User login
Opioid benefit small in chronic noncancer pain
Compared with placebo, opioids provide very modest improvements in chronic noncancer pain and physical functioning that decrease over time, according to the authors of a systematic review and meta-analysis of nearly 100 randomized clinical trials.
There was little difference in pain control between opioids and nonopioid alternatives such as NSAIDs in a subset of nine such comparative trials, reported the authors, led by Jason W. Busse, DC, PhD, of the department of anesthesia at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Pain benefits of opioids decreased over time in longer trials, possibly because of opioid tolerance or hyperalgesia, a condition marked by hypersensitivity to pain. “A reduced association with benefit over time might lead to prescription of higher opioid doses and consequent harms,” Dr. Busse and his coauthors wrote in JAMA.
The meta-analysis included 96 randomized clinical trials including 26,169 patients with chronic noncancer pain.
Opioid treatment did significantly improve pain and physical function versus placebo, though the magnitude of benefit was small, according to the investigators. The reduction in pain was –0.69 cm on a 10-cm visual analog scale (P less than .001), based on high-quality evidence from 42 randomized, controlled trials that followed patients for at least 3 months.
The improvement in physical functioning was likewise significant but small at 2.04 out of 100 points on the SF-36 physical component score (P less than .001). Emotional and role functioning were not significantly improved by opioid use.
Opioid use was linked to increased vomiting incidence versus placebo, with a relative risk of 4.12 (95% CI, 3.34-5.07; P less than .001) for patients in “nonenrichment” trials – those studies that included all patients regardless of whether or not they reported lack of improvement or had substantial adverse events during a study run-in period.
Nausea, constipation, dizziness, drowsiness, pruritus, and dry mouth were also linked to opioid use as compared with placebo, Dr. Busse and his colleagues reported.
The benefit of opioids and nonopioid alternatives appeared to be similar in this meta-analysis, though the available evidence from comparative studies was of low to moderate quality, the authors advised.
In moderate-quality evidence from nine clinical trials of opioids versus NSAIDs including 1,431 patients, there was no difference in pain relief between the two interventions, the investigators said. Moreover, comparisons of physician functioning also suggested no difference, while opioids were associated with more vomiting.
Both tricyclic antidepressants and synthetic cannabinoids offered similar pain relief, compared with opioids, based on low-quality clinical trial evidence, they added, while moderate-quality evidence suggested opioids offered superior pain relief, compared with anticonvulsants.
Support for the study came from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Health Canada. One study coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Purdue Pharma and the Nova Scotia College of Physicians and Surgeons.
SOURCE: Busse JW et al. JAMA. 2018;320(23):2448-60.
This meta-analysis suggests that most patients receiving opioids for chronic noncancer pain will not benefit from them, according to Michael A. Ashburn, MD, MPH, and Lee A. Fleisher, MD.
Outcomes of the study, which suggest opioids produce modest benefits over placebo in pain and physical functioning, and no difference in pain relief versus NSAIDs, are likely to represent the best case scenario, the authors wrote.
That’s because most trials excluded patients with substance use disorder and nearly half excluded patients with mental illness or those taking psychotropic medications, they explained.
In the clinical setting, many patients will have depression, anxiety, sleep-disordered breathing, and other conditions that could increase the potential risk of harm with opioids, according to the authors.
That said, when proper monitoring is incorporated into care, opioid treatment can be safe and effective for selected patients. “Diligent opioid prescribing to carefully selected patients will lower the risk of harm to patients, their families, and the community,” the authors wrote in their editorial.
Dr. Ashburn and Dr. Fleisher are with the department of anesthesiology and critical care at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Their editorial appears in JAMA. Dr. Ashburn reported receiving personal fees from Teva, the Department of Justice, the Attorney General for the State of Maryland, the Department of State for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Montgomery County District Attorney, and the Carolinas Pain Society. He also reported several patents related to drug delivery systems and methods.
This meta-analysis suggests that most patients receiving opioids for chronic noncancer pain will not benefit from them, according to Michael A. Ashburn, MD, MPH, and Lee A. Fleisher, MD.
Outcomes of the study, which suggest opioids produce modest benefits over placebo in pain and physical functioning, and no difference in pain relief versus NSAIDs, are likely to represent the best case scenario, the authors wrote.
That’s because most trials excluded patients with substance use disorder and nearly half excluded patients with mental illness or those taking psychotropic medications, they explained.
In the clinical setting, many patients will have depression, anxiety, sleep-disordered breathing, and other conditions that could increase the potential risk of harm with opioids, according to the authors.
That said, when proper monitoring is incorporated into care, opioid treatment can be safe and effective for selected patients. “Diligent opioid prescribing to carefully selected patients will lower the risk of harm to patients, their families, and the community,” the authors wrote in their editorial.
Dr. Ashburn and Dr. Fleisher are with the department of anesthesiology and critical care at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Their editorial appears in JAMA. Dr. Ashburn reported receiving personal fees from Teva, the Department of Justice, the Attorney General for the State of Maryland, the Department of State for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Montgomery County District Attorney, and the Carolinas Pain Society. He also reported several patents related to drug delivery systems and methods.
This meta-analysis suggests that most patients receiving opioids for chronic noncancer pain will not benefit from them, according to Michael A. Ashburn, MD, MPH, and Lee A. Fleisher, MD.
Outcomes of the study, which suggest opioids produce modest benefits over placebo in pain and physical functioning, and no difference in pain relief versus NSAIDs, are likely to represent the best case scenario, the authors wrote.
That’s because most trials excluded patients with substance use disorder and nearly half excluded patients with mental illness or those taking psychotropic medications, they explained.
In the clinical setting, many patients will have depression, anxiety, sleep-disordered breathing, and other conditions that could increase the potential risk of harm with opioids, according to the authors.
That said, when proper monitoring is incorporated into care, opioid treatment can be safe and effective for selected patients. “Diligent opioid prescribing to carefully selected patients will lower the risk of harm to patients, their families, and the community,” the authors wrote in their editorial.
Dr. Ashburn and Dr. Fleisher are with the department of anesthesiology and critical care at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Their editorial appears in JAMA. Dr. Ashburn reported receiving personal fees from Teva, the Department of Justice, the Attorney General for the State of Maryland, the Department of State for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Montgomery County District Attorney, and the Carolinas Pain Society. He also reported several patents related to drug delivery systems and methods.
Compared with placebo, opioids provide very modest improvements in chronic noncancer pain and physical functioning that decrease over time, according to the authors of a systematic review and meta-analysis of nearly 100 randomized clinical trials.
There was little difference in pain control between opioids and nonopioid alternatives such as NSAIDs in a subset of nine such comparative trials, reported the authors, led by Jason W. Busse, DC, PhD, of the department of anesthesia at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Pain benefits of opioids decreased over time in longer trials, possibly because of opioid tolerance or hyperalgesia, a condition marked by hypersensitivity to pain. “A reduced association with benefit over time might lead to prescription of higher opioid doses and consequent harms,” Dr. Busse and his coauthors wrote in JAMA.
The meta-analysis included 96 randomized clinical trials including 26,169 patients with chronic noncancer pain.
Opioid treatment did significantly improve pain and physical function versus placebo, though the magnitude of benefit was small, according to the investigators. The reduction in pain was –0.69 cm on a 10-cm visual analog scale (P less than .001), based on high-quality evidence from 42 randomized, controlled trials that followed patients for at least 3 months.
The improvement in physical functioning was likewise significant but small at 2.04 out of 100 points on the SF-36 physical component score (P less than .001). Emotional and role functioning were not significantly improved by opioid use.
Opioid use was linked to increased vomiting incidence versus placebo, with a relative risk of 4.12 (95% CI, 3.34-5.07; P less than .001) for patients in “nonenrichment” trials – those studies that included all patients regardless of whether or not they reported lack of improvement or had substantial adverse events during a study run-in period.
Nausea, constipation, dizziness, drowsiness, pruritus, and dry mouth were also linked to opioid use as compared with placebo, Dr. Busse and his colleagues reported.
The benefit of opioids and nonopioid alternatives appeared to be similar in this meta-analysis, though the available evidence from comparative studies was of low to moderate quality, the authors advised.
In moderate-quality evidence from nine clinical trials of opioids versus NSAIDs including 1,431 patients, there was no difference in pain relief between the two interventions, the investigators said. Moreover, comparisons of physician functioning also suggested no difference, while opioids were associated with more vomiting.
Both tricyclic antidepressants and synthetic cannabinoids offered similar pain relief, compared with opioids, based on low-quality clinical trial evidence, they added, while moderate-quality evidence suggested opioids offered superior pain relief, compared with anticonvulsants.
Support for the study came from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Health Canada. One study coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Purdue Pharma and the Nova Scotia College of Physicians and Surgeons.
SOURCE: Busse JW et al. JAMA. 2018;320(23):2448-60.
Compared with placebo, opioids provide very modest improvements in chronic noncancer pain and physical functioning that decrease over time, according to the authors of a systematic review and meta-analysis of nearly 100 randomized clinical trials.
There was little difference in pain control between opioids and nonopioid alternatives such as NSAIDs in a subset of nine such comparative trials, reported the authors, led by Jason W. Busse, DC, PhD, of the department of anesthesia at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Pain benefits of opioids decreased over time in longer trials, possibly because of opioid tolerance or hyperalgesia, a condition marked by hypersensitivity to pain. “A reduced association with benefit over time might lead to prescription of higher opioid doses and consequent harms,” Dr. Busse and his coauthors wrote in JAMA.
The meta-analysis included 96 randomized clinical trials including 26,169 patients with chronic noncancer pain.
Opioid treatment did significantly improve pain and physical function versus placebo, though the magnitude of benefit was small, according to the investigators. The reduction in pain was –0.69 cm on a 10-cm visual analog scale (P less than .001), based on high-quality evidence from 42 randomized, controlled trials that followed patients for at least 3 months.
The improvement in physical functioning was likewise significant but small at 2.04 out of 100 points on the SF-36 physical component score (P less than .001). Emotional and role functioning were not significantly improved by opioid use.
Opioid use was linked to increased vomiting incidence versus placebo, with a relative risk of 4.12 (95% CI, 3.34-5.07; P less than .001) for patients in “nonenrichment” trials – those studies that included all patients regardless of whether or not they reported lack of improvement or had substantial adverse events during a study run-in period.
Nausea, constipation, dizziness, drowsiness, pruritus, and dry mouth were also linked to opioid use as compared with placebo, Dr. Busse and his colleagues reported.
The benefit of opioids and nonopioid alternatives appeared to be similar in this meta-analysis, though the available evidence from comparative studies was of low to moderate quality, the authors advised.
In moderate-quality evidence from nine clinical trials of opioids versus NSAIDs including 1,431 patients, there was no difference in pain relief between the two interventions, the investigators said. Moreover, comparisons of physician functioning also suggested no difference, while opioids were associated with more vomiting.
Both tricyclic antidepressants and synthetic cannabinoids offered similar pain relief, compared with opioids, based on low-quality clinical trial evidence, they added, while moderate-quality evidence suggested opioids offered superior pain relief, compared with anticonvulsants.
Support for the study came from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Health Canada. One study coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Purdue Pharma and the Nova Scotia College of Physicians and Surgeons.
SOURCE: Busse JW et al. JAMA. 2018;320(23):2448-60.
FROM JAMA
Key clinical point: A meta-analysis showed that, in patients with chronic noncancer pain, opioids provided modest improvements versus placebo that receded with time, and comparable benefits versus nonopioid alternatives.
Major finding: The reduction in pain for opioids versus placebo was significant but small, at –0.69 cm on a 10-cm visual analog scale (P less than .001), in randomized, controlled trials following patients for at least 3 months.
Study details: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 96 randomized clinical trials for noncancer pain.
Disclosures: Support for the study came from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Health Canada. One study author reported receiving personal fees from Purdue Pharma and the Nova Scotia College of Physicians and Surgeons.
Source: Busse JW et al. JAMA. 2018;320(23):2448-60.
Digital alerts reduced AF-related stroke, MI rates
CHICAGO –
and had significantly lower rates of death and other cardiovascular events, compared with patients on a standard admissions protocol, according to results of a randomized, controlled trial presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions.“Alert-based computerized decision support [CDS] increased the prescription of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation during hospitalization, at discharge, and at 90 days after randomization in high-risk patients,” said Gregory Piazza, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, in presenting results of the AF-ALERT trial. “The reductions in major cardiovascular events was attributable to reductions in MI and stroke/transient ischemic attack at 90 days in patients whose physicians received the alert.”
The trial evaluated 458 patients hospitalized for AF or flutter and with CHA2DS2-VASc scores of 1-8 randomly assigned to the alert (n = 258) or no-alert (n = 210) groups.
Dr. Piazza explained that for those in the alert group, the CDS system notified physicians when the patient’s CHA2DS2-VASc score increased. From there, the physician could choose to open an order template to prescribe evidence-based medications to prevent stroke, to elect to review evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, or to continue with the admissions order with an acknowledged reason for omitting anticoagulation (such as high bleeding risk, low stroke risk, high risk for falls, or patient refusal of anticoagulation).
“In patients for whom their providers were alerted, 35% elected to open the stroke-prevention order set, a very tiny percentage elected to read the AF guidelines, and about 64% exited but provided a rationale for omitting anticoagulation,” Dr. Piazza noted.
The alert group was far more likely to be prescribed anticoagulation during the hospitalization (25.8% vs. 9.5%; P less than .0001), at discharge (23.8% vs. 12.9%; P = .003), and at 90 days (27.7% vs. 17.1%; P = .007) than the control group. The alert resulted in a 55% relative risk reduction in a composite outcome of death, MI, cerebrovascular event, and systemic embolic event at 90 days (11.3% vs. 21.9%; P = .002). The alert group had an 87% lower incidence of MI at 90 days (1.2% vs. 8.6%, P = .0002) and 88% lower incidence of cerebrovascular events or systemic embolism at 90 days (0% vs. 2.4%; P = .02). Death at 90 days occurred in 10.1% in the alert group and 14.8% in the control group (P = .13).
One of the limitations of the study, Dr. Piazza noted, was that the most dramatic finding – reduction of major cardiovascular events – was a secondary, not a primary, endpoint. “CDS has the potential to be a powerful tool in prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with atrial fibrillation.”
Moderator Mintu Turakhia, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, questioned the low rate of anticoagulation in the study’s control arm – 9.5% – much lower than medians reported in many registries. He also asked Dr. Piazza to describe the mechanism of action for prescribing anticoagulation in these patients.
Dr. Piazza noted the study population was hospitalized patients whose providers had decided prior to their admissions not to prescribe anticoagulation; hence, the rate of anticoagulation in these patients was actually higher than expected.
Regarding the mechanism of action, “the electronic alert seems to preferentially increase the prescription of [direct oral anticoagulants] over warfarin, and that may have been one of the mechanisms,” Dr. Piazza said. Another explanation he offered were “off-target” effects whereby, if providers have a better idea of a patient’s risk for a stroke or MI, they’ll be more aggressive about managing other risk factors.
“There are a number of interventions that could be triggered if the alert prompted the provider to have a conversation with patients about their risk of stroke from AF,” he said. “This may have impact beyond what we can tell from this simple [Best Practice Advisory in the Epic EHR system]. I think we don’t have a great understanding of the full mechanisms of CDS.”
Dr. Piazza reported financial relationships with BTG, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Portola, and Bayer. Daiichi Sankyo funded the trial. Dr. Turakhia reported relationships with Apple, Janssen, AstraZeneca, VA, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiva Medical, Medtronic, Abbott, Precision Health Economics, iBeat, iRhythm, MyoKardia, Biotronik, and an ownership Interest in AliveCor.
CHICAGO –
and had significantly lower rates of death and other cardiovascular events, compared with patients on a standard admissions protocol, according to results of a randomized, controlled trial presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions.“Alert-based computerized decision support [CDS] increased the prescription of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation during hospitalization, at discharge, and at 90 days after randomization in high-risk patients,” said Gregory Piazza, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, in presenting results of the AF-ALERT trial. “The reductions in major cardiovascular events was attributable to reductions in MI and stroke/transient ischemic attack at 90 days in patients whose physicians received the alert.”
The trial evaluated 458 patients hospitalized for AF or flutter and with CHA2DS2-VASc scores of 1-8 randomly assigned to the alert (n = 258) or no-alert (n = 210) groups.
Dr. Piazza explained that for those in the alert group, the CDS system notified physicians when the patient’s CHA2DS2-VASc score increased. From there, the physician could choose to open an order template to prescribe evidence-based medications to prevent stroke, to elect to review evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, or to continue with the admissions order with an acknowledged reason for omitting anticoagulation (such as high bleeding risk, low stroke risk, high risk for falls, or patient refusal of anticoagulation).
“In patients for whom their providers were alerted, 35% elected to open the stroke-prevention order set, a very tiny percentage elected to read the AF guidelines, and about 64% exited but provided a rationale for omitting anticoagulation,” Dr. Piazza noted.
The alert group was far more likely to be prescribed anticoagulation during the hospitalization (25.8% vs. 9.5%; P less than .0001), at discharge (23.8% vs. 12.9%; P = .003), and at 90 days (27.7% vs. 17.1%; P = .007) than the control group. The alert resulted in a 55% relative risk reduction in a composite outcome of death, MI, cerebrovascular event, and systemic embolic event at 90 days (11.3% vs. 21.9%; P = .002). The alert group had an 87% lower incidence of MI at 90 days (1.2% vs. 8.6%, P = .0002) and 88% lower incidence of cerebrovascular events or systemic embolism at 90 days (0% vs. 2.4%; P = .02). Death at 90 days occurred in 10.1% in the alert group and 14.8% in the control group (P = .13).
One of the limitations of the study, Dr. Piazza noted, was that the most dramatic finding – reduction of major cardiovascular events – was a secondary, not a primary, endpoint. “CDS has the potential to be a powerful tool in prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with atrial fibrillation.”
Moderator Mintu Turakhia, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, questioned the low rate of anticoagulation in the study’s control arm – 9.5% – much lower than medians reported in many registries. He also asked Dr. Piazza to describe the mechanism of action for prescribing anticoagulation in these patients.
Dr. Piazza noted the study population was hospitalized patients whose providers had decided prior to their admissions not to prescribe anticoagulation; hence, the rate of anticoagulation in these patients was actually higher than expected.
Regarding the mechanism of action, “the electronic alert seems to preferentially increase the prescription of [direct oral anticoagulants] over warfarin, and that may have been one of the mechanisms,” Dr. Piazza said. Another explanation he offered were “off-target” effects whereby, if providers have a better idea of a patient’s risk for a stroke or MI, they’ll be more aggressive about managing other risk factors.
“There are a number of interventions that could be triggered if the alert prompted the provider to have a conversation with patients about their risk of stroke from AF,” he said. “This may have impact beyond what we can tell from this simple [Best Practice Advisory in the Epic EHR system]. I think we don’t have a great understanding of the full mechanisms of CDS.”
Dr. Piazza reported financial relationships with BTG, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Portola, and Bayer. Daiichi Sankyo funded the trial. Dr. Turakhia reported relationships with Apple, Janssen, AstraZeneca, VA, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiva Medical, Medtronic, Abbott, Precision Health Economics, iBeat, iRhythm, MyoKardia, Biotronik, and an ownership Interest in AliveCor.
CHICAGO –
and had significantly lower rates of death and other cardiovascular events, compared with patients on a standard admissions protocol, according to results of a randomized, controlled trial presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions.“Alert-based computerized decision support [CDS] increased the prescription of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation during hospitalization, at discharge, and at 90 days after randomization in high-risk patients,” said Gregory Piazza, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, in presenting results of the AF-ALERT trial. “The reductions in major cardiovascular events was attributable to reductions in MI and stroke/transient ischemic attack at 90 days in patients whose physicians received the alert.”
The trial evaluated 458 patients hospitalized for AF or flutter and with CHA2DS2-VASc scores of 1-8 randomly assigned to the alert (n = 258) or no-alert (n = 210) groups.
Dr. Piazza explained that for those in the alert group, the CDS system notified physicians when the patient’s CHA2DS2-VASc score increased. From there, the physician could choose to open an order template to prescribe evidence-based medications to prevent stroke, to elect to review evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, or to continue with the admissions order with an acknowledged reason for omitting anticoagulation (such as high bleeding risk, low stroke risk, high risk for falls, or patient refusal of anticoagulation).
“In patients for whom their providers were alerted, 35% elected to open the stroke-prevention order set, a very tiny percentage elected to read the AF guidelines, and about 64% exited but provided a rationale for omitting anticoagulation,” Dr. Piazza noted.
The alert group was far more likely to be prescribed anticoagulation during the hospitalization (25.8% vs. 9.5%; P less than .0001), at discharge (23.8% vs. 12.9%; P = .003), and at 90 days (27.7% vs. 17.1%; P = .007) than the control group. The alert resulted in a 55% relative risk reduction in a composite outcome of death, MI, cerebrovascular event, and systemic embolic event at 90 days (11.3% vs. 21.9%; P = .002). The alert group had an 87% lower incidence of MI at 90 days (1.2% vs. 8.6%, P = .0002) and 88% lower incidence of cerebrovascular events or systemic embolism at 90 days (0% vs. 2.4%; P = .02). Death at 90 days occurred in 10.1% in the alert group and 14.8% in the control group (P = .13).
One of the limitations of the study, Dr. Piazza noted, was that the most dramatic finding – reduction of major cardiovascular events – was a secondary, not a primary, endpoint. “CDS has the potential to be a powerful tool in prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with atrial fibrillation.”
Moderator Mintu Turakhia, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, questioned the low rate of anticoagulation in the study’s control arm – 9.5% – much lower than medians reported in many registries. He also asked Dr. Piazza to describe the mechanism of action for prescribing anticoagulation in these patients.
Dr. Piazza noted the study population was hospitalized patients whose providers had decided prior to their admissions not to prescribe anticoagulation; hence, the rate of anticoagulation in these patients was actually higher than expected.
Regarding the mechanism of action, “the electronic alert seems to preferentially increase the prescription of [direct oral anticoagulants] over warfarin, and that may have been one of the mechanisms,” Dr. Piazza said. Another explanation he offered were “off-target” effects whereby, if providers have a better idea of a patient’s risk for a stroke or MI, they’ll be more aggressive about managing other risk factors.
“There are a number of interventions that could be triggered if the alert prompted the provider to have a conversation with patients about their risk of stroke from AF,” he said. “This may have impact beyond what we can tell from this simple [Best Practice Advisory in the Epic EHR system]. I think we don’t have a great understanding of the full mechanisms of CDS.”
Dr. Piazza reported financial relationships with BTG, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Portola, and Bayer. Daiichi Sankyo funded the trial. Dr. Turakhia reported relationships with Apple, Janssen, AstraZeneca, VA, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiva Medical, Medtronic, Abbott, Precision Health Economics, iBeat, iRhythm, MyoKardia, Biotronik, and an ownership Interest in AliveCor.
REPORTING FROM AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Key clinical point: A digital alert system led to improved outcomes in atrial fibrillation patients.
Major finding: Anticoagulation rates were 25.8% in the alert group versus 9.5% for controls.
Study details: AF-ALERT was a randomized, controlled trial of 458 high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation or flutter.
Disclosures: Dr. Piazza reported financial relationships with BTG, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Portola, and Bayer. Daiichi Sankyo provided funding for the study.
USPSTF issues draft research plan on opioid use disorder prevention
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force posted a draft research plan on opioid use disorder prevention for public comment on Dec. 13, according to a USPSTF bulletin.
An estimated 2.1 million persons aged 12 years and older had an opioid use disorder in 2017, and opioids were involved in nearly two-thirds of more than 70,000 fatal drug overdoses, according to the task force. Prevention of unnecessary opioid use, opioid misuse, and opioid use disorder in primary care settings is necessary to effectively respond to the ongoing crisis.
In an extensive literature review, an independent research team will look for evidence on strategies for people not currently receiving opioids that can be implemented on the primary care level. The public is invited to submit comments on the research plan that will help focus and guide the literature review.
The USPSTF also will be updating the current 2008 recommendation statement on screening for illicit drugs and nonmedical prescription drugs in adolescents and young adults, including pregnant and postpartum women.
Comments can be submitted until Jan. 16, 2019, on the USPSTF website.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force posted a draft research plan on opioid use disorder prevention for public comment on Dec. 13, according to a USPSTF bulletin.
An estimated 2.1 million persons aged 12 years and older had an opioid use disorder in 2017, and opioids were involved in nearly two-thirds of more than 70,000 fatal drug overdoses, according to the task force. Prevention of unnecessary opioid use, opioid misuse, and opioid use disorder in primary care settings is necessary to effectively respond to the ongoing crisis.
In an extensive literature review, an independent research team will look for evidence on strategies for people not currently receiving opioids that can be implemented on the primary care level. The public is invited to submit comments on the research plan that will help focus and guide the literature review.
The USPSTF also will be updating the current 2008 recommendation statement on screening for illicit drugs and nonmedical prescription drugs in adolescents and young adults, including pregnant and postpartum women.
Comments can be submitted until Jan. 16, 2019, on the USPSTF website.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force posted a draft research plan on opioid use disorder prevention for public comment on Dec. 13, according to a USPSTF bulletin.
An estimated 2.1 million persons aged 12 years and older had an opioid use disorder in 2017, and opioids were involved in nearly two-thirds of more than 70,000 fatal drug overdoses, according to the task force. Prevention of unnecessary opioid use, opioid misuse, and opioid use disorder in primary care settings is necessary to effectively respond to the ongoing crisis.
In an extensive literature review, an independent research team will look for evidence on strategies for people not currently receiving opioids that can be implemented on the primary care level. The public is invited to submit comments on the research plan that will help focus and guide the literature review.
The USPSTF also will be updating the current 2008 recommendation statement on screening for illicit drugs and nonmedical prescription drugs in adolescents and young adults, including pregnant and postpartum women.
Comments can be submitted until Jan. 16, 2019, on the USPSTF website.
Launching an HIV testing reminder
Trying a new tool to reduce infection rates
The world’s largest gay dating app, Grindr, changed its software earlier this year to create reminders for users to get regular HIV tests.
According to Grindr, 3.3 million users around the world visit the site daily; it sends those who opt into the service a reminder every 3-6 months to get a test. The message also directs them to the nearest testing site. Grindr also plans to give clinics, gay community centers, and other testing sites free advertising.
Among health care providers, the decision has been widely applauded. “This will ‘demedicalize’ testing and destigmatize it,” Perry N. Halkitis, PhD, dean of the Rutgers School of Public Health, in Newark, N.J., told the New York Times. “The more you make it normal, the more people are going to access it.”
Studies have shown that reminders by text or phone can triple or quadruple the chance that the recipient will get tested.
Reference
McNeil Jr. DG. Grindr App to Offer H.I.V. Test Reminders. The New York Times. March 26, 2018. Accessed April 5, 2018.
Trying a new tool to reduce infection rates
Trying a new tool to reduce infection rates
The world’s largest gay dating app, Grindr, changed its software earlier this year to create reminders for users to get regular HIV tests.
According to Grindr, 3.3 million users around the world visit the site daily; it sends those who opt into the service a reminder every 3-6 months to get a test. The message also directs them to the nearest testing site. Grindr also plans to give clinics, gay community centers, and other testing sites free advertising.
Among health care providers, the decision has been widely applauded. “This will ‘demedicalize’ testing and destigmatize it,” Perry N. Halkitis, PhD, dean of the Rutgers School of Public Health, in Newark, N.J., told the New York Times. “The more you make it normal, the more people are going to access it.”
Studies have shown that reminders by text or phone can triple or quadruple the chance that the recipient will get tested.
Reference
McNeil Jr. DG. Grindr App to Offer H.I.V. Test Reminders. The New York Times. March 26, 2018. Accessed April 5, 2018.
The world’s largest gay dating app, Grindr, changed its software earlier this year to create reminders for users to get regular HIV tests.
According to Grindr, 3.3 million users around the world visit the site daily; it sends those who opt into the service a reminder every 3-6 months to get a test. The message also directs them to the nearest testing site. Grindr also plans to give clinics, gay community centers, and other testing sites free advertising.
Among health care providers, the decision has been widely applauded. “This will ‘demedicalize’ testing and destigmatize it,” Perry N. Halkitis, PhD, dean of the Rutgers School of Public Health, in Newark, N.J., told the New York Times. “The more you make it normal, the more people are going to access it.”
Studies have shown that reminders by text or phone can triple or quadruple the chance that the recipient will get tested.
Reference
McNeil Jr. DG. Grindr App to Offer H.I.V. Test Reminders. The New York Times. March 26, 2018. Accessed April 5, 2018.
Understanding properties of fentanyl, other opioids key to treatment
Naloxone increasingly coming up short, expert says
BONITA SPRINGS, FLA. – Treating disorders tied to the use of highly potent synthetic opioids (HPSO), such as fentanyl, is challenging at best, an expert said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.
“We have essentially no data to guide pharmacotherapy management decisions for the leading cause of fatal overdose deaths in the U.S.,” said John J. Mariani, MD, associate professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, New York. “In the absence of data to make evidence-based recommendations, we still need to treat patients.”
That means taking what is known about the properties of those drugs into account when making treatment decisions, he said. Fentanyl quickly crosses the blood-brain barrier and is rapidly distributed to peripheral tissue. It has a short duration of action, but its duration can be extended with multiple injections or an infusion, he said. Research suggests that it has opioid receptor affinity similar to that of morphine, and it’s not known why it is up to 100 times more potent than morphine.
From his own experience, he offered some suggestions on treating patients who use HPSOs:
- Buprenorphine: Clinicians using buprenorphine as induction treatment have to wait longer from the last use to the first dose because of its longer effective half-life, and other medications might be needed to manage withdrawal. For maintenance, higher doses possibly should be considered to prevent HPSO override and to maintain opioid tolerance.
- Extended-release naltrexone: This involves a more difficult induction, and there is a question of whether inpatient treatment is better than outpatient, he said. For maintenance, more frequent administration should be considered, with closer monitoring for the risk of override and more urine toxicology testing.
- Methadone: For induction, methadone could offer an advantage over buprenorphine, because there is no risk of precipitated withdrawal. For maintenance, Dr. Mariani said, it’s not known whether standard doses protect against raising tolerance out of the reach of HPSOs’ effects.
- Naloxone: He said there have been increasing reports of multiple doses being needed to reverse an overdose. Because of the shorter time between substance use and death with fentanyl, more reports have been filed on unsuccessful attempts to revive people with naloxone despite multiple doses or stronger doses. Some naloxone programs have been giving more than two standard doses or using devices that give higher doses, he said. Also, , he said.
Addiction psychiatrists “need to educate patients, families, and other clinicians of this new risk of using opioids,” he said.
Meanwhile, in another talk, Thomas Kosten, MD, described progress in the efforts to develop a vaccine against fentanyl addiction, in the hopes of preventing overdoses. Researchers are taking cues from the failed attempt to develop a cocaine vaccine a few years ago, in which not enough antibodies were produced in about half the patients.
This time, researchers are using toll-like receptor agonists to boost the effects of the main vaccine component, known as norcocaine. Those agonists can more than double the antibody increase that is seen without them, said Dr. Kosten, professor of psychiatry at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
So far, researchers have found that the vaccine produces blockade of fentanyl analgesia and respiratory depression in rats. Dr. Kosten said his lab is looking for funding to continue the research. “It looks like we’re going to have some money in February to start making the vaccine,” he said.
Dr. Mariani and Dr. Kosten reported no relevant disclosures.
Naloxone increasingly coming up short, expert says
Naloxone increasingly coming up short, expert says
BONITA SPRINGS, FLA. – Treating disorders tied to the use of highly potent synthetic opioids (HPSO), such as fentanyl, is challenging at best, an expert said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.
“We have essentially no data to guide pharmacotherapy management decisions for the leading cause of fatal overdose deaths in the U.S.,” said John J. Mariani, MD, associate professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, New York. “In the absence of data to make evidence-based recommendations, we still need to treat patients.”
That means taking what is known about the properties of those drugs into account when making treatment decisions, he said. Fentanyl quickly crosses the blood-brain barrier and is rapidly distributed to peripheral tissue. It has a short duration of action, but its duration can be extended with multiple injections or an infusion, he said. Research suggests that it has opioid receptor affinity similar to that of morphine, and it’s not known why it is up to 100 times more potent than morphine.
From his own experience, he offered some suggestions on treating patients who use HPSOs:
- Buprenorphine: Clinicians using buprenorphine as induction treatment have to wait longer from the last use to the first dose because of its longer effective half-life, and other medications might be needed to manage withdrawal. For maintenance, higher doses possibly should be considered to prevent HPSO override and to maintain opioid tolerance.
- Extended-release naltrexone: This involves a more difficult induction, and there is a question of whether inpatient treatment is better than outpatient, he said. For maintenance, more frequent administration should be considered, with closer monitoring for the risk of override and more urine toxicology testing.
- Methadone: For induction, methadone could offer an advantage over buprenorphine, because there is no risk of precipitated withdrawal. For maintenance, Dr. Mariani said, it’s not known whether standard doses protect against raising tolerance out of the reach of HPSOs’ effects.
- Naloxone: He said there have been increasing reports of multiple doses being needed to reverse an overdose. Because of the shorter time between substance use and death with fentanyl, more reports have been filed on unsuccessful attempts to revive people with naloxone despite multiple doses or stronger doses. Some naloxone programs have been giving more than two standard doses or using devices that give higher doses, he said. Also, , he said.
Addiction psychiatrists “need to educate patients, families, and other clinicians of this new risk of using opioids,” he said.
Meanwhile, in another talk, Thomas Kosten, MD, described progress in the efforts to develop a vaccine against fentanyl addiction, in the hopes of preventing overdoses. Researchers are taking cues from the failed attempt to develop a cocaine vaccine a few years ago, in which not enough antibodies were produced in about half the patients.
This time, researchers are using toll-like receptor agonists to boost the effects of the main vaccine component, known as norcocaine. Those agonists can more than double the antibody increase that is seen without them, said Dr. Kosten, professor of psychiatry at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
So far, researchers have found that the vaccine produces blockade of fentanyl analgesia and respiratory depression in rats. Dr. Kosten said his lab is looking for funding to continue the research. “It looks like we’re going to have some money in February to start making the vaccine,” he said.
Dr. Mariani and Dr. Kosten reported no relevant disclosures.
BONITA SPRINGS, FLA. – Treating disorders tied to the use of highly potent synthetic opioids (HPSO), such as fentanyl, is challenging at best, an expert said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.
“We have essentially no data to guide pharmacotherapy management decisions for the leading cause of fatal overdose deaths in the U.S.,” said John J. Mariani, MD, associate professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, New York. “In the absence of data to make evidence-based recommendations, we still need to treat patients.”
That means taking what is known about the properties of those drugs into account when making treatment decisions, he said. Fentanyl quickly crosses the blood-brain barrier and is rapidly distributed to peripheral tissue. It has a short duration of action, but its duration can be extended with multiple injections or an infusion, he said. Research suggests that it has opioid receptor affinity similar to that of morphine, and it’s not known why it is up to 100 times more potent than morphine.
From his own experience, he offered some suggestions on treating patients who use HPSOs:
- Buprenorphine: Clinicians using buprenorphine as induction treatment have to wait longer from the last use to the first dose because of its longer effective half-life, and other medications might be needed to manage withdrawal. For maintenance, higher doses possibly should be considered to prevent HPSO override and to maintain opioid tolerance.
- Extended-release naltrexone: This involves a more difficult induction, and there is a question of whether inpatient treatment is better than outpatient, he said. For maintenance, more frequent administration should be considered, with closer monitoring for the risk of override and more urine toxicology testing.
- Methadone: For induction, methadone could offer an advantage over buprenorphine, because there is no risk of precipitated withdrawal. For maintenance, Dr. Mariani said, it’s not known whether standard doses protect against raising tolerance out of the reach of HPSOs’ effects.
- Naloxone: He said there have been increasing reports of multiple doses being needed to reverse an overdose. Because of the shorter time between substance use and death with fentanyl, more reports have been filed on unsuccessful attempts to revive people with naloxone despite multiple doses or stronger doses. Some naloxone programs have been giving more than two standard doses or using devices that give higher doses, he said. Also, , he said.
Addiction psychiatrists “need to educate patients, families, and other clinicians of this new risk of using opioids,” he said.
Meanwhile, in another talk, Thomas Kosten, MD, described progress in the efforts to develop a vaccine against fentanyl addiction, in the hopes of preventing overdoses. Researchers are taking cues from the failed attempt to develop a cocaine vaccine a few years ago, in which not enough antibodies were produced in about half the patients.
This time, researchers are using toll-like receptor agonists to boost the effects of the main vaccine component, known as norcocaine. Those agonists can more than double the antibody increase that is seen without them, said Dr. Kosten, professor of psychiatry at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
So far, researchers have found that the vaccine produces blockade of fentanyl analgesia and respiratory depression in rats. Dr. Kosten said his lab is looking for funding to continue the research. “It looks like we’re going to have some money in February to start making the vaccine,” he said.
Dr. Mariani and Dr. Kosten reported no relevant disclosures.
REPORTING FROM AAAP 2018
Designing a better EHR
Hospitals can create a more effective system
It’s well known that overuse is an enormous problem in medicine, and when it comes to antibiotics, the problem is even more striking.
“Half of all inpatient antibiotic use is inappropriate,” says Valerie Vaughn, MD, MSc, a hospitalist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and coauthor of a BMJ editorial about EHRs and antibiotic overuse.
“This has led to an increase in antibiotic-related adverse events (~20% of all hospitalized patients on antibiotics), Clostridium difficile infections (half a million infections and 29,000 deaths in U.S. annually), and resistant bacteria (which now account for nearly 12% of all bacterial infections, costing $2.2 billion annually).”
EHRs can be a tool to combat that trend – if they are well designed. Clinicians are influenced by the design of their electronic health record, Dr. Vaughn said. “Rather than leave its influence to chance, we should capitalize on what is known about design to promote appropriate testing and treatment through the EHR.” Hospitalists – integral to quality improvement – can have a role in making these changes.
“These improvements will be the most effective if behavioral economics and nudging are considered while designing,” Dr. Vaughn said. “For example, when creating order sets, list recommended options first and when possible make them the default,” she said. “This little change will greatly improve appropriate use.”
For every hour physicians spend on direct patient care, they spend another two with the EHR, Dr. Vaughn wrote. “Given this degree of attention, it is not surprising that the EHR influences physician behavior, especially the overuse of low-value medical care. … Displaying brand-name instead of generic options leads to more expensive prescribing. Allowing labs to be ordered recurrently increases unnecessary phlebotomy. Even individually listing inappropriate antibiotics (rather than grouping them) can make them more noticeable, resulting in more broad-spectrum use.”
“All hospitalists – and humans – are affected by knee-jerk responses. One of the most common in medicine is the urge to treat a positive culture or any positive test. Recognize this urge and resist!” she said. “Antibiotics may be the correct response, but clinicians should first think about whether treatment is necessary based on that patient’s symptoms and comorbidities. Resist the knee-jerk urge to give antibiotics for every positive culture.”
Reference
Vaughn VM et al. Thoughtless design of the electronic health record drives overuse, but purposeful design can nudge improved patient care. BMJ Qual Saf. 24 Mar 2018. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007578.
Hospitals can create a more effective system
Hospitals can create a more effective system
It’s well known that overuse is an enormous problem in medicine, and when it comes to antibiotics, the problem is even more striking.
“Half of all inpatient antibiotic use is inappropriate,” says Valerie Vaughn, MD, MSc, a hospitalist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and coauthor of a BMJ editorial about EHRs and antibiotic overuse.
“This has led to an increase in antibiotic-related adverse events (~20% of all hospitalized patients on antibiotics), Clostridium difficile infections (half a million infections and 29,000 deaths in U.S. annually), and resistant bacteria (which now account for nearly 12% of all bacterial infections, costing $2.2 billion annually).”
EHRs can be a tool to combat that trend – if they are well designed. Clinicians are influenced by the design of their electronic health record, Dr. Vaughn said. “Rather than leave its influence to chance, we should capitalize on what is known about design to promote appropriate testing and treatment through the EHR.” Hospitalists – integral to quality improvement – can have a role in making these changes.
“These improvements will be the most effective if behavioral economics and nudging are considered while designing,” Dr. Vaughn said. “For example, when creating order sets, list recommended options first and when possible make them the default,” she said. “This little change will greatly improve appropriate use.”
For every hour physicians spend on direct patient care, they spend another two with the EHR, Dr. Vaughn wrote. “Given this degree of attention, it is not surprising that the EHR influences physician behavior, especially the overuse of low-value medical care. … Displaying brand-name instead of generic options leads to more expensive prescribing. Allowing labs to be ordered recurrently increases unnecessary phlebotomy. Even individually listing inappropriate antibiotics (rather than grouping them) can make them more noticeable, resulting in more broad-spectrum use.”
“All hospitalists – and humans – are affected by knee-jerk responses. One of the most common in medicine is the urge to treat a positive culture or any positive test. Recognize this urge and resist!” she said. “Antibiotics may be the correct response, but clinicians should first think about whether treatment is necessary based on that patient’s symptoms and comorbidities. Resist the knee-jerk urge to give antibiotics for every positive culture.”
Reference
Vaughn VM et al. Thoughtless design of the electronic health record drives overuse, but purposeful design can nudge improved patient care. BMJ Qual Saf. 24 Mar 2018. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007578.
It’s well known that overuse is an enormous problem in medicine, and when it comes to antibiotics, the problem is even more striking.
“Half of all inpatient antibiotic use is inappropriate,” says Valerie Vaughn, MD, MSc, a hospitalist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and coauthor of a BMJ editorial about EHRs and antibiotic overuse.
“This has led to an increase in antibiotic-related adverse events (~20% of all hospitalized patients on antibiotics), Clostridium difficile infections (half a million infections and 29,000 deaths in U.S. annually), and resistant bacteria (which now account for nearly 12% of all bacterial infections, costing $2.2 billion annually).”
EHRs can be a tool to combat that trend – if they are well designed. Clinicians are influenced by the design of their electronic health record, Dr. Vaughn said. “Rather than leave its influence to chance, we should capitalize on what is known about design to promote appropriate testing and treatment through the EHR.” Hospitalists – integral to quality improvement – can have a role in making these changes.
“These improvements will be the most effective if behavioral economics and nudging are considered while designing,” Dr. Vaughn said. “For example, when creating order sets, list recommended options first and when possible make them the default,” she said. “This little change will greatly improve appropriate use.”
For every hour physicians spend on direct patient care, they spend another two with the EHR, Dr. Vaughn wrote. “Given this degree of attention, it is not surprising that the EHR influences physician behavior, especially the overuse of low-value medical care. … Displaying brand-name instead of generic options leads to more expensive prescribing. Allowing labs to be ordered recurrently increases unnecessary phlebotomy. Even individually listing inappropriate antibiotics (rather than grouping them) can make them more noticeable, resulting in more broad-spectrum use.”
“All hospitalists – and humans – are affected by knee-jerk responses. One of the most common in medicine is the urge to treat a positive culture or any positive test. Recognize this urge and resist!” she said. “Antibiotics may be the correct response, but clinicians should first think about whether treatment is necessary based on that patient’s symptoms and comorbidities. Resist the knee-jerk urge to give antibiotics for every positive culture.”
Reference
Vaughn VM et al. Thoughtless design of the electronic health record drives overuse, but purposeful design can nudge improved patient care. BMJ Qual Saf. 24 Mar 2018. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007578.
Drug test results ‘should not dictate treatment’
BONITA SPRINGS, FLA. – Urine drug screening is a vital part of clinical care, but many clinicians say they do not know enough about how the tests work, an expert said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.
Rebecca Ann Payne, MD, said clinicians, including residents, tend to cite little training as a reason for their uncertainty about how to interpret urine drug screen results. Also, primary care clinicians say they need more education on implementing and interpreting the screens.
The good news is that medicine and pediatric residents said they felt that a 30-minute educational program significantly boosted their knowledge base and comfort in interpreting urine drug screens, said Dr. Payne, assistant professor of neuropsychiatry and behavioral science at Palmetto Health–University of South Carolina Medical Group. She offered several points that addiction psychiatrists should be aware of:
“A positive test doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a substance use disorder,” she said. “You still need to walk through those criteria with your patients. And a positive test doesn’t mean they’re physically dependent upon it.” She said she sometimes hears from patients who say that they’d been on a certain treatment – then failed a test given by their clinician – and had their treatment stripped away.
“Drug testing is meant to be a source of information and should not dictate treatment,” she said. “I have found it’s not unusual to hear from the community that decisions are being made solely on the results of these tests, which can be problematic.”
- Point-of-care tests, which sometimes can be bought in drug stores, she said, are “much less than perfect.”
The false-positive rate for benzodiazepines has been found to be 61%; and for methadone, it is 46%; for opioids, 22%; and for amphetamines, 21%.
- Know what your lab is actually testing for, because “it’s not universal.”
She emphasized knowing the particulars of opiate testing.
“A lot of times in a hospital setting, your lab is really only testing those opiates that are directly derived from the poppy – we’re talking about things like codeine, heroin, morphine. They’re not testing for things like your semi-synthetics or your full-synthetic opiates.”
- Know the answer to the question: “Can you get a positive result on a marijuana drug screen just from passive inhalation?”
Physicians often will be confronted by patients who insist they were only in the car or in the same room with someone who was smoking marijuana. How likely is it that their test could be positive?
“Possible,” she said, “but not probable.”
Dr. Payne’s key interest areas include teaching medical students and residents, treating substance use and psychiatric disorders that are comorbid, and conducting research in addiction psychiatry.
BONITA SPRINGS, FLA. – Urine drug screening is a vital part of clinical care, but many clinicians say they do not know enough about how the tests work, an expert said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.
Rebecca Ann Payne, MD, said clinicians, including residents, tend to cite little training as a reason for their uncertainty about how to interpret urine drug screen results. Also, primary care clinicians say they need more education on implementing and interpreting the screens.
The good news is that medicine and pediatric residents said they felt that a 30-minute educational program significantly boosted their knowledge base and comfort in interpreting urine drug screens, said Dr. Payne, assistant professor of neuropsychiatry and behavioral science at Palmetto Health–University of South Carolina Medical Group. She offered several points that addiction psychiatrists should be aware of:
“A positive test doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a substance use disorder,” she said. “You still need to walk through those criteria with your patients. And a positive test doesn’t mean they’re physically dependent upon it.” She said she sometimes hears from patients who say that they’d been on a certain treatment – then failed a test given by their clinician – and had their treatment stripped away.
“Drug testing is meant to be a source of information and should not dictate treatment,” she said. “I have found it’s not unusual to hear from the community that decisions are being made solely on the results of these tests, which can be problematic.”
- Point-of-care tests, which sometimes can be bought in drug stores, she said, are “much less than perfect.”
The false-positive rate for benzodiazepines has been found to be 61%; and for methadone, it is 46%; for opioids, 22%; and for amphetamines, 21%.
- Know what your lab is actually testing for, because “it’s not universal.”
She emphasized knowing the particulars of opiate testing.
“A lot of times in a hospital setting, your lab is really only testing those opiates that are directly derived from the poppy – we’re talking about things like codeine, heroin, morphine. They’re not testing for things like your semi-synthetics or your full-synthetic opiates.”
- Know the answer to the question: “Can you get a positive result on a marijuana drug screen just from passive inhalation?”
Physicians often will be confronted by patients who insist they were only in the car or in the same room with someone who was smoking marijuana. How likely is it that their test could be positive?
“Possible,” she said, “but not probable.”
Dr. Payne’s key interest areas include teaching medical students and residents, treating substance use and psychiatric disorders that are comorbid, and conducting research in addiction psychiatry.
BONITA SPRINGS, FLA. – Urine drug screening is a vital part of clinical care, but many clinicians say they do not know enough about how the tests work, an expert said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.
Rebecca Ann Payne, MD, said clinicians, including residents, tend to cite little training as a reason for their uncertainty about how to interpret urine drug screen results. Also, primary care clinicians say they need more education on implementing and interpreting the screens.
The good news is that medicine and pediatric residents said they felt that a 30-minute educational program significantly boosted their knowledge base and comfort in interpreting urine drug screens, said Dr. Payne, assistant professor of neuropsychiatry and behavioral science at Palmetto Health–University of South Carolina Medical Group. She offered several points that addiction psychiatrists should be aware of:
“A positive test doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a substance use disorder,” she said. “You still need to walk through those criteria with your patients. And a positive test doesn’t mean they’re physically dependent upon it.” She said she sometimes hears from patients who say that they’d been on a certain treatment – then failed a test given by their clinician – and had their treatment stripped away.
“Drug testing is meant to be a source of information and should not dictate treatment,” she said. “I have found it’s not unusual to hear from the community that decisions are being made solely on the results of these tests, which can be problematic.”
- Point-of-care tests, which sometimes can be bought in drug stores, she said, are “much less than perfect.”
The false-positive rate for benzodiazepines has been found to be 61%; and for methadone, it is 46%; for opioids, 22%; and for amphetamines, 21%.
- Know what your lab is actually testing for, because “it’s not universal.”
She emphasized knowing the particulars of opiate testing.
“A lot of times in a hospital setting, your lab is really only testing those opiates that are directly derived from the poppy – we’re talking about things like codeine, heroin, morphine. They’re not testing for things like your semi-synthetics or your full-synthetic opiates.”
- Know the answer to the question: “Can you get a positive result on a marijuana drug screen just from passive inhalation?”
Physicians often will be confronted by patients who insist they were only in the car or in the same room with someone who was smoking marijuana. How likely is it that their test could be positive?
“Possible,” she said, “but not probable.”
Dr. Payne’s key interest areas include teaching medical students and residents, treating substance use and psychiatric disorders that are comorbid, and conducting research in addiction psychiatry.
REPORTING FROM AAAP 2018
Non-TB mycobacteria infections rising in COPD patients
Veterans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have seen a sharp increase since 2012 in rates of non-TB mycobacteria infections, which carry a significantly higher risk of death in COPD patients, according to findings from a nationwide study.
For their research, published in Frontiers of Medicine, Fahim Pyarali, MD, and colleagues at the University of Miami, reviewed data from Veterans Affairs hospitals to identify non-TB mycobacteria (NTM) infections among more than 2 million COPD patients seen between 2000 and 2015. Incidence of NTM infections was 34.2 per 100,000 COPD patients in 2001, a rate that remained steady until 2012, when it began climbing sharply through 2015 to reach 70.3 per 100,000 (P = .035). Dr. Pyarali and colleagues also found that, during the study period, prevalence of NTM climbed from 93.1 infections per 100,000 population in 2001 to 277.6 per 100,000 in 2015.
Hotspots for NTM infections included Puerto Rico, which had the highest prevalence seen in the study at 370 infections per 100,000 COPD population; Florida, with 351 per 100,000; and Washington, D.C., with 309 per 100,000. Additional hotspots were identified around Lake Michigan, in coastal Louisiana, and in parts of the Southwest.
Dr. Pyarali and colleagues noted that the geographical concentration of cases near oceans and lakes was “supported by previous findings that warmer temperatures, lower dissolved oxygen, and lower pH in the soils and waters provide a major environmental source for NTM organisms;” however, the study is the first to identify Puerto Rico as having exceptionally high prevalence. The reasons for this should be extensively investigated, the investigators argued.
The mortality risk was 43% higher among NTM-infected patients than in COPD patients without an NTM diagnosis (95% confidence interval, 1.31-1.58; P less than .001), independent of other comorbidities.
Though rates of NTM infection were seen rising steeply in men and women alike, Dr. Pyarali and colleagues noted as a limitation of their study its use of an overwhelmingly male population, writing that this may obscure “the true reach of NTM disease and mortality” in the general population. The average age of NTM diagnosis remained steady throughout the study period, suggesting that rising incidence is not attributable to earlier diagnosis.
Dr. Pyarali and colleagues reported no outside sources of funding or financial conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Pyarali F et al. Front Med. 2018 Nov 6. doi: 10.3389/fmed2018.00311.
Veterans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have seen a sharp increase since 2012 in rates of non-TB mycobacteria infections, which carry a significantly higher risk of death in COPD patients, according to findings from a nationwide study.
For their research, published in Frontiers of Medicine, Fahim Pyarali, MD, and colleagues at the University of Miami, reviewed data from Veterans Affairs hospitals to identify non-TB mycobacteria (NTM) infections among more than 2 million COPD patients seen between 2000 and 2015. Incidence of NTM infections was 34.2 per 100,000 COPD patients in 2001, a rate that remained steady until 2012, when it began climbing sharply through 2015 to reach 70.3 per 100,000 (P = .035). Dr. Pyarali and colleagues also found that, during the study period, prevalence of NTM climbed from 93.1 infections per 100,000 population in 2001 to 277.6 per 100,000 in 2015.
Hotspots for NTM infections included Puerto Rico, which had the highest prevalence seen in the study at 370 infections per 100,000 COPD population; Florida, with 351 per 100,000; and Washington, D.C., with 309 per 100,000. Additional hotspots were identified around Lake Michigan, in coastal Louisiana, and in parts of the Southwest.
Dr. Pyarali and colleagues noted that the geographical concentration of cases near oceans and lakes was “supported by previous findings that warmer temperatures, lower dissolved oxygen, and lower pH in the soils and waters provide a major environmental source for NTM organisms;” however, the study is the first to identify Puerto Rico as having exceptionally high prevalence. The reasons for this should be extensively investigated, the investigators argued.
The mortality risk was 43% higher among NTM-infected patients than in COPD patients without an NTM diagnosis (95% confidence interval, 1.31-1.58; P less than .001), independent of other comorbidities.
Though rates of NTM infection were seen rising steeply in men and women alike, Dr. Pyarali and colleagues noted as a limitation of their study its use of an overwhelmingly male population, writing that this may obscure “the true reach of NTM disease and mortality” in the general population. The average age of NTM diagnosis remained steady throughout the study period, suggesting that rising incidence is not attributable to earlier diagnosis.
Dr. Pyarali and colleagues reported no outside sources of funding or financial conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Pyarali F et al. Front Med. 2018 Nov 6. doi: 10.3389/fmed2018.00311.
Veterans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have seen a sharp increase since 2012 in rates of non-TB mycobacteria infections, which carry a significantly higher risk of death in COPD patients, according to findings from a nationwide study.
For their research, published in Frontiers of Medicine, Fahim Pyarali, MD, and colleagues at the University of Miami, reviewed data from Veterans Affairs hospitals to identify non-TB mycobacteria (NTM) infections among more than 2 million COPD patients seen between 2000 and 2015. Incidence of NTM infections was 34.2 per 100,000 COPD patients in 2001, a rate that remained steady until 2012, when it began climbing sharply through 2015 to reach 70.3 per 100,000 (P = .035). Dr. Pyarali and colleagues also found that, during the study period, prevalence of NTM climbed from 93.1 infections per 100,000 population in 2001 to 277.6 per 100,000 in 2015.
Hotspots for NTM infections included Puerto Rico, which had the highest prevalence seen in the study at 370 infections per 100,000 COPD population; Florida, with 351 per 100,000; and Washington, D.C., with 309 per 100,000. Additional hotspots were identified around Lake Michigan, in coastal Louisiana, and in parts of the Southwest.
Dr. Pyarali and colleagues noted that the geographical concentration of cases near oceans and lakes was “supported by previous findings that warmer temperatures, lower dissolved oxygen, and lower pH in the soils and waters provide a major environmental source for NTM organisms;” however, the study is the first to identify Puerto Rico as having exceptionally high prevalence. The reasons for this should be extensively investigated, the investigators argued.
The mortality risk was 43% higher among NTM-infected patients than in COPD patients without an NTM diagnosis (95% confidence interval, 1.31-1.58; P less than .001), independent of other comorbidities.
Though rates of NTM infection were seen rising steeply in men and women alike, Dr. Pyarali and colleagues noted as a limitation of their study its use of an overwhelmingly male population, writing that this may obscure “the true reach of NTM disease and mortality” in the general population. The average age of NTM diagnosis remained steady throughout the study period, suggesting that rising incidence is not attributable to earlier diagnosis.
Dr. Pyarali and colleagues reported no outside sources of funding or financial conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Pyarali F et al. Front Med. 2018 Nov 6. doi: 10.3389/fmed2018.00311.
FROM FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE
Key clinical point: Incidence and prevalence of non-TB mycobacteria infections rose sharply in a national veterans population with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease after 2012.
Major finding: Incidence of non-TB mycobacteria infections doubled in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients between 2001 and 2015, with most of the increase seen after 2012
Study details: A retrospective, cross-sectional study using records from over 2 million, mostly male chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients in a Veterans Affairs database.
Disclosures: The study authors reported no outside sources of funding or financial conflicts of interest.
Source: Pyarali F et al. Front Med. 2018 Nov 6. doi: 10.3389/fmed2018.00311.
AHA: Statins associated with high degree of safety
The benefits of statins highly offset the associated risks in appropriate patients, according to a scientific statement issued by the American Heart Association.
“The review covers the general patient population, as well as demographic subgroups, including the elderly, children, pregnant women, East Asians, and patients with specific conditions.” wrote Connie B. Newman, MD, of New York University, together with her colleagues. The report is in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.
After an extensive review of the literature pertaining to statin safety and tolerability, Dr. Newman and her colleagues reported the compiled findings from several randomized controlled trials, in addition to observational data, where required. They found that the risk of serious muscle complications, such as rhabdomyolysis, attributable to statin use was less than 0.1%. Furthermore, they noted that the risk of serious hepatotoxicity was even less likely, occurring in about 1 in 10,000 patients treated with therapy.
“There is no convincing evidence for a causal relationship between statins and cancer, cataracts, cognitive dysfunction, peripheral neuropathy, erectile dysfunction, or tendinitis,” the experts wrote. “In U.S. clinical practices, roughly 10% of patients stop taking a statin because of subjective complaints, most commonly muscle symptoms without raised creatine kinase,” they further reported.
Contrastingly, data from randomized trials have shown that the change in the incidence of muscle-related symptoms in patients treated with statins versus placebo is less than 1%. Moreover, the incidence is even lower, with an estimated rate of 0.1%, in those who stopped statin therapy because of these symptoms. Given these results, Dr. Newman and her colleagues said that muscle-related symptoms among statin-treated patients are not due to the pharmacological activity of the statin.
“Restarting statin therapy in these patients can be challenging, but it is important, especially in patients at high risk of cardiovascular events, for whom prevention of these events is a priority,” they added.
A large proportion of the population takes statin therapy to lower the risk of major cardiovascular events, including ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, and other adverse effects of cardiovascular disease. At maximal doses, statins may decrease LDL-cholesterol levels by roughly 55%-60%. In addition, given the multitude of available generics, statins are an economical treatment option for most patients.
However, Dr. Newman and her colleagues suggested that, when considering statin therapy in special populations, particularly in patients with end-stage renal failure or severe hepatic disease, commencing treatment is not recommended.
“The lack of proof of cardiovascular benefit in patients with end-stage renal disease suggests that initiating statin treatment in these patients is generally not warranted,” the experts wrote. “Data on safety in people with more serious liver disease are insufficient, and statin treatment is generally discouraged,” they added.
With respect to statin-induced adverse effects, they are usually reversible upon discontinuation of therapy, with the exception of hemorrhagic stroke. However, damage from an ischemic stroke or myocardial infarction may result in death. As a result, in patients who would benefit from statin therapy, based on most recent guidelines, cardiovascular benefits greatly exceed potential safety concerns.
Dr. Newman and her coauthors disclosed financial affiliations with Amgen, Kowa, Regeneron, Sanofi, and others.
SOURCE: Newman CB et al. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2018 Dec 10. doi: 10.1161/ATV.0000000000000073
The benefits of statins highly offset the associated risks in appropriate patients, according to a scientific statement issued by the American Heart Association.
“The review covers the general patient population, as well as demographic subgroups, including the elderly, children, pregnant women, East Asians, and patients with specific conditions.” wrote Connie B. Newman, MD, of New York University, together with her colleagues. The report is in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.
After an extensive review of the literature pertaining to statin safety and tolerability, Dr. Newman and her colleagues reported the compiled findings from several randomized controlled trials, in addition to observational data, where required. They found that the risk of serious muscle complications, such as rhabdomyolysis, attributable to statin use was less than 0.1%. Furthermore, they noted that the risk of serious hepatotoxicity was even less likely, occurring in about 1 in 10,000 patients treated with therapy.
“There is no convincing evidence for a causal relationship between statins and cancer, cataracts, cognitive dysfunction, peripheral neuropathy, erectile dysfunction, or tendinitis,” the experts wrote. “In U.S. clinical practices, roughly 10% of patients stop taking a statin because of subjective complaints, most commonly muscle symptoms without raised creatine kinase,” they further reported.
Contrastingly, data from randomized trials have shown that the change in the incidence of muscle-related symptoms in patients treated with statins versus placebo is less than 1%. Moreover, the incidence is even lower, with an estimated rate of 0.1%, in those who stopped statin therapy because of these symptoms. Given these results, Dr. Newman and her colleagues said that muscle-related symptoms among statin-treated patients are not due to the pharmacological activity of the statin.
“Restarting statin therapy in these patients can be challenging, but it is important, especially in patients at high risk of cardiovascular events, for whom prevention of these events is a priority,” they added.
A large proportion of the population takes statin therapy to lower the risk of major cardiovascular events, including ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, and other adverse effects of cardiovascular disease. At maximal doses, statins may decrease LDL-cholesterol levels by roughly 55%-60%. In addition, given the multitude of available generics, statins are an economical treatment option for most patients.
However, Dr. Newman and her colleagues suggested that, when considering statin therapy in special populations, particularly in patients with end-stage renal failure or severe hepatic disease, commencing treatment is not recommended.
“The lack of proof of cardiovascular benefit in patients with end-stage renal disease suggests that initiating statin treatment in these patients is generally not warranted,” the experts wrote. “Data on safety in people with more serious liver disease are insufficient, and statin treatment is generally discouraged,” they added.
With respect to statin-induced adverse effects, they are usually reversible upon discontinuation of therapy, with the exception of hemorrhagic stroke. However, damage from an ischemic stroke or myocardial infarction may result in death. As a result, in patients who would benefit from statin therapy, based on most recent guidelines, cardiovascular benefits greatly exceed potential safety concerns.
Dr. Newman and her coauthors disclosed financial affiliations with Amgen, Kowa, Regeneron, Sanofi, and others.
SOURCE: Newman CB et al. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2018 Dec 10. doi: 10.1161/ATV.0000000000000073
The benefits of statins highly offset the associated risks in appropriate patients, according to a scientific statement issued by the American Heart Association.
“The review covers the general patient population, as well as demographic subgroups, including the elderly, children, pregnant women, East Asians, and patients with specific conditions.” wrote Connie B. Newman, MD, of New York University, together with her colleagues. The report is in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.
After an extensive review of the literature pertaining to statin safety and tolerability, Dr. Newman and her colleagues reported the compiled findings from several randomized controlled trials, in addition to observational data, where required. They found that the risk of serious muscle complications, such as rhabdomyolysis, attributable to statin use was less than 0.1%. Furthermore, they noted that the risk of serious hepatotoxicity was even less likely, occurring in about 1 in 10,000 patients treated with therapy.
“There is no convincing evidence for a causal relationship between statins and cancer, cataracts, cognitive dysfunction, peripheral neuropathy, erectile dysfunction, or tendinitis,” the experts wrote. “In U.S. clinical practices, roughly 10% of patients stop taking a statin because of subjective complaints, most commonly muscle symptoms without raised creatine kinase,” they further reported.
Contrastingly, data from randomized trials have shown that the change in the incidence of muscle-related symptoms in patients treated with statins versus placebo is less than 1%. Moreover, the incidence is even lower, with an estimated rate of 0.1%, in those who stopped statin therapy because of these symptoms. Given these results, Dr. Newman and her colleagues said that muscle-related symptoms among statin-treated patients are not due to the pharmacological activity of the statin.
“Restarting statin therapy in these patients can be challenging, but it is important, especially in patients at high risk of cardiovascular events, for whom prevention of these events is a priority,” they added.
A large proportion of the population takes statin therapy to lower the risk of major cardiovascular events, including ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, and other adverse effects of cardiovascular disease. At maximal doses, statins may decrease LDL-cholesterol levels by roughly 55%-60%. In addition, given the multitude of available generics, statins are an economical treatment option for most patients.
However, Dr. Newman and her colleagues suggested that, when considering statin therapy in special populations, particularly in patients with end-stage renal failure or severe hepatic disease, commencing treatment is not recommended.
“The lack of proof of cardiovascular benefit in patients with end-stage renal disease suggests that initiating statin treatment in these patients is generally not warranted,” the experts wrote. “Data on safety in people with more serious liver disease are insufficient, and statin treatment is generally discouraged,” they added.
With respect to statin-induced adverse effects, they are usually reversible upon discontinuation of therapy, with the exception of hemorrhagic stroke. However, damage from an ischemic stroke or myocardial infarction may result in death. As a result, in patients who would benefit from statin therapy, based on most recent guidelines, cardiovascular benefits greatly exceed potential safety concerns.
Dr. Newman and her coauthors disclosed financial affiliations with Amgen, Kowa, Regeneron, Sanofi, and others.
SOURCE: Newman CB et al. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2018 Dec 10. doi: 10.1161/ATV.0000000000000073
FROM ARTERIOSCLEROSIS, THROMBOSIS, AND VASCULAR BIOLOGY
Key clinical point: After rigorous review, the benefits of statin therapy were found to markedly exceed associated risks.
Major finding: .
Study details: A scientific statement on statin safety and associated adverse events from the American Heart Association.
Disclosures: Several writing group members disclosed financial affiliations with Amgen, Kowa, Regeneron, Sanofi, and others.
Source: Newman CB et al. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2018 Dec 10. doi: 10.1161/ATV.0000000000000073.
Phone app diagnoses STEMI nearly as well as ECG
CHICAGO – A novel smartphone app performed nearly as well as a standard 12-lead ECG for diagnosis of ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) in patients presenting with chest pain in ST LEUIS, an international, multicenter study.
“This study demonstrates that a 12-lead-equivalent ECG obtained using a smartphone coupled with a software application and inexpensive two-wire attachment can identify STEMI versus non-STEMI with an excellent correlation to a traditional 12-lead ECG. This technology holds substantial promise to improve outcomes in STEMI by enabling more rapid diagnosis and treatment anywhere in the world for inexpensive cost,” J. Brent Muhlestein, MD, said while presenting the ST LEUIS results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
This technology could provide a long-sought breakthrough in overcoming patient denial and motivating hard-headed individuals with a life-threatening MI to get to the hospital more quickly after symptom onset, instead of initially shrugging off the matter as indigestion or another nuisance. If individuals can use their handy cell phone or smartwatch to quickly obtain an ECG that shows they’re having a STEMI, they’re going to seek medical attention much sooner, with resultant greater salvage of heart muscle, noted Dr. Muhlestein of Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City.
ST LEUIS tested whether a smartphone ECG app developed by AliveCor can accurately diagnose STEMI in patients with chest pain. The study, which took place at Intermountain Medical Center and a handful of other sites associated with the Duke University Cooperative Cardiovascular Society, included 204 patients who presented to EDs with chest pain. They simultaneously received both a standard 12-lead ECG and an ECG obtained using the AliveCor smartphone app. The matched ECG pairs were evaluated separately, both quantitatively and qualitatively, by a blinded panel of experienced cardiologists and classified as STEMI, left bundle branch block, non-STEMI, or uninterpretable. The study population included 92 patients with chest pain and activation of a STEMI protocol and 112 who came through the ED chest pain protocol.
Side-by-side ECG comparisons weren’t attempted in 14 pairs deemed not interpretable. In 13 cases this was because of technical problems with the smartphone ECG, and in the 14th because of ventricular pacing in the standard 12-lead ECG.
STEMI was diagnosed in 22.5% of the study population by 12-lead ECG and in 29.4% by smartphone app. The discrepancy was explained by small voltage differences in the ST-segment elevation which met criteria for STEMI by smartphone but not standard 12-lead ECG in 15 cases.
“It appears that the ST elevation was a little bit more obvious in the smartphone ECG,” Dr. Muhlestein observed.
Left bundle branch block was identified in 5.4% of patients by both methods.
The key performance numbers: The smartphone ECG had a sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 84%, positive predictive value of 70%, and negative predictive value of 95% for diagnosis of STEMI or left bundle branch block. The positive predictive value was diminished by the increased likelihood that the smartphone would call STEMI in discordant cases.
Dr. Muhlestein said that, despite the AliveCor device’s very good correlation with the standard 12-lead ECG, the system needs further tweaking.
“We definitely think this is not ready for prime time. Further refinements of the software and hardware may improve on our study results and broaden potential applications through increased ease of use and reliability. I’m sure smart engineers can make a much more simple, really user-friendly device now that we know it’s actually feasible. I envision a time when you turn it on and it speaks loud and tells you what to do and how to do it – like an AED [automated external defibrillator] – then uploads the ECG to the cloud, interprets it, and tells you whether you should go to the emergency department or not,” Dr. Muhlestein said.
This is a device that’s going to be a boon not only in the United States but also in developing countries, where even people living without electricity or running water often have cell phones, the cardiologist noted.
Dr. Muhlestein reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding the study, which was sponsored by the participating medical institutions.
CHICAGO – A novel smartphone app performed nearly as well as a standard 12-lead ECG for diagnosis of ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) in patients presenting with chest pain in ST LEUIS, an international, multicenter study.
“This study demonstrates that a 12-lead-equivalent ECG obtained using a smartphone coupled with a software application and inexpensive two-wire attachment can identify STEMI versus non-STEMI with an excellent correlation to a traditional 12-lead ECG. This technology holds substantial promise to improve outcomes in STEMI by enabling more rapid diagnosis and treatment anywhere in the world for inexpensive cost,” J. Brent Muhlestein, MD, said while presenting the ST LEUIS results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
This technology could provide a long-sought breakthrough in overcoming patient denial and motivating hard-headed individuals with a life-threatening MI to get to the hospital more quickly after symptom onset, instead of initially shrugging off the matter as indigestion or another nuisance. If individuals can use their handy cell phone or smartwatch to quickly obtain an ECG that shows they’re having a STEMI, they’re going to seek medical attention much sooner, with resultant greater salvage of heart muscle, noted Dr. Muhlestein of Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City.
ST LEUIS tested whether a smartphone ECG app developed by AliveCor can accurately diagnose STEMI in patients with chest pain. The study, which took place at Intermountain Medical Center and a handful of other sites associated with the Duke University Cooperative Cardiovascular Society, included 204 patients who presented to EDs with chest pain. They simultaneously received both a standard 12-lead ECG and an ECG obtained using the AliveCor smartphone app. The matched ECG pairs were evaluated separately, both quantitatively and qualitatively, by a blinded panel of experienced cardiologists and classified as STEMI, left bundle branch block, non-STEMI, or uninterpretable. The study population included 92 patients with chest pain and activation of a STEMI protocol and 112 who came through the ED chest pain protocol.
Side-by-side ECG comparisons weren’t attempted in 14 pairs deemed not interpretable. In 13 cases this was because of technical problems with the smartphone ECG, and in the 14th because of ventricular pacing in the standard 12-lead ECG.
STEMI was diagnosed in 22.5% of the study population by 12-lead ECG and in 29.4% by smartphone app. The discrepancy was explained by small voltage differences in the ST-segment elevation which met criteria for STEMI by smartphone but not standard 12-lead ECG in 15 cases.
“It appears that the ST elevation was a little bit more obvious in the smartphone ECG,” Dr. Muhlestein observed.
Left bundle branch block was identified in 5.4% of patients by both methods.
The key performance numbers: The smartphone ECG had a sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 84%, positive predictive value of 70%, and negative predictive value of 95% for diagnosis of STEMI or left bundle branch block. The positive predictive value was diminished by the increased likelihood that the smartphone would call STEMI in discordant cases.
Dr. Muhlestein said that, despite the AliveCor device’s very good correlation with the standard 12-lead ECG, the system needs further tweaking.
“We definitely think this is not ready for prime time. Further refinements of the software and hardware may improve on our study results and broaden potential applications through increased ease of use and reliability. I’m sure smart engineers can make a much more simple, really user-friendly device now that we know it’s actually feasible. I envision a time when you turn it on and it speaks loud and tells you what to do and how to do it – like an AED [automated external defibrillator] – then uploads the ECG to the cloud, interprets it, and tells you whether you should go to the emergency department or not,” Dr. Muhlestein said.
This is a device that’s going to be a boon not only in the United States but also in developing countries, where even people living without electricity or running water often have cell phones, the cardiologist noted.
Dr. Muhlestein reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding the study, which was sponsored by the participating medical institutions.
CHICAGO – A novel smartphone app performed nearly as well as a standard 12-lead ECG for diagnosis of ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) in patients presenting with chest pain in ST LEUIS, an international, multicenter study.
“This study demonstrates that a 12-lead-equivalent ECG obtained using a smartphone coupled with a software application and inexpensive two-wire attachment can identify STEMI versus non-STEMI with an excellent correlation to a traditional 12-lead ECG. This technology holds substantial promise to improve outcomes in STEMI by enabling more rapid diagnosis and treatment anywhere in the world for inexpensive cost,” J. Brent Muhlestein, MD, said while presenting the ST LEUIS results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
This technology could provide a long-sought breakthrough in overcoming patient denial and motivating hard-headed individuals with a life-threatening MI to get to the hospital more quickly after symptom onset, instead of initially shrugging off the matter as indigestion or another nuisance. If individuals can use their handy cell phone or smartwatch to quickly obtain an ECG that shows they’re having a STEMI, they’re going to seek medical attention much sooner, with resultant greater salvage of heart muscle, noted Dr. Muhlestein of Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City.
ST LEUIS tested whether a smartphone ECG app developed by AliveCor can accurately diagnose STEMI in patients with chest pain. The study, which took place at Intermountain Medical Center and a handful of other sites associated with the Duke University Cooperative Cardiovascular Society, included 204 patients who presented to EDs with chest pain. They simultaneously received both a standard 12-lead ECG and an ECG obtained using the AliveCor smartphone app. The matched ECG pairs were evaluated separately, both quantitatively and qualitatively, by a blinded panel of experienced cardiologists and classified as STEMI, left bundle branch block, non-STEMI, or uninterpretable. The study population included 92 patients with chest pain and activation of a STEMI protocol and 112 who came through the ED chest pain protocol.
Side-by-side ECG comparisons weren’t attempted in 14 pairs deemed not interpretable. In 13 cases this was because of technical problems with the smartphone ECG, and in the 14th because of ventricular pacing in the standard 12-lead ECG.
STEMI was diagnosed in 22.5% of the study population by 12-lead ECG and in 29.4% by smartphone app. The discrepancy was explained by small voltage differences in the ST-segment elevation which met criteria for STEMI by smartphone but not standard 12-lead ECG in 15 cases.
“It appears that the ST elevation was a little bit more obvious in the smartphone ECG,” Dr. Muhlestein observed.
Left bundle branch block was identified in 5.4% of patients by both methods.
The key performance numbers: The smartphone ECG had a sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 84%, positive predictive value of 70%, and negative predictive value of 95% for diagnosis of STEMI or left bundle branch block. The positive predictive value was diminished by the increased likelihood that the smartphone would call STEMI in discordant cases.
Dr. Muhlestein said that, despite the AliveCor device’s very good correlation with the standard 12-lead ECG, the system needs further tweaking.
“We definitely think this is not ready for prime time. Further refinements of the software and hardware may improve on our study results and broaden potential applications through increased ease of use and reliability. I’m sure smart engineers can make a much more simple, really user-friendly device now that we know it’s actually feasible. I envision a time when you turn it on and it speaks loud and tells you what to do and how to do it – like an AED [automated external defibrillator] – then uploads the ECG to the cloud, interprets it, and tells you whether you should go to the emergency department or not,” Dr. Muhlestein said.
This is a device that’s going to be a boon not only in the United States but also in developing countries, where even people living without electricity or running water often have cell phones, the cardiologist noted.
Dr. Muhlestein reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding the study, which was sponsored by the participating medical institutions.
REPORTING FROM THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The app, designed to diagnose ST-segment elevation MI, had a sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 84%, and negative predictive value of 95% for this purpose.
Study details: This multicenter, international study featured blinded expert side-by-side comparisons of standard 12-lead ECGs and ECGs obtained via a smartphone app in 204 patients who presented with chest pain.
Disclosures: The presenter reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding the study, which was fully sponsored by the participating medical institutions.