Infectious Diseases

The Food and Drug Administration announced that it has approved cefiderocol (Fetroja), an IV antibacterial drug to treat complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs), including kidney infections, caused by multidrug-resistant gram-negative microorganisms in patients 18 years of age or older.

The safety and effectiveness of cefiderocol was demonstrated in a pivotal study of 448 patients with cUTIs. Published results indicated that 73% of patients had resolution of symptoms and eradication of the bacteria approximately 7 days after completing treatment, compared with 55% in patients who received an alternative antibiotic.

The approval is for patients who have limited or no alternative treatment options and includes a label warning regarding cefiderocol’s higher all-cause mortality observed in comparison to patients treated with other antibiotics in a trial of critically ill patients having multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacterial infections (clinical trials. gov NCT02714595).

The cause of the increase in mortality has not been determined, according to the FDA. Some of the deaths in the study were attributable to worsening or complications of infection, or underlying comorbidities, in patients treated for hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia (i.e., nosocomial pneumonia), bloodstream infections, or sepsis. Thus, safety and efficacy of cefiderocol has not been established for the treating these types of infections, according to the announcement.

Adverse reactions observed in patients treated with cefiderocol included diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, elevations in liver tests, rash, infusion-site reactions, and candidiasis. The FDA added that cefiderocol should not be used in persons known to have a severe hypersensitivity to beta-lactam antibacterial drugs.

“A key global challenge the FDA faces as a public health agency is addressing the threat of antimicrobial-resistant infections, like cUTIs. This approval represents another step forward in the FDA’s overall efforts to ensure safe and effective antimicrobial drugs are available to patients for treating infections,” John Farley, MD, acting director of the Office of Infectious Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research said in the FDA press statement.

Fetroja is a product of Shionogi.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration announced that it has approved cefiderocol (Fetroja), an IV antibacterial drug to treat complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs), including kidney infections, caused by multidrug-resistant gram-negative microorganisms in patients 18 years of age or older.

The safety and effectiveness of cefiderocol was demonstrated in a pivotal study of 448 patients with cUTIs. Published results indicated that 73% of patients had resolution of symptoms and eradication of the bacteria approximately 7 days after completing treatment, compared with 55% in patients who received an alternative antibiotic.

The approval is for patients who have limited or no alternative treatment options and includes a label warning regarding cefiderocol’s higher all-cause mortality observed in comparison to patients treated with other antibiotics in a trial of critically ill patients having multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacterial infections (clinical trials. gov NCT02714595).

The cause of the increase in mortality has not been determined, according to the FDA. Some of the deaths in the study were attributable to worsening or complications of infection, or underlying comorbidities, in patients treated for hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia (i.e., nosocomial pneumonia), bloodstream infections, or sepsis. Thus, safety and efficacy of cefiderocol has not been established for the treating these types of infections, according to the announcement.

Adverse reactions observed in patients treated with cefiderocol included diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, elevations in liver tests, rash, infusion-site reactions, and candidiasis. The FDA added that cefiderocol should not be used in persons known to have a severe hypersensitivity to beta-lactam antibacterