Pulmonary Health Hub

Current smoking, as well as higher levels of cumulative cigarette exposure from past smoking, were both associated with higher left ventricular mass, a higher LV mass-to-volume ratio, and worse diastolic function in an elderly community-based population with no overt indications of coronary artery disease or heart failure, according to a report published online Sept. 13 in Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“These findings suggest that smoking is associated with subtle alterations in LV structure and function, which might help explain the higher risk of heart failure [HF] reported for smokers, independent of coronary artery disease [CAD],” said Wilson Nadruz Jr., MD, of the cardiovascular division, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his associates.

©Zoonar/A.Mijatovic/Thinkstock.com

They analyzed links between smoking and echocardiographic features using data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, an ongoing prospective observational study involving community-dwelling adults who were aged 45-64 years at baseline in 1987-1989. For their study, Dr. Nadruz and his colleagues assessed echocardiographic images taken for 4,580 ARIC participants at follow-up roughly 25 years later. None of these adults had any indication of CAD or HF; 287 (6.3%) were current smokers, 2,316 (50.5%) were former smokers, and 1,977 (43.2%) never smoked.

Compared with never smokers, current smokers showed a greater LV mass index (80.4 vs. 76.7), a greater LV mass-to-volume ratio (1.93 vs. 1.83), and a higher prevalence of LV hypertrophy (15% vs. 9%), as well as a higher prevalence of concentric LV hypertrophy and worse LV diastolic function. The same association was found between never smokers and former smokers who had higher levels of cumulative cigarette exposure, the investigators said (Circ Cardiovasc Imag. 2016 Sep 13. doi: 10.1161/circimaging.116.004950).

This association between smoking and altered LV structure and function remained robust after the data were adjusted to account for numerous cardiac risk factors such as older age, higher BMI, diabetes, hypertension, greater alcohol consumption, and higher heart rate. It also didn’t vary by patient sex, race, or income level. In contrast, there was no association between smoking and right ventricular structure or function.

“These data suggest that smoking can independently lead to thickening of the heart and worsening of heart function, which may lead to a higher risk for heart failure, even in people who don’t have heart attacks,” Dr. Nadruz said in a statement.

Looking at the results in a more positive light, senior author Scott D. Solomon, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard University, Boston, said “The good news is that former smokers had similar heart structure and function, compared with never smokers,” suggesting that “the potential effects of tobacco on the myocardium might be reversible after smoking cessation.”

Current smoking, as well as higher levels of cumulative cigarette exposure from past smoking, were both associated with higher left ventricular mass, a higher LV mass-to-volume ratio, and worse diastolic function in an elderly community-based population with no overt indications of coronary artery disease or heart failure, according to a report published online Sept. 13 in Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“These findings suggest that smoking is associated with subtle alterations in LV structure and function, which might help explain the higher risk of heart failure [HF] reported for smokers, independent of coronary artery disease [CAD],” said Wilson Nadruz Jr., MD, of the cardiovascular division, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his associates.

©Zoonar/A.Mijatovic/Thinkstock.com

They analyzed links between smoking and echocardiographic features using data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, an ongoing prospective observational study involving community-dwelling adults who were aged 45-64 years at baseline in 1987-1989. For their study, Dr. Nadruz and his colleagues assessed echocardiographic images taken for 4,580 ARIC participants at follow-up roughly 25 years later. None of these adults had any indication of CAD or HF; 287 (6.3%) were current smokers, 2,316 (50.5%) were former smokers, and 1,977 (43.2%) never smoked.

Compared with never smokers, current smokers showed a greater LV mass index (80.4 vs. 76.7), a greater LV mass-to-volume ratio (1.93 vs. 1.83), and a higher prevalence of LV hypertrophy (15% vs. 9%), as well as a higher prevalence of concentric LV hypertrophy and worse LV diastolic function. The same association was found between never smokers and former smokers who had higher levels of cumulative cigarette exposure, the investigators said (Circ Cardiovasc Imag. 2016 Sep 13. doi: 10.1161/circimaging.116.004950).

This association between smoking and altered LV structure and function remained robust after the data were adjusted to account for numerous cardiac risk factors such as older age, higher BMI, diabetes, hypertension, greater alcohol consumption, and higher heart rate. It also didn’t vary by patient sex, race, or income level. In contrast, there was no association between smoking and right ventricular structure or function.

“These data suggest that smoking can independently lead to thickening of the heart and worsening of heart function, which may lead to a higher risk for heart failure, even in people who don’t have heart attacks,” Dr. Nadruz said in a statement.

Looking at the results in a more positive light, senior author Scott D. Solomon, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard University, Boston, said “The good news is that former smokers had similar heart structure and function, compared with never smokers,” suggesting that “the potential effects of tobacco on the myocardium might be reversible after smoking cessation.”

Current smoking, as well as higher levels of cumulative cigarette exposure from past smoking, were both associated with higher left ventricular mass, a higher LV mass-to-volume ratio, and worse diastolic function in an elderly community-based population with no overt indications of coronary artery disease or heart failure, according to a report published online Sept. 13 in Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“These findings suggest that smoking is associated with subtle alterations in LV structure and function, which might help explain the higher risk of heart failure [HF] reported for smokers, independent of coronary artery disease [CAD],” said Wilson Nadruz Jr., MD, of the cardiovascular division, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his associates.

©Zoonar/A.Mijatovic/Thinkstock.com

They analyzed links between smoking and echocardiographic features using data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, an ongoing prospective observational study involving community-dwelling adults who were aged 45-64 years at baseline in 1987-1989. For their study, Dr. Nadruz and his colleagues assessed echocardiographic images taken for 4,580 ARIC participants at follow-up roughly 25 years later. None of these adults had any indication of CAD or HF; 287 (6.3%) were current smokers, 2,316 (50.5%) were former smokers, and 1,977 (43.2%) never smoked.

Compared with never smokers, current smokers showed a greater LV mass index (80.4 vs. 76.7), a greater LV mass-to-volume ratio (1.93 vs. 1.83), and a higher prevalence of LV hypertrophy (15% vs. 9%), as well as a higher prevalence of concentric LV hypertrophy and worse LV diastolic function. The same association was found between never smokers and former smokers who had higher levels of cumulative cigarette exposure, the investigators said (Circ Cardiovasc Imag. 2016 Sep 13. doi: 10.1161/circimaging.116.004950).

This association between smoking and altered LV structure and function remained robust after the data were adjusted to account for numerous cardiac risk factors such as older age, higher BMI, diabetes, hypertension, greater alcohol consumption, and higher heart rate. It also didn’t vary by patient sex, race, or income level. In contrast, there was no association between smoking and right ventricular structure or function.

“These data suggest that smoking can independently lead to thickening of the heart and worsening of heart function, which may lead to a higher risk for heart failure, even in people who don’t have heart attacks,” Dr. Nadruz said in a statement.

Looking at the results in a more positive light, senior author Scott D. Solomon, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard University, Boston, said “The good news is that former smokers had similar heart structure and function, compared with never smokers,” suggesting that “the potential effects of tobacco on the myocardium might be reversible after smoking cessation.”

Treatment of patients admitted to the hospital with an upper respiratory infection is often complicated by the lack of diagnostics. Even in cases where a patient has a confirmed case of influenza, there is still the possibility that they may have, or become infected by, a secondary bacterial infection. This leads clinicians to treat patients empirically with antibiotics, which can result in unnecessary antibiotic use among patients without a bacterial infection.

Though antibiotics can be a lifesaving drug, their use is not without risks. Estimates suggest that 20% of patients taking common antibiotics experience some side effect. While most side effects are not life-threatening gastrointestinal effects, other nonnegligible side effects include anaphylactic shock, drug‐induced liver injury, increases in the risk of retinal detachment, serious arrhythmias, and superinfection with resistant bacteria. Antibiotics can also lead to secondary infections, such as Clostridium difficile.

Yet, despite these risks, there has been limited research on the percentage of patients with influenza who actually have a bacterial coinfection. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by my colleagues at Johns Hopkins University and the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy examined the frequency of bacterial coinfection among hospitalized patients with influenza and identified the most common infecting bacterial species.

The findings, published in the journal Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses, found that in the majority of studies, between 11% and 35% of patients with confirmed influenza had a bacterial coinfection. The most common coinfecting bacteria were found to be Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus. Combined, S. pneumoniae and S. aureus accounted for more than 60% of the identified coinfecting bacteria; however, many other bacterial species were found to cause infections as well.

The results suggest that while bacterial infection is common in influenza patients, only about a quarter of patients are likely to be infected. However, the studies were widely heterogeneous, both in patient makeup and results. Analyses of age, setting, enrollment year, study type, study size, and bacterial collection methods did not reveal a source for the heterogeneity in results. Thus, additional factors, such as patient comorbidities or prior antibiotic use, which could not be systematically assessed, may affect the likelihood of coinfection.

Given that the symptoms of influenza and bacterial infection often overlap, correctly diagnosing bacterial coinfection without a laboratory culture can present a challenge. This diagnostic uncertainty leads to significant overuse of antibiotics in patients with influenza alone. Most influenza cases will never result in serious bacterial infections (particularly in nonhospitalized patients), and thus a lot of antibiotic use is unnecessary. As mentioned earlier, unnecessary antibiotic use poses a nonnegligible risk to patients, but it also contributes significantly to rising rates of antibiotic resistance, a major public health issue.

The results from this study highlight that the majority of patients hospitalized with influenza are unlikely to be coinfected with a bacterial pathogen. Thus, it is important for clinicians to appropriately treat patients with antiviral drugs, and ensure that bacterial testing is done when presumptively starting patients on antibiotics. Based on the microbiology results, antibiotics can be stopped if no pathogen is identified or altered to be more appropriate depending on the pathogen found.

Although the findings of this study suggest we need a more thorough analysis of the issue, the results should still aid clinicians by improving their understanding of the likelihood of bacterial coinfection in hospitalized patients with influenza, and thus help them balance the need to minimize patient risks as well as the individual and societal risks of nonessential antibiotic use.

Eili Klein, PhD, is assistant professor in the department of emergency medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

Treatment of patients admitted to the hospital with an upper respiratory infection is often complicated by the lack of diagnostics. Even in cases where a patient has a confirmed case of influenza, there is still the possibility that they may have, or become infected by, a secondary bacterial infection. This leads clinicians to treat patients empirically with antibiotics, which can result in unnecessary antibiotic use among patients without a bacterial infection.

Though antibiotics can be a lifesaving drug, their use is not without risks. Estimates suggest that 20% of patients taking common antibiotics experience some side effect. While most side effects are not life-threatening gastrointestinal effects, other nonnegligible side effects include anaphylactic shock, drug‐induced liver injury, increases in the risk of retinal detachment, serious arrhythmias, and superinfection with resistant bacteria. Antibiotics can also lead to secondary infections, such as Clostridium difficile.

Yet, despite these risks, there has been limited research on the percentage of patients with influenza who actually have a bacterial coinfection. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by my colleagues at Johns Hopkins University and the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy examined the frequency of bacterial coinfection among hospitalized patients with influenza and identified the most common infecting bacterial species.

The findings, published in the journal Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses, found that in the majority of studies, between 11% and 35% of patients with confirmed influenza had a bacterial coinfection. The most common coinfecting bacteria were found to be Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus. Combined, S. pneumoniae and S. aureus accounted for more than 60% of the identified coinfecting bacteria; however, many other bacterial species were found to cause infections as well.

The results suggest that while bacterial infection is common in influenza patients, only about a quarter of patients are likely to be infected. However, the studies were widely heterogeneous, both in patient makeup and results. Analyses of age, setting, enrollment year, study type, study size, and bacterial collection methods did not reveal a source for the heterogeneity in results. Thus, additional factors, such as patient comorbidities or prior antibiotic use, which could not be systematically assessed, may affect the likelihood of coinfection.

Given that the symptoms of influenza and bacterial infection often overlap, correctly diagnosing bacterial coinfection without a laboratory culture can present a challenge. This diagnostic uncertainty leads to significant overuse of antibiotics in patients with influenza alone. Most influenza cases will never result in serious bacterial infections (particularly in nonhospitalized patients), and thus a lot of antibiotic use is unnecessary. As mentioned earlier, unnecessary antibiotic use poses a nonnegligible risk to patients, but it also contributes significantly to rising rates of antibiotic resistance, a major public health issue.

The results from this study highlight that the majority of patients hospitalized with influenza are unlikely to be coinfected with a bacterial pathogen. Thus, it is important for clinicians to appropriately treat patients with antiviral drugs, and ensure that bacterial testing is done when presumptively starting patients on antibiotics. Based on the microbiology results, antibiotics can be stopped if no pathogen is identified or altered to be more appropriate depending on the pathogen found.

Although the findings of this study suggest we need a more thorough analysis of the issue, the results should still aid clinicians by improving their understanding of the likelihood of bacterial coinfection in hospitalized patients with influenza, and thus help them balance the need to minimize patient risks as well as the individual and societal risks of nonessential antibiotic use.

Eili Klein, PhD, is assistant professor in the department of emergency medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

Treatment of patients admitted to the hospital with an upper respiratory infection is often complicated by the lack of diagnostics. Even in cases where a patient has a confirmed case of influenza, there is still the possibility that they may have, or become infected by, a secondary bacterial infection. This leads clinicians to treat patients empirically with antibiotics, which can result in unnecessary antibiotic use among patients without a bacterial infection.

Though antibiotics can be a lifesaving drug, their use is not without risks. Estimates suggest that 20% of patients taking common antibiotics experience some side effect. While most side effects are not life-threatening gastrointestinal effects, other nonnegligible side effects include anaphylactic shock, drug‐induced liver injury, increases in the risk of retinal detachment, serious arrhythmias, and superinfection with resistant bacteria. Antibiotics can also lead to secondary infections, such as Clostridium difficile.

Yet, despite these risks, there has been limited research on the percentage of patients with influenza who actually have a bacterial coinfection. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by my colleagues at Johns Hopkins University and the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy examined the frequency of bacterial coinfection among hospitalized patients with influenza and identified the most common infecting bacterial species.

The findings, published in the journal Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses, found that in the majority of studies, between 11% and 35% of patients with confirmed influenza had a bacterial coinfection. The most common coinfecting bacteria were found to be Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus. Combined, S. pneumoniae and S. aureus accounted for more than 60% of the identified coinfecting bacteria; however, many other bacterial species were found to cause infections as well.

The results suggest that while bacterial infection is common in influenza patients, only about a quarter of patients are likely to be infected. However, the studies were widely heterogeneous, both in patient makeup and results. Analyses of age, setting, enrollment year, study type, study size, and bacterial collection methods did not reveal a source for the heterogeneity in results. Thus, additional factors, such as patient comorbidities or prior antibiotic use, which could not be systematically assessed, may affect the likelihood of coinfection.

Given that the symptoms of influenza and bacterial infection often overlap, correctly diagnosing bacterial coinfection without a laboratory culture can present a challenge. This diagnostic uncertainty leads to significant overuse of antibiotics in patients with influenza alone. Most influenza cases will never result in serious bacterial infections (particularly in nonhospitalized patients), and thus a lot of antibiotic use is unnecessary. As mentioned earlier, unnecessary antibiotic use poses a nonnegligible risk to patients, but it also contributes significantly to rising rates of antibiotic resistance, a major public health issue.

The results from this study highlight that the majority of patients hospitalized with influenza are unlikely to be coinfected with a bacterial pathogen. Thus, it is important for clinicians to appropriately treat patients with antiviral drugs, and ensure that bacterial testing is done when presumptively starting patients on antibiotics. Based on the microbiology results, antibiotics can be stopped if no pathogen is identified or altered to be more appropriate depending on the pathogen found.

Although the findings of this study suggest we need a more thorough analysis of the issue, the results should still aid clinicians by improving their understanding of the likelihood of bacterial coinfection in hospitalized patients with influenza, and thus help them balance the need to minimize patient risks as well as the individual and societal risks of nonessential antibiotic use.

Eili Klein, PhD, is assistant professor in the department of emergency medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

In light of increasing antibiotic resistance among pathogens, the World Health Organization has revised its global rankings of critically important antimicrobials used in human medicine, designating quinolones, third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins, macrolides and ketolides, and glycopeptides as among the highest-priority drugs in the world.

Peter C. Collignon, MBBS, of Canberra (Australia) Hospital and his colleagues on the WHO Advisory Group on Integrated Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance, created the rankings for use in developing risk management strategies related to antimicrobial use in food production animals. According to Dr. Collignon and his coauthors, the rankings are intended to help regulators and other stakeholders know which types of antimicrobials used in animals present potentially higher risks to human populations and help inform how this use might be better managed (e.g. restriction to single-animal therapy or prohibition of mass treatment and extra-label use) to minimize the risk of transmission of resistance to the human population.

©thegoodphoto/Thinkstock

WHO studies previously suggested that antimicrobials which currently have no veterinary equivalent (for example, carbapenems) “as well as any new class of antimicrobial developed for human therapy should not be used in animals.” Dr. Collignon’s WHO Advisory Group followed two essential criteria to designate antimicrobials of utmost importance to human health in the new study: 1. antimicrobials that are the sole, or one of limited available therapies, to treat serious bacterial infections in people and 2. antimicrobials used to treat infections in people caused by either (a) bacteria that may be transmitted to humans from nonhuman sources or (b) bacteria that may acquire resistance genes from nonhuman sources.

The highest-priority and most critically important antimicrobials are those which meet the criteria listed above and that are used in greatest volume or highest frequency by humans. Another criteria for prioritization involves antimicrobial classes where evidence suggests that the “transmission of resistant bacteria or resistance genes from nonhuman sources is already occurring, or has occurred previously.” Quinolones, third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins, macrolides and ketolides, and glycopeptides were the only antimicrobials that met all criteria for prioritization.

“Antimicrobial resistance remains a threat to human health and drivers of resistance act in all sectors; human, animal, and the environment,” the WHO Advisory Group concluded. “Prioritizing the antimicrobials that are critically important for humans is a valuable and strategic risk-management tool and will be improved with the evidence-based approach which is currently underway.”

Read the full study in Clinical Infectious Diseases (doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw475).

[email protected]

In light of increasing antibiotic resistance among pathogens, the World Health Organization has revised its global rankings of critically important antimicrobials used in human medicine, designating quinolones, third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins, macrolides and ketolides, and glycopeptides as among the highest-priority drugs in the world.

Peter C. Collignon, MBBS, of Canberra (Australia) Hospital and his colleagues on the WHO Advisory Group on Integrated Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance, created the rankings for use in developing risk management strategies related to antimicrobial use in food production animals. According to Dr. Collignon and his coauthors, the rankings are intended to help regulators and other stakeholders know which types of antimicrobials used in animals present potentially higher risks to human populations and help inform how this use might be better managed (e.g. restriction to single-animal therapy or prohibition of mass treatment and extra-label use) to minimize the risk of transmission of resistance to the human population.

©thegoodphoto/Thinkstock

WHO studies previously suggested that antimicrobials which currently have no veterinary equivalent (for example, carbapenems) “as well as any new class of antimicrobial developed for human therapy should not be used in animals.” Dr. Collignon’s WHO Advisory Group followed two essential criteria to designate antimicrobials of utmost importance to human health in the new study: 1. antimicrobials that are the sole, or one of limited available therapies, to treat serious bacterial infections in people and 2. antimicrobials used to treat infections in people caused by either (a) bacteria that may be transmitted to humans from nonhuman sources or (b) bacteria that may acquire resistance genes from nonhuman sources.

The highest-priority and most critically important antimicrobials are those which meet the criteria listed above and that are used in greatest volume or highest frequency by humans. Another criteria for prioritization involves antimicrobial classes where evidence suggests that the “transmission of resistant bacteria or resistance genes from nonhuman sources is already occurring, or has occurred previously.” Quinolones, third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins, macrolides and ketolides, and glycopeptides were the only antimicrobials that met all criteria for prioritization.

“Antimicrobial resistance remains a threat to human health and drivers of resistance act in all sectors; human, animal, and the environment,” the WHO Advisory Group concluded. “Prioritizing the antimicrobials that are critically important for humans is a valuable and strategic risk-management tool and will be improved with the evidence-based approach which is currently underway.”

Read the full study in Clinical Infectious Diseases (doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw475).

[email protected]

In light of increasing antibiotic resistance among pathogens, the World Health Organization has revised its global rankings of critically important antimicrobials used in human medicine, designating quinolones, third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins, macrolides and ketolides, and glycopeptides as among the highest-priority drugs in the world.

Peter C. Collignon, MBBS, of Canberra (Australia) Hospital and his colleagues on the WHO Advisory Group on Integrated Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance, created the rankings for use in developing risk management strategies related to antimicrobial use in food production animals. According to Dr. Collignon and his coauthors, the rankings are intended to help regulators and other stakeholders know which types of antimicrobials used in animals present potentially higher risks to human populations and help inform how this use might be better managed (e.g. restriction to single-animal therapy or prohibition of mass treatment and extra-label use) to minimize the risk of transmission of resistance to the human population.

©thegoodphoto/Thinkstock

WHO studies previously suggested that antimicrobials which currently have no veterinary equivalent (for example, carbapenems) “as well as any new class of antimicrobial developed for human therapy should not be used in animals.” Dr. Collignon’s WHO Advisory Group followed two essential criteria to designate antimicrobials of utmost importance to human health in the new study: 1. antimicrobials that are the sole, or one of limited available therapies, to treat serious bacterial infections in people and 2. antimicrobials used to treat infections in people caused by either (a) bacteria that may be transmitted to humans from nonhuman sources or (b) bacteria that may acquire resistance genes from nonhuman sources.

The highest-priority and most critically important antimicrobials are those which meet the criteria listed above and that are used in greatest volume or highest frequency by humans. Another criteria for prioritization involves antimicrobial classes where evidence suggests that the “transmission of resistant bacteria or resistance genes from nonhuman sources is already occurring, or has occurred previously.” Quinolones, third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins, macrolides and ketolides, and glycopeptides were the only antimicrobials that met all criteria for prioritization.

“Antimicrobial resistance remains a threat to human health and drivers of resistance act in all sectors; human, animal, and the environment,” the WHO Advisory Group concluded. “Prioritizing the antimicrobials that are critically important for humans is a valuable and strategic risk-management tool and will be improved with the evidence-based approach which is currently underway.”

Read the full study in Clinical Infectious Diseases (doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw475).

[email protected]

LONDON – Real-life experience shows that stopping treatment with a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) does not worsen asthma control, nor does it lead to any immediate decline in lung function.

Spirometric parameters were similar before and 3 weeks after stopping LABA therapy in an observational study of 58 patients who had stable asthma and were being treated with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a LABA.

©tupungato/Thinkstock.com

The forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) was 88.8% at baseline and 89.5% at the 3-week visit after stepping down their LABA therapy (P = .55). Patients’ average peak expiratory flow rate was 462 L/min both before and after LABA withdrawal.

In addition, no changes were seen in lung function based on impulse oscillometry, a noninvasive method for measuring airway resistance and reactance (Chest. 2014;146[3]:841-7). Similar levels of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO, 38 and 36 ppb) were recorded.

The findings were presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and have been published in an early online edition of the Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2016.07.022).

“About 45% of the UK adult asthma population are taking step 3 GINA [Global Initiative for Asthma] therapy, which is ICS/LABA,” explained Sunny Jabbal, MD, of the Scottish Centre for Respiratory Research at Ninewells Hospital in Dundee, Scotland, where the study was conducted. Patients should be on the lowest of the five steps in the 2016 GINA guidelines that achieve asthma control and should be regularly reviewed.

To test whether the LABA could be safely withdrawn, that is stepped down to ICS only [GINA step 2], Dr. Jabbal and colleagues studied 58 patients with a mean age of 39 years. All had well-controlled asthma, and had been receiving ICS/LABA for at least 3 months with no asthma exacerbations requiring treatment. None of the patients were current smokers.

At study entry, patients underwent spirometry, impulse oscillometry, and had FeNO measured. Their LABA was then stopped, and patients were reassessed 3 weeks later. “In accordance with GINA, their ICS dose was also reduced by approximately 25%,” Dr. Jabbal said.

Patients recorded their symptoms and short-term reliever (albuterol) use on simple diary cards. They were also given a 24-hour emergency mobile number, but no calls were received and no adverse events reported. The mean daily symptom score recorded during the step down process was 0.4 (out of a possible score of 3), and the mean albuterol usage was one puff per day.

One of the chairs of the session, Omar Usmani, MD, of Imperial College London noted that some clinicians are “very apprehensive” about stopping LABA and stepping down ICS therapy in their patients.

This was a short-term study, Dr. Jabbal acknowledged. Although a follow-up of 3 weeks may be enough to determine the effects of stopping a LABA, that time may not be sufficient to assess the effects of stepping down the ICS. Further real-life studies are needed to evaluate outcomes such as exacerbations and overall quality of life.

Improved adherence with ICS therapy after LABA withdrawal might explain the lack of deleterious effects, or perhaps some patients may not have initially needed an ICS/LABA combination, he speculated. Maybe even the steroid dose could be reduced further in this particular patient population.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Jabbal had no conflicts of interest related to his presentation.

LONDON – Real-life experience shows that stopping treatment with a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) does not worsen asthma control, nor does it lead to any immediate decline in lung function.

Spirometric parameters were similar before and 3 weeks after stopping LABA therapy in an observational study of 58 patients who had stable asthma and were being treated with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a LABA.

©tupungato/Thinkstock.com

The forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) was 88.8% at baseline and 89.5% at the 3-week visit after stepping down their LABA therapy (P = .55). Patients’ average peak expiratory flow rate was 462 L/min both before and after LABA withdrawal.

In addition, no changes were seen in lung function based on impulse oscillometry, a noninvasive method for measuring airway resistance and reactance (Chest. 2014;146[3]:841-7). Similar levels of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO, 38 and 36 ppb) were recorded.

The findings were presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and have been published in an early online edition of the Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2016.07.022).

“About 45% of the UK adult asthma population are taking step 3 GINA [Global Initiative for Asthma] therapy, which is ICS/LABA,” explained Sunny Jabbal, MD, of the Scottish Centre for Respiratory Research at Ninewells Hospital in Dundee, Scotland, where the study was conducted. Patients should be on the lowest of the five steps in the 2016 GINA guidelines that achieve asthma control and should be regularly reviewed.

To test whether the LABA could be safely withdrawn, that is stepped down to ICS only [GINA step 2], Dr. Jabbal and colleagues studied 58 patients with a mean age of 39 years. All had well-controlled asthma, and had been receiving ICS/LABA for at least 3 months with no asthma exacerbations requiring treatment. None of the patients were current smokers.

At study entry, patients underwent spirometry, impulse oscillometry, and had FeNO measured. Their LABA was then stopped, and patients were reassessed 3 weeks later. “In accordance with GINA, their ICS dose was also reduced by approximately 25%,” Dr. Jabbal said.

Patients recorded their symptoms and short-term reliever (albuterol) use on simple diary cards. They were also given a 24-hour emergency mobile number, but no calls were received and no adverse events reported. The mean daily symptom score recorded during the step down process was 0.4 (out of a possible score of 3), and the mean albuterol usage was one puff per day.

One of the chairs of the session, Omar Usmani, MD, of Imperial College London noted that some clinicians are “very apprehensive” about stopping LABA and stepping down ICS therapy in their patients.

This was a short-term study, Dr. Jabbal acknowledged. Although a follow-up of 3 weeks may be enough to determine the effects of stopping a LABA, that time may not be sufficient to assess the effects of stepping down the ICS. Further real-life studies are needed to evaluate outcomes such as exacerbations and overall quality of life.

Improved adherence with ICS therapy after LABA withdrawal might explain the lack of deleterious effects, or perhaps some patients may not have initially needed an ICS/LABA combination, he speculated. Maybe even the steroid dose could be reduced further in this particular patient population.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Jabbal had no conflicts of interest related to his presentation.

LONDON – Real-life experience shows that stopping treatment with a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) does not worsen asthma control, nor does it lead to any immediate decline in lung function.

Spirometric parameters were similar before and 3 weeks after stopping LABA therapy in an observational study of 58 patients who had stable asthma and were being treated with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a LABA.

©tupungato/Thinkstock.com

The forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) was 88.8% at baseline and 89.5% at the 3-week visit after stepping down their LABA therapy (P = .55). Patients’ average peak expiratory flow rate was 462 L/min both before and after LABA withdrawal.

In addition, no changes were seen in lung function based on impulse oscillometry, a noninvasive method for measuring airway resistance and reactance (Chest. 2014;146[3]:841-7). Similar levels of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO, 38 and 36 ppb) were recorded.

The findings were presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and have been published in an early online edition of the Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2016.07.022).

“About 45% of the UK adult asthma population are taking step 3 GINA [Global Initiative for Asthma] therapy, which is ICS/LABA,” explained Sunny Jabbal, MD, of the Scottish Centre for Respiratory Research at Ninewells Hospital in Dundee, Scotland, where the study was conducted. Patients should be on the lowest of the five steps in the 2016 GINA guidelines that achieve asthma control and should be regularly reviewed.

To test whether the LABA could be safely withdrawn, that is stepped down to ICS only [GINA step 2], Dr. Jabbal and colleagues studied 58 patients with a mean age of 39 years. All had well-controlled asthma, and had been receiving ICS/LABA for at least 3 months with no asthma exacerbations requiring treatment. None of the patients were current smokers.

At study entry, patients underwent spirometry, impulse oscillometry, and had FeNO measured. Their LABA was then stopped, and patients were reassessed 3 weeks later. “In accordance with GINA, their ICS dose was also reduced by approximately 25%,” Dr. Jabbal said.

Patients recorded their symptoms and short-term reliever (albuterol) use on simple diary cards. They were also given a 24-hour emergency mobile number, but no calls were received and no adverse events reported. The mean daily symptom score recorded during the step down process was 0.4 (out of a possible score of 3), and the mean albuterol usage was one puff per day.

One of the chairs of the session, Omar Usmani, MD, of Imperial College London noted that some clinicians are “very apprehensive” about stopping LABA and stepping down ICS therapy in their patients.

This was a short-term study, Dr. Jabbal acknowledged. Although a follow-up of 3 weeks may be enough to determine the effects of stopping a LABA, that time may not be sufficient to assess the effects of stepping down the ICS. Further real-life studies are needed to evaluate outcomes such as exacerbations and overall quality of life.

Improved adherence with ICS therapy after LABA withdrawal might explain the lack of deleterious effects, or perhaps some patients may not have initially needed an ICS/LABA combination, he speculated. Maybe even the steroid dose could be reduced further in this particular patient population.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Jabbal had no conflicts of interest related to his presentation.

Screening for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) can help prevent progression to active disease, and the availability of effective tests supports screening asymptomatic adults aged 18 years and older at increased risk for infection, according to new recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

The recommendations were published online Sept. 6 in JAMA.

“The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the net benefit of screening for LTBI in persons at increased risk for tuberculosis is moderate,” wrote lead author Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues (JAMA 2016 Sep 6;316[9]:962-9).

TB infection spreads through the coughing or sneezing of someone with active disease. Individuals at high risk for TB include those who are immunocompromised, residents of long-term care facilities or correctional facilities, or homeless individuals, as well as those born in countries known to have a high incidence of TB, including China, India, Mexico, and Vietnam.

Other populations at increased risk for TB are contacts of patients with active TB, health care workers, and workers in high-risk settings, the researchers noted.

TB remains a preventable disease in the United States, with a prevalence of approximately 5%, the researchers said. The two most effective screening tests, tuberculin skin test (TST) and interferon-gamma release assays (IGRA), demonstrated sensitivity and specificity of 79% and 97%, and at least 80% and 95%, respectively.

The recommendations are supported by an evidence review, also published in JAMA (2016 Sep 6;316[9]:970-83). The review included 72 studies and 51,711 adults.

The studies in the evidence review did not assess the benefits vs. harms of TB screening, compared with no screening, noted Leila C. Kahwati, MD, of RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C., and her colleagues.

“The applicability of the evidence on accuracy and reliability of screening tests to primary care practice settings and populations is uncertain for several reasons,” the investigators said. However, the findings suggest that “treatment reduced the risk of active TB among the populations included in this review.”

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Screening for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) can help prevent progression to active disease, and the availability of effective tests supports screening asymptomatic adults aged 18 years and older at increased risk for infection, according to new recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

The recommendations were published online Sept. 6 in JAMA.

“The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the net benefit of screening for LTBI in persons at increased risk for tuberculosis is moderate,” wrote lead author Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues (JAMA 2016 Sep 6;316[9]:962-9).

TB infection spreads through the coughing or sneezing of someone with active disease. Individuals at high risk for TB include those who are immunocompromised, residents of long-term care facilities or correctional facilities, or homeless individuals, as well as those born in countries known to have a high incidence of TB, including China, India, Mexico, and Vietnam.

Other populations at increased risk for TB are contacts of patients with active TB, health care workers, and workers in high-risk settings, the researchers noted.

TB remains a preventable disease in the United States, with a prevalence of approximately 5%, the researchers said. The two most effective screening tests, tuberculin skin test (TST) and interferon-gamma release assays (IGRA), demonstrated sensitivity and specificity of 79% and 97%, and at least 80% and 95%, respectively.

The recommendations are supported by an evidence review, also published in JAMA (2016 Sep 6;316[9]:970-83). The review included 72 studies and 51,711 adults.

The studies in the evidence review did not assess the benefits vs. harms of TB screening, compared with no screening, noted Leila C. Kahwati, MD, of RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C., and her colleagues.

“The applicability of the evidence on accuracy and reliability of screening tests to primary care practice settings and populations is uncertain for several reasons,” the investigators said. However, the findings suggest that “treatment reduced the risk of active TB among the populations included in this review.”

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Screening for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) can help prevent progression to active disease, and the availability of effective tests supports screening asymptomatic adults aged 18 years and older at increased risk for infection, according to new recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

The recommendations were published online Sept. 6 in JAMA.

“The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the net benefit of screening for LTBI in persons at increased risk for tuberculosis is moderate,” wrote lead author Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues (JAMA 2016 Sep 6;316[9]:962-9).

TB infection spreads through the coughing or sneezing of someone with active disease. Individuals at high risk for TB include those who are immunocompromised, residents of long-term care facilities or correctional facilities, or homeless individuals, as well as those born in countries known to have a high incidence of TB, including China, India, Mexico, and Vietnam.

Other populations at increased risk for TB are contacts of patients with active TB, health care workers, and workers in high-risk settings, the researchers noted.

TB remains a preventable disease in the United States, with a prevalence of approximately 5%, the researchers said. The two most effective screening tests, tuberculin skin test (TST) and interferon-gamma release assays (IGRA), demonstrated sensitivity and specificity of 79% and 97%, and at least 80% and 95%, respectively.

The recommendations are supported by an evidence review, also published in JAMA (2016 Sep 6;316[9]:970-83). The review included 72 studies and 51,711 adults.

The studies in the evidence review did not assess the benefits vs. harms of TB screening, compared with no screening, noted Leila C. Kahwati, MD, of RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C., and her colleagues.

“The applicability of the evidence on accuracy and reliability of screening tests to primary care practice settings and populations is uncertain for several reasons,” the investigators said. However, the findings suggest that “treatment reduced the risk of active TB among the populations included in this review.”

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A once-daily inhaled combination of fluticasone furoate and vilanterol was associated with an 8% lower rate of exacerbations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) than was usual care, with no increase in adverse effects, according to a multicenter trial designed to reflect real-world practice.

“Future effectiveness studies [like this one] are likely to influence clinical guidelines, not only for COPD but [also] for many other chronic diseases,” said Jørgen Vestbo, MD, of University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England, and his associates, for the Salford Lung Study investigators. The findings were presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

©designer491/Thinkstock

Current COPD guidelines are based on clinical trials of carefully selected and monitored patients, which substantially limits their usefulness in everyday practice, the researchers said. To help address that problem, their 12-month, prospective, open-label, parallel-group, randomized study enrolled 2,799 COPD patients in 75 general practices within a single urban area in the United Kingdom. Patients received 100 mcg of fluticasone furoate and 25 mcg of vilanterol or usual care. The primary outcome was the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations among patients who had experienced an exacerbation within 1 year before enrollment. Patients received all treatment from their usual providers and were monitored remotely for safety through electronic health records (N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1608033).

Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol was associated with 1.74 moderate or severe exacerbations per year, compared with 1.9 events per year with usual-care group, for a statistically significant difference of 8.4% (95% confidence interval, 1.1%-15.2%; P = .02). The trial arms had similar rates of COPD-related health care visits and first moderate or severe exacerbations. They also did not notably differ in terms of serious adverse events of special interest, such as cardiovascular events (which affected 8% of patients in each group) or pneumonia (which affected 7% of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol patients and 6% of usual-care patients). Thirteen patients in each group developed fatal pneumonia, of which one case was considered related to usual care. The only other treatment-related death involved of deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in a patient receiving fluticasone furoate/vilanterol.

Medication switches were about twice as common (22%) in the intervention group than in the usual care group (11%), perhaps because of the open-label nature of the trial, the researchers said. Only 4% of patients receiving fluticasone furoate/vilanterol needed better disease control, half the rate of the usual care group.

GlaxoSmithKline funded the trial. Dr. Vestbo reported personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline while the study was conducted.

A once-daily inhaled combination of fluticasone furoate and vilanterol was associated with an 8% lower rate of exacerbations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) than was usual care, with no increase in adverse effects, according to a multicenter trial designed to reflect real-world practice.

“Future effectiveness studies [like this one] are likely to influence clinical guidelines, not only for COPD but [also] for many other chronic diseases,” said Jørgen Vestbo, MD, of University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England, and his associates, for the Salford Lung Study investigators. The findings were presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

©designer491/Thinkstock

Current COPD guidelines are based on clinical trials of carefully selected and monitored patients, which substantially limits their usefulness in everyday practice, the researchers said. To help address that problem, their 12-month, prospective, open-label, parallel-group, randomized study enrolled 2,799 COPD patients in 75 general practices within a single urban area in the United Kingdom. Patients received 100 mcg of fluticasone furoate and 25 mcg of vilanterol or usual care. The primary outcome was the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations among patients who had experienced an exacerbation within 1 year before enrollment. Patients received all treatment from their usual providers and were monitored remotely for safety through electronic health records (N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1608033).

Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol was associated with 1.74 moderate or severe exacerbations per year, compared with 1.9 events per year with usual-care group, for a statistically significant difference of 8.4% (95% confidence interval, 1.1%-15.2%; P = .02). The trial arms had similar rates of COPD-related health care visits and first moderate or severe exacerbations. They also did not notably differ in terms of serious adverse events of special interest, such as cardiovascular events (which affected 8% of patients in each group) or pneumonia (which affected 7% of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol patients and 6% of usual-care patients). Thirteen patients in each group developed fatal pneumonia, of which one case was considered related to usual care. The only other treatment-related death involved of deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in a patient receiving fluticasone furoate/vilanterol.

Medication switches were about twice as common (22%) in the intervention group than in the usual care group (11%), perhaps because of the open-label nature of the trial, the researchers said. Only 4% of patients receiving fluticasone furoate/vilanterol needed better disease control, half the rate of the usual care group.

GlaxoSmithKline funded the trial. Dr. Vestbo reported personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline while the study was conducted.

A once-daily inhaled combination of fluticasone furoate and vilanterol was associated with an 8% lower rate of exacerbations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) than was usual care, with no increase in adverse effects, according to a multicenter trial designed to reflect real-world practice.

“Future effectiveness studies [like this one] are likely to influence clinical guidelines, not only for COPD but [also] for many other chronic diseases,” said Jørgen Vestbo, MD, of University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England, and his associates, for the Salford Lung Study investigators. The findings were presented at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

©designer491/Thinkstock

Current COPD guidelines are based on clinical trials of carefully selected and monitored patients, which substantially limits their usefulness in everyday practice, the researchers said. To help address that problem, their 12-month, prospective, open-label, parallel-group, randomized study enrolled 2,799 COPD patients in 75 general practices within a single urban area in the United Kingdom. Patients received 100 mcg of fluticasone furoate and 25 mcg of vilanterol or usual care. The primary outcome was the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations among patients who had experienced an exacerbation within 1 year before enrollment. Patients received all treatment from their usual providers and were monitored remotely for safety through electronic health records (N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1608033).

Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol was associated with 1.74 moderate or severe exacerbations per year, compared with 1.9 events per year with usual-care group, for a statistically significant difference of 8.4% (95% confidence interval, 1.1%-15.2%; P = .02). The trial arms had similar rates of COPD-related health care visits and first moderate or severe exacerbations. They also did not notably differ in terms of serious adverse events of special interest, such as cardiovascular events (which affected 8% of patients in each group) or pneumonia (which affected 7% of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol patients and 6% of usual-care patients). Thirteen patients in each group developed fatal pneumonia, of which one case was considered related to usual care. The only other treatment-related death involved of deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in a patient receiving fluticasone furoate/vilanterol.

Medication switches were about twice as common (22%) in the intervention group than in the usual care group (11%), perhaps because of the open-label nature of the trial, the researchers said. Only 4% of patients receiving fluticasone furoate/vilanterol needed better disease control, half the rate of the usual care group.

GlaxoSmithKline funded the trial. Dr. Vestbo reported personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline while the study was conducted.

Lack of sleep had a significant impact on brain responses to an attention task, and circadian rhythms played a role, according to functional magnetic resonance imaging data from 33 healthy adults. The findings were published online Aug. 11 in Science.

Despite the data showing that acute sleep loss impacts cognition, “human performance remains remarkably well preserved until wakefulness is extended into the biological night,” wrote Vincenzo Muto of the University of Liège, Belgium, and his colleagues (Science 2016;353:687-90. doi: 10.1126/science.aad2993).

Wavebreak Media/Thinkstockphotos.com

Study participants stayed awake for 42 hours, beginning in the morning and covering 2 biological days, 1 biological night, and part of a second night. They periodically performed the psychomotor vigilance task (PVT), a visual reaction time task designed to measure attention; and an auditory n-back task, and the researchers collected functional and structural MRI data across 13 sessions. The average age of the participants (17 men and 16 women) was 21 years.

Overall, PVT performance was stable during the first day, but decreased significantly after sleep deprivation, then recovered during the second day, and returned to baseline after a period of recovery sleep, the researchers said.

Brain responses to the n-back task were “significantly modulated by a circadian oscillation, synchronous to the melatonin rhythm,” they noted. “This finding rules out a global task-independent circadian influence and suggest the influence of a local, region-specific task-dependent circadian signal,” they added.

Although more research is needed on how different cognitive tasks are affected by sleep deprivation, the findings may help in “understanding of the brain mechanisms underlying the maintenance of daytime cognitive performance and its deterioration, as observed in shift work, jet lag, sleep disorders, aging, and neurodegenerative diseases,” the researchers wrote.

They had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Lack of sleep had a significant impact on brain responses to an attention task, and circadian rhythms played a role, according to functional magnetic resonance imaging data from 33 healthy adults. The findings were published online Aug. 11 in Science.

Despite the data showing that acute sleep loss impacts cognition, “human performance remains remarkably well preserved until wakefulness is extended into the biological night,” wrote Vincenzo Muto of the University of Liège, Belgium, and his colleagues (Science 2016;353:687-90. doi: 10.1126/science.aad2993).

Wavebreak Media/Thinkstockphotos.com

Study participants stayed awake for 42 hours, beginning in the morning and covering 2 biological days, 1 biological night, and part of a second night. They periodically performed the psychomotor vigilance task (PVT), a visual reaction time task designed to measure attention; and an auditory n-back task, and the researchers collected functional and structural MRI data across 13 sessions. The average age of the participants (17 men and 16 women) was 21 years.

Overall, PVT performance was stable during the first day, but decreased significantly after sleep deprivation, then recovered during the second day, and returned to baseline after a period of recovery sleep, the researchers said.

Brain responses to the n-back task were “significantly modulated by a circadian oscillation, synchronous to the melatonin rhythm,” they noted. “This finding rules out a global task-independent circadian influence and suggest the influence of a local, region-specific task-dependent circadian signal,” they added.

Although more research is needed on how different cognitive tasks are affected by sleep deprivation, the findings may help in “understanding of the brain mechanisms underlying the maintenance of daytime cognitive performance and its deterioration, as observed in shift work, jet lag, sleep disorders, aging, and neurodegenerative diseases,” the researchers wrote.

They had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Lack of sleep had a significant impact on brain responses to an attention task, and circadian rhythms played a role, according to functional magnetic resonance imaging data from 33 healthy adults. The findings were published online Aug. 11 in Science.

Despite the data showing that acute sleep loss impacts cognition, “human performance remains remarkably well preserved until wakefulness is extended into the biological night,” wrote Vincenzo Muto of the University of Liège, Belgium, and his colleagues (Science 2016;353:687-90. doi: 10.1126/science.aad2993).

Wavebreak Media/Thinkstockphotos.com

Study participants stayed awake for 42 hours, beginning in the morning and covering 2 biological days, 1 biological night, and part of a second night. They periodically performed the psychomotor vigilance task (PVT), a visual reaction time task designed to measure attention; and an auditory n-back task, and the researchers collected functional and structural MRI data across 13 sessions. The average age of the participants (17 men and 16 women) was 21 years.

Overall, PVT performance was stable during the first day, but decreased significantly after sleep deprivation, then recovered during the second day, and returned to baseline after a period of recovery sleep, the researchers said.

Brain responses to the n-back task were “significantly modulated by a circadian oscillation, synchronous to the melatonin rhythm,” they noted. “This finding rules out a global task-independent circadian influence and suggest the influence of a local, region-specific task-dependent circadian signal,” they added.

Although more research is needed on how different cognitive tasks are affected by sleep deprivation, the findings may help in “understanding of the brain mechanisms underlying the maintenance of daytime cognitive performance and its deterioration, as observed in shift work, jet lag, sleep disorders, aging, and neurodegenerative diseases,” the researchers wrote.

They had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Duration of illness, age, and the presence of specific symptoms are key predictors of hospitalization risk due to respiratory infection, according to a study published in The Lancet. These demographic and clinical factors should guide a primary care physician’s decision to prescribe antibiotics.

“More than 80% of all health-service antibiotics [are] prescribed by primary care clinicians,” reported Alastair Hay, MD, of the University of Bristol, England, and his associates.

“Antibiotic prescribing in primary care is increasing and directly affects antimicrobial resistance,” the researchers noted, adding that many primary care clinicians prescribe antibiotics to pediatric patients with respiratory tract infections and/or cough to “mitigate perceived risk of future hospital admission and complications.”

A total of 8,394 pediatric patients who presented with acute cough and one or more other symptoms of respiratory tract infection (such as fever and coryza) were enrolled in the study by primary care physicians at 247 clinical sites in England. All eligible patients were between the ages of 3 months and 16 years; children were excluded if they presented with noninfective exacerbation of asthma, were at high risk of serious infection, or required a throat swab. The study’s primary outcome was hospital admission for any respiratory tract infection within 30 days of enrollment; the data were collected from a review of electronic medical records (Lancet. 2016. Sept 1. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600[16]30223-5).

©Ryan McVay/ thinkstockphotos.com

The median age of the pediatric cohort was 3 years, 52% were male, and 78% were white. A total of 3,121 patients (37%) were prescribed an antibiotic by their primary care physicians, but only 78 patients (0.9%) were admitted to the hospital, and 27% of discharge diagnoses suggested a possible bacterial cause (lower respiratory tract infection, tonsillitis, and pneumonia).

Multivariate modeling with bootstrap validation demonstrated that duration of illness, age, and the presence or absence of specific respiratory symptoms were the key factors that should be used to identify children at low, normal, and high risk for hospitalization due to respiratory infection. Younger patients with shorter illness durations who presented with wheeze, fever, vomiting, intercostal or subcostal recession, and/or asthma were at higher risk for hospitalization.

“Our data show that 1,846 (33%) of the very-low-risk stratum children received antibiotics. Because these children represent the majority (67%) of all the participants, a 10% overall reduction in antibiotic prescription would be achieved if prescription in this group halved, remained static in the normal risk stratum, and increased to 90% in the high risk stratum, resulting in a similar effect size to other contemporary antimicrobial stewardship interventions,” Dr. Hay and his associates concluded.

This study received funding and sponsorship from the National Institute for Health Research and the University of Bristol. Two investigators reported receiving financial compensation or honoraria from multiple companies including companies with an interest in diagnostic microbiology in respiratory tract infections.

[email protected]

On Twitter @jessnicolecraig

Duration of illness, age, and the presence of specific symptoms are key predictors of hospitalization risk due to respiratory infection, according to a study published in The Lancet. These demographic and clinical factors should guide a primary care physician’s decision to prescribe antibiotics.

“More than 80% of all health-service antibiotics [are] prescribed by primary care clinicians,” reported Alastair Hay, MD, of the University of Bristol, England, and his associates.

“Antibiotic prescribing in primary care is increasing and directly affects antimicrobial resistance,” the researchers noted, adding that many primary care clinicians prescribe antibiotics to pediatric patients with respiratory tract infections and/or cough to “mitigate perceived risk of future hospital admission and complications.”

A total of 8,394 pediatric patients who presented with acute cough and one or more other symptoms of respiratory tract infection (such as fever and coryza) were enrolled in the study by primary care physicians at 247 clinical sites in England. All eligible patients were between the ages of 3 months and 16 years; children were excluded if they presented with noninfective exacerbation of asthma, were at high risk of serious infection, or required a throat swab. The study’s primary outcome was hospital admission for any respiratory tract infection within 30 days of enrollment; the data were collected from a review of electronic medical records (Lancet. 2016. Sept 1. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600[16]30223-5).

©Ryan McVay/ thinkstockphotos.com

The median age of the pediatric cohort was 3 years, 52% were male, and 78% were white. A total of 3,121 patients (37%) were prescribed an antibiotic by their primary care physicians, but only 78 patients (0.9%) were admitted to the hospital, and 27% of discharge diagnoses suggested a possible bacterial cause (lower respiratory tract infection, tonsillitis, and pneumonia).

Multivariate modeling with bootstrap validation demonstrated that duration of illness, age, and the presence or absence of specific respiratory symptoms were the key factors that should be used to identify children at low, normal, and high risk for hospitalization due to respiratory infection. Younger patients with shorter illness durations who presented with wheeze, fever, vomiting, intercostal or subcostal recession, and/or asthma were at higher risk for hospitalization.

“Our data show that 1,846 (33%) of the very-low-risk stratum children received antibiotics. Because these children represent the majority (67%) of all the participants, a 10% overall reduction in antibiotic prescription would be achieved if prescription in this group halved, remained static in the normal risk stratum, and increased to 90% in the high risk stratum, resulting in a similar effect size to other contemporary antimicrobial stewardship interventions,” Dr. Hay and his associates concluded.

This study received funding and sponsorship from the National Institute for Health Research and the University of Bristol. Two investigators reported receiving financial compensation or honoraria from multiple companies including companies with an interest in diagnostic microbiology in respiratory tract infections.

[email protected]

On Twitter @jessnicolecraig

Duration of illness, age, and the presence of specific symptoms are key predictors of hospitalization risk due to respiratory infection, according to a study published in The Lancet. These demographic and clinical factors should guide a primary care physician’s decision to prescribe antibiotics.

“More than 80% of all health-service antibiotics [are] prescribed by primary care clinicians,” reported Alastair Hay, MD, of the University of Bristol, England, and his associates.

“Antibiotic prescribing in primary care is increasing and directly affects antimicrobial resistance,” the researchers noted, adding that many primary care clinicians prescribe antibiotics to pediatric patients with respiratory tract infections and/or cough to “mitigate perceived risk of future hospital admission and complications.”

A total of 8,394 pediatric patients who presented with acute cough and one or more other symptoms of respiratory tract infection (such as fever and coryza) were enrolled in the study by primary care physicians at 247 clinical sites in England. All eligible patients were between the ages of 3 months and 16 years; children were excluded if they presented with noninfective exacerbation of asthma, were at high risk of serious infection, or required a throat swab. The study’s primary outcome was hospital admission for any respiratory tract infection within 30 days of enrollment; the data were collected from a review of electronic medical records (Lancet. 2016. Sept 1. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600[16]30223-5).

©Ryan McVay/ thinkstockphotos.com

The median age of the pediatric cohort was 3 years, 52% were male, and 78% were white. A total of 3,121 patients (37%) were prescribed an antibiotic by their primary care physicians, but only 78 patients (0.9%) were admitted to the hospital, and 27% of discharge diagnoses suggested a possible bacterial cause (lower respiratory tract infection, tonsillitis, and pneumonia).

Multivariate modeling with bootstrap validation demonstrated that duration of illness, age, and the presence or absence of specific respiratory symptoms were the key factors that should be used to identify children at low, normal, and high risk for hospitalization due to respiratory infection. Younger patients with shorter illness durations who presented with wheeze, fever, vomiting, intercostal or subcostal recession, and/or asthma were at higher risk for hospitalization.

“Our data show that 1,846 (33%) of the very-low-risk stratum children received antibiotics. Because these children represent the majority (67%) of all the participants, a 10% overall reduction in antibiotic prescription would be achieved if prescription in this group halved, remained static in the normal risk stratum, and increased to 90% in the high risk stratum, resulting in a similar effect size to other contemporary antimicrobial stewardship interventions,” Dr. Hay and his associates concluded.

This study received funding and sponsorship from the National Institute for Health Research and the University of Bristol. Two investigators reported receiving financial compensation or honoraria from multiple companies including companies with an interest in diagnostic microbiology in respiratory tract infections.

[email protected]

On Twitter @jessnicolecraig

Following weeks of criticism over dramatic price increases on its EpiPen, Mylan said on Aug. 29 that it will offer a generic version of the life-saving allergy treatment. The generic, which the company says will be identical to the brand product, will sell for $300 for a two-pack, which is half the cost of Mylan’s brand name EpiPens. The news did little to dim the ongoing outcry over the price, for which there are no other competitors on the market. Some called it a marketing ploy, while Robert Weissman, president of the consumer group Public Citizen, said the generic price was still too high, writing in the Huffington Post of “the weirdness of a drug company offering a generic version” of its own brand-name product.

KHN offers answers to some key questions related to Mylan’s generic and breaks down what this development could mean for consumers and the marketplace.

When will I be able to get a generic EpiPen?Mylan, which is the company that markets this treatment, says it will have a product out within a few weeks. Pfizer is the firm that actually manufactures EpiPens. The drug used is the product epinephrine but the patent applies to the auto-injector device used to deliver it.

Will it cost me less?

For some patients, yes. Those who are uninsured, pay a percentage of the drug cost as their insurance copayment or have an unmet prescription deductible will likely pay less for the $300 two-pack generic than for the brand-name version. That’s because what they pay is based on the full price. Many other consumer have insurance with flat-dollar drug copayments, ranging from $10 to $100 for every prescription so they are paying far less than the retail price. Insurers generally set lower copayments for generic drugs than brand. So if a consumer’s health insurer makes the generic available and places it in the generic payment “tier,” the cost per prescription also could fall. In some cases, however, there is a possibility that some people who could benefit from the lower cost generic won’t have access to it. An insurer or pharmacy benefit manager, for example, might not add the generic EpiPen to the formulary, or restrict its availability in some way. That’s because some health plans get such large rebates from brand-name companies as to make the brand-name version cost less than the generic, said Adam Fein, president of Pembroke Consulting. But consumers do not benefit from rebates directly. Instead, it goes to the pharmacy manager, insurer or employer.

Are manufacturer rebates good?

It depends. They can help lower the cost of the drug for insurers and employers, helping slow overall spending and keep costs paid by consumers such as premiums and deductibles lower. “If we didn’t have rebates [spending on drugs] would be at least 35 percent higher,” said Richard Evans, co-founder of SSR Health, who does investment research on the pharmaceutical industry.

Even so, some say rebates should be barred in favor of more transparent prices. Stephen Schondelmeyer, director of the Prime Institute, an independent consulting group that monitors pharmaceutical trends, said discounts don’t make him feel good when his health plan is paying about $700 for EpiPens that it paid $80 for five years ago. “We should outlaw rebates,” said Schondelmeyer, who also helps oversee the University of Minnesota’s health plan. “What rebates are really is a way to overcharge the market. … We are giving the drug industry loans to the tune of billions of dollars … and rarely does it get back to the end consumer.”

Are drugmakers even allowed to create generic versions of their own products?

Many major drugmakers also market their drugs as generics. Called “authorized generics,” such products are identical to the drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration as part of a manufacturer’s New Drug Application. Drugmakers do not need to go back to the FDA for any further approvals in order to market an authorized generic.

Why would drugmakers want to offer a generic to their own product?

Most authorized generics appear on the market just as a competitor launches a generic of its own. In those cases, the move helps brand manufacturers retain some revenue that might otherwise be lost to competitors because the entry of less costly generics generally results in a sharp drop in brand-name sales. Manufacturers are careful not to release the authorized generic much before it loses patent protection, because it doesn’t want it to undercut sales of its more pricey brand-name product.

So why is Mylan doing this?

Mylan appears to be offering its “authorized generic” in response to complaints about the cost of its brand-name drug, not fear of competition from rivals. It currently controls the market. Pembroke’s Fein said Mylan miscalculated when it raised EpiPen’s price tag from about $100 to $600 over the past decade.

During that time, the firm failed to notice that insurance coverage had changed, Fein said. Instead of flat-dollar copayments, a growing number of consumers now have prescription deductibles they must meet first. That means some consumers are on the hook for the full $600. “They behaved as if everyone had good insurance,” said Fein. And the firm still seems to argue that raising its prices would not hurt most consumers, noting that many had flat copayments of less than $100. But, as the price rose, their insurer or the employer who provides coverage made up the difference, helping fuel premium and deductible increases.

“Premiums are an out-of-pocket cost,” said Schondelmeyer. “That’s what Mylan and other manufacturers have ignored.”

Do authorized generics reduce competition, which is supposed to help lower prices?

Some generic companies argue that is the case, saying a brand-name company jumping in ahead of rivals makes it less attractive for generic makers to bring their own products to market or challenge existing patents held by brand-name companies. But a 2011 Federal Trade Commission report found that authorized generics did not “measurably” reduce the number of patent challenges. The study also said the presence of authorized generics actually resulted in retail generic prices that were 4 to 8 percent lower than they would have been without.

KHN’s coverage of prescription drug development, costs and pricing is supported in part by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. Julie Appleby reports on the health care law’s implementation, health care treatments and costs, trends in health insurance, and policy affecting hospitals and other medical providers. Her stories have appeared in USA Today, the Washington Post, the Philadelphia Inquirer, MSNBC and others. Before joining KHN, Appleby spent 10 years covering the health care industry and policy at USA Today. She also worked at the San Francisco Chronicle, The Financial Times in London and the Contra Costa Times in Walnut Creek, Calif. She serves on the board of the Association of Health Care Journalists and has a Master of Public Health degree.

Following weeks of criticism over dramatic price increases on its EpiPen, Mylan said on Aug. 29 that it will offer a generic version of the life-saving allergy treatment. The generic, which the company says will be identical to the brand product, will sell for $300 for a two-pack, which is half the cost of Mylan’s brand name EpiPens. The news did little to dim the ongoing outcry over the price, for which there are no other competitors on the market. Some called it a marketing ploy, while Robert Weissman, president of the consumer group Public Citizen, said the generic price was still too high, writing in the Huffington Post of “the weirdness of a drug company offering a generic version” of its own brand-name product.

KHN offers answers to some key questions related to Mylan’s generic and breaks down what this development could mean for consumers and the marketplace.

When will I be able to get a generic EpiPen?Mylan, which is the company that markets this treatment, says it will have a product out within a few weeks. Pfizer is the firm that actually manufactures EpiPens. The drug used is the product epinephrine but the patent applies to the auto-injector device used to deliver it.

Will it cost me less?

For some patients, yes. Those who are uninsured, pay a percentage of the drug cost as their insurance copayment or have an unmet prescription deductible will likely pay less for the $300 two-pack generic than for the brand-name version. That’s because what they pay is based on the full price. Many other consumer have insurance with flat-dollar drug copayments, ranging from $10 to $100 for every prescription so they are paying far less than the retail price. Insurers generally set lower copayments for generic drugs than brand. So if a consumer’s health insurer makes the generic available and places it in the generic payment “tier,” the cost per prescription also could fall. In some cases, however, there is a possibility that some people who could benefit from the lower cost generic won’t have access to it. An insurer or pharmacy benefit manager, for example, might not add the generic EpiPen to the formulary, or restrict its availability in some way. That’s because some health plans get such large rebates from brand-name companies as to make the brand-name version cost less than the generic, said Adam Fein, president of Pembroke Consulting. But consumers do not benefit from rebates directly. Instead, it goes to the pharmacy manager, insurer or employer.

Are manufacturer rebates good?

It depends. They can help lower the cost of the drug for insurers and employers, helping slow overall spending and keep costs paid by consumers such as premiums and deductibles lower. “If we didn’t have rebates [spending on drugs] would be at least 35 percent higher,” said Richard Evans, co-founder of SSR Health, who does investment research on the pharmaceutical industry.

Even so, some say rebates should be barred in favor of more transparent prices. Stephen Schondelmeyer, director of the Prime Institute, an independent consulting group that monitors pharmaceutical trends, said discounts don’t make him feel good when his health plan is paying about $700 for EpiPens that it paid $80 for five years ago. “We should outlaw rebates,” said Schondelmeyer, who also helps oversee the University of Minnesota’s health plan. “What rebates are really is a way to overcharge the market. … We are giving the drug industry loans to the tune of billions of dollars … and rarely does it get back to the end consumer.”

Are drugmakers even allowed to create generic versions of their own products?

Many major drugmakers also market their drugs as generics. Called “authorized generics,” such products are identical to the drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration as part of a manufacturer’s New Drug Application. Drugmakers do not need to go back to the FDA for any further approvals in order to market an authorized generic.

Why would drugmakers want to offer a generic to their own product?

Most authorized generics appear on the market just as a competitor launches a generic of its own. In those cases, the move helps brand manufacturers retain some revenue that might otherwise be lost to competitors because the entry of less costly generics generally results in a sharp drop in brand-name sales. Manufacturers are careful not to release the authorized generic much before it loses patent protection, because it doesn’t want it to undercut sales of its more pricey brand-name product.

So why is Mylan doing this?

Mylan appears to be offering its “authorized generic” in response to complaints about the cost of its brand-name drug, not fear of competition from rivals. It currently controls the market. Pembroke’s Fein said Mylan miscalculated when it raised EpiPen’s price tag from about $100 to $600 over the past decade.

During that time, the firm failed to notice that insurance coverage had changed, Fein said. Instead of flat-dollar copayments, a growing number of consumers now have prescription deductibles they must meet first. That means some consumers are on the hook for the full $600. “They behaved as if everyone had good insurance,” said Fein. And the firm still seems to argue that raising its prices would not hurt most consumers, noting that many had flat copayments of less than $100. But, as the price rose, their insurer or the employer who provides coverage made up the difference, helping fuel premium and deductible increases.

“Premiums are an out-of-pocket cost,” said Schondelmeyer. “That’s what Mylan and other manufacturers have ignored.”

Do authorized generics reduce competition, which is supposed to help lower prices?

Some generic companies argue that is the case, saying a brand-name company jumping in ahead of rivals makes it less attractive for generic makers to bring their own products to market or challenge existing patents held by brand-name companies. But a 2011 Federal Trade Commission report found that authorized generics did not “measurably” reduce the number of patent challenges. The study also said the presence of authorized generics actually resulted in retail generic prices that were 4 to 8 percent lower than they would have been without.

KHN’s coverage of prescription drug development, costs and pricing is supported in part by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. Julie Appleby reports on the health care law’s implementation, health care treatments and costs, trends in health insurance, and policy affecting hospitals and other medical providers. Her stories have appeared in USA Today, the Washington Post, the Philadelphia Inquirer, MSNBC and others. Before joining KHN, Appleby spent 10 years covering the health care industry and policy at USA Today. She also worked at the San Francisco Chronicle, The Financial Times in London and the Contra Costa Times in Walnut Creek, Calif. She serves on the board of the Association of Health Care Journalists and has a Master of Public Health degree.

Following weeks of criticism over dramatic price increases on its EpiPen, Mylan said on Aug. 29 that it will offer a generic version of the life-saving allergy treatment. The generic, which the company says will be identical to the brand product, will sell for $300 for a two-pack, which is half the cost of Mylan’s brand name EpiPens. The news did little to dim the ongoing outcry over the price, for which there are no other competitors on the market. Some called it a marketing ploy, while Robert Weissman, president of the consumer group Public Citizen, said the generic price was still too high, writing in the Huffington Post of “the weirdness of a drug company offering a generic version” of its own brand-name product.

KHN offers answers to some key questions related to Mylan’s generic and breaks down what this development could mean for consumers and the marketplace.

When will I be able to get a generic EpiPen?Mylan, which is the company that markets this treatment, says it will have a product out within a few weeks. Pfizer is the firm that actually manufactures EpiPens. The drug used is the product epinephrine but the patent applies to the auto-injector device used to deliver it.

Will it cost me less?

For some patients, yes. Those who are uninsured, pay a percentage of the drug cost as their insurance copayment or have an unmet prescription deductible will likely pay less for the $300 two-pack generic than for the brand-name version. That’s because what they pay is based on the full price. Many other consumer have insurance with flat-dollar drug copayments, ranging from $10 to $100 for every prescription so they are paying far less than the retail price. Insurers generally set lower copayments for generic drugs than brand. So if a consumer’s health insurer makes the generic available and places it in the generic payment “tier,” the cost per prescription also could fall. In some cases, however, there is a possibility that some people who could benefit from the lower cost generic won’t have access to it. An insurer or pharmacy benefit manager, for example, might not add the generic EpiPen to the formulary, or restrict its availability in some way. That’s because some health plans get such large rebates from brand-name companies as to make the brand-name version cost less than the generic, said Adam Fein, president of Pembroke Consulting. But consumers do not benefit from rebates directly. Instead, it goes to the pharmacy manager, insurer or employer.

Are manufacturer rebates good?

It depends. They can help lower the cost of the drug for insurers and employers, helping slow overall spending and keep costs paid by consumers such as premiums and deductibles lower. “If we didn’t have rebates [spending on drugs] would be at least 35 percent higher,” said Richard Evans, co-founder of SSR Health, who does investment research on the pharmaceutical industry.

Even so, some say rebates should be barred in favor of more transparent prices. Stephen Schondelmeyer, director of the Prime Institute, an independent consulting group that monitors pharmaceutical trends, said discounts don’t make him feel good when his health plan is paying about $700 for EpiPens that it paid $80 for five years ago. “We should outlaw rebates,” said Schondelmeyer, who also helps oversee the University of Minnesota’s health plan. “What rebates are really is a way to overcharge the market. … We are giving the drug industry loans to the tune of billions of dollars … and rarely does it get back to the end consumer.”

Are drugmakers even allowed to create generic versions of their own products?

Many major drugmakers also market their drugs as generics. Called “authorized generics,” such products are identical to the drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration as part of a manufacturer’s New Drug Application. Drugmakers do not need to go back to the FDA for any further approvals in order to market an authorized generic.

Why would drugmakers want to offer a generic to their own product?

Most authorized generics appear on the market just as a competitor launches a generic of its own. In those cases, the move helps brand manufacturers retain some revenue that might otherwise be lost to competitors because the entry of less costly generics generally results in a sharp drop in brand-name sales. Manufacturers are careful not to release the authorized generic much before it loses patent protection, because it doesn’t want it to undercut sales of its more pricey brand-name product.

So why is Mylan doing this?

Mylan appears to be offering its “authorized generic” in response to complaints about the cost of its brand-name drug, not fear of competition from rivals. It currently controls the market. Pembroke’s Fein said Mylan miscalculated when it raised EpiPen’s price tag from about $100 to $600 over the past decade.

During that time, the firm failed to notice that insurance coverage had changed, Fein said. Instead of flat-dollar copayments, a growing number of consumers now have prescription deductibles they must meet first. That means some consumers are on the hook for the full $600. “They behaved as if everyone had good insurance,” said Fein. And the firm still seems to argue that raising its prices would not hurt most consumers, noting that many had flat copayments of less than $100. But, as the price rose, their insurer or the employer who provides coverage made up the difference, helping fuel premium and deductible increases.

“Premiums are an out-of-pocket cost,” said Schondelmeyer. “That’s what Mylan and other manufacturers have ignored.”

Do authorized generics reduce competition, which is supposed to help lower prices?

Some generic companies argue that is the case, saying a brand-name company jumping in ahead of rivals makes it less attractive for generic makers to bring their own products to market or challenge existing patents held by brand-name companies. But a 2011 Federal Trade Commission report found that authorized generics did not “measurably” reduce the number of patent challenges. The study also said the presence of authorized generics actually resulted in retail generic prices that were 4 to 8 percent lower than they would have been without.

KHN’s coverage of prescription drug development, costs and pricing is supported in part by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. Julie Appleby reports on the health care law’s implementation, health care treatments and costs, trends in health insurance, and policy affecting hospitals and other medical providers. Her stories have appeared in USA Today, the Washington Post, the Philadelphia Inquirer, MSNBC and others. Before joining KHN, Appleby spent 10 years covering the health care industry and policy at USA Today. She also worked at the San Francisco Chronicle, The Financial Times in London and the Contra Costa Times in Walnut Creek, Calif. She serves on the board of the Association of Health Care Journalists and has a Master of Public Health degree.

Labeling for prescription opioid pain or cough medicines and benzodiazepines will now carry the strongest available warning regarding serious side effects and death associated with their combined use, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

The new boxed warnings urge health care professionals to limit prescribing opioid pain medicines with benzodiazepines or other central nervous system depressants only to patients for whom alternative treatment options are inadequate, and to limit dosages and treatment duration to the minimum possible while achieving the desired clinical effect.

“First, the FDA is requiring companies to update their product labeling for ... benzodiazepines and opioids to include possible harms when they are used together. Second, we are requiring new or updated medication guides for these drugs reflecting those same warnings,” said Doug Throckmorton, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, during a telebriefing.

Opioids will include a warning regarding prescribing with benzodiazepines and other central nervous system depressants, including alcohol. Benzodiazepines will include a warning regarding prescribing with opioids.

In addition, the FDA has issued a safety communication to “warn the public about the serious risk of taking these products together to help make doctors more cautious and patients better informed,” Dr. Throckmorton said.

The action comes amid ongoing efforts to address an epidemic of opioid addiction across the United States, and in response to a first-of-its-kind “citizen petition” calling for the boxed warnings.

A coalition of health officials from multiple cities, states, and U.S. territories initiated that petition in February, and thousands of concerned community members started an additional online petition. Those petitions were in response to both the increasing combined use of opioids and benzodiazepines and a concomitant increase in the risk of serious side effects and deaths associated with their combined use, according to Baltimore City Health Commissioner Leana Wen, MD.

As an emergency physician, Dr. Wen said that she has seen firsthand the alarming trends; one in three unintentional overdose deaths from prescribed opioids also involve benzodiazepines, she noted.

“In my state of Maryland in 2014, benzodiazepines were associated with 19% of prescription opioid deaths, and 59% of benzodiazepine-associated deaths involved prescription opioids. We also noted the growing biological evidence that combining these medications caused sleepiness and slowed breathing, increasing the likelihood of a fatal overdose,” she said.

Dr. Throckmorton further noted that emergency department visits and deaths involving patients prescribed both opioids and benzodiazepines have increased significantly over time. From 2004 to 2011, the rate of nonmedical use–related emergency department visits increased significantly each year, and overdose deaths involving both drug classes during that period nearly tripled on an annual basis.

“Communities have been seeing this trend for some time, but ultimately we needed data in order to act today,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said during the telebriefing.

The current action is just “one part of a larger effort to address this epidemic.

“We remain focused and deeply committed to contributing to the comprehensive effort to address the opioid epidemic,” Dr. Califf said. The FDA “will continue to monitor these products carefully and take additional actions as needed, and will share updates with the public as necessary as we work to address this public health crisis.”

Dr. Califf noted that the current action is part of the FDA’s Opioids Action Plan, which is “importantly not meant just to cover illicit or abusive use of opioids.”

“So, you’ll be hearing a lot more from us, because this is a national crisis that is not going away. We’re making progress on the prescribing, and we’re seeing a reduction in the use of opioids now,” he noted. “But we’re still seeing many overdoses.

“This is a continuum, and we’ll continue to try to do everything we can to address the epidemic,” Dr. Califf concluded.

[email protected]

Labeling for prescription opioid pain or cough medicines and benzodiazepines will now carry the strongest available warning regarding serious side effects and death associated with their combined use, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

The new boxed warnings urge health care professionals to limit prescribing opioid pain medicines with benzodiazepines or other central nervous system depressants only to patients for whom alternative treatment options are inadequate, and to limit dosages and treatment duration to the minimum possible while achieving the desired clinical effect.

“First, the FDA is requiring companies to update their product labeling for ... benzodiazepines and opioids to include possible harms when they are used together. Second, we are requiring new or updated medication guides for these drugs reflecting those same warnings,” said Doug Throckmorton, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, during a telebriefing.

Opioids will include a warning regarding prescribing with benzodiazepines and other central nervous system depressants, including alcohol. Benzodiazepines will include a warning regarding prescribing with opioids.

In addition, the FDA has issued a safety communication to “warn the public about the serious risk of taking these products together to help make doctors more cautious and patients better informed,” Dr. Throckmorton said.

The action comes amid ongoing efforts to address an epidemic of opioid addiction across the United States, and in response to a first-of-its-kind “citizen petition” calling for the boxed warnings.

A coalition of health officials from multiple cities, states, and U.S. territories initiated that petition in February, and thousands of concerned community members started an additional online petition. Those petitions were in response to both the increasing combined use of opioids and benzodiazepines and a concomitant increase in the risk of serious side effects and deaths associated with their combined use, according to Baltimore City Health Commissioner Leana Wen, MD.

As an emergency physician, Dr. Wen said that she has seen firsthand the alarming trends; one in three unintentional overdose deaths from prescribed opioids also involve benzodiazepines, she noted.

“In my state of Maryland in 2014, benzodiazepines were associated with 19% of prescription opioid deaths, and 59% of benzodiazepine-associated deaths involved prescription opioids. We also noted the growing biological evidence that combining these medications caused sleepiness and slowed breathing, increasing the likelihood of a fatal overdose,” she said.

Dr. Throckmorton further noted that emergency department visits and deaths involving patients prescribed both opioids and benzodiazepines have increased significantly over time. From 2004 to 2011, the rate of nonmedical use–related emergency department visits increased significantly each year, and overdose deaths involving both drug classes during that period nearly tripled on an annual basis.

“Communities have been seeing this trend for some time, but ultimately we needed data in order to act today,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said during the telebriefing.

The current action is just “one part of a larger effort to address this epidemic.

“We remain focused and deeply committed to contributing to the comprehensive effort to address the opioid epidemic,” Dr. Califf said. The FDA “will continue to monitor these products carefully and take additional actions as needed, and will share updates with the public as necessary as we work to address this public health crisis.”

Dr. Califf noted that the current action is part of the FDA’s Opioids Action Plan, which is “importantly not meant just to cover illicit or abusive use of opioids.”

“So, you’ll be hearing a lot more from us, because this is a national crisis that is not going away. We’re making progress on the prescribing, and we’re seeing a reduction in the use of opioids now,” he noted. “But we’re still seeing many overdoses.

“This is a continuum, and we’ll continue to try to do everything we can to address the epidemic,” Dr. Califf concluded.

[email protected]

Labeling for prescription opioid pain or cough medicines and benzodiazepines will now carry the strongest available warning regarding serious side effects and death associated with their combined use, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

The new boxed warnings urge health care professionals to limit prescribing opioid pain medicines with benzodiazepines or other central nervous system depressants only to patients for whom alternative treatment options are inadequate, and to limit dosages and treatment duration to the minimum possible while achieving the desired clinical effect.

“First, the FDA is requiring companies to update their product labeling for ... benzodiazepines and opioids to include possible harms when they are used together. Second, we are requiring new or updated medication guides for these drugs reflecting those same warnings,” said Doug Throckmorton, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, during a telebriefing.

Opioids will include a warning regarding prescribing with benzodiazepines and other central nervous system depressants, including alcohol. Benzodiazepines will include a warning regarding prescribing with opioids.

In addition, the FDA has issued a safety communication to “warn the public about the serious risk of taking these products together to help make doctors more cautious and patients better informed,” Dr. Throckmorton said.

The action comes amid ongoing efforts to address an epidemic of opioid addiction across the United States, and in response to a first-of-its-kind “citizen petition” calling for the boxed warnings.

A coalition of health officials from multiple cities, states, and U.S. territories initiated that petition in February, and thousands of concerned community members started an additional online petition. Those petitions were in response to both the increasing combined use of opioids and benzodiazepines and a concomitant increase in the risk of serious side effects and deaths associated with their combined use, according to Baltimore City Health Commissioner Leana Wen, MD.

As an emergency physician, Dr. Wen said that she has seen firsthand the alarming trends; one in three unintentional overdose deaths from prescribed opioids also involve benzodiazepines, she noted.

“In my state of Maryland in 2014, benzodiazepines were associated with 19% of prescription opioid deaths, and 59% of benzodiazepine-associated deaths involved prescription opioids. We also noted the growing biological evidence that combining these medications caused sleepiness and slowed breathing, increasing the likelihood of a fatal overdose,” she said.

Dr. Throckmorton further noted that emergency department visits and deaths involving patients prescribed both opioids and benzodiazepines have increased significantly over time. From 2004 to 2011, the rate of nonmedical use–related emergency department visits increased significantly each year, and overdose deaths involving both drug classes during that period nearly tripled on an annual basis.

“Communities have been seeing this trend for some time, but ultimately we needed data in order to act today,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said during the telebriefing.

The current action is just “one part of a larger effort to address this epidemic.

“We remain focused and deeply committed to contributing to the comprehensive effort to address the opioid epidemic,” Dr. Califf said. The FDA “will continue to monitor these products carefully and take additional actions as needed, and will share updates with the public as necessary as we work to address this public health crisis.”

Dr. Califf noted that the current action is part of the FDA’s Opioids Action Plan, which is “importantly not meant just to cover illicit or abusive use of opioids.”

“So, you’ll be hearing a lot more from us, because this is a national crisis that is not going away. We’re making progress on the prescribing, and we’re seeing a reduction in the use of opioids now,” he noted. “But we’re still seeing many overdoses.

“This is a continuum, and we’ll continue to try to do everything we can to address the epidemic,” Dr. Califf concluded.

[email protected]