User login
Cases of potentially deadly fungus jump 200%: CDC
prompting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to issue a warning to health care facilities about the rising threat.
C. auris is a yeast that spreads easily from touching it on a surface like a countertop. It can also spread from person to person. It isn’t a threat to healthy people, but people in hospitals and nursing homes are at a heightened risk because they might have weakened immune systems or be using invasive medical devices that can introduce the fungus inside their bodies. When C. auris progresses to causing an infection that reaches the brain, blood, or lungs, more than one in three people die.
The worrying increase was detailed in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. In 2021, cases reached a count of 3,270 with an active infection, and 7,413 cases showed the fungus was present but hadn’t caused an infection. Infection counts were up 95% over the previous year, and the fungus showed up on screenings three times as often. The number of cases resistant to medication also tripled.
The CDC called the figures “alarming,” noting that the fungus was only detected in the United States in 2016.
“The timing of this increase and findings from public health investigations suggest C. auris spread may have worsened due to strain on health care and public health systems during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the CDC explained in a news release.
Another potential reason for the jump could be that screening for C. auris has simply increased and it’s being found more often because it’s being looked for more often. But researchers believe that, even with the increase in testing, the reported counts are underestimated. That’s because even though screening has increased, health care providers still aren’t looking for the presence of the fungus as often as the CDC would like.
“The rapid rise and geographic spread of cases is concerning and emphasizes the need for continued surveillance, expanded lab capacity, quicker diagnostic tests, and adherence to proven infection prevention and control,” said study author Meghan Lyman, MD, a CDC epidemiologist in Atlanta, in a statement.
Cases of C. auris continued to rise in 2022, the CDC said. A map on the agency’s website of reported cases from 2022 shows it was found in more than half of U.S. states, with the highest counts occurring in California, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New York, and Texas. The fungus is a problem worldwide and is listed among the most threatening treatment-resistant fungi by the World Health Organization.
The study authors concluded that screening capacity for the fungus needs to be expanded nationwide so that when C. auris is detected, measures can be taken to prevent its spread.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
prompting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to issue a warning to health care facilities about the rising threat.
C. auris is a yeast that spreads easily from touching it on a surface like a countertop. It can also spread from person to person. It isn’t a threat to healthy people, but people in hospitals and nursing homes are at a heightened risk because they might have weakened immune systems or be using invasive medical devices that can introduce the fungus inside their bodies. When C. auris progresses to causing an infection that reaches the brain, blood, or lungs, more than one in three people die.
The worrying increase was detailed in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. In 2021, cases reached a count of 3,270 with an active infection, and 7,413 cases showed the fungus was present but hadn’t caused an infection. Infection counts were up 95% over the previous year, and the fungus showed up on screenings three times as often. The number of cases resistant to medication also tripled.
The CDC called the figures “alarming,” noting that the fungus was only detected in the United States in 2016.
“The timing of this increase and findings from public health investigations suggest C. auris spread may have worsened due to strain on health care and public health systems during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the CDC explained in a news release.
Another potential reason for the jump could be that screening for C. auris has simply increased and it’s being found more often because it’s being looked for more often. But researchers believe that, even with the increase in testing, the reported counts are underestimated. That’s because even though screening has increased, health care providers still aren’t looking for the presence of the fungus as often as the CDC would like.
“The rapid rise and geographic spread of cases is concerning and emphasizes the need for continued surveillance, expanded lab capacity, quicker diagnostic tests, and adherence to proven infection prevention and control,” said study author Meghan Lyman, MD, a CDC epidemiologist in Atlanta, in a statement.
Cases of C. auris continued to rise in 2022, the CDC said. A map on the agency’s website of reported cases from 2022 shows it was found in more than half of U.S. states, with the highest counts occurring in California, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New York, and Texas. The fungus is a problem worldwide and is listed among the most threatening treatment-resistant fungi by the World Health Organization.
The study authors concluded that screening capacity for the fungus needs to be expanded nationwide so that when C. auris is detected, measures can be taken to prevent its spread.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
prompting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to issue a warning to health care facilities about the rising threat.
C. auris is a yeast that spreads easily from touching it on a surface like a countertop. It can also spread from person to person. It isn’t a threat to healthy people, but people in hospitals and nursing homes are at a heightened risk because they might have weakened immune systems or be using invasive medical devices that can introduce the fungus inside their bodies. When C. auris progresses to causing an infection that reaches the brain, blood, or lungs, more than one in three people die.
The worrying increase was detailed in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. In 2021, cases reached a count of 3,270 with an active infection, and 7,413 cases showed the fungus was present but hadn’t caused an infection. Infection counts were up 95% over the previous year, and the fungus showed up on screenings three times as often. The number of cases resistant to medication also tripled.
The CDC called the figures “alarming,” noting that the fungus was only detected in the United States in 2016.
“The timing of this increase and findings from public health investigations suggest C. auris spread may have worsened due to strain on health care and public health systems during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the CDC explained in a news release.
Another potential reason for the jump could be that screening for C. auris has simply increased and it’s being found more often because it’s being looked for more often. But researchers believe that, even with the increase in testing, the reported counts are underestimated. That’s because even though screening has increased, health care providers still aren’t looking for the presence of the fungus as often as the CDC would like.
“The rapid rise and geographic spread of cases is concerning and emphasizes the need for continued surveillance, expanded lab capacity, quicker diagnostic tests, and adherence to proven infection prevention and control,” said study author Meghan Lyman, MD, a CDC epidemiologist in Atlanta, in a statement.
Cases of C. auris continued to rise in 2022, the CDC said. A map on the agency’s website of reported cases from 2022 shows it was found in more than half of U.S. states, with the highest counts occurring in California, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New York, and Texas. The fungus is a problem worldwide and is listed among the most threatening treatment-resistant fungi by the World Health Organization.
The study authors concluded that screening capacity for the fungus needs to be expanded nationwide so that when C. auris is detected, measures can be taken to prevent its spread.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
Drug-resistant stomach bug infections on the rise: CDC
The CDC issued the warning Feb. 24 about the rise in the problematic infections. Most of them have been seen in men who have sex with men, but a small number have also occurred in women and in young children.
The bacteria can be spread in a variety of ways, including changing the diaper of an infected baby, touching your mouth when the bacteria are on your hands, eating or drinking contaminated food or water, or through sexual contact. It’s easily transmitted because just a tiny amount of the bacteria is enough to make someone sick.
Shigella infection causes diarrhea that can be bloody. Other symptoms are a fever, belly cramping, and the feeling that you have to poop but your bowels are already empty. Most people recover on their own with rest and fluids, and severe cases can need antibiotic treatment. But strains of the bacteria that are resistant to treatment are on the rise.
Between 2015 and 2022, cases of antibiotic-resistant Shigella infection rose from 0% to 5% of all Shigella cases in the United States. One analysis showed that 82% of cases were in men, 13% in women, and 5% in children. A small sample of affected people provided information about their sexual activity, and 88% of them reported male-to-male sexual contact.
People at increased risk of infections are young children, people who are homeless, international travelers, people who have weakened immune systems, people living with HIV, and men who have sex with men.
The CDC asked health care workers to be on the lookout for these infections and report them.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The CDC issued the warning Feb. 24 about the rise in the problematic infections. Most of them have been seen in men who have sex with men, but a small number have also occurred in women and in young children.
The bacteria can be spread in a variety of ways, including changing the diaper of an infected baby, touching your mouth when the bacteria are on your hands, eating or drinking contaminated food or water, or through sexual contact. It’s easily transmitted because just a tiny amount of the bacteria is enough to make someone sick.
Shigella infection causes diarrhea that can be bloody. Other symptoms are a fever, belly cramping, and the feeling that you have to poop but your bowels are already empty. Most people recover on their own with rest and fluids, and severe cases can need antibiotic treatment. But strains of the bacteria that are resistant to treatment are on the rise.
Between 2015 and 2022, cases of antibiotic-resistant Shigella infection rose from 0% to 5% of all Shigella cases in the United States. One analysis showed that 82% of cases were in men, 13% in women, and 5% in children. A small sample of affected people provided information about their sexual activity, and 88% of them reported male-to-male sexual contact.
People at increased risk of infections are young children, people who are homeless, international travelers, people who have weakened immune systems, people living with HIV, and men who have sex with men.
The CDC asked health care workers to be on the lookout for these infections and report them.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The CDC issued the warning Feb. 24 about the rise in the problematic infections. Most of them have been seen in men who have sex with men, but a small number have also occurred in women and in young children.
The bacteria can be spread in a variety of ways, including changing the diaper of an infected baby, touching your mouth when the bacteria are on your hands, eating or drinking contaminated food or water, or through sexual contact. It’s easily transmitted because just a tiny amount of the bacteria is enough to make someone sick.
Shigella infection causes diarrhea that can be bloody. Other symptoms are a fever, belly cramping, and the feeling that you have to poop but your bowels are already empty. Most people recover on their own with rest and fluids, and severe cases can need antibiotic treatment. But strains of the bacteria that are resistant to treatment are on the rise.
Between 2015 and 2022, cases of antibiotic-resistant Shigella infection rose from 0% to 5% of all Shigella cases in the United States. One analysis showed that 82% of cases were in men, 13% in women, and 5% in children. A small sample of affected people provided information about their sexual activity, and 88% of them reported male-to-male sexual contact.
People at increased risk of infections are young children, people who are homeless, international travelers, people who have weakened immune systems, people living with HIV, and men who have sex with men.
The CDC asked health care workers to be on the lookout for these infections and report them.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Doxy PEP does not lower risk of STIs in cisgender women
The benefits of doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis (Doxy PEP) in preventing the transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in men and transgender women do not appear to extend to cisgender women, who have disproportionately high rates of infection in many regions.
“This was the first trial to evaluate doxycycline PEP for cisgender women,” said first author Jenell Stewart, DO, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in discussing the findings at a press conference at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.
“Unfortunately, our primary outcome was not statistically significant – we did not see a reduction in STIs among cisgender women, which is in stark contrast to [reported effects] among cisgender men and transgender women,” she said.
The findings are from a study of 449 nonpregnant cisgender women (mean age, 24 years) in Kenya who had been taking daily oral HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for a median of about 7 months.
The women were randomly assigned to receive either Doxy PEP 200 mg, to be taken within 72 hours of sex (n = 224), or standard care, which included quarterly screening and treatment of STIs (n = 225).
Of the women, 36.7% reported transactional sex at enrollment; their baseline prevalence of STIs was 17.9%, including 14.1% with chlamydia, 3.8% gonorrhea, and 0.4% syphilis. There were no differences between the study groups.
In surveys, 78% of the women reported adherence to the use of Doxy PEP; they took the prophylaxis at least as many days as they had sex.
Nevertheless, there was no significant difference in the incidence of STIs, reported over 1 year, at quarterly visits that included genital STI testing, between groups, with 50 patients in the Doxy PEP group and 59 in the standard screening group developing STIs (relative risk, 0.88; P = .51).
Of the infections, 85 were chlamydia, including 35 in the Doxy PEP group and 50 with standard of care, while 31 were gonorrhea, including 19 in the Doxy PEP group and 12 with standard of care; 8 had both infections, and there was 1 syphilis infection.
The results were consistent across subanalyses of patients grouped according to STI, who became pregnant (n = 80), or sorted by other factors including age, contraceptive use, transactional sex, and STI at baseline.
None of the women developed HIV, and there were no serious events associated with the Doxy PEP treatment.
Cisgender women bear ‘highest burden’ of STIs
The findings are disappointing in light of the higher rates of STIs among cisgender women, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting that women also disproportionately bear the long-term consequences of STIs.
“For example, each year, untreated sexually transmitted diseases cause infertility in at least 20,000 women in the United States, and a pregnant woman is highly likely to pass syphilis unto her unborn baby if left untested or untreated,” the CDC reports.
The STI rates are particularly high for women taking HIV PrEP in regions like East Africa, where rates of STIs among cisgender women in many cases are higher than rates for men taking PrEP in high income countries, Dr. Stewart said.
Previous studies of Doxy PEP in men and transgender women taking HIV PrEP, including new research presented at CROI, have shown highly encouraging reductions in STIs, at rates of up to approximately 80% for chlamydia and syphilis.
Adherence, anatomy, resistance
The key theories for the lack of a prevention of infections in cisgender women surround the issues of resistances, as well as anatomy and adherence, said Dr. Stewart.
In terms of bacterial resistances, while initial testing in a limited number of samples the study found no evidence of markers of resistance for chlamydia, all of the gonorrhea samples did show tetracycline-resistant N gonorrhea at baseline and follow-up in both groups.
Regarding anatomic differences, doxycycline may not prevent STIs in endocervical tissue among cisgender women, Dr. Stewart noted. Women are known to be at higher risk of infection because the lining of the vagina is thinner than the skin of the penis, allowing for easier penetration of bacteria and viruses.
The study was designed to optimize adherence to Doxy PEP. Measures included monitoring with weekly text message surveys, in which the women reported a high rate of adherence.
The overall retention rate in the study was high; as many as 97% of the quarterly follow-up visits were completed, including 95% in the Doxy PEP group and 98% of the standard care group. The response rate for the weekly surveys was 81%.
Of note, women reported the use of the treatment to be “imperfect,” suggesting social problems, such as biases toward the use of the prophylaxis.
The results underscore the need for ongoing efforts to make sure no groups of patients are left behind as interventions advance, Dr. Stewart said.
“The burden of STIs on cisgender women is large and growing,” she concluded. “STI prevention interventions are needed.”
Commenting on the study, Renee A. Heffron, PhD, MPH, said the findings “are somewhat surprising because results from trials in other populations have been positive.
“But cisgender women are exposed through the cervix, and this tissue is different from rectal or urethral tissue,” Dr. Heffron, a professor at the department of medicine and director of the Center for AIDS Research at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, told this news organization.
Further findings from the research should help shed light on key issues of adherence and drug concentration levels in cervical tissue, she added.
“For cisgender women, these data are the first and the beginning of understanding whether this is a viable strategy,” Dr. Heffron said.
“We have more to learn to better understand the results from the trial main outcomes, and if there are tweaks to this strategy that would improve efficacy.”
The authors and Dr. Heffron have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The benefits of doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis (Doxy PEP) in preventing the transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in men and transgender women do not appear to extend to cisgender women, who have disproportionately high rates of infection in many regions.
“This was the first trial to evaluate doxycycline PEP for cisgender women,” said first author Jenell Stewart, DO, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in discussing the findings at a press conference at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.
“Unfortunately, our primary outcome was not statistically significant – we did not see a reduction in STIs among cisgender women, which is in stark contrast to [reported effects] among cisgender men and transgender women,” she said.
The findings are from a study of 449 nonpregnant cisgender women (mean age, 24 years) in Kenya who had been taking daily oral HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for a median of about 7 months.
The women were randomly assigned to receive either Doxy PEP 200 mg, to be taken within 72 hours of sex (n = 224), or standard care, which included quarterly screening and treatment of STIs (n = 225).
Of the women, 36.7% reported transactional sex at enrollment; their baseline prevalence of STIs was 17.9%, including 14.1% with chlamydia, 3.8% gonorrhea, and 0.4% syphilis. There were no differences between the study groups.
In surveys, 78% of the women reported adherence to the use of Doxy PEP; they took the prophylaxis at least as many days as they had sex.
Nevertheless, there was no significant difference in the incidence of STIs, reported over 1 year, at quarterly visits that included genital STI testing, between groups, with 50 patients in the Doxy PEP group and 59 in the standard screening group developing STIs (relative risk, 0.88; P = .51).
Of the infections, 85 were chlamydia, including 35 in the Doxy PEP group and 50 with standard of care, while 31 were gonorrhea, including 19 in the Doxy PEP group and 12 with standard of care; 8 had both infections, and there was 1 syphilis infection.
The results were consistent across subanalyses of patients grouped according to STI, who became pregnant (n = 80), or sorted by other factors including age, contraceptive use, transactional sex, and STI at baseline.
None of the women developed HIV, and there were no serious events associated with the Doxy PEP treatment.
Cisgender women bear ‘highest burden’ of STIs
The findings are disappointing in light of the higher rates of STIs among cisgender women, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting that women also disproportionately bear the long-term consequences of STIs.
“For example, each year, untreated sexually transmitted diseases cause infertility in at least 20,000 women in the United States, and a pregnant woman is highly likely to pass syphilis unto her unborn baby if left untested or untreated,” the CDC reports.
The STI rates are particularly high for women taking HIV PrEP in regions like East Africa, where rates of STIs among cisgender women in many cases are higher than rates for men taking PrEP in high income countries, Dr. Stewart said.
Previous studies of Doxy PEP in men and transgender women taking HIV PrEP, including new research presented at CROI, have shown highly encouraging reductions in STIs, at rates of up to approximately 80% for chlamydia and syphilis.
Adherence, anatomy, resistance
The key theories for the lack of a prevention of infections in cisgender women surround the issues of resistances, as well as anatomy and adherence, said Dr. Stewart.
In terms of bacterial resistances, while initial testing in a limited number of samples the study found no evidence of markers of resistance for chlamydia, all of the gonorrhea samples did show tetracycline-resistant N gonorrhea at baseline and follow-up in both groups.
Regarding anatomic differences, doxycycline may not prevent STIs in endocervical tissue among cisgender women, Dr. Stewart noted. Women are known to be at higher risk of infection because the lining of the vagina is thinner than the skin of the penis, allowing for easier penetration of bacteria and viruses.
The study was designed to optimize adherence to Doxy PEP. Measures included monitoring with weekly text message surveys, in which the women reported a high rate of adherence.
The overall retention rate in the study was high; as many as 97% of the quarterly follow-up visits were completed, including 95% in the Doxy PEP group and 98% of the standard care group. The response rate for the weekly surveys was 81%.
Of note, women reported the use of the treatment to be “imperfect,” suggesting social problems, such as biases toward the use of the prophylaxis.
The results underscore the need for ongoing efforts to make sure no groups of patients are left behind as interventions advance, Dr. Stewart said.
“The burden of STIs on cisgender women is large and growing,” she concluded. “STI prevention interventions are needed.”
Commenting on the study, Renee A. Heffron, PhD, MPH, said the findings “are somewhat surprising because results from trials in other populations have been positive.
“But cisgender women are exposed through the cervix, and this tissue is different from rectal or urethral tissue,” Dr. Heffron, a professor at the department of medicine and director of the Center for AIDS Research at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, told this news organization.
Further findings from the research should help shed light on key issues of adherence and drug concentration levels in cervical tissue, she added.
“For cisgender women, these data are the first and the beginning of understanding whether this is a viable strategy,” Dr. Heffron said.
“We have more to learn to better understand the results from the trial main outcomes, and if there are tweaks to this strategy that would improve efficacy.”
The authors and Dr. Heffron have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The benefits of doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis (Doxy PEP) in preventing the transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in men and transgender women do not appear to extend to cisgender women, who have disproportionately high rates of infection in many regions.
“This was the first trial to evaluate doxycycline PEP for cisgender women,” said first author Jenell Stewart, DO, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in discussing the findings at a press conference at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.
“Unfortunately, our primary outcome was not statistically significant – we did not see a reduction in STIs among cisgender women, which is in stark contrast to [reported effects] among cisgender men and transgender women,” she said.
The findings are from a study of 449 nonpregnant cisgender women (mean age, 24 years) in Kenya who had been taking daily oral HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for a median of about 7 months.
The women were randomly assigned to receive either Doxy PEP 200 mg, to be taken within 72 hours of sex (n = 224), or standard care, which included quarterly screening and treatment of STIs (n = 225).
Of the women, 36.7% reported transactional sex at enrollment; their baseline prevalence of STIs was 17.9%, including 14.1% with chlamydia, 3.8% gonorrhea, and 0.4% syphilis. There were no differences between the study groups.
In surveys, 78% of the women reported adherence to the use of Doxy PEP; they took the prophylaxis at least as many days as they had sex.
Nevertheless, there was no significant difference in the incidence of STIs, reported over 1 year, at quarterly visits that included genital STI testing, between groups, with 50 patients in the Doxy PEP group and 59 in the standard screening group developing STIs (relative risk, 0.88; P = .51).
Of the infections, 85 were chlamydia, including 35 in the Doxy PEP group and 50 with standard of care, while 31 were gonorrhea, including 19 in the Doxy PEP group and 12 with standard of care; 8 had both infections, and there was 1 syphilis infection.
The results were consistent across subanalyses of patients grouped according to STI, who became pregnant (n = 80), or sorted by other factors including age, contraceptive use, transactional sex, and STI at baseline.
None of the women developed HIV, and there were no serious events associated with the Doxy PEP treatment.
Cisgender women bear ‘highest burden’ of STIs
The findings are disappointing in light of the higher rates of STIs among cisgender women, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting that women also disproportionately bear the long-term consequences of STIs.
“For example, each year, untreated sexually transmitted diseases cause infertility in at least 20,000 women in the United States, and a pregnant woman is highly likely to pass syphilis unto her unborn baby if left untested or untreated,” the CDC reports.
The STI rates are particularly high for women taking HIV PrEP in regions like East Africa, where rates of STIs among cisgender women in many cases are higher than rates for men taking PrEP in high income countries, Dr. Stewart said.
Previous studies of Doxy PEP in men and transgender women taking HIV PrEP, including new research presented at CROI, have shown highly encouraging reductions in STIs, at rates of up to approximately 80% for chlamydia and syphilis.
Adherence, anatomy, resistance
The key theories for the lack of a prevention of infections in cisgender women surround the issues of resistances, as well as anatomy and adherence, said Dr. Stewart.
In terms of bacterial resistances, while initial testing in a limited number of samples the study found no evidence of markers of resistance for chlamydia, all of the gonorrhea samples did show tetracycline-resistant N gonorrhea at baseline and follow-up in both groups.
Regarding anatomic differences, doxycycline may not prevent STIs in endocervical tissue among cisgender women, Dr. Stewart noted. Women are known to be at higher risk of infection because the lining of the vagina is thinner than the skin of the penis, allowing for easier penetration of bacteria and viruses.
The study was designed to optimize adherence to Doxy PEP. Measures included monitoring with weekly text message surveys, in which the women reported a high rate of adherence.
The overall retention rate in the study was high; as many as 97% of the quarterly follow-up visits were completed, including 95% in the Doxy PEP group and 98% of the standard care group. The response rate for the weekly surveys was 81%.
Of note, women reported the use of the treatment to be “imperfect,” suggesting social problems, such as biases toward the use of the prophylaxis.
The results underscore the need for ongoing efforts to make sure no groups of patients are left behind as interventions advance, Dr. Stewart said.
“The burden of STIs on cisgender women is large and growing,” she concluded. “STI prevention interventions are needed.”
Commenting on the study, Renee A. Heffron, PhD, MPH, said the findings “are somewhat surprising because results from trials in other populations have been positive.
“But cisgender women are exposed through the cervix, and this tissue is different from rectal or urethral tissue,” Dr. Heffron, a professor at the department of medicine and director of the Center for AIDS Research at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, told this news organization.
Further findings from the research should help shed light on key issues of adherence and drug concentration levels in cervical tissue, she added.
“For cisgender women, these data are the first and the beginning of understanding whether this is a viable strategy,” Dr. Heffron said.
“We have more to learn to better understand the results from the trial main outcomes, and if there are tweaks to this strategy that would improve efficacy.”
The authors and Dr. Heffron have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CROI 2023
FDA broadens warning on potentially contaminated eye products
The announcement released Wednesday adds to a previous warning issued earlier this month for EzriCare Artificial Tears or Delsam Pharma’s Artificial Tears because of potential bacterial contamination. All three products are manufactured by the same company, Global Pharma Healthcare, based in Tamilnadu, India.
The FDA has faulted the company for multiple violations, including “lack of appropriate microbial testing” and “lack of proper controls concerning tamper-evident packaging,” and has banned imports to the United States.
The updated warning from the FDA did not give additional information about the over-the-counter eye ointment beyond potential bacterial contamination.
On Feb. 1, the CDC issued an alert about an outbreak of a drug-resistant strain of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, linked to artificial tear products. To date, 58 patients across 13 states have been identified, and the most commonly reported artificial tear brand was EzriCare Artificial Tears. Five patients had permanent vision loss, and one patient died.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The announcement released Wednesday adds to a previous warning issued earlier this month for EzriCare Artificial Tears or Delsam Pharma’s Artificial Tears because of potential bacterial contamination. All three products are manufactured by the same company, Global Pharma Healthcare, based in Tamilnadu, India.
The FDA has faulted the company for multiple violations, including “lack of appropriate microbial testing” and “lack of proper controls concerning tamper-evident packaging,” and has banned imports to the United States.
The updated warning from the FDA did not give additional information about the over-the-counter eye ointment beyond potential bacterial contamination.
On Feb. 1, the CDC issued an alert about an outbreak of a drug-resistant strain of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, linked to artificial tear products. To date, 58 patients across 13 states have been identified, and the most commonly reported artificial tear brand was EzriCare Artificial Tears. Five patients had permanent vision loss, and one patient died.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The announcement released Wednesday adds to a previous warning issued earlier this month for EzriCare Artificial Tears or Delsam Pharma’s Artificial Tears because of potential bacterial contamination. All three products are manufactured by the same company, Global Pharma Healthcare, based in Tamilnadu, India.
The FDA has faulted the company for multiple violations, including “lack of appropriate microbial testing” and “lack of proper controls concerning tamper-evident packaging,” and has banned imports to the United States.
The updated warning from the FDA did not give additional information about the over-the-counter eye ointment beyond potential bacterial contamination.
On Feb. 1, the CDC issued an alert about an outbreak of a drug-resistant strain of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, linked to artificial tear products. To date, 58 patients across 13 states have been identified, and the most commonly reported artificial tear brand was EzriCare Artificial Tears. Five patients had permanent vision loss, and one patient died.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Must-read acute care medicine articles from 2022
When 2022 began, we started seeing some light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel. Vaccines were widely available, and even with new variants of the virus still occasionally emerging, the rates of severe morbidity and mortality appeared to be decreasing.
Expectedly, journals appeared to start moving more toward mainstream topics and publications rather than what seemed like a major focus on COVID-19 publications. The resulting literature was fantastic.
Several of those topics were discussed in a prior Emergency Medicine Viewpoint from this news organization, and many more of the research advances of 2022 will be discussed in the near future. However, in this Viewpoint, I would like to present my annual review of my three “must-read” articles of the past year.
As in past years, I am choosing reviews of the literature rather than original research articles (which, all too often, become outdated or debunked within a few years). I choose these articles in the hopes that readers will not simply settle for my brief reviews of the key points but instead will feel compelled to download and read the entire articles. These publications address common conditions and quandaries we face in the daily practice of emergency medicine and are practice-changing.
Myocardial dysfunction after cardiac arrest: Tips and pitfalls
The management of post–cardiac arrest patients remains a hot topic in the resuscitation literature as we continue to understand that the immediate post-arrest period is critical to patient outcome.
Ortuno and colleagues reviewed the current literature on post-arrest care and wrote an outstanding summary of how to optimally care for these patients. More specifically, they focused on post-arrest patients who demonstrate continued shock, or “post–cardiac arrest myocardial dysfunction” (PCAMD).
They propose three mechanisms for the pathogenesis of PCAMD: ischemia reperfusion phenomenon, systemic inflammatory response, and increased catecholamine release
I will skip through the details of the pathophysiology that they describe in the article, but I certainly do recommend that everyone review their descriptions.
Management of these patients begins with a good hemodynamic assessment, which includes clinical markers of perfusion (blood pressure, capillary refill), ECG, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). If the initial assessment reveals an obvious cause of the cardiac arrest (e.g., massive pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, pericardial tamponade), then the underlying cause should be treated expeditiously.
In the absence of an obvious treatable cause of the shock, the fluid status and cardiac function should be addressed with POCUS. If the patient is hypovolemic, intravenous fluids should be administered. If the fluid status is adequate, POCUS should be used to estimate the patient’s ventricular function. If the ventricle appears to be hyperdynamic with good contractility, shock should be treated with norepinephrine. On the other hand, if the ventricle is hypodynamic, dobutamine should be substituted for norepinephrine or, more often, added to norepinephrine.
The above represents a simplified summary of the critical points, but the authors do delve into further detail and also discuss some other options for therapies, including steroids, coronary revascularization, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and so on. The review is very thoughtful, thorough, and definitely worth a full read.
Top myths of diagnosis and management of infectious diseases in hospital medicine
Most, if not all of us in medicine, have heard the saying that 50% of what we learn in medical school (or residency) will turn out to be wrong. I certainly believe in this concept and consequently, like many of you, I enjoy reading about myths and misconceptions that we have been taught. With that in mind, I have to say that I love this article because it seems to have been written specifically to address what I was taught!
This author group, consisting mostly of clinical PharmDs who are experts in antibiotic use, provide us with an evidence-based discussion of myths and pitfalls in how antibiotics are often used in current clinical practice. The authors review their top 10 myths involving the use of antibiotics in treating infections in the hospital setting. A few of these relate more to the inpatient setting, but here are my favorite emergency department (ED)–related myths that they address:
- “Antibiotics do no harm.” The authors address the risk-benefit of antibiotics based on assumed vs. confirmed infections, including a brief discussion of adverse drug effects.
- “Antibiotic durations of 7, 14, or 21 days are typically necessary.” The authors address appropriate duration of antibiotic use and the fact that unnecessarily long durations of use can lead to resistance. They also provide reassurance that some infections can be treated with quite short durations of antibiotics.
- “If one drug is good, two (or more!) is better.” The use of multiple antibiotics, often with overlapping bacterial coverage, is rampant in medicine and further increases the risk for adverse drug effects and resistance.
- “Oral antibiotics are not as good as intravenous antibiotics for hospitalized patients.” This is definitely a myth that I learned. I recall being taught by many senior physicians that anyone sick enough for admission should be treated with intravenous antibiotics. As it turns out, absorption and effectiveness of most oral antibiotics is just as good as intravenous antibiotics, and the oral formulations are often safer.
- “A history of a penicillin allergy means the patient can never receive a beta-lactam antibiotic.” This is a myth that was debunked quite a few years ago, but it seems that many clinicians still need a reminder.
The authors included five more myths that are worth the read. This is an article that needs to be disseminated among all hospital clinicians.
Guidelines for low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department
The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) recently initiated a program focused on creating evidence-based approaches to challenging chief complaints and presentations in the emergency department (ED). In 2021, they published an approach to managing patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the ED. This past year, they published their second guideline, focused on the management of patients with low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the ED.
Recurrent low-risk abdominal pain is a common and vexing presentation to EDs around the world, and there is little prior published guidance. Do all of these patients need repeat imaging? How do we manage their pain? Are there nonabdominal conditions that should be considered?
Broder and colleagues did a fantastic review of the current literature and, on behalf of SAEM, have provided a rational approach to optimal management of these patients. The four major questions they addressed, with brief summaries of their recommendations, are:
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive a repeat CT abdomen-pelvis (CTAP) after a negative CTAP within the past 12 months? This is a typical question that we all ponder when managing these patients. Unfortunately, the writing group found insufficient evidence to definitively identify populations in whom CTAP was recommended vs could be safely withheld. It is a bit disappointing that there is no definite answer to the question. On the other hand, it is reassuring to know that the world’s best evidence essentially says that it is perfectly appropriate to use your own good clinical judgment.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain with a negative CTAP receive additional imaging with abdominal ultrasound? In this case, the writing group found enough evidence, though low-level, to suggest against routine ultrasound in the absence of concern specifically for pelvic or hepatobiliary pathology. Like most tests, ultrasound is best used when there are specific concerns rather than being used in an undifferentiated fashion.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive screening for depression/anxiety? The writing group found enough evidence, though low-level again, to suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety be performed during the ED evaluation. This could lead to successful therapy for the abdominal pain.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive nonopioid and/or nonpharmacologic analgesics? The writing group found little evidence to suggest for or against these analgesics, but they made a consensus recommendation suggesting an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control.
Although the final recommendations of the writing group were not definitive or based on the strongest level of evidence, I find it helpful to have this guidance, nevertheless, on behalf of a major national organization. I also find it helpful to know that even with the best evidence available, optimal patient care will often boil down to physician experience and gestalt. I should also add that the overall article is chock-full of pearls and helpful information that will further inform the readers’ decisions, and so the full version is definitely worth the read.
In summary
There you have it – my three favorite practice-changing articles of 2022. Although I have tried to provide key points here, the full discussions of those key points in the published articles will provide a great deal more education than I can offer in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full versions. Please be sure to include in the comments section your own pick for favorite or must-read articles from the past year.
Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When 2022 began, we started seeing some light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel. Vaccines were widely available, and even with new variants of the virus still occasionally emerging, the rates of severe morbidity and mortality appeared to be decreasing.
Expectedly, journals appeared to start moving more toward mainstream topics and publications rather than what seemed like a major focus on COVID-19 publications. The resulting literature was fantastic.
Several of those topics were discussed in a prior Emergency Medicine Viewpoint from this news organization, and many more of the research advances of 2022 will be discussed in the near future. However, in this Viewpoint, I would like to present my annual review of my three “must-read” articles of the past year.
As in past years, I am choosing reviews of the literature rather than original research articles (which, all too often, become outdated or debunked within a few years). I choose these articles in the hopes that readers will not simply settle for my brief reviews of the key points but instead will feel compelled to download and read the entire articles. These publications address common conditions and quandaries we face in the daily practice of emergency medicine and are practice-changing.
Myocardial dysfunction after cardiac arrest: Tips and pitfalls
The management of post–cardiac arrest patients remains a hot topic in the resuscitation literature as we continue to understand that the immediate post-arrest period is critical to patient outcome.
Ortuno and colleagues reviewed the current literature on post-arrest care and wrote an outstanding summary of how to optimally care for these patients. More specifically, they focused on post-arrest patients who demonstrate continued shock, or “post–cardiac arrest myocardial dysfunction” (PCAMD).
They propose three mechanisms for the pathogenesis of PCAMD: ischemia reperfusion phenomenon, systemic inflammatory response, and increased catecholamine release
I will skip through the details of the pathophysiology that they describe in the article, but I certainly do recommend that everyone review their descriptions.
Management of these patients begins with a good hemodynamic assessment, which includes clinical markers of perfusion (blood pressure, capillary refill), ECG, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). If the initial assessment reveals an obvious cause of the cardiac arrest (e.g., massive pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, pericardial tamponade), then the underlying cause should be treated expeditiously.
In the absence of an obvious treatable cause of the shock, the fluid status and cardiac function should be addressed with POCUS. If the patient is hypovolemic, intravenous fluids should be administered. If the fluid status is adequate, POCUS should be used to estimate the patient’s ventricular function. If the ventricle appears to be hyperdynamic with good contractility, shock should be treated with norepinephrine. On the other hand, if the ventricle is hypodynamic, dobutamine should be substituted for norepinephrine or, more often, added to norepinephrine.
The above represents a simplified summary of the critical points, but the authors do delve into further detail and also discuss some other options for therapies, including steroids, coronary revascularization, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and so on. The review is very thoughtful, thorough, and definitely worth a full read.
Top myths of diagnosis and management of infectious diseases in hospital medicine
Most, if not all of us in medicine, have heard the saying that 50% of what we learn in medical school (or residency) will turn out to be wrong. I certainly believe in this concept and consequently, like many of you, I enjoy reading about myths and misconceptions that we have been taught. With that in mind, I have to say that I love this article because it seems to have been written specifically to address what I was taught!
This author group, consisting mostly of clinical PharmDs who are experts in antibiotic use, provide us with an evidence-based discussion of myths and pitfalls in how antibiotics are often used in current clinical practice. The authors review their top 10 myths involving the use of antibiotics in treating infections in the hospital setting. A few of these relate more to the inpatient setting, but here are my favorite emergency department (ED)–related myths that they address:
- “Antibiotics do no harm.” The authors address the risk-benefit of antibiotics based on assumed vs. confirmed infections, including a brief discussion of adverse drug effects.
- “Antibiotic durations of 7, 14, or 21 days are typically necessary.” The authors address appropriate duration of antibiotic use and the fact that unnecessarily long durations of use can lead to resistance. They also provide reassurance that some infections can be treated with quite short durations of antibiotics.
- “If one drug is good, two (or more!) is better.” The use of multiple antibiotics, often with overlapping bacterial coverage, is rampant in medicine and further increases the risk for adverse drug effects and resistance.
- “Oral antibiotics are not as good as intravenous antibiotics for hospitalized patients.” This is definitely a myth that I learned. I recall being taught by many senior physicians that anyone sick enough for admission should be treated with intravenous antibiotics. As it turns out, absorption and effectiveness of most oral antibiotics is just as good as intravenous antibiotics, and the oral formulations are often safer.
- “A history of a penicillin allergy means the patient can never receive a beta-lactam antibiotic.” This is a myth that was debunked quite a few years ago, but it seems that many clinicians still need a reminder.
The authors included five more myths that are worth the read. This is an article that needs to be disseminated among all hospital clinicians.
Guidelines for low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department
The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) recently initiated a program focused on creating evidence-based approaches to challenging chief complaints and presentations in the emergency department (ED). In 2021, they published an approach to managing patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the ED. This past year, they published their second guideline, focused on the management of patients with low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the ED.
Recurrent low-risk abdominal pain is a common and vexing presentation to EDs around the world, and there is little prior published guidance. Do all of these patients need repeat imaging? How do we manage their pain? Are there nonabdominal conditions that should be considered?
Broder and colleagues did a fantastic review of the current literature and, on behalf of SAEM, have provided a rational approach to optimal management of these patients. The four major questions they addressed, with brief summaries of their recommendations, are:
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive a repeat CT abdomen-pelvis (CTAP) after a negative CTAP within the past 12 months? This is a typical question that we all ponder when managing these patients. Unfortunately, the writing group found insufficient evidence to definitively identify populations in whom CTAP was recommended vs could be safely withheld. It is a bit disappointing that there is no definite answer to the question. On the other hand, it is reassuring to know that the world’s best evidence essentially says that it is perfectly appropriate to use your own good clinical judgment.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain with a negative CTAP receive additional imaging with abdominal ultrasound? In this case, the writing group found enough evidence, though low-level, to suggest against routine ultrasound in the absence of concern specifically for pelvic or hepatobiliary pathology. Like most tests, ultrasound is best used when there are specific concerns rather than being used in an undifferentiated fashion.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive screening for depression/anxiety? The writing group found enough evidence, though low-level again, to suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety be performed during the ED evaluation. This could lead to successful therapy for the abdominal pain.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive nonopioid and/or nonpharmacologic analgesics? The writing group found little evidence to suggest for or against these analgesics, but they made a consensus recommendation suggesting an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control.
Although the final recommendations of the writing group were not definitive or based on the strongest level of evidence, I find it helpful to have this guidance, nevertheless, on behalf of a major national organization. I also find it helpful to know that even with the best evidence available, optimal patient care will often boil down to physician experience and gestalt. I should also add that the overall article is chock-full of pearls and helpful information that will further inform the readers’ decisions, and so the full version is definitely worth the read.
In summary
There you have it – my three favorite practice-changing articles of 2022. Although I have tried to provide key points here, the full discussions of those key points in the published articles will provide a great deal more education than I can offer in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full versions. Please be sure to include in the comments section your own pick for favorite or must-read articles from the past year.
Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When 2022 began, we started seeing some light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel. Vaccines were widely available, and even with new variants of the virus still occasionally emerging, the rates of severe morbidity and mortality appeared to be decreasing.
Expectedly, journals appeared to start moving more toward mainstream topics and publications rather than what seemed like a major focus on COVID-19 publications. The resulting literature was fantastic.
Several of those topics were discussed in a prior Emergency Medicine Viewpoint from this news organization, and many more of the research advances of 2022 will be discussed in the near future. However, in this Viewpoint, I would like to present my annual review of my three “must-read” articles of the past year.
As in past years, I am choosing reviews of the literature rather than original research articles (which, all too often, become outdated or debunked within a few years). I choose these articles in the hopes that readers will not simply settle for my brief reviews of the key points but instead will feel compelled to download and read the entire articles. These publications address common conditions and quandaries we face in the daily practice of emergency medicine and are practice-changing.
Myocardial dysfunction after cardiac arrest: Tips and pitfalls
The management of post–cardiac arrest patients remains a hot topic in the resuscitation literature as we continue to understand that the immediate post-arrest period is critical to patient outcome.
Ortuno and colleagues reviewed the current literature on post-arrest care and wrote an outstanding summary of how to optimally care for these patients. More specifically, they focused on post-arrest patients who demonstrate continued shock, or “post–cardiac arrest myocardial dysfunction” (PCAMD).
They propose three mechanisms for the pathogenesis of PCAMD: ischemia reperfusion phenomenon, systemic inflammatory response, and increased catecholamine release
I will skip through the details of the pathophysiology that they describe in the article, but I certainly do recommend that everyone review their descriptions.
Management of these patients begins with a good hemodynamic assessment, which includes clinical markers of perfusion (blood pressure, capillary refill), ECG, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). If the initial assessment reveals an obvious cause of the cardiac arrest (e.g., massive pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, pericardial tamponade), then the underlying cause should be treated expeditiously.
In the absence of an obvious treatable cause of the shock, the fluid status and cardiac function should be addressed with POCUS. If the patient is hypovolemic, intravenous fluids should be administered. If the fluid status is adequate, POCUS should be used to estimate the patient’s ventricular function. If the ventricle appears to be hyperdynamic with good contractility, shock should be treated with norepinephrine. On the other hand, if the ventricle is hypodynamic, dobutamine should be substituted for norepinephrine or, more often, added to norepinephrine.
The above represents a simplified summary of the critical points, but the authors do delve into further detail and also discuss some other options for therapies, including steroids, coronary revascularization, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and so on. The review is very thoughtful, thorough, and definitely worth a full read.
Top myths of diagnosis and management of infectious diseases in hospital medicine
Most, if not all of us in medicine, have heard the saying that 50% of what we learn in medical school (or residency) will turn out to be wrong. I certainly believe in this concept and consequently, like many of you, I enjoy reading about myths and misconceptions that we have been taught. With that in mind, I have to say that I love this article because it seems to have been written specifically to address what I was taught!
This author group, consisting mostly of clinical PharmDs who are experts in antibiotic use, provide us with an evidence-based discussion of myths and pitfalls in how antibiotics are often used in current clinical practice. The authors review their top 10 myths involving the use of antibiotics in treating infections in the hospital setting. A few of these relate more to the inpatient setting, but here are my favorite emergency department (ED)–related myths that they address:
- “Antibiotics do no harm.” The authors address the risk-benefit of antibiotics based on assumed vs. confirmed infections, including a brief discussion of adverse drug effects.
- “Antibiotic durations of 7, 14, or 21 days are typically necessary.” The authors address appropriate duration of antibiotic use and the fact that unnecessarily long durations of use can lead to resistance. They also provide reassurance that some infections can be treated with quite short durations of antibiotics.
- “If one drug is good, two (or more!) is better.” The use of multiple antibiotics, often with overlapping bacterial coverage, is rampant in medicine and further increases the risk for adverse drug effects and resistance.
- “Oral antibiotics are not as good as intravenous antibiotics for hospitalized patients.” This is definitely a myth that I learned. I recall being taught by many senior physicians that anyone sick enough for admission should be treated with intravenous antibiotics. As it turns out, absorption and effectiveness of most oral antibiotics is just as good as intravenous antibiotics, and the oral formulations are often safer.
- “A history of a penicillin allergy means the patient can never receive a beta-lactam antibiotic.” This is a myth that was debunked quite a few years ago, but it seems that many clinicians still need a reminder.
The authors included five more myths that are worth the read. This is an article that needs to be disseminated among all hospital clinicians.
Guidelines for low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department
The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) recently initiated a program focused on creating evidence-based approaches to challenging chief complaints and presentations in the emergency department (ED). In 2021, they published an approach to managing patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the ED. This past year, they published their second guideline, focused on the management of patients with low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the ED.
Recurrent low-risk abdominal pain is a common and vexing presentation to EDs around the world, and there is little prior published guidance. Do all of these patients need repeat imaging? How do we manage their pain? Are there nonabdominal conditions that should be considered?
Broder and colleagues did a fantastic review of the current literature and, on behalf of SAEM, have provided a rational approach to optimal management of these patients. The four major questions they addressed, with brief summaries of their recommendations, are:
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive a repeat CT abdomen-pelvis (CTAP) after a negative CTAP within the past 12 months? This is a typical question that we all ponder when managing these patients. Unfortunately, the writing group found insufficient evidence to definitively identify populations in whom CTAP was recommended vs could be safely withheld. It is a bit disappointing that there is no definite answer to the question. On the other hand, it is reassuring to know that the world’s best evidence essentially says that it is perfectly appropriate to use your own good clinical judgment.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain with a negative CTAP receive additional imaging with abdominal ultrasound? In this case, the writing group found enough evidence, though low-level, to suggest against routine ultrasound in the absence of concern specifically for pelvic or hepatobiliary pathology. Like most tests, ultrasound is best used when there are specific concerns rather than being used in an undifferentiated fashion.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive screening for depression/anxiety? The writing group found enough evidence, though low-level again, to suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety be performed during the ED evaluation. This could lead to successful therapy for the abdominal pain.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive nonopioid and/or nonpharmacologic analgesics? The writing group found little evidence to suggest for or against these analgesics, but they made a consensus recommendation suggesting an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control.
Although the final recommendations of the writing group were not definitive or based on the strongest level of evidence, I find it helpful to have this guidance, nevertheless, on behalf of a major national organization. I also find it helpful to know that even with the best evidence available, optimal patient care will often boil down to physician experience and gestalt. I should also add that the overall article is chock-full of pearls and helpful information that will further inform the readers’ decisions, and so the full version is definitely worth the read.
In summary
There you have it – my three favorite practice-changing articles of 2022. Although I have tried to provide key points here, the full discussions of those key points in the published articles will provide a great deal more education than I can offer in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full versions. Please be sure to include in the comments section your own pick for favorite or must-read articles from the past year.
Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Multidrug-resistant gram-negative infections treatable with newer antibiotics, but guidance is needed
Multidrug-resistant gram-negative infections (MDRGNIs) are an emerging and deadly threat worldwide. Some of these infections are now resistant to nearly all antibiotics, and very few treatment options exist. Some of the remaining antibiotics for these MDRGNIs can cause acute kidney injury and have other toxic effects and can worsen antibiotic resistance. When deciding which drugs to use, clinicians need to juggle the possible lethality of the infection with the dangers of its treatment.
Samuel Windham, MD, and Marin H. Kollef, MD, authors of a recent article in Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases, express this urgency. They offer recommendations based on current guidelines and recently published research for treating MDRGNIs with some of the newer antibiotics.
Dr. Kollef, professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, said in an email, “Our recommendations differ in that they offer an approach that is based on disease severity, local resistance prevalence in MDRGNIs, and patient risk factors for infection with MDRGNIs. For patients with severe infection and risk factors for infection with MDRGNIs, we suggest empiric coverage for MDRGNIs until susceptibility data are available or based on rapid molecular testing. Selection of antibiotic therapy would be based on which MDRGNIs predominate locally.”
In their article, the authors discuss how to best utilize the newer antibiotics of ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA), cefiderocol, ceftolozane-tazobactam (C/T), meropenem-vaborbactam (MVB), imipenem-relebactam (I-R), aztreonam-avibactam (ATM-AVI), eravacycline, and plazomicin.
The scope of the problem
Bacterial infections are deadly and are becoming less treatable. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in 2022 that the COVID-19 pandemic has reversed years of decreases in health care–associated infections. Much of the increase has been caused by multidrug-resistant organisms.
In November 2022, authors of an article published in The Lancet estimated worldwide deaths from 33 bacterial genera across 11 infectious syndromes. They found that these infections were the second leading cause of death worldwide in 2019 (ischemic heart disease was the first). Furthermore, they discovered that 54.9% of these deaths were attributable to just five pathogens – Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Three of those five bacterial species – E. coli, K. pneumoniae, and P. aeruginosa – are gram-negative and are highly prone to drug resistance.
The CDC classified each of those three pathogens as an “urgent threat” in its 2019 Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States report. Of particular concern are gram-negative infections that have become resistant to carbapenems, a heavy-hitting class of antibiotics.
Regarding organisms that cause MDRGNIs, known as serine-beta-lactamases (OXA, KPC, and CTX-M) and metallo-beta-lactamases (NDM, VIM, and IMP). Carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumanii also produce carbapenemases, rendering them invulnerable to carbapenem antibiotics.
Traditionally, a common alternative used for carbapenem-resistant infections has been colistin, an older and very toxic antibiotic. The authors cite recent research demonstrating that CZA yields significantly better outcomes with regard to patient mortality and acute kidney injury than colistin and that CZA plus aztreonam can even decrease mortality and length of hospital stay for patients who have bloodstream infections with metallo-beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales, which are some of the hardest infections to treat.
“CZA has been demonstrated to have excellent activity against MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa and KPC Enterobacterales. It should be the preferred agent for use, compared with colistin, for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria susceptible to CZA. Moreover, CZA combined with aztreonam has been shown to be an effective treatment for metallo-beta-lactamase MDRGNIs,” Dr. Kollef said.
Four key recommendations for treating MDRGNIs
The authors base their recommendations, in addition to the recent studies they cite concerning CZA, upon two major guidelines on the treatment of MDRGNIs: the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases’ Guidelines for the Treatment of Infections Caused by Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacilli, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America’s (IDSA’s) Guidance on the Treatment of Antimicrobial Resistant Gram-Negative Infections (multiple documents, found here and here).
Dr. Windham and Dr. Kollef present a table showing the spectrum of activity of the newer antibiotics, as well as an algorithm for decision-making. They summarize their treatment recommendations, which are based upon the bacterial infection cultures or on historical risk (previous infection or colonization history). They encourage empiric treatment if there is an increased risk of death or the presence of shock. By pathogen, they recommend the following:
- For carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, clinicians should treat patients with cefiderocol, ceftazidime-avibactam, imipenem-cilastatin-relabactam, or meropenem-vaborbactam.
- For carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, clinicians should treat patients with cefiderocol, ceftazidime-avibactam, imipenem-cilastatin-relabactam, or ceftolozane-tazobactam.
- For carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumanii, clinicians should treat patients with a cefiderocol backbone with or without the addition of plazomicin, eravacycline, or other older antibacterials.
- For metallo-beta-lactamase-producing organisms, clinicians should treat patients with cefiderocol, ceftazidime-avibactam, aztreonam, imipenem-cilastatin-relabactam, aztreonam, or aztreonam-avibactam. The authors acknowledge that evidence is limited on treating these infections.
“In general, ceftazidime-avibactam works pretty well in patients with MDRGNIs, and there is no evidence that any of the other new agents is conclusively better in treatment responses. CZA and ceftolozane-tazobactam were the first of the new antibiotics active against highly MDRGN to get approved, and they have been most widely used,” Cornelius “Neil” J. Clancy, MD, chief of the Infectious Diseases Section at the VA Pittsburgh Health Care System, explained. Dr. Clancy was not involved in the Windham-Kollef review article.
“As such, it is not surprising that resistance has emerged and that it has been reported more commonly than for some other agents. The issue of resistance will be considered again as IDSA puts together their update,” Dr. Clancy said.
“The IDSA guidelines are regularly updated. The next updated iteration will be online in early 2023,” said Dr. Clancy, who is also affiliated with IDSA. “Clinical and resistance data that have appeared since the last update in 2022 will be considered as the guidance is put together.”
In general, Dr. Kollef also recommends using a facility’s antibiogram. “They are useful in determining which MDRGN’s predominate locally,” he said.
Dr. Kollef is a consultant for Pfizer, Merck, and Shionogi. Dr. Clancy has received research funding from Merck and from the National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Multidrug-resistant gram-negative infections (MDRGNIs) are an emerging and deadly threat worldwide. Some of these infections are now resistant to nearly all antibiotics, and very few treatment options exist. Some of the remaining antibiotics for these MDRGNIs can cause acute kidney injury and have other toxic effects and can worsen antibiotic resistance. When deciding which drugs to use, clinicians need to juggle the possible lethality of the infection with the dangers of its treatment.
Samuel Windham, MD, and Marin H. Kollef, MD, authors of a recent article in Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases, express this urgency. They offer recommendations based on current guidelines and recently published research for treating MDRGNIs with some of the newer antibiotics.
Dr. Kollef, professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, said in an email, “Our recommendations differ in that they offer an approach that is based on disease severity, local resistance prevalence in MDRGNIs, and patient risk factors for infection with MDRGNIs. For patients with severe infection and risk factors for infection with MDRGNIs, we suggest empiric coverage for MDRGNIs until susceptibility data are available or based on rapid molecular testing. Selection of antibiotic therapy would be based on which MDRGNIs predominate locally.”
In their article, the authors discuss how to best utilize the newer antibiotics of ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA), cefiderocol, ceftolozane-tazobactam (C/T), meropenem-vaborbactam (MVB), imipenem-relebactam (I-R), aztreonam-avibactam (ATM-AVI), eravacycline, and plazomicin.
The scope of the problem
Bacterial infections are deadly and are becoming less treatable. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in 2022 that the COVID-19 pandemic has reversed years of decreases in health care–associated infections. Much of the increase has been caused by multidrug-resistant organisms.
In November 2022, authors of an article published in The Lancet estimated worldwide deaths from 33 bacterial genera across 11 infectious syndromes. They found that these infections were the second leading cause of death worldwide in 2019 (ischemic heart disease was the first). Furthermore, they discovered that 54.9% of these deaths were attributable to just five pathogens – Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Three of those five bacterial species – E. coli, K. pneumoniae, and P. aeruginosa – are gram-negative and are highly prone to drug resistance.
The CDC classified each of those three pathogens as an “urgent threat” in its 2019 Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States report. Of particular concern are gram-negative infections that have become resistant to carbapenems, a heavy-hitting class of antibiotics.
Regarding organisms that cause MDRGNIs, known as serine-beta-lactamases (OXA, KPC, and CTX-M) and metallo-beta-lactamases (NDM, VIM, and IMP). Carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumanii also produce carbapenemases, rendering them invulnerable to carbapenem antibiotics.
Traditionally, a common alternative used for carbapenem-resistant infections has been colistin, an older and very toxic antibiotic. The authors cite recent research demonstrating that CZA yields significantly better outcomes with regard to patient mortality and acute kidney injury than colistin and that CZA plus aztreonam can even decrease mortality and length of hospital stay for patients who have bloodstream infections with metallo-beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales, which are some of the hardest infections to treat.
“CZA has been demonstrated to have excellent activity against MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa and KPC Enterobacterales. It should be the preferred agent for use, compared with colistin, for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria susceptible to CZA. Moreover, CZA combined with aztreonam has been shown to be an effective treatment for metallo-beta-lactamase MDRGNIs,” Dr. Kollef said.
Four key recommendations for treating MDRGNIs
The authors base their recommendations, in addition to the recent studies they cite concerning CZA, upon two major guidelines on the treatment of MDRGNIs: the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases’ Guidelines for the Treatment of Infections Caused by Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacilli, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America’s (IDSA’s) Guidance on the Treatment of Antimicrobial Resistant Gram-Negative Infections (multiple documents, found here and here).
Dr. Windham and Dr. Kollef present a table showing the spectrum of activity of the newer antibiotics, as well as an algorithm for decision-making. They summarize their treatment recommendations, which are based upon the bacterial infection cultures or on historical risk (previous infection or colonization history). They encourage empiric treatment if there is an increased risk of death or the presence of shock. By pathogen, they recommend the following:
- For carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, clinicians should treat patients with cefiderocol, ceftazidime-avibactam, imipenem-cilastatin-relabactam, or meropenem-vaborbactam.
- For carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, clinicians should treat patients with cefiderocol, ceftazidime-avibactam, imipenem-cilastatin-relabactam, or ceftolozane-tazobactam.
- For carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumanii, clinicians should treat patients with a cefiderocol backbone with or without the addition of plazomicin, eravacycline, or other older antibacterials.
- For metallo-beta-lactamase-producing organisms, clinicians should treat patients with cefiderocol, ceftazidime-avibactam, aztreonam, imipenem-cilastatin-relabactam, aztreonam, or aztreonam-avibactam. The authors acknowledge that evidence is limited on treating these infections.
“In general, ceftazidime-avibactam works pretty well in patients with MDRGNIs, and there is no evidence that any of the other new agents is conclusively better in treatment responses. CZA and ceftolozane-tazobactam were the first of the new antibiotics active against highly MDRGN to get approved, and they have been most widely used,” Cornelius “Neil” J. Clancy, MD, chief of the Infectious Diseases Section at the VA Pittsburgh Health Care System, explained. Dr. Clancy was not involved in the Windham-Kollef review article.
“As such, it is not surprising that resistance has emerged and that it has been reported more commonly than for some other agents. The issue of resistance will be considered again as IDSA puts together their update,” Dr. Clancy said.
“The IDSA guidelines are regularly updated. The next updated iteration will be online in early 2023,” said Dr. Clancy, who is also affiliated with IDSA. “Clinical and resistance data that have appeared since the last update in 2022 will be considered as the guidance is put together.”
In general, Dr. Kollef also recommends using a facility’s antibiogram. “They are useful in determining which MDRGN’s predominate locally,” he said.
Dr. Kollef is a consultant for Pfizer, Merck, and Shionogi. Dr. Clancy has received research funding from Merck and from the National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Multidrug-resistant gram-negative infections (MDRGNIs) are an emerging and deadly threat worldwide. Some of these infections are now resistant to nearly all antibiotics, and very few treatment options exist. Some of the remaining antibiotics for these MDRGNIs can cause acute kidney injury and have other toxic effects and can worsen antibiotic resistance. When deciding which drugs to use, clinicians need to juggle the possible lethality of the infection with the dangers of its treatment.
Samuel Windham, MD, and Marin H. Kollef, MD, authors of a recent article in Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases, express this urgency. They offer recommendations based on current guidelines and recently published research for treating MDRGNIs with some of the newer antibiotics.
Dr. Kollef, professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, said in an email, “Our recommendations differ in that they offer an approach that is based on disease severity, local resistance prevalence in MDRGNIs, and patient risk factors for infection with MDRGNIs. For patients with severe infection and risk factors for infection with MDRGNIs, we suggest empiric coverage for MDRGNIs until susceptibility data are available or based on rapid molecular testing. Selection of antibiotic therapy would be based on which MDRGNIs predominate locally.”
In their article, the authors discuss how to best utilize the newer antibiotics of ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA), cefiderocol, ceftolozane-tazobactam (C/T), meropenem-vaborbactam (MVB), imipenem-relebactam (I-R), aztreonam-avibactam (ATM-AVI), eravacycline, and plazomicin.
The scope of the problem
Bacterial infections are deadly and are becoming less treatable. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in 2022 that the COVID-19 pandemic has reversed years of decreases in health care–associated infections. Much of the increase has been caused by multidrug-resistant organisms.
In November 2022, authors of an article published in The Lancet estimated worldwide deaths from 33 bacterial genera across 11 infectious syndromes. They found that these infections were the second leading cause of death worldwide in 2019 (ischemic heart disease was the first). Furthermore, they discovered that 54.9% of these deaths were attributable to just five pathogens – Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Three of those five bacterial species – E. coli, K. pneumoniae, and P. aeruginosa – are gram-negative and are highly prone to drug resistance.
The CDC classified each of those three pathogens as an “urgent threat” in its 2019 Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States report. Of particular concern are gram-negative infections that have become resistant to carbapenems, a heavy-hitting class of antibiotics.
Regarding organisms that cause MDRGNIs, known as serine-beta-lactamases (OXA, KPC, and CTX-M) and metallo-beta-lactamases (NDM, VIM, and IMP). Carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumanii also produce carbapenemases, rendering them invulnerable to carbapenem antibiotics.
Traditionally, a common alternative used for carbapenem-resistant infections has been colistin, an older and very toxic antibiotic. The authors cite recent research demonstrating that CZA yields significantly better outcomes with regard to patient mortality and acute kidney injury than colistin and that CZA plus aztreonam can even decrease mortality and length of hospital stay for patients who have bloodstream infections with metallo-beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales, which are some of the hardest infections to treat.
“CZA has been demonstrated to have excellent activity against MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa and KPC Enterobacterales. It should be the preferred agent for use, compared with colistin, for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria susceptible to CZA. Moreover, CZA combined with aztreonam has been shown to be an effective treatment for metallo-beta-lactamase MDRGNIs,” Dr. Kollef said.
Four key recommendations for treating MDRGNIs
The authors base their recommendations, in addition to the recent studies they cite concerning CZA, upon two major guidelines on the treatment of MDRGNIs: the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases’ Guidelines for the Treatment of Infections Caused by Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacilli, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America’s (IDSA’s) Guidance on the Treatment of Antimicrobial Resistant Gram-Negative Infections (multiple documents, found here and here).
Dr. Windham and Dr. Kollef present a table showing the spectrum of activity of the newer antibiotics, as well as an algorithm for decision-making. They summarize their treatment recommendations, which are based upon the bacterial infection cultures or on historical risk (previous infection or colonization history). They encourage empiric treatment if there is an increased risk of death or the presence of shock. By pathogen, they recommend the following:
- For carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, clinicians should treat patients with cefiderocol, ceftazidime-avibactam, imipenem-cilastatin-relabactam, or meropenem-vaborbactam.
- For carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, clinicians should treat patients with cefiderocol, ceftazidime-avibactam, imipenem-cilastatin-relabactam, or ceftolozane-tazobactam.
- For carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumanii, clinicians should treat patients with a cefiderocol backbone with or without the addition of plazomicin, eravacycline, or other older antibacterials.
- For metallo-beta-lactamase-producing organisms, clinicians should treat patients with cefiderocol, ceftazidime-avibactam, aztreonam, imipenem-cilastatin-relabactam, aztreonam, or aztreonam-avibactam. The authors acknowledge that evidence is limited on treating these infections.
“In general, ceftazidime-avibactam works pretty well in patients with MDRGNIs, and there is no evidence that any of the other new agents is conclusively better in treatment responses. CZA and ceftolozane-tazobactam were the first of the new antibiotics active against highly MDRGN to get approved, and they have been most widely used,” Cornelius “Neil” J. Clancy, MD, chief of the Infectious Diseases Section at the VA Pittsburgh Health Care System, explained. Dr. Clancy was not involved in the Windham-Kollef review article.
“As such, it is not surprising that resistance has emerged and that it has been reported more commonly than for some other agents. The issue of resistance will be considered again as IDSA puts together their update,” Dr. Clancy said.
“The IDSA guidelines are regularly updated. The next updated iteration will be online in early 2023,” said Dr. Clancy, who is also affiliated with IDSA. “Clinical and resistance data that have appeared since the last update in 2022 will be considered as the guidance is put together.”
In general, Dr. Kollef also recommends using a facility’s antibiogram. “They are useful in determining which MDRGN’s predominate locally,” he said.
Dr. Kollef is a consultant for Pfizer, Merck, and Shionogi. Dr. Clancy has received research funding from Merck and from the National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CURRENT OPINION IN INFECTIOUS DISEASES
FDA OKs first fecal transplant therapy for recurrent C. difficile
Rebyota (fecal microbiota, live-jslm), from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, is intended for use after an individual has completed antibiotic treatment for recurrent CDI. It is not indicated for the first occurrence of CDI.
“Recurrent CDI impacts an individual’s quality of life and can also potentially be life-threatening,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement announcing approval.
As the first FDA-approved fecal microbiota product, this approval “represents an important milestone, as it provides an additional approved option to prevent recurrent CDI,” Dr. Marks added.
A panel of FDA advisors recommended approval of Rebyota in September.
The application for Rebyota received priority review and had orphan drug and breakthrough therapy designation.
A vicious cycle
Treatment options for recurrent CDI are limited. It’s been estimated that up to one-third of CDI cases recur, and people who suffer a recurrent bout of CDI are at a significantly higher risk for further infections.
Following the first recurrence, up to two-thirds of patients may experience a subsequent recurrence. Antibiotics used to treat CDI may contribute to a cycle of recurrence by altering the gut flora. The administration of fecal microbiota helps restore the gut flora to prevent further episodes of CDI.
Rebyota is a microbiota-based live biotherapeutic prepared from human stool collected from prescreened, qualified donors. It comes prepackaged in a single dose that is administered rectally.
The safety and efficacy of Rebyota were assessed in five clinical trials with more than 1,000 participants, the company notes in a press release.
In one trial, following a standard course of antibiotics, a one-time treatment with Rebyota was successful for three-quarters of participants at 8 weeks.
The treatment also prevented additional bouts; 84% of these initial responders remaining free of CDI at 6 months.
Two-thirds of participants reported treatment-emergent adverse events. Most events were mild to moderate in severity. Diarrhea and abdominal pain were the most common.
The data, from the ongoing PUNCH CD3-OLS study, were presented in October at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology and were published simultaneously in the journal Drugs.
“This is a positive adjunct to our current therapies for C. difficile in terms of trying to knock it out once a standard course of antibiotics has been administered,” Lisa Malter, MD, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.
Dr. Malter acknowledged that because it’s delivered rectally, there could be “some hesitation” on the patient’s part to undergo the therapy.
However, C. difficile can be “excruciating” for patients, and they “may be more than willing to take [this agent] because it gets them feeling better,” Dr. Malter said.
Full prescribing information for Rebyota is available online.
Dr. Malter reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Rebyota (fecal microbiota, live-jslm), from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, is intended for use after an individual has completed antibiotic treatment for recurrent CDI. It is not indicated for the first occurrence of CDI.
“Recurrent CDI impacts an individual’s quality of life and can also potentially be life-threatening,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement announcing approval.
As the first FDA-approved fecal microbiota product, this approval “represents an important milestone, as it provides an additional approved option to prevent recurrent CDI,” Dr. Marks added.
A panel of FDA advisors recommended approval of Rebyota in September.
The application for Rebyota received priority review and had orphan drug and breakthrough therapy designation.
A vicious cycle
Treatment options for recurrent CDI are limited. It’s been estimated that up to one-third of CDI cases recur, and people who suffer a recurrent bout of CDI are at a significantly higher risk for further infections.
Following the first recurrence, up to two-thirds of patients may experience a subsequent recurrence. Antibiotics used to treat CDI may contribute to a cycle of recurrence by altering the gut flora. The administration of fecal microbiota helps restore the gut flora to prevent further episodes of CDI.
Rebyota is a microbiota-based live biotherapeutic prepared from human stool collected from prescreened, qualified donors. It comes prepackaged in a single dose that is administered rectally.
The safety and efficacy of Rebyota were assessed in five clinical trials with more than 1,000 participants, the company notes in a press release.
In one trial, following a standard course of antibiotics, a one-time treatment with Rebyota was successful for three-quarters of participants at 8 weeks.
The treatment also prevented additional bouts; 84% of these initial responders remaining free of CDI at 6 months.
Two-thirds of participants reported treatment-emergent adverse events. Most events were mild to moderate in severity. Diarrhea and abdominal pain were the most common.
The data, from the ongoing PUNCH CD3-OLS study, were presented in October at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology and were published simultaneously in the journal Drugs.
“This is a positive adjunct to our current therapies for C. difficile in terms of trying to knock it out once a standard course of antibiotics has been administered,” Lisa Malter, MD, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.
Dr. Malter acknowledged that because it’s delivered rectally, there could be “some hesitation” on the patient’s part to undergo the therapy.
However, C. difficile can be “excruciating” for patients, and they “may be more than willing to take [this agent] because it gets them feeling better,” Dr. Malter said.
Full prescribing information for Rebyota is available online.
Dr. Malter reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Rebyota (fecal microbiota, live-jslm), from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, is intended for use after an individual has completed antibiotic treatment for recurrent CDI. It is not indicated for the first occurrence of CDI.
“Recurrent CDI impacts an individual’s quality of life and can also potentially be life-threatening,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement announcing approval.
As the first FDA-approved fecal microbiota product, this approval “represents an important milestone, as it provides an additional approved option to prevent recurrent CDI,” Dr. Marks added.
A panel of FDA advisors recommended approval of Rebyota in September.
The application for Rebyota received priority review and had orphan drug and breakthrough therapy designation.
A vicious cycle
Treatment options for recurrent CDI are limited. It’s been estimated that up to one-third of CDI cases recur, and people who suffer a recurrent bout of CDI are at a significantly higher risk for further infections.
Following the first recurrence, up to two-thirds of patients may experience a subsequent recurrence. Antibiotics used to treat CDI may contribute to a cycle of recurrence by altering the gut flora. The administration of fecal microbiota helps restore the gut flora to prevent further episodes of CDI.
Rebyota is a microbiota-based live biotherapeutic prepared from human stool collected from prescreened, qualified donors. It comes prepackaged in a single dose that is administered rectally.
The safety and efficacy of Rebyota were assessed in five clinical trials with more than 1,000 participants, the company notes in a press release.
In one trial, following a standard course of antibiotics, a one-time treatment with Rebyota was successful for three-quarters of participants at 8 weeks.
The treatment also prevented additional bouts; 84% of these initial responders remaining free of CDI at 6 months.
Two-thirds of participants reported treatment-emergent adverse events. Most events were mild to moderate in severity. Diarrhea and abdominal pain were the most common.
The data, from the ongoing PUNCH CD3-OLS study, were presented in October at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology and were published simultaneously in the journal Drugs.
“This is a positive adjunct to our current therapies for C. difficile in terms of trying to knock it out once a standard course of antibiotics has been administered,” Lisa Malter, MD, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.
Dr. Malter acknowledged that because it’s delivered rectally, there could be “some hesitation” on the patient’s part to undergo the therapy.
However, C. difficile can be “excruciating” for patients, and they “may be more than willing to take [this agent] because it gets them feeling better,” Dr. Malter said.
Full prescribing information for Rebyota is available online.
Dr. Malter reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Don’t let amoxicillin shortage go to waste, antibiotic stewards say
Some experts are encouraging clinicians to see the amoxicillin shortage through pink-colored glasses.
The ongoing shortage, which was first reported in October and was prompted by a surge in demand linked in part to influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), could be an opportunity for clinicians to refine their prescribing practices and avoid unnecessary and potentially harmful orders for the medication, they say.
Antibiotics are often prescribed to patients who do not need them. In many cases, patients’ symptoms are caused by viral infections, not bacteria, so antibiotics do not help.
Even when symptoms resolve after a patient takes an antibiotic, the drug may have had nothing to do with their improvement.
Time to double-down on assessment; use antibiotics only when needed,” Jason Gallagher, PharmD, of Temple University School of Pharmacy in Philadelphia, posted on Twitter.
When antibiotics are not helping, they still may cause harm. Treatment with antibiotics entails risks for antibiotic resistance, infection with Clostridioides difficile, and side effects, such as rashes and – as Dr. Gallagher noted – diarrhea.
“They say ‘never let a good shortage go to waste,’ ” Michael Cosimini, MD, a pediatrician at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, tweeted about the lack of amoxicillin in October.
Dr. Cosimini offered his thoughts about “improving our amoxicillin prescribing patterns” in pediatrics and encouraged colleagues to do so.
For example, he highlighted guidelines that state that antimicrobial therapy is not routinely required for preschool-aged children with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) because most cases are caused by viral pathogens.
And trials show that when antibiotics are used for CAP, a shorter treatment duration, such as 5 days, rather than the standard 7-10 days, can be sufficient.
“As physicians, a shortage like this is an opportunity to do our best in the short term, as well as reflect on our current practice and make changes for the better in the long run,” Dr. Cosimini told this news organization.
Amoxicillin is the most commonly prescribed antibiotic in the outpatient setting and is the first choice among antimicrobial agents for common infections, such as otitis media, strep throat, and pneumonia, he said. “We use it frequently, so even small changes could go a long way to improve our prescribing practice,” Dr. Cosimini said.
Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing may be common
A 2021 statement on antibiotic stewardship from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) declared that while antibiotics have saved countless lives, they can also cause harm and are frequently used inappropriately.
“One in five pediatric ambulatory visits result in an antibiotic prescription, accounting for nearly 50 million antibiotic prescriptions annually in the United States, at least half of which are considered inappropriate. [Acute respiratory tract infections] account for more than two-thirds of antibiotic prescriptions for children, at least one-third of which are unnecessary,” according to the society.
Outpatient antibiotic stewardship efforts could focus on clinical encounters in which the medications could be avoided altogether, the AAP suggested.
“Examples include antibiotic prescribing for nonspecific upper respiratory infection, bronchiolitis, acute bronchitis, asthma exacerbation, or conjunctivitis,” the group said.
Given the epidemiology of bacterial infections seen in ambulatory care settings that warrant antibiotic therapy, researchers conservatively estimate “that antibiotic prescribing could be safely reduced by 30%,” the statement noted.
That said, treatment decisions are not always clear cut.
“Certain infections in children, such as ear infections and lung infections, can be caused by viruses, bacteria, or both at the same time,” Dr. Cosimini said. “As such, it is very difficult to know which children benefit from which antibiotics.”
Watching, waiting, vaccinating
Pediatricians know that many children with ear infections will get better without antibiotics. “Parents should know that their doctor may suggest watching an ear infection without antibiotics, as is the recommendation from the AAP,” Dr. Cosimini said.
Data indicate that doctors are not following this practice as often as they could be, he said.
When antibiotic treatment is needed during the shortage, agents other than amoxicillin suspension can be used.
“Even though amoxicillin suspension is our go-to antibiotic for many infections, there are effective alternative options,” Dr. Cosimini said. “Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia has a good list for doctors looking for alternatives.”
Another approach to reducing the use of antibiotics in the future involves preventing infections through vaccination.
Research shows that routine childhood vaccines may have averted millions of respiratory and ear infections. And because bacterial infections can follow viral infections, the annual flu vaccine and COVID-19 vaccines “are also great tools to reduce antibiotic use,” Dr. Cosimini said.
A turn to more toxic options?
The shortage of amoxicillin oral powder for suspension was reported by the Food and Drug Administration and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) in October.
On Nov. 4, the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists (SIDP) issued a statement on the amoxicillin shortage, noting that increased demand for the drug coincided with a surge in respiratory viral infections, including RSV and influenza, among children.
“Though supportive care is the mainstay of treatment for viral infections, antibiotics may be indicated for the treatment of superimposed bacterial infections, including pneumonia and acute otitis media,” the SIDP statement said. “While alternative antibiotics may be available depending on the indication, many have a broader spectrum of activity, increased toxicity, and excess cost relative to amoxicillin. Furthermore, it is anticipated alternatives may soon become in short supply as well, given increased usage.”
SIDP “encourages the judicious use of antibiotics” and supports watch-and-wait strategies and the use of the shortest effective duration of therapy when appropriate.
Michael Ganio, PharmD, senior director of pharmacy practice and quality for ASHP, monitors around 250 drug shortages at any given time.
The amoxicillin shortage, while not “overly worrisome,” stands out because of how widely the drug is used and the fact that the shortage appears to have been sparked by an increase in demand rather than supply chain or manufacturing quality problems that more typically lead to shortages, he said.
Unlike some other shortages, the amoxicillin shortfall largely does not involve disrupting a medication regimen that someone was already receiving, and substitutions should be available.
“That said, it’s very, very disruptive to parents or a caregiver when you have a sick child who needs an antibiotic and it’s not available,” Dr. Ganio said.
Can a poster change practice?
In an unrelated move, the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality published new resources and strategies to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use in ambulatory care settings.
One of the tools is a poster that doctors can print and hang in their offices. It states: “We commit to only prescribing antibiotics when they will help you. Taking antibiotics when you do not need them will NOT make you better. You will still feel sick, and the antibiotic may give you a skin rash, diarrhea, or a yeast infection.”
Jeffrey A. Linder, MD, MPH, a general internist and researcher at Northwestern University in Chicago, helped develop some of the approaches to improve prescribing practices in primary care.
Dr. Linder explained on a recent episode of the Freakonomics, M.D. podcast that the poster can be key.
One reason clinicians may prescribe antibiotics inappropriately is because they assume – perhaps erroneously – that patients want and expect them. By addressing the issue up front by displaying the poster, they may be able to “short-circuit” that type of thinking.
A minority of patients do expect antibiotics. “But the vast majority of patients are thinking, ‘I don’t feel well, I want to know what’s going on, and I want to know how to feel better and what’s going to happen.’ ”
For their part, patients can tell their doctors that they want an antibiotic only if they really need it, Dr. Linder said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Some experts are encouraging clinicians to see the amoxicillin shortage through pink-colored glasses.
The ongoing shortage, which was first reported in October and was prompted by a surge in demand linked in part to influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), could be an opportunity for clinicians to refine their prescribing practices and avoid unnecessary and potentially harmful orders for the medication, they say.
Antibiotics are often prescribed to patients who do not need them. In many cases, patients’ symptoms are caused by viral infections, not bacteria, so antibiotics do not help.
Even when symptoms resolve after a patient takes an antibiotic, the drug may have had nothing to do with their improvement.
Time to double-down on assessment; use antibiotics only when needed,” Jason Gallagher, PharmD, of Temple University School of Pharmacy in Philadelphia, posted on Twitter.
When antibiotics are not helping, they still may cause harm. Treatment with antibiotics entails risks for antibiotic resistance, infection with Clostridioides difficile, and side effects, such as rashes and – as Dr. Gallagher noted – diarrhea.
“They say ‘never let a good shortage go to waste,’ ” Michael Cosimini, MD, a pediatrician at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, tweeted about the lack of amoxicillin in October.
Dr. Cosimini offered his thoughts about “improving our amoxicillin prescribing patterns” in pediatrics and encouraged colleagues to do so.
For example, he highlighted guidelines that state that antimicrobial therapy is not routinely required for preschool-aged children with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) because most cases are caused by viral pathogens.
And trials show that when antibiotics are used for CAP, a shorter treatment duration, such as 5 days, rather than the standard 7-10 days, can be sufficient.
“As physicians, a shortage like this is an opportunity to do our best in the short term, as well as reflect on our current practice and make changes for the better in the long run,” Dr. Cosimini told this news organization.
Amoxicillin is the most commonly prescribed antibiotic in the outpatient setting and is the first choice among antimicrobial agents for common infections, such as otitis media, strep throat, and pneumonia, he said. “We use it frequently, so even small changes could go a long way to improve our prescribing practice,” Dr. Cosimini said.
Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing may be common
A 2021 statement on antibiotic stewardship from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) declared that while antibiotics have saved countless lives, they can also cause harm and are frequently used inappropriately.
“One in five pediatric ambulatory visits result in an antibiotic prescription, accounting for nearly 50 million antibiotic prescriptions annually in the United States, at least half of which are considered inappropriate. [Acute respiratory tract infections] account for more than two-thirds of antibiotic prescriptions for children, at least one-third of which are unnecessary,” according to the society.
Outpatient antibiotic stewardship efforts could focus on clinical encounters in which the medications could be avoided altogether, the AAP suggested.
“Examples include antibiotic prescribing for nonspecific upper respiratory infection, bronchiolitis, acute bronchitis, asthma exacerbation, or conjunctivitis,” the group said.
Given the epidemiology of bacterial infections seen in ambulatory care settings that warrant antibiotic therapy, researchers conservatively estimate “that antibiotic prescribing could be safely reduced by 30%,” the statement noted.
That said, treatment decisions are not always clear cut.
“Certain infections in children, such as ear infections and lung infections, can be caused by viruses, bacteria, or both at the same time,” Dr. Cosimini said. “As such, it is very difficult to know which children benefit from which antibiotics.”
Watching, waiting, vaccinating
Pediatricians know that many children with ear infections will get better without antibiotics. “Parents should know that their doctor may suggest watching an ear infection without antibiotics, as is the recommendation from the AAP,” Dr. Cosimini said.
Data indicate that doctors are not following this practice as often as they could be, he said.
When antibiotic treatment is needed during the shortage, agents other than amoxicillin suspension can be used.
“Even though amoxicillin suspension is our go-to antibiotic for many infections, there are effective alternative options,” Dr. Cosimini said. “Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia has a good list for doctors looking for alternatives.”
Another approach to reducing the use of antibiotics in the future involves preventing infections through vaccination.
Research shows that routine childhood vaccines may have averted millions of respiratory and ear infections. And because bacterial infections can follow viral infections, the annual flu vaccine and COVID-19 vaccines “are also great tools to reduce antibiotic use,” Dr. Cosimini said.
A turn to more toxic options?
The shortage of amoxicillin oral powder for suspension was reported by the Food and Drug Administration and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) in October.
On Nov. 4, the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists (SIDP) issued a statement on the amoxicillin shortage, noting that increased demand for the drug coincided with a surge in respiratory viral infections, including RSV and influenza, among children.
“Though supportive care is the mainstay of treatment for viral infections, antibiotics may be indicated for the treatment of superimposed bacterial infections, including pneumonia and acute otitis media,” the SIDP statement said. “While alternative antibiotics may be available depending on the indication, many have a broader spectrum of activity, increased toxicity, and excess cost relative to amoxicillin. Furthermore, it is anticipated alternatives may soon become in short supply as well, given increased usage.”
SIDP “encourages the judicious use of antibiotics” and supports watch-and-wait strategies and the use of the shortest effective duration of therapy when appropriate.
Michael Ganio, PharmD, senior director of pharmacy practice and quality for ASHP, monitors around 250 drug shortages at any given time.
The amoxicillin shortage, while not “overly worrisome,” stands out because of how widely the drug is used and the fact that the shortage appears to have been sparked by an increase in demand rather than supply chain or manufacturing quality problems that more typically lead to shortages, he said.
Unlike some other shortages, the amoxicillin shortfall largely does not involve disrupting a medication regimen that someone was already receiving, and substitutions should be available.
“That said, it’s very, very disruptive to parents or a caregiver when you have a sick child who needs an antibiotic and it’s not available,” Dr. Ganio said.
Can a poster change practice?
In an unrelated move, the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality published new resources and strategies to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use in ambulatory care settings.
One of the tools is a poster that doctors can print and hang in their offices. It states: “We commit to only prescribing antibiotics when they will help you. Taking antibiotics when you do not need them will NOT make you better. You will still feel sick, and the antibiotic may give you a skin rash, diarrhea, or a yeast infection.”
Jeffrey A. Linder, MD, MPH, a general internist and researcher at Northwestern University in Chicago, helped develop some of the approaches to improve prescribing practices in primary care.
Dr. Linder explained on a recent episode of the Freakonomics, M.D. podcast that the poster can be key.
One reason clinicians may prescribe antibiotics inappropriately is because they assume – perhaps erroneously – that patients want and expect them. By addressing the issue up front by displaying the poster, they may be able to “short-circuit” that type of thinking.
A minority of patients do expect antibiotics. “But the vast majority of patients are thinking, ‘I don’t feel well, I want to know what’s going on, and I want to know how to feel better and what’s going to happen.’ ”
For their part, patients can tell their doctors that they want an antibiotic only if they really need it, Dr. Linder said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Some experts are encouraging clinicians to see the amoxicillin shortage through pink-colored glasses.
The ongoing shortage, which was first reported in October and was prompted by a surge in demand linked in part to influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), could be an opportunity for clinicians to refine their prescribing practices and avoid unnecessary and potentially harmful orders for the medication, they say.
Antibiotics are often prescribed to patients who do not need them. In many cases, patients’ symptoms are caused by viral infections, not bacteria, so antibiotics do not help.
Even when symptoms resolve after a patient takes an antibiotic, the drug may have had nothing to do with their improvement.
Time to double-down on assessment; use antibiotics only when needed,” Jason Gallagher, PharmD, of Temple University School of Pharmacy in Philadelphia, posted on Twitter.
When antibiotics are not helping, they still may cause harm. Treatment with antibiotics entails risks for antibiotic resistance, infection with Clostridioides difficile, and side effects, such as rashes and – as Dr. Gallagher noted – diarrhea.
“They say ‘never let a good shortage go to waste,’ ” Michael Cosimini, MD, a pediatrician at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, tweeted about the lack of amoxicillin in October.
Dr. Cosimini offered his thoughts about “improving our amoxicillin prescribing patterns” in pediatrics and encouraged colleagues to do so.
For example, he highlighted guidelines that state that antimicrobial therapy is not routinely required for preschool-aged children with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) because most cases are caused by viral pathogens.
And trials show that when antibiotics are used for CAP, a shorter treatment duration, such as 5 days, rather than the standard 7-10 days, can be sufficient.
“As physicians, a shortage like this is an opportunity to do our best in the short term, as well as reflect on our current practice and make changes for the better in the long run,” Dr. Cosimini told this news organization.
Amoxicillin is the most commonly prescribed antibiotic in the outpatient setting and is the first choice among antimicrobial agents for common infections, such as otitis media, strep throat, and pneumonia, he said. “We use it frequently, so even small changes could go a long way to improve our prescribing practice,” Dr. Cosimini said.
Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing may be common
A 2021 statement on antibiotic stewardship from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) declared that while antibiotics have saved countless lives, they can also cause harm and are frequently used inappropriately.
“One in five pediatric ambulatory visits result in an antibiotic prescription, accounting for nearly 50 million antibiotic prescriptions annually in the United States, at least half of which are considered inappropriate. [Acute respiratory tract infections] account for more than two-thirds of antibiotic prescriptions for children, at least one-third of which are unnecessary,” according to the society.
Outpatient antibiotic stewardship efforts could focus on clinical encounters in which the medications could be avoided altogether, the AAP suggested.
“Examples include antibiotic prescribing for nonspecific upper respiratory infection, bronchiolitis, acute bronchitis, asthma exacerbation, or conjunctivitis,” the group said.
Given the epidemiology of bacterial infections seen in ambulatory care settings that warrant antibiotic therapy, researchers conservatively estimate “that antibiotic prescribing could be safely reduced by 30%,” the statement noted.
That said, treatment decisions are not always clear cut.
“Certain infections in children, such as ear infections and lung infections, can be caused by viruses, bacteria, or both at the same time,” Dr. Cosimini said. “As such, it is very difficult to know which children benefit from which antibiotics.”
Watching, waiting, vaccinating
Pediatricians know that many children with ear infections will get better without antibiotics. “Parents should know that their doctor may suggest watching an ear infection without antibiotics, as is the recommendation from the AAP,” Dr. Cosimini said.
Data indicate that doctors are not following this practice as often as they could be, he said.
When antibiotic treatment is needed during the shortage, agents other than amoxicillin suspension can be used.
“Even though amoxicillin suspension is our go-to antibiotic for many infections, there are effective alternative options,” Dr. Cosimini said. “Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia has a good list for doctors looking for alternatives.”
Another approach to reducing the use of antibiotics in the future involves preventing infections through vaccination.
Research shows that routine childhood vaccines may have averted millions of respiratory and ear infections. And because bacterial infections can follow viral infections, the annual flu vaccine and COVID-19 vaccines “are also great tools to reduce antibiotic use,” Dr. Cosimini said.
A turn to more toxic options?
The shortage of amoxicillin oral powder for suspension was reported by the Food and Drug Administration and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) in October.
On Nov. 4, the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists (SIDP) issued a statement on the amoxicillin shortage, noting that increased demand for the drug coincided with a surge in respiratory viral infections, including RSV and influenza, among children.
“Though supportive care is the mainstay of treatment for viral infections, antibiotics may be indicated for the treatment of superimposed bacterial infections, including pneumonia and acute otitis media,” the SIDP statement said. “While alternative antibiotics may be available depending on the indication, many have a broader spectrum of activity, increased toxicity, and excess cost relative to amoxicillin. Furthermore, it is anticipated alternatives may soon become in short supply as well, given increased usage.”
SIDP “encourages the judicious use of antibiotics” and supports watch-and-wait strategies and the use of the shortest effective duration of therapy when appropriate.
Michael Ganio, PharmD, senior director of pharmacy practice and quality for ASHP, monitors around 250 drug shortages at any given time.
The amoxicillin shortage, while not “overly worrisome,” stands out because of how widely the drug is used and the fact that the shortage appears to have been sparked by an increase in demand rather than supply chain or manufacturing quality problems that more typically lead to shortages, he said.
Unlike some other shortages, the amoxicillin shortfall largely does not involve disrupting a medication regimen that someone was already receiving, and substitutions should be available.
“That said, it’s very, very disruptive to parents or a caregiver when you have a sick child who needs an antibiotic and it’s not available,” Dr. Ganio said.
Can a poster change practice?
In an unrelated move, the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality published new resources and strategies to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use in ambulatory care settings.
One of the tools is a poster that doctors can print and hang in their offices. It states: “We commit to only prescribing antibiotics when they will help you. Taking antibiotics when you do not need them will NOT make you better. You will still feel sick, and the antibiotic may give you a skin rash, diarrhea, or a yeast infection.”
Jeffrey A. Linder, MD, MPH, a general internist and researcher at Northwestern University in Chicago, helped develop some of the approaches to improve prescribing practices in primary care.
Dr. Linder explained on a recent episode of the Freakonomics, M.D. podcast that the poster can be key.
One reason clinicians may prescribe antibiotics inappropriately is because they assume – perhaps erroneously – that patients want and expect them. By addressing the issue up front by displaying the poster, they may be able to “short-circuit” that type of thinking.
A minority of patients do expect antibiotics. “But the vast majority of patients are thinking, ‘I don’t feel well, I want to know what’s going on, and I want to know how to feel better and what’s going to happen.’ ”
For their part, patients can tell their doctors that they want an antibiotic only if they really need it, Dr. Linder said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Promising new antibiotic emerges for treating UTIs
A new antibiotic for urinary tract infections is heading toward government approval.
It would be the first new treatment in 20 years for UTIs, which affect more than half of women at least sometime in their lives, according to data compiled by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Called Gepotidacin, the antibiotic’s trial has halted enrollment early due to excellent effectiveness and safety results thus far, drugmaker GSK announced in a press release Nov. 3. GSK will seek approval and peer-reviewed publication early next year.
There is a need for new antibiotics such as this because of increasing antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance to bacteria has become so prevalent that the World Health Organization recently began publishing a list of bacteria that pose the greatest public health threats.
“It’s definitely a big deal,” Cindy Liu, MD, MPH, PhD, of the Antibiotic Resistance Action Center at George Washington University, told CNN.
However, antibiotics are not a particularly profitable type of drug, The Wall Street Journal reported. The newspaper noted that they need to be used sparingly to limit resistance, and the cheapest option is usually prescribed. Some small companies that make antibiotics have even gone bankrupt recently, the Journal noted.
The U.S. government has invested in GSK’s development of Gepotidacin. The company predicts the drug could be a “blockbuster” and earn more than $1 billion due to UTI resistance to other drugs, the Journal reported.
“I think it will be really interesting and important to the field to see both how the drug companies sort of market this product and sort of how it does,” Dr. Liu said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new antibiotic for urinary tract infections is heading toward government approval.
It would be the first new treatment in 20 years for UTIs, which affect more than half of women at least sometime in their lives, according to data compiled by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Called Gepotidacin, the antibiotic’s trial has halted enrollment early due to excellent effectiveness and safety results thus far, drugmaker GSK announced in a press release Nov. 3. GSK will seek approval and peer-reviewed publication early next year.
There is a need for new antibiotics such as this because of increasing antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance to bacteria has become so prevalent that the World Health Organization recently began publishing a list of bacteria that pose the greatest public health threats.
“It’s definitely a big deal,” Cindy Liu, MD, MPH, PhD, of the Antibiotic Resistance Action Center at George Washington University, told CNN.
However, antibiotics are not a particularly profitable type of drug, The Wall Street Journal reported. The newspaper noted that they need to be used sparingly to limit resistance, and the cheapest option is usually prescribed. Some small companies that make antibiotics have even gone bankrupt recently, the Journal noted.
The U.S. government has invested in GSK’s development of Gepotidacin. The company predicts the drug could be a “blockbuster” and earn more than $1 billion due to UTI resistance to other drugs, the Journal reported.
“I think it will be really interesting and important to the field to see both how the drug companies sort of market this product and sort of how it does,” Dr. Liu said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new antibiotic for urinary tract infections is heading toward government approval.
