,000/mm³.

The team found that patients in the high-threshold group had a significantly higher risk of major bleeding or death.

Anna Curley, MD, of the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin, Ireland, and her colleagues reported this finding in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The researchers studied 660 infants with a mean gestational age of 26.6 weeks. They were randomized to receive platelet transfusions at a high platelet-count threshold of 50,000/mm³ or a low threshold of 25,000/mm³.

Within 28 days of randomization, a new major bleeding episode or death occurred in 26% of the high-threshold group and 19% of the low-threshold group.

When the researchers adjusted for gestational age, intrauterine growth restriction, and trial site, the odds ratio (OR) for major bleeding or death was 1.57 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-2.32; P=0.02).

The OR for death alone was 1.56 (95% CI, 0.95-2.55), and the hazard ratio for at least one major bleeding episode was 1.32 (95% CI, 1.00-1.74).

The rates of serious adverse events, not including major bleeding, were similar between the high- and low-threshold groups—25% and 22%, respectively (OR=1.14; 95% CI, 0.78-1.67).

The researchers said the results of this trial suggest that reducing the transfusion threshold from 50,000/mm³ to 25,000/mm³ may prevent death or major bleeding in 7 of 100 preterm neonates with severe thrombocytopenia.

However, the team also acknowledged that it isn’t clear why reducing the threshold may reduce the risk of mortality or major bleeding in this patient group.

The researchers said a range of factors might play a role in adverse outcomes of platelet transfusion in preterm neonates, including inflammatory consequences, hemodynamic shifts, fragility of the germinal matrix, disturbances in organ and brain blood flow, preterm lungs with a large capillary bed and abundant immune cells, platelet-derived reactive oxygen species, proangiogenic factors, and vessel occlusion by platelet microthrombi.

This study was supported by the National Health Service Blood and Transplant Research and Development Committee, Sanquin Research, Addenbrooke’s Charitable Trust, the Neonatal Breath of Life Fund, and the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network.

One study author reported consulting for Sanquin Research, and another declared travel funds from Cerus Corporation.

LAS VEGAS – Recent research has provided a rare triple whammy in the world of atopic dermatitis (AD). Over the last few years, studies have provided valuable insight into not just treatments for AD but also its roots and strategies for prevention, Linda F. Stein Gold, MD, said at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

AD affects an estimated 7% of adults in the United States and 13% of children under aged 18 years, according to the National Eczema Association. An estimated one-third of the affected children (3.2 million) have moderate to severe disease.

New information about AD includes more information pinpointing the genetic link. Dr. Stein Gold, director of clinical research in the department of dermatology at the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, pointed out that about 70% of patients with AD have a family history of atopic conditions.


Mutations in filaggrin appear to play a role in the development of AD, but a significant proportion of people with AD do not have evidence of filaggrin mutations and about 40% of people with defects never develop AD, she noted.

Emollients may be key to preventing AD. To explore the theory that defects on the skin barrier “might be key initiators of atopic dermatitis and possibly allergic sensitization,” investigators conducted a randomized controlled study of 124 babies at risk of AD in the United States and United Kingdom; parents of 55 babies applied emollients to their whole bodies from shortly after birth until 6 months while a control group used nothing (J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014 Oct; 134[4]:818-23).

At 6 months, those in the emollient group were half as likely to have developed AD (relative risk, 0.50; P = .017).

Bleach baths have received attention on the AD prevention front. Dr. Stein Gold pointed to a 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis of five studies that found both bleach and water baths reduced AD severity. Bleach baths were effective but not more so than water baths (Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2017 Nov;119[5]:435-40). Also, there was no difference in skin infections or colonization with Staphylococcus aureus between the two.


So are water baths just as good as bleach baths? “I’m not 100% sure I buy into this,” Dr. Stein Gold said. “I’m still a bleach bath believer.”

Topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) can be used as a “proactive,” steroid-sparing treatment to prevent relapses in AD, research suggests. For this purpose, the recommended maintenance dosage is two to three applications per week on areas that tend to flare; the TCI drugs can be used in conjunction with topical corticosteroids (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014 Jul;71[1]:116-32).

TCIs come with boxed warning because of concerns about such cancers as lymphoma. But recent research has not found a higher risk of lymphoma in patients with AD who are treated with the medication. “We’ve had these drugs for a long time, and they do appear to be safe,” Dr. Stein Gold said.

She referred to a 2015 review of 21 studies of almost 6,000 pediatric patients with AD who were treated with a TCI, which concluded that the drugs are safe and efficacious over the long term (Pediatric Allergy Immunol. 2015 Jun;26[4]:306-15).

“Everyone wants to know which ones are better,” Dr. Stein Gold said in regard to TCIs. But there aren’t head-to-head studies, she said, and it’s difficult to compare the available data on response rates between certain topical treatments because the studies are designed differently.

For example, with crisaborole (Eucrisa), the topical phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor approved in 2016 for mild to moderate AD in patients aged 2 years and up, clear/almost clear rates are 49%-52%, compared with 30%-40% with placebo, a 10%-20% difference. Rates with OPA-15406, an investigational topical selective PDE4 inhibitor, and with the TCI pimecrolimus (Elidel cream 1%) have been about 20% higher than with controls, but studies are designed differently, and the results cannot be compared, according to Dr. Stein Gold.

Dupilumab (Dupixent), a monoclonal antibody that inhibits signaling of both interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, approved in 2017 for adults with moderate to severe AD, has been a “game changer” for this population, Dr. Stein Gold said. “It looks like this drug has a good, durable effect,” she added (Lancet. 2017 Jun 10;389[10086]:2287-303).

However, she cautioned that up to 10% of patients treated with dupilumab – or more – may develop conjunctivitis. Researchers studying dupilumab in asthma have not seen this side effect, she said, so it may be unique to AD. “It’s something that’s real,” she said, noting that it’s not clear if it’s viral, allergic, or bacterial. Researchers are exploring the use of the drug in children, she added.

Dr. Stein Gold said there are other drugs in development for AD, but she cautioned that “the field is crowded ... and not all of them are going to make it.”

Drugs in development for AD include nemolizumab (a humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits interleukin-31 signaling), upadacitinib (a JAK1 selective inhibitor), baricitinib (an oral JAK1/2 inhibitor), and topical tapinarof (an agonist of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor).

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Stein Gold disclosed relationships with Galderma, Valeant, Ranbaxy, Promius, Actavis, Roche, Dermira, Medimetriks, Pfizer, Sanofi/Regeneron, Otsuka, and Taro.

LAS VEGAS – Recent research has provided a rare triple whammy in the world of atopic dermatitis (AD). Over the last few years, studies have provided valuable insight into not just treatments for AD but also its roots and strategies for prevention, Linda F. Stein Gold, MD, said at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

AD affects an estimated 7% of adults in the United States and 13% of children under aged 18 years, according to the National Eczema Association. An estimated one-third of the affected children (3.2 million) have moderate to severe disease.

New information about AD includes more information pinpointing the genetic link. Dr. Stein Gold, director of clinical research in the department of dermatology at the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, pointed out that about 70% of patients with AD have a family history of atopic conditions.


Mutations in filaggrin appear to play a role in the development of AD, but a significant proportion of people with AD do not have evidence of filaggrin mutations and about 40% of people with defects never develop AD, she noted.

Emollients may be key to preventing AD. To explore the theory that defects on the skin barrier “might be key initiators of atopic dermatitis and possibly allergic sensitization,” investigators conducted a randomized controlled study of 124 babies at risk of AD in the United States and United Kingdom; parents of 55 babies applied emollients to their whole bodies from shortly after birth until 6 months while a control group used nothing (J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014 Oct; 134[4]:818-23).

At 6 months, those in the emollient group were half as likely to have developed AD (relative risk, 0.50; P = .017).

Bleach baths have received attention on the AD prevention front. Dr. Stein Gold pointed to a 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis of five studies that found both bleach and water baths reduced AD severity. Bleach baths were effective but not more so than water baths (Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2017 Nov;119[5]:435-40). Also, there was no difference in skin infections or colonization with Staphylococcus aureus between the two.


So are water baths just as good as bleach baths? “I’m not 100% sure I buy into this,” Dr. Stein Gold said. “I’m still a bleach bath believer.”

Topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) can be used as a “proactive,” steroid-sparing treatment to prevent relapses in AD, research suggests. For this purpose, the recommended maintenance dosage is two to three applications per week on areas that tend to flare; the TCI drugs can be used in conjunction with topical corticosteroids (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014 Jul;71[1]:116-32).

TCIs come with boxed warning because of concerns about such cancers as lymphoma. But recent research has not found a higher risk of lymphoma in patients with AD who are treated with the medication. “We’ve had these drugs for a long time, and they do appear to be safe,” Dr. Stein Gold said.

She referred to a 2015 review of 21 studies of almost 6,000 pediatric patients with AD who were treated with a TCI, which concluded that the drugs are safe and efficacious over the long term (Pediatric Allergy Immunol. 2015 Jun;26[4]:306-15).

“Everyone wants to know which ones are better,” Dr. Stein Gold said in regard to TCIs. But there aren’t head-to-head studies, she said, and it’s difficult to compare the available data on response rates between certain topical treatments because the studies are designed differently.

For example, with crisaborole (Eucrisa), the topical phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor approved in 2016 for mild to moderate AD in patients aged 2 years and up, clear/almost clear rates are 49%-52%, compared with 30%-40% with placebo, a 10%-20% difference. Rates with OPA-15406, an investigational topical selective PDE4 inhibitor, and with the TCI pimecrolimus (Elidel cream 1%) have been about 20% higher than with controls, but studies are designed differently, and the results cannot be compared, according to Dr. Stein Gold.

Dupilumab (Dupixent), a monoclonal antibody that inhibits signaling of both interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, approved in 2017 for adults with moderate to severe AD, has been a “game changer” for this population, Dr. Stein Gold said. “It looks like this drug has a good, durable effect,” she added (Lancet. 2017 Jun 10;389[10086]:2287-303).

However, she cautioned that up to 10% of patients treated with dupilumab – or more – may develop conjunctivitis. Researchers studying dupilumab in asthma have not seen this side effect, she said, so it may be unique to AD. “It’s something that’s real,” she said, noting that it’s not clear if it’s viral, allergic, or bacterial. Researchers are exploring the use of the drug in children, she added.

Dr. Stein Gold said there are other drugs in development for AD, but she cautioned that “the field is crowded ... and not all of them are going to make it.”

Drugs in development for AD include nemolizumab (a humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits interleukin-31 signaling), upadacitinib (a JAK1 selective inhibitor), baricitinib (an oral JAK1/2 inhibitor), and topical tapinarof (an agonist of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor).

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Stein Gold disclosed relationships with Galderma, Valeant, Ranbaxy, Promius, Actavis, Roche, Dermira, Medimetriks, Pfizer, Sanofi/Regeneron, Otsuka, and Taro.

LAS VEGAS – Recent research has provided a rare triple whammy in the world of atopic dermatitis (AD). Over the last few years, studies have provided valuable insight into not just treatments for AD but also its roots and strategies for prevention, Linda F. Stein Gold, MD, said at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

AD affects an estimated 7% of adults in the United States and 13% of children under aged 18 years, according to the National Eczema Association. An estimated one-third of the affected children (3.2 million) have moderate to severe disease.

New information about AD includes more information pinpointing the genetic link. Dr. Stein Gold, director of clinical research in the department of dermatology at the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, pointed out that about 70% of patients with AD have a family history of atopic conditions.


Mutations in filaggrin appear to play a role in the development of AD, but a significant proportion of people with AD do not have evidence of filaggrin mutations and about 40% of people with defects never develop AD, she noted.

Emollients may be key to preventing AD. To explore the theory that defects on the skin barrier “might be key initiators of atopic dermatitis and possibly allergic sensitization,” investigators conducted a randomized controlled study of 124 babies at risk of AD in the United States and United Kingdom; parents of 55 babies applied emollients to their whole bodies from shortly after birth until 6 months while a control group used nothing (J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014 Oct; 134[4]:818-23).

At 6 months, those in the emollient group were half as likely to have developed AD (relative risk, 0.50; P = .017).

Bleach baths have received attention on the AD prevention front. Dr. Stein Gold pointed to a 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis of five studies that found both bleach and water baths reduced AD severity. Bleach baths were effective but not more so than water baths (Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2017 Nov;119[5]:435-40). Also, there was no difference in skin infections or colonization with Staphylococcus aureus between the two.


So are water baths just as good as bleach baths? “I’m not 100% sure I buy into this,” Dr. Stein Gold said. “I’m still a bleach bath believer.”

Topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) can be used as a “proactive,” steroid-sparing treatment to prevent relapses in AD, research suggests. For this purpose, the recommended maintenance dosage is two to three applications per week on areas that tend to flare; the TCI drugs can be used in conjunction with topical corticosteroids (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014 Jul;71[1]:116-32).

TCIs come with boxed warning because of concerns about such cancers as lymphoma. But recent research has not found a higher risk of lymphoma in patients with AD who are treated with the medication. “We’ve had these drugs for a long time, and they do appear to be safe,” Dr. Stein Gold said.

She referred to a 2015 review of 21 studies of almost 6,000 pediatric patients with AD who were treated with a TCI, which concluded that the drugs are safe and efficacious over the long term (Pediatric Allergy Immunol. 2015 Jun;26[4]:306-15).

“Everyone wants to know which ones are better,” Dr. Stein Gold said in regard to TCIs. But there aren’t head-to-head studies, she said, and it’s difficult to compare the available data on response rates between certain topical treatments because the studies are designed differently.

For example, with crisaborole (Eucrisa), the topical phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor approved in 2016 for mild to moderate AD in patients aged 2 years and up, clear/almost clear rates are 49%-52%, compared with 30%-40% with placebo, a 10%-20% difference. Rates with OPA-15406, an investigational topical selective PDE4 inhibitor, and with the TCI pimecrolimus (Elidel cream 1%) have been about 20% higher than with controls, but studies are designed differently, and the results cannot be compared, according to Dr. Stein Gold.

Dupilumab (Dupixent), a monoclonal antibody that inhibits signaling of both interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, approved in 2017 for adults with moderate to severe AD, has been a “game changer” for this population, Dr. Stein Gold said. “It looks like this drug has a good, durable effect,” she added (Lancet. 2017 Jun 10;389[10086]:2287-303).

However, she cautioned that up to 10% of patients treated with dupilumab – or more – may develop conjunctivitis. Researchers studying dupilumab in asthma have not seen this side effect, she said, so it may be unique to AD. “It’s something that’s real,” she said, noting that it’s not clear if it’s viral, allergic, or bacterial. Researchers are exploring the use of the drug in children, she added.

Dr. Stein Gold said there are other drugs in development for AD, but she cautioned that “the field is crowded ... and not all of them are going to make it.”

Drugs in development for AD include nemolizumab (a humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits interleukin-31 signaling), upadacitinib (a JAK1 selective inhibitor), baricitinib (an oral JAK1/2 inhibitor), and topical tapinarof (an agonist of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor).

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Stein Gold disclosed relationships with Galderma, Valeant, Ranbaxy, Promius, Actavis, Roche, Dermira, Medimetriks, Pfizer, Sanofi/Regeneron, Otsuka, and Taro.

“I’m fine. How are your kids?”

Thinkstock

“They’re doing great, but we miss you. It hasn’t been the same at that group since you retired.”

I thanked her for her kind words. But the truth is that there were certainly physicians remaining at that practice who were at least as skillful and probably more caring than I had been. However, they were being increasingly challenged by an organization that struggled with how to be customer friendly and patient centered although it claimed to be both.

It must have been 8 years since I first met this young woman. She had just delivered her first child and was finishing her last year of family practice residency. In the nearly a decade since I had last spoken to her, she had worked in a couple primary care practices and was now the administrator of a rehabilitation facility. She described the all too common scenario of spending hours at home trying to complete her charting when she was doing primary care. Now she spends a good chunk of her time on the phone arguing with insurance companies trying to get coverage for her aging patients.

As she told me how frustrated she was with her current job and how pessimistic she was about the future of health care in this country, I realized that it wasn’t me that she really missed. I, and my old practice, are just examples of what primary care used to be.

As I walked home from the grocery store after our encounter, I wondered how deeply I shared her pessimism. We mostly talked about how bad things have gotten now. But we didn’t talk much about where we thought the state of health care in the Unite States was headed.

Are you an optimist or a pessimist? To what degree will your answer to be colored by your career trajectory? Would you tell a young person that you think our health care system is so messed up that you would discourage them from becoming a physician because the work environment is becoming increasingly toxic?

Or would you acknowledge that health care in this country is going through a difficult time, but the potential reward of knowing that every day you have helped, or at least tried to help, someone is worth riding out storm?

For a moment, step back from your narrow focus as a health care provider. What would you tell a 40-something father of two children who is worried about what health care is going to look like when he is as old as his parents are now?

If you have come down on the positive side of this coin, where are the solutions going to come from? Is technology going to come up with the answers? Is a nationwide electronic medical record system that allows all providers to communicate seamlessly with each other a realistic possibility? Will physicians and patients eventually adapt to and accept a new reality in which health care providers are primarily technicians following algorithms generated by a team of scientists and payers?

Or will we continue to muddle along and hope that our system will get over the hiccups and arrive at some political solution? I am eager to hear what you think. ... and feel.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

“I’m fine. How are your kids?”

Thinkstock

“They’re doing great, but we miss you. It hasn’t been the same at that group since you retired.”

I thanked her for her kind words. But the truth is that there were certainly physicians remaining at that practice who were at least as skillful and probably more caring than I had been. However, they were being increasingly challenged by an organization that struggled with how to be customer friendly and patient centered although it claimed to be both.

It must have been 8 years since I first met this young woman. She had just delivered her first child and was finishing her last year of family practice residency. In the nearly a decade since I had last spoken to her, she had worked in a couple primary care practices and was now the administrator of a rehabilitation facility. She described the all too common scenario of spending hours at home trying to complete her charting when she was doing primary care. Now she spends a good chunk of her time on the phone arguing with insurance companies trying to get coverage for her aging patients.

As she told me how frustrated she was with her current job and how pessimistic she was about the future of health care in this country, I realized that it wasn’t me that she really missed. I, and my old practice, are just examples of what primary care used to be.

As I walked home from the grocery store after our encounter, I wondered how deeply I shared her pessimism. We mostly talked about how bad things have gotten now. But we didn’t talk much about where we thought the state of health care in the Unite States was headed.

Are you an optimist or a pessimist? To what degree will your answer to be colored by your career trajectory? Would you tell a young person that you think our health care system is so messed up that you would discourage them from becoming a physician because the work environment is becoming increasingly toxic?

Or would you acknowledge that health care in this country is going through a difficult time, but the potential reward of knowing that every day you have helped, or at least tried to help, someone is worth riding out storm?

For a moment, step back from your narrow focus as a health care provider. What would you tell a 40-something father of two children who is worried about what health care is going to look like when he is as old as his parents are now?

If you have come down on the positive side of this coin, where are the solutions going to come from? Is technology going to come up with the answers? Is a nationwide electronic medical record system that allows all providers to communicate seamlessly with each other a realistic possibility? Will physicians and patients eventually adapt to and accept a new reality in which health care providers are primarily technicians following algorithms generated by a team of scientists and payers?

Or will we continue to muddle along and hope that our system will get over the hiccups and arrive at some political solution? I am eager to hear what you think. ... and feel.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

“I’m fine. How are your kids?”

Thinkstock

“They’re doing great, but we miss you. It hasn’t been the same at that group since you retired.”

I thanked her for her kind words. But the truth is that there were certainly physicians remaining at that practice who were at least as skillful and probably more caring than I had been. However, they were being increasingly challenged by an organization that struggled with how to be customer friendly and patient centered although it claimed to be both.

It must have been 8 years since I first met this young woman. She had just delivered her first child and was finishing her last year of family practice residency. In the nearly a decade since I had last spoken to her, she had worked in a couple primary care practices and was now the administrator of a rehabilitation facility. She described the all too common scenario of spending hours at home trying to complete her charting when she was doing primary care. Now she spends a good chunk of her time on the phone arguing with insurance companies trying to get coverage for her aging patients.

As she told me how frustrated she was with her current job and how pessimistic she was about the future of health care in this country, I realized that it wasn’t me that she really missed. I, and my old practice, are just examples of what primary care used to be.

As I walked home from the grocery store after our encounter, I wondered how deeply I shared her pessimism. We mostly talked about how bad things have gotten now. But we didn’t talk much about where we thought the state of health care in the Unite States was headed.

Are you an optimist or a pessimist? To what degree will your answer to be colored by your career trajectory? Would you tell a young person that you think our health care system is so messed up that you would discourage them from becoming a physician because the work environment is becoming increasingly toxic?

Or would you acknowledge that health care in this country is going through a difficult time, but the potential reward of knowing that every day you have helped, or at least tried to help, someone is worth riding out storm?

For a moment, step back from your narrow focus as a health care provider. What would you tell a 40-something father of two children who is worried about what health care is going to look like when he is as old as his parents are now?

If you have come down on the positive side of this coin, where are the solutions going to come from? Is technology going to come up with the answers? Is a nationwide electronic medical record system that allows all providers to communicate seamlessly with each other a realistic possibility? Will physicians and patients eventually adapt to and accept a new reality in which health care providers are primarily technicians following algorithms generated by a team of scientists and payers?

Or will we continue to muddle along and hope that our system will get over the hiccups and arrive at some political solution? I am eager to hear what you think. ... and feel.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Researchers suggest that revising the threshold for high CV risk from 7.5% at 10 years to 10% at 10 years. Also today, psoriasis adds to risk of CV procedures and surgery in hypertension, sickle cell disease gene therapy seen advancing, and early appendectomy is linked with a reduction in risk for developing Parkinson’s later in life.

Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Spotify

Researchers suggest that revising the threshold for high CV risk from 7.5% at 10 years to 10% at 10 years. Also today, psoriasis adds to risk of CV procedures and surgery in hypertension, sickle cell disease gene therapy seen advancing, and early appendectomy is linked with a reduction in risk for developing Parkinson’s later in life.

Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Spotify

Researchers suggest that revising the threshold for high CV risk from 7.5% at 10 years to 10% at 10 years. Also today, psoriasis adds to risk of CV procedures and surgery in hypertension, sickle cell disease gene therapy seen advancing, and early appendectomy is linked with a reduction in risk for developing Parkinson’s later in life.

Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Spotify

Click here to access Harm Reduction in Diabetes and Cardiology Care

Table of Contents

• Research News
• Hypoglycemia Safety Initiative: Working With PACT Clinical Pharmacy Specialists to Individualize HbA_1c Goals
• Predictors of HbA1c Goal Attainment in Patients Treated With Insulin at a VA Pharmacist-Managed Insulin Clinic
• Heart Failure in Older Adults: A Geriatrician Call for Action
• Limited Use of Outpatient Stress Testing in Young Patients With Atypical Chest Pain
• Open Clinical Trials for Diabetes Mellitus Harm Reduction

Click here to access Harm Reduction in Diabetes and Cardiology Care

Table of Contents

• Research News
• Hypoglycemia Safety Initiative: Working With PACT Clinical Pharmacy Specialists to Individualize HbA_1c Goals
• Predictors of HbA1c Goal Attainment in Patients Treated With Insulin at a VA Pharmacist-Managed Insulin Clinic
• Heart Failure in Older Adults: A Geriatrician Call for Action
• Limited Use of Outpatient Stress Testing in Young Patients With Atypical Chest Pain
• Open Clinical Trials for Diabetes Mellitus Harm Reduction

Click here to access Harm Reduction in Diabetes and Cardiology Care

Table of Contents

• Research News
• Hypoglycemia Safety Initiative: Working With PACT Clinical Pharmacy Specialists to Individualize HbA_1c Goals
• Predictors of HbA1c Goal Attainment in Patients Treated With Insulin at a VA Pharmacist-Managed Insulin Clinic
• Heart Failure in Older Adults: A Geriatrician Call for Action
• Limited Use of Outpatient Stress Testing in Young Patients With Atypical Chest Pain
• Open Clinical Trials for Diabetes Mellitus Harm Reduction

People living with HIV who inject drugs often encounter multiple obstacles, both personal and system related, to beginning and adhering to treatment. But NIH researchers found that an “integrated and flexible intervention” not only helped patients overcome those barriers, but also cut deaths by 50%.

The study, HPTN 074, took place in Indonesia, Ukraine, and Vietnam—3 countries with HIV epidemics driven by injection drug use. Researchers enrolled 502 adults with HIV who inject drugs, and 806 adults without HIV, who inject drugs with them (their injection partners). At ≥ 1 injection partner of every person in the study enrolled. The HIV participants were assigned either the national standard of care for HIV infection and drug use, or the standard of care plus the intervention designed to facilitate treatment. The participants were followed for 1 to 2 years.

In the intervention group, participants were referred to local health care providers for anti-HIV therapy. They were also each assigned a systems navigator, who helped the patient identify and overcome structural barriers to starting and staying in care, such as unfamiliarity with how to enroll in medical care, or difficulty keeping appointments. Psychosocial counselors helped each participant overcome their unique psychological obstacles, such as lack of interest in therapy or fear of stigma.

At the end of the study, 15% of participants with HIV who received standard care had died, compared with 7% of the intervention patients. About 26% of deaths among HIV participants were “clearly” HIV related; 3% were due to drug overdose. Among the 42% of patients who died of unknown cause, 24% had weak immune systems.

The intervention had a “remarkably positive impact” on the participants, said Protocol Chair William Miller, MD, PhD. After 1 year, 41% of the intervention group had undetectable levels of HIV, compared with 24% of the standard-care group. Moreover, 72% of the intervention group were still in treatment, compared with 43% of the standard-care group. Similarly, 41% of intervention patients were in treatment for substance use, compared with 25% of standard-care patients.

The study is designed to be scalable to other settings. Investigators have offered the intervention to all the study participants living with HIV. They will be followed for a second year to find out whether the positive impact is sustained.

Source:

National Institutes of Health.  Novel intervention halves rate of death among people living with HIV who inject drugs. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/novel-intervention-halves-rate-death-among-people-living-hiv-who-inject-drugs. Published August 31,2018. Accessed October 25, 2018.

People living with HIV who inject drugs often encounter multiple obstacles, both personal and system related, to beginning and adhering to treatment. But NIH researchers found that an “integrated and flexible intervention” not only helped patients overcome those barriers, but also cut deaths by 50%.

The study, HPTN 074, took place in Indonesia, Ukraine, and Vietnam—3 countries with HIV epidemics driven by injection drug use. Researchers enrolled 502 adults with HIV who inject drugs, and 806 adults without HIV, who inject drugs with them (their injection partners). At ≥ 1 injection partner of every person in the study enrolled. The HIV participants were assigned either the national standard of care for HIV infection and drug use, or the standard of care plus the intervention designed to facilitate treatment. The participants were followed for 1 to 2 years.

In the intervention group, participants were referred to local health care providers for anti-HIV therapy. They were also each assigned a systems navigator, who helped the patient identify and overcome structural barriers to starting and staying in care, such as unfamiliarity with how to enroll in medical care, or difficulty keeping appointments. Psychosocial counselors helped each participant overcome their unique psychological obstacles, such as lack of interest in therapy or fear of stigma.

At the end of the study, 15% of participants with HIV who received standard care had died, compared with 7% of the intervention patients. About 26% of deaths among HIV participants were “clearly” HIV related; 3% were due to drug overdose. Among the 42% of patients who died of unknown cause, 24% had weak immune systems.

The intervention had a “remarkably positive impact” on the participants, said Protocol Chair William Miller, MD, PhD. After 1 year, 41% of the intervention group had undetectable levels of HIV, compared with 24% of the standard-care group. Moreover, 72% of the intervention group were still in treatment, compared with 43% of the standard-care group. Similarly, 41% of intervention patients were in treatment for substance use, compared with 25% of standard-care patients.

The study is designed to be scalable to other settings. Investigators have offered the intervention to all the study participants living with HIV. They will be followed for a second year to find out whether the positive impact is sustained.

Source:

National Institutes of Health.  Novel intervention halves rate of death among people living with HIV who inject drugs. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/novel-intervention-halves-rate-death-among-people-living-hiv-who-inject-drugs. Published August 31,2018. Accessed October 25, 2018.

People living with HIV who inject drugs often encounter multiple obstacles, both personal and system related, to beginning and adhering to treatment. But NIH researchers found that an “integrated and flexible intervention” not only helped patients overcome those barriers, but also cut deaths by 50%.

The study, HPTN 074, took place in Indonesia, Ukraine, and Vietnam—3 countries with HIV epidemics driven by injection drug use. Researchers enrolled 502 adults with HIV who inject drugs, and 806 adults without HIV, who inject drugs with them (their injection partners). At ≥ 1 injection partner of every person in the study enrolled. The HIV participants were assigned either the national standard of care for HIV infection and drug use, or the standard of care plus the intervention designed to facilitate treatment. The participants were followed for 1 to 2 years.

In the intervention group, participants were referred to local health care providers for anti-HIV therapy. They were also each assigned a systems navigator, who helped the patient identify and overcome structural barriers to starting and staying in care, such as unfamiliarity with how to enroll in medical care, or difficulty keeping appointments. Psychosocial counselors helped each participant overcome their unique psychological obstacles, such as lack of interest in therapy or fear of stigma.

At the end of the study, 15% of participants with HIV who received standard care had died, compared with 7% of the intervention patients. About 26% of deaths among HIV participants were “clearly” HIV related; 3% were due to drug overdose. Among the 42% of patients who died of unknown cause, 24% had weak immune systems.

The intervention had a “remarkably positive impact” on the participants, said Protocol Chair William Miller, MD, PhD. After 1 year, 41% of the intervention group had undetectable levels of HIV, compared with 24% of the standard-care group. Moreover, 72% of the intervention group were still in treatment, compared with 43% of the standard-care group. Similarly, 41% of intervention patients were in treatment for substance use, compared with 25% of standard-care patients.

The study is designed to be scalable to other settings. Investigators have offered the intervention to all the study participants living with HIV. They will be followed for a second year to find out whether the positive impact is sustained.

Source:

National Institutes of Health.  Novel intervention halves rate of death among people living with HIV who inject drugs. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/novel-intervention-halves-rate-death-among-people-living-hiv-who-inject-drugs. Published August 31,2018. Accessed October 25, 2018.

BERLIN—Research supports the previously observed association of periventricular lesions with cortical thinning in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) and extends this association to clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) and primary progressive MS, according to results presented at ECTRIMS 2018. “Beyond supporting the role of CSF-related factors for disease-related damage, a periventricular lesion MS phenotype associated with reduced cortical thickness might have the potential to be explored regarding response to different disease-modifying treatments,” said Lukas Pirpamer, a doctoral student at Graz University of Technology in Austria.

Neurologists previously had hypothesized that subpial cortical pathology in MS partly results from CSF factors. In an earlier single-center study, Mr. Pirpamer and colleagues investigated whether tissue changes in intracerebral areas close to CSF were related to cortical pathology. They found that the percentage of periventricular lesion occupancy was correlated with cortical thinning in relapsing-remitting MS, but not in CIS. To corroborate these findings and examine other forms of MS, Mr. Pirpamer and colleagues conducted a multicenter study of the MRI in MS (MAGNIMS) study group, which included patients with primary progressive MS and those with secondary progressive MS.

BERLIN—Research supports the previously observed association of periventricular lesions with cortical thinning in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) and extends this association to clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) and primary progressive MS, according to results presented at ECTRIMS 2018. “Beyond supporting the role of CSF-related factors for disease-related damage, a periventricular lesion MS phenotype associated with reduced cortical thickness might have the potential to be explored regarding response to different disease-modifying treatments,” said Lukas Pirpamer, a doctoral student at Graz University of Technology in Austria.

Neurologists previously had hypothesized that subpial cortical pathology in MS partly results from CSF factors. In an earlier single-center study, Mr. Pirpamer and colleagues investigated whether tissue changes in intracerebral areas close to CSF were related to cortical pathology. They found that the percentage of periventricular lesion occupancy was correlated with cortical thinning in relapsing-remitting MS, but not in CIS. To corroborate these findings and examine other forms of MS, Mr. Pirpamer and colleagues conducted a multicenter study of the MRI in MS (MAGNIMS) study group, which included patients with primary progressive MS and those with secondary progressive MS.

BERLIN—Research supports the previously observed association of periventricular lesions with cortical thinning in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) and extends this association to clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) and primary progressive MS, according to results presented at ECTRIMS 2018. “Beyond supporting the role of CSF-related factors for disease-related damage, a periventricular lesion MS phenotype associated with reduced cortical thickness might have the potential to be explored regarding response to different disease-modifying treatments,” said Lukas Pirpamer, a doctoral student at Graz University of Technology in Austria.

Neurologists previously had hypothesized that subpial cortical pathology in MS partly results from CSF factors. In an earlier single-center study, Mr. Pirpamer and colleagues investigated whether tissue changes in intracerebral areas close to CSF were related to cortical pathology. They found that the percentage of periventricular lesion occupancy was correlated with cortical thinning in relapsing-remitting MS, but not in CIS. To corroborate these findings and examine other forms of MS, Mr. Pirpamer and colleagues conducted a multicenter study of the MRI in MS (MAGNIMS) study group, which included patients with primary progressive MS and those with secondary progressive MS.

Photo by Daniel Sone

Health Canada has granted conditional approval for pralatrexate (Folotyn®) to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL).

Pralatrexate received a Notice of Compliance with Conditions (NOC/c), which is an approval granted on the basis of promising evidence of clinical effectiveness that must be verified in additional clinical trials.

To be approved under Health Canada’s NOC/c policy, a product must be intended for the treatment, prevention, or diagnosis of a serious, life-threatening, or severely debilitating illness.

In addition, the product must have demonstrated promising benefit, be of high quality, have an acceptable safety profile based on a benefit/risk assessment, and either respond to a serious unmet need or provide a significant improvement over existing therapies.

The NOC/c for pralatrexate is based on response rates in the single-arm, phase 2 PROPEL trial. Results from PROPEL were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2011.

The trial enrolled 115 patients with relapsed or refractory PTCL who had received a median of three (range, 1-12) prior systemic therapies.

The patients received pralatrexate once weekly at a dose of 30 mg/m² for 6 weeks in 7-week cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

In the 109 evaluable patients, the response rate was 29% (32/109). The complete response rate was 11% (n=12), and the partial response rate was 18% (n=20).

The median duration of response was 10.1 months, the median progression-free survival was 3.5 months, and the median overall survival was 14.5 months.

The most common adverse events (AEs) were mucositis (71%), thrombocytopenia (41%), nausea (41%), fatigue (36%), pyrexia (34%), anemia (34%), constipation (34%), edema (31%), cough (29%), epistaxis (26%), vomiting (25%), neutropenia (25%), and diarrhea (23%).

The most common grade 3/4 AEs were thrombocytopenia (32%), mucositis (22%), neutropenia (22%), and anemia (18%).

The product monograph for pralatrexate contains a boxed warning highlighting the risk of AEs associated with pralatrexate use, including dermatologic reactions, bone marrow suppression, infection, mucosal inflammation, tumor lysis syndrome, potential fetal harm, and pulmonary toxicity.

The product monograph is available for download from the website of Servier Canada, the company marketing pralatrexate in Canada.

Photo by Daniel Sone

Health Canada has granted conditional approval for pralatrexate (Folotyn®) to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL).

Pralatrexate received a Notice of Compliance with Conditions (NOC/c), which is an approval granted on the basis of promising evidence of clinical effectiveness that must be verified in additional clinical trials.

To be approved under Health Canada’s NOC/c policy, a product must be intended for the treatment, prevention, or diagnosis of a serious, life-threatening, or severely debilitating illness.

In addition, the product must have demonstrated promising benefit, be of high quality, have an acceptable safety profile based on a benefit/risk assessment, and either respond to a serious unmet need or provide a significant improvement over existing therapies.

The NOC/c for pralatrexate is based on response rates in the single-arm, phase 2 PROPEL trial. Results from PROPEL were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2011.

The trial enrolled 115 patients with relapsed or refractory PTCL who had received a median of three (range, 1-12) prior systemic therapies.

The patients received pralatrexate once weekly at a dose of 30 mg/m² for 6 weeks in 7-week cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

In the 109 evaluable patients, the response rate was 29% (32/109). The complete response rate was 11% (n=12), and the partial response rate was 18% (n=20).

The median duration of response was 10.1 months, the median progression-free survival was 3.5 months, and the median overall survival was 14.5 months.

The most common adverse events (AEs) were mucositis (71%), thrombocytopenia (41%), nausea (41%), fatigue (36%), pyrexia (34%), anemia (34%), constipation (34%), edema (31%), cough (29%), epistaxis (26%), vomiting (25%), neutropenia (25%), and diarrhea (23%).

The most common grade 3/4 AEs were thrombocytopenia (32%), mucositis (22%), neutropenia (22%), and anemia (18%).

The product monograph for pralatrexate contains a boxed warning highlighting the risk of AEs associated with pralatrexate use, including dermatologic reactions, bone marrow suppression, infection, mucosal inflammation, tumor lysis syndrome, potential fetal harm, and pulmonary toxicity.

The product monograph is available for download from the website of Servier Canada, the company marketing pralatrexate in Canada.

Photo by Daniel Sone

Health Canada has granted conditional approval for pralatrexate (Folotyn®) to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL).

Pralatrexate received a Notice of Compliance with Conditions (NOC/c), which is an approval granted on the basis of promising evidence of clinical effectiveness that must be verified in additional clinical trials.

To be approved under Health Canada’s NOC/c policy, a product must be intended for the treatment, prevention, or diagnosis of a serious, life-threatening, or severely debilitating illness.

In addition, the product must have demonstrated promising benefit, be of high quality, have an acceptable safety profile based on a benefit/risk assessment, and either respond to a serious unmet need or provide a significant improvement over existing therapies.

The NOC/c for pralatrexate is based on response rates in the single-arm, phase 2 PROPEL trial. Results from PROPEL were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2011.

The trial enrolled 115 patients with relapsed or refractory PTCL who had received a median of three (range, 1-12) prior systemic therapies.

The patients received pralatrexate once weekly at a dose of 30 mg/m² for 6 weeks in 7-week cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

In the 109 evaluable patients, the response rate was 29% (32/109). The complete response rate was 11% (n=12), and the partial response rate was 18% (n=20).

The median duration of response was 10.1 months, the median progression-free survival was 3.5 months, and the median overall survival was 14.5 months.

The most common adverse events (AEs) were mucositis (71%), thrombocytopenia (41%), nausea (41%), fatigue (36%), pyrexia (34%), anemia (34%), constipation (34%), edema (31%), cough (29%), epistaxis (26%), vomiting (25%), neutropenia (25%), and diarrhea (23%).

The most common grade 3/4 AEs were thrombocytopenia (32%), mucositis (22%), neutropenia (22%), and anemia (18%).

The product monograph for pralatrexate contains a boxed warning highlighting the risk of AEs associated with pralatrexate use, including dermatologic reactions, bone marrow suppression, infection, mucosal inflammation, tumor lysis syndrome, potential fetal harm, and pulmonary toxicity.

The product monograph is available for download from the website of Servier Canada, the company marketing pralatrexate in Canada.

Photo courtesy of AbbVie

The European Commission (EC) has approved a new indication for venetoclax (Venclyxto®).

The drug is now approved for use in combination with rituximab to treat patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who have received at least one prior therapy.

The approval is valid in all member states of the European Union as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway.

The EC’s approval is based on results from the phase 3 MURANO trial, which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in March.

The trial included 389 CLL patients who were randomized to receive venetoclax plus rituximab (VEN+R) or bendamustine plus rituximab (B+R). The median follow-up was 23.8 months.

According to an independent review committee, the overall response rate was 92.3% in the VEN+R arm and 72.3% in the B+R arm. The investigator-assessed overall response rates were 93.3% and 67.7%, respectively.

According to investigators, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the VEN+R arm and was 17.0 months in the B+R arm (hazard ratio [HR]=0.17; P<0.0001).

According to the independent review committee, the median PFS was not reached in the VEN+R arm and was 18.1 months in the B+R arm (HR=0.20; P<0.0001).

Investigators said the 2-year PFS rate was 84.9% in the VEN+R arm and 36.3% in the B+R arm.

They said the 2-year overall survival rates were 91.9% and 86.6%, respectively (HR=0.48; P<0.0001). The median overall survival was not reached in either arm.

Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) with at least a 2% difference in incidence between the treatment arms (in the VEN+R and B+R arms, respectively) included:

• Neutropenia (57.7% and 38.8%)
• Infections and infestations (17.5% and 21.8%)
• Anemia (10.8% and 13.8%)
• Thrombocytopenia (5.7% and 10.1%)
• Febrile neutropenia (3.6% and 9.6%)
• Pneumonia (5.2% and 8.0%)
• Infusion-related reactions (1.5% and 5.3%)
• Tumor lysis syndrome (3.1% and 1.1%)
• Hypotension (0% and 2.7%)
• Hyperglycemia (2.1% and 0%)
• Hypogammaglobulinemia (2.1% and 0%).

Serious AEs with at least a 2% difference in incidence between the arms (in the VEN+R and B+R arms, respectively) were:

• Pneumonia (8.2% and 8.0%)
• Febrile neutropenia (3.6% and 8.5%)
• Pyrexia (2.6% and 6.9%)
• Anemia (1.5% and 2.7%)
• Infusion-related reactions (0.5% and 3.2%)
• Sepsis (0.5% and 2.1%)
• Tumor lysis syndrome (2.1% and 0.5%)
• Hypotension (0% and 2.7%).

Fatal AEs occurred in 5.2% of patients in the VEN+R arm and 5.9% in the B+R arm.

Fatal AEs in the VEN+R arm included pneumonia (n=3), sepsis (n=1), thrombocytopenia (n=1), cardiac failure (n=1), myocardial infarction (n=1), sudden cardiac death (n=1), colorectal cancer (n=1), status epilepticus (n=1), and acute respiratory failure (n=1). Two cases of pneumonia occurred in the setting of progression/Richter’s transformation.

Photo courtesy of AbbVie

The European Commission (EC) has approved a new indication for venetoclax (Venclyxto®).

The drug is now approved for use in combination with rituximab to treat patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who have received at least one prior therapy.

The approval is valid in all member states of the European Union as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway.

The EC’s approval is based on results from the phase 3 MURANO trial, which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in March.

The trial included 389 CLL patients who were randomized to receive venetoclax plus rituximab (VEN+R) or bendamustine plus rituximab (B+R). The median follow-up was 23.8 months.

According to an independent review committee, the overall response rate was 92.3% in the VEN+R arm and 72.3% in the B+R arm. The investigator-assessed overall response rates were 93.3% and 67.7%, respectively.

According to investigators, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the VEN+R arm and was 17.0 months in the B+R arm (hazard ratio [HR]=0.17; P<0.0001).

According to the independent review committee, the median PFS was not reached in the VEN+R arm and was 18.1 months in the B+R arm (HR=0.20; P<0.0001).

Investigators said the 2-year PFS rate was 84.9% in the VEN+R arm and 36.3% in the B+R arm.

They said the 2-year overall survival rates were 91.9% and 86.6%, respectively (HR=0.48; P<0.0001). The median overall survival was not reached in either arm.

Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) with at least a 2% difference in incidence between the treatment arms (in the VEN+R and B+R arms, respectively) included:

• Neutropenia (57.7% and 38.8%)
• Infections and infestations (17.5% and 21.8%)
• Anemia (10.8% and 13.8%)
• Thrombocytopenia (5.7% and 10.1%)
• Febrile neutropenia (3.6% and 9.6%)
• Pneumonia (5.2% and 8.0%)
• Infusion-related reactions (1.5% and 5.3%)
• Tumor lysis syndrome (3.1% and 1.1%)
• Hypotension (0% and 2.7%)
• Hyperglycemia (2.1% and 0%)
• Hypogammaglobulinemia (2.1% and 0%).

Serious AEs with at least a 2% difference in incidence between the arms (in the VEN+R and B+R arms, respectively) were:

• Pneumonia (8.2% and 8.0%)
• Febrile neutropenia (3.6% and 8.5%)
• Pyrexia (2.6% and 6.9%)
• Anemia (1.5% and 2.7%)
• Infusion-related reactions (0.5% and 3.2%)
• Sepsis (0.5% and 2.1%)
• Tumor lysis syndrome (2.1% and 0.5%)
• Hypotension (0% and 2.7%).

Fatal AEs occurred in 5.2% of patients in the VEN+R arm and 5.9% in the B+R arm.

Fatal AEs in the VEN+R arm included pneumonia (n=3), sepsis (n=1), thrombocytopenia (n=1), cardiac failure (n=1), myocardial infarction (n=1), sudden cardiac death (n=1), colorectal cancer (n=1), status epilepticus (n=1), and acute respiratory failure (n=1). Two cases of pneumonia occurred in the setting of progression/Richter’s transformation.

Photo courtesy of AbbVie

The European Commission (EC) has approved a new indication for venetoclax (Venclyxto®).

The drug is now approved for use in combination with rituximab to treat patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who have received at least one prior therapy.

The approval is valid in all member states of the European Union as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway.

The EC’s approval is based on results from the phase 3 MURANO trial, which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in March.

The trial included 389 CLL patients who were randomized to receive venetoclax plus rituximab (VEN+R) or bendamustine plus rituximab (B+R). The median follow-up was 23.8 months.

According to an independent review committee, the overall response rate was 92.3% in the VEN+R arm and 72.3% in the B+R arm. The investigator-assessed overall response rates were 93.3% and 67.7%, respectively.

According to investigators, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the VEN+R arm and was 17.0 months in the B+R arm (hazard ratio [HR]=0.17; P<0.0001).

According to the independent review committee, the median PFS was not reached in the VEN+R arm and was 18.1 months in the B+R arm (HR=0.20; P<0.0001).

Investigators said the 2-year PFS rate was 84.9% in the VEN+R arm and 36.3% in the B+R arm.

They said the 2-year overall survival rates were 91.9% and 86.6%, respectively (HR=0.48; P<0.0001). The median overall survival was not reached in either arm.

Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) with at least a 2% difference in incidence between the treatment arms (in the VEN+R and B+R arms, respectively) included:

• Neutropenia (57.7% and 38.8%)
• Infections and infestations (17.5% and 21.8%)
• Anemia (10.8% and 13.8%)
• Thrombocytopenia (5.7% and 10.1%)
• Febrile neutropenia (3.6% and 9.6%)
• Pneumonia (5.2% and 8.0%)
• Infusion-related reactions (1.5% and 5.3%)
• Tumor lysis syndrome (3.1% and 1.1%)
• Hypotension (0% and 2.7%)
• Hyperglycemia (2.1% and 0%)
• Hypogammaglobulinemia (2.1% and 0%).

Serious AEs with at least a 2% difference in incidence between the arms (in the VEN+R and B+R arms, respectively) were:

• Pneumonia (8.2% and 8.0%)
• Febrile neutropenia (3.6% and 8.5%)
• Pyrexia (2.6% and 6.9%)
• Anemia (1.5% and 2.7%)
• Infusion-related reactions (0.5% and 3.2%)
• Sepsis (0.5% and 2.1%)
• Tumor lysis syndrome (2.1% and 0.5%)
• Hypotension (0% and 2.7%).

Fatal AEs occurred in 5.2% of patients in the VEN+R arm and 5.9% in the B+R arm.

Fatal AEs in the VEN+R arm included pneumonia (n=3), sepsis (n=1), thrombocytopenia (n=1), cardiac failure (n=1), myocardial infarction (n=1), sudden cardiac death (n=1), colorectal cancer (n=1), status epilepticus (n=1), and acute respiratory failure (n=1). Two cases of pneumonia occurred in the setting of progression/Richter’s transformation.

Warfarin tablets

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a Class I recall of test strips used with medical devices that monitor warfarin levels, which means use of these strips may cause serious injuries or death.

Roche Diagnostics has recalled certain test strip lots used with its CoaguChek test meter devices.

The recall involves more than 1.1 million packages of CoaguChek XS PT Test Strips that were distributed nationwide from January 12, 2018, to October 29, 2018.

The test strips are used with the CoaguChek XS plus, CoaguChek XS Pro, CoaguChek XS professional, CoaguChek XS PST, and CoaguChek Vantus test meter devices.

The FDA said patients and healthcare professionals should not rely on these test meter devices to monitor warfarin levels if they’re using test strips affected by the recall. Instead, patients should have blood drawn from a vein and have their levels measured by a laboratory test or use an alternative meter device.

“These strips are widely used, and we are working diligently to warn healthcare providers and the public about the dangers associated with this recall,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

“Using faulty strips can lead to serious errors in medication dosage that could cause serious harm or death in some patients. We are also working with the company on the swift removal of the recalled strips and to ensure the new corrected strips are distributed to patients and healthcare providers as quickly as possible.”

The FDA’s warning concerning the CoaguChek XS PT Test Strips is based on medical device reports submitted by Roche Diagnostics indicating that the test strips may provide results that are higher than the actual international normalized ratio (INR).

As a result of incorrect INR results, some patients may be prescribed an insufficient warfarin dose or instructed to interrupt warfarin use, which may increase the risk of thrombosis.

Approximately 90 medical device reports and two serious patient injuries involving strokes were reported to the FDA.

Roche Diagnostics attributes the cause of the problem to a recent recalibration of the test strips to a different international standard.

The company plans to provide new batches of recalibrated test strips, based on the previous international standard, to their customers by the end of November.

The FDA reviewed validation data submitted by the company for these recalibrated strips.

Patients who are using CoaguChek meters should contact their healthcare provider to get information about alternative test methods and to address questions regarding their individual testing schedule. Patients should also contact their self-testing service providers to find out when they will be getting their corrected test strips.

For questions about the recall or to report adverse reactions or quality problems, contact Roche Diagnostics Point of Care Technical Service at 1-800-428-4674.

Adverse reactions can also be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, the agency’s voluntary reporting program.

Warfarin tablets

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a Class I recall of test strips used with medical devices that monitor warfarin levels, which means use of these strips may cause serious injuries or death.

Roche Diagnostics has recalled certain test strip lots used with its CoaguChek test meter devices.

The recall involves more than 1.1 million packages of CoaguChek XS PT Test Strips that were distributed nationwide from January 12, 2018, to October 29, 2018.

The test strips are used with the CoaguChek XS plus, CoaguChek XS Pro, CoaguChek XS professional, CoaguChek XS PST, and CoaguChek Vantus test meter devices.

The FDA said patients and healthcare professionals should not rely on these test meter devices to monitor warfarin levels if they’re using test strips affected by the recall. Instead, patients should have blood drawn from a vein and have their levels measured by a laboratory test or use an alternative meter device.

“These strips are widely used, and we are working diligently to warn healthcare providers and the public about the dangers associated with this recall,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

“Using faulty strips can lead to serious errors in medication dosage that could cause serious harm or death in some patients. We are also working with the company on the swift removal of the recalled strips and to ensure the new corrected strips are distributed to patients and healthcare providers as quickly as possible.”

The FDA’s warning concerning the CoaguChek XS PT Test Strips is based on medical device reports submitted by Roche Diagnostics indicating that the test strips may provide results that are higher than the actual international normalized ratio (INR).

As a result of incorrect INR results, some patients may be prescribed an insufficient warfarin dose or instructed to interrupt warfarin use, which may increase the risk of thrombosis.

Approximately 90 medical device reports and two serious patient injuries involving strokes were reported to the FDA.

Roche Diagnostics attributes the cause of the problem to a recent recalibration of the test strips to a different international standard.

The company plans to provide new batches of recalibrated test strips, based on the previous international standard, to their customers by the end of November.

The FDA reviewed validation data submitted by the company for these recalibrated strips.

Patients who are using CoaguChek meters should contact their healthcare provider to get information about alternative test methods and to address questions regarding their individual testing schedule. Patients should also contact their self-testing service providers to find out when they will be getting their corrected test strips.

For questions about the recall or to report adverse reactions or quality problems, contact Roche Diagnostics Point of Care Technical Service at 1-800-428-4674.

Adverse reactions can also be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, the agency’s voluntary reporting program.

Warfarin tablets

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a Class I recall of test strips used with medical devices that monitor warfarin levels, which means use of these strips may cause serious injuries or death.

Roche Diagnostics has recalled certain test strip lots used with its CoaguChek test meter devices.

The recall involves more than 1.1 million packages of CoaguChek XS PT Test Strips that were distributed nationwide from January 12, 2018, to October 29, 2018.

The test strips are used with the CoaguChek XS plus, CoaguChek XS Pro, CoaguChek XS professional, CoaguChek XS PST, and CoaguChek Vantus test meter devices.

The FDA said patients and healthcare professionals should not rely on these test meter devices to monitor warfarin levels if they’re using test strips affected by the recall. Instead, patients should have blood drawn from a vein and have their levels measured by a laboratory test or use an alternative meter device.

“These strips are widely used, and we are working diligently to warn healthcare providers and the public about the dangers associated with this recall,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

“Using faulty strips can lead to serious errors in medication dosage that could cause serious harm or death in some patients. We are also working with the company on the swift removal of the recalled strips and to ensure the new corrected strips are distributed to patients and healthcare providers as quickly as possible.”

The FDA’s warning concerning the CoaguChek XS PT Test Strips is based on medical device reports submitted by Roche Diagnostics indicating that the test strips may provide results that are higher than the actual international normalized ratio (INR).

As a result of incorrect INR results, some patients may be prescribed an insufficient warfarin dose or instructed to interrupt warfarin use, which may increase the risk of thrombosis.

Approximately 90 medical device reports and two serious patient injuries involving strokes were reported to the FDA.

Roche Diagnostics attributes the cause of the problem to a recent recalibration of the test strips to a different international standard.

The company plans to provide new batches of recalibrated test strips, based on the previous international standard, to their customers by the end of November.

The FDA reviewed validation data submitted by the company for these recalibrated strips.

Patients who are using CoaguChek meters should contact their healthcare provider to get information about alternative test methods and to address questions regarding their individual testing schedule. Patients should also contact their self-testing service providers to find out when they will be getting their corrected test strips.

For questions about the recall or to report adverse reactions or quality problems, contact Roche Diagnostics Point of Care Technical Service at 1-800-428-4674.

Adverse reactions can also be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, the agency’s voluntary reporting program.