It would be the first new treatment in 20 years for UTIs, which affect more than half of women at least sometime in their lives, according to data compiled by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Called Gepotidacin, the antibiotic’s trial has halted enrollment early due to excellent effectiveness and safety results thus far, drugmaker GSK announced in a press release Nov. 3. GSK will seek approval and peer-reviewed publication early next year.
There is a need for new antibiotics such as this because of increasing antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance to bacteria has become so prevalent that the World Health Organization recently began publishing a list of bacteria that pose the greatest public health threats.
“It’s definitely a big deal,” Cindy Liu, MD, MPH, PhD, of the Antibiotic Resistance Action Center at George Washington University, told CNN.
However, antibiotics are not a particularly profitable type of drug, The Wall Street Journal reported. The newspaper noted that they need to be used sparingly to limit resistance, and the cheapest option is usually prescribed. Some small companies that make antibiotics have even gone bankrupt recently, the Journal noted.
The U.S. government has invested in GSK’s development of Gepotidacin. The company predicts the drug could be a “blockbuster” and earn more than $1 billion due to UTI resistance to other drugs, the Journal reported.
“I think it will be really interesting and important to the field to see both how the drug companies sort of market this product and sort of how it does,” Dr. Liu said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Oral FMT on par with colonic FMT for recurrent C. difficile
A real-world analysis confirms that fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is highly effective for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI) – and there is no difference between delivery by capsule (cap-FMT) and colonoscopy (colo-FMT).
“We present one of the largest cohorts involving people who received capsule FMT. Byron Vaughn, MD, with the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said in an interview.
The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
The Food and Drug Administration allows FMT to be used for patients who have failed standard treatment for rCDI under a policy of enforcement discretion.
The past decade has seen an increase in the use of FMT in clinical practice, owing to an increase in cases of rCDI after failure of standard antibiotic therapy.
Unlike antibiotics, which perpetuate and worsen intestinal dysbiosis, FMT restores the diversity and function of host microbiota, effectively breaking the cycle of rCDI, the authors of the study noted. But it’s been unclear whether the efficacy and safety of FMT vary by route of administration.
Effective without procedural risks
To investigate, Dr. Vaughn and colleagues evaluated clinical outcomes and adverse events in 170 patients with rCDI who underwent cap-FMT and 96 peers who underwent colo-FMT.
FMT was performed using one of two standardized formulations of microbiota manufactured by the University of Minnesota microbiota therapeutics program: freeze-dried/encapsulated or frozen-thawed/liquid.
Overall, the cure rates of CDI were 86% at 1 month and 81% at 2 months. There was no statistically significant difference at either time between cap-FMT and colo-FMT.
The 1-month cure rate was 84% with cap-FMT and 91% with colo-FMT; at 2 months, the cure rates were 81% and 83%, respectively.
Cap-FMT has a safety and effectiveness profile similar to that of colo-FMT, without the procedural risks of colonoscopy, the researchers concluded.
They cautioned that, although FMT is highly effective overall, patient selection is a key factor to optimizing FMT success.
Older age and hemodialysis were associated with FMT failure by 2 months on multivariate logistic regression.
“These risk factors can help determine if a patient should receive FMT or an alternative therapy for rCDI. This is not to say FMT should be avoided in older patients or those on dialysis, but clinicians should be aware of these associations in light of other options for rCDI,” Dr. Vaughn said.
Confirming prior studies, antibiotic use after FMT was a major factor in its failure. Patient selection for FMT should include an assessment of the potential need for antibiotics after transplant, the researchers noted.
One serious adverse event (aspiration pneumonia) was related to colonoscopy; otherwise, no new safety signals were identified.
As reported in other studies, changes in bowel function, including diarrhea, constipation, gas, and bloating were common, although it’s tough to disentangle gastrointestinal symptoms related to FMT from those after CDI, the researchers said. Importantly, no transmission of an infectious agent related to FMT was identified.
Two good options
The researchers said their findings are “highly generalizable” because the population reflects all FMT use by participating institutions and contains a mix of academic centers and private practices.
Many patients included in the study would not have been eligible for a clinical trial, owing to their having many comorbid conditions, including immune compromise and inflammatory bowel disease, the authors noted.
“FMT is recommended by major gastroenterology and infectious disease society guidelines,” Dr. Vaughn said. “Our group, and others, have consistently found strategies that incorporate FMT as cost-effective strategies for treating rCDI.”
However, lack of access to FMT products often is a barrier to treatment, he said.
“A stool banking model, similar to the nonprofit blood banking model, may be a useful solution to ensure equitable access to FMT to all who need it,” Dr. Vaughn added.
Reached for comment, Majdi Osman, MD, MPH, told this news organization that the study is valuable, “as it nicely shows in a real-world setting that capsules and colonoscopy are good options for patients who need this.”
Dr. Osman is chief medical officer of OpenBiome, a nonprofit organization that operates a public stool bank and is the major FMT source in the United States. The organization has provided over 63,000 FMT treatments to over 1,200 hospitals in the United States.
“FMT has become standard of care for patients who failed antibiotic therapy, and certainly is being used widely as a treatment option for these patients who have often run out of existing options,” Dr. Osman said.
Support for the study was provided by a donation from Achieving Cures Together, a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing microbiome-based research. Dr. Vaughn receives grant support from Takeda, Roche, Celgene, and Diasorin and has received consulting fees from Prometheus and AbbVie. Dr. Osman reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A real-world analysis confirms that fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is highly effective for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI) – and there is no difference between delivery by capsule (cap-FMT) and colonoscopy (colo-FMT).
“We present one of the largest cohorts involving people who received capsule FMT. Byron Vaughn, MD, with the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said in an interview.
The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
The Food and Drug Administration allows FMT to be used for patients who have failed standard treatment for rCDI under a policy of enforcement discretion.
The past decade has seen an increase in the use of FMT in clinical practice, owing to an increase in cases of rCDI after failure of standard antibiotic therapy.
Unlike antibiotics, which perpetuate and worsen intestinal dysbiosis, FMT restores the diversity and function of host microbiota, effectively breaking the cycle of rCDI, the authors of the study noted. But it’s been unclear whether the efficacy and safety of FMT vary by route of administration.
Effective without procedural risks
To investigate, Dr. Vaughn and colleagues evaluated clinical outcomes and adverse events in 170 patients with rCDI who underwent cap-FMT and 96 peers who underwent colo-FMT.
FMT was performed using one of two standardized formulations of microbiota manufactured by the University of Minnesota microbiota therapeutics program: freeze-dried/encapsulated or frozen-thawed/liquid.
Overall, the cure rates of CDI were 86% at 1 month and 81% at 2 months. There was no statistically significant difference at either time between cap-FMT and colo-FMT.
The 1-month cure rate was 84% with cap-FMT and 91% with colo-FMT; at 2 months, the cure rates were 81% and 83%, respectively.
Cap-FMT has a safety and effectiveness profile similar to that of colo-FMT, without the procedural risks of colonoscopy, the researchers concluded.
They cautioned that, although FMT is highly effective overall, patient selection is a key factor to optimizing FMT success.
Older age and hemodialysis were associated with FMT failure by 2 months on multivariate logistic regression.
“These risk factors can help determine if a patient should receive FMT or an alternative therapy for rCDI. This is not to say FMT should be avoided in older patients or those on dialysis, but clinicians should be aware of these associations in light of other options for rCDI,” Dr. Vaughn said.
Confirming prior studies, antibiotic use after FMT was a major factor in its failure. Patient selection for FMT should include an assessment of the potential need for antibiotics after transplant, the researchers noted.
One serious adverse event (aspiration pneumonia) was related to colonoscopy; otherwise, no new safety signals were identified.
As reported in other studies, changes in bowel function, including diarrhea, constipation, gas, and bloating were common, although it’s tough to disentangle gastrointestinal symptoms related to FMT from those after CDI, the researchers said. Importantly, no transmission of an infectious agent related to FMT was identified.
Two good options
The researchers said their findings are “highly generalizable” because the population reflects all FMT use by participating institutions and contains a mix of academic centers and private practices.
Many patients included in the study would not have been eligible for a clinical trial, owing to their having many comorbid conditions, including immune compromise and inflammatory bowel disease, the authors noted.
“FMT is recommended by major gastroenterology and infectious disease society guidelines,” Dr. Vaughn said. “Our group, and others, have consistently found strategies that incorporate FMT as cost-effective strategies for treating rCDI.”
However, lack of access to FMT products often is a barrier to treatment, he said.
“A stool banking model, similar to the nonprofit blood banking model, may be a useful solution to ensure equitable access to FMT to all who need it,” Dr. Vaughn added.
Reached for comment, Majdi Osman, MD, MPH, told this news organization that the study is valuable, “as it nicely shows in a real-world setting that capsules and colonoscopy are good options for patients who need this.”
Dr. Osman is chief medical officer of OpenBiome, a nonprofit organization that operates a public stool bank and is the major FMT source in the United States. The organization has provided over 63,000 FMT treatments to over 1,200 hospitals in the United States.
“FMT has become standard of care for patients who failed antibiotic therapy, and certainly is being used widely as a treatment option for these patients who have often run out of existing options,” Dr. Osman said.
Support for the study was provided by a donation from Achieving Cures Together, a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing microbiome-based research. Dr. Vaughn receives grant support from Takeda, Roche, Celgene, and Diasorin and has received consulting fees from Prometheus and AbbVie. Dr. Osman reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A real-world analysis confirms that fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is highly effective for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI) – and there is no difference between delivery by capsule (cap-FMT) and colonoscopy (colo-FMT).
“We present one of the largest cohorts involving people who received capsule FMT. Byron Vaughn, MD, with the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said in an interview.
The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
The Food and Drug Administration allows FMT to be used for patients who have failed standard treatment for rCDI under a policy of enforcement discretion.
The past decade has seen an increase in the use of FMT in clinical practice, owing to an increase in cases of rCDI after failure of standard antibiotic therapy.
Unlike antibiotics, which perpetuate and worsen intestinal dysbiosis, FMT restores the diversity and function of host microbiota, effectively breaking the cycle of rCDI, the authors of the study noted. But it’s been unclear whether the efficacy and safety of FMT vary by route of administration.
Effective without procedural risks
To investigate, Dr. Vaughn and colleagues evaluated clinical outcomes and adverse events in 170 patients with rCDI who underwent cap-FMT and 96 peers who underwent colo-FMT.
FMT was performed using one of two standardized formulations of microbiota manufactured by the University of Minnesota microbiota therapeutics program: freeze-dried/encapsulated or frozen-thawed/liquid.
Overall, the cure rates of CDI were 86% at 1 month and 81% at 2 months. There was no statistically significant difference at either time between cap-FMT and colo-FMT.
The 1-month cure rate was 84% with cap-FMT and 91% with colo-FMT; at 2 months, the cure rates were 81% and 83%, respectively.
Cap-FMT has a safety and effectiveness profile similar to that of colo-FMT, without the procedural risks of colonoscopy, the researchers concluded.
They cautioned that, although FMT is highly effective overall, patient selection is a key factor to optimizing FMT success.
Older age and hemodialysis were associated with FMT failure by 2 months on multivariate logistic regression.
“These risk factors can help determine if a patient should receive FMT or an alternative therapy for rCDI. This is not to say FMT should be avoided in older patients or those on dialysis, but clinicians should be aware of these associations in light of other options for rCDI,” Dr. Vaughn said.
Confirming prior studies, antibiotic use after FMT was a major factor in its failure. Patient selection for FMT should include an assessment of the potential need for antibiotics after transplant, the researchers noted.
One serious adverse event (aspiration pneumonia) was related to colonoscopy; otherwise, no new safety signals were identified.
As reported in other studies, changes in bowel function, including diarrhea, constipation, gas, and bloating were common, although it’s tough to disentangle gastrointestinal symptoms related to FMT from those after CDI, the researchers said. Importantly, no transmission of an infectious agent related to FMT was identified.
Two good options
The researchers said their findings are “highly generalizable” because the population reflects all FMT use by participating institutions and contains a mix of academic centers and private practices.
Many patients included in the study would not have been eligible for a clinical trial, owing to their having many comorbid conditions, including immune compromise and inflammatory bowel disease, the authors noted.
“FMT is recommended by major gastroenterology and infectious disease society guidelines,” Dr. Vaughn said. “Our group, and others, have consistently found strategies that incorporate FMT as cost-effective strategies for treating rCDI.”
However, lack of access to FMT products often is a barrier to treatment, he said.
“A stool banking model, similar to the nonprofit blood banking model, may be a useful solution to ensure equitable access to FMT to all who need it,” Dr. Vaughn added.
Reached for comment, Majdi Osman, MD, MPH, told this news organization that the study is valuable, “as it nicely shows in a real-world setting that capsules and colonoscopy are good options for patients who need this.”
Dr. Osman is chief medical officer of OpenBiome, a nonprofit organization that operates a public stool bank and is the major FMT source in the United States. The organization has provided over 63,000 FMT treatments to over 1,200 hospitals in the United States.
“FMT has become standard of care for patients who failed antibiotic therapy, and certainly is being used widely as a treatment option for these patients who have often run out of existing options,” Dr. Osman said.
Support for the study was provided by a donation from Achieving Cures Together, a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing microbiome-based research. Dr. Vaughn receives grant support from Takeda, Roche, Celgene, and Diasorin and has received consulting fees from Prometheus and AbbVie. Dr. Osman reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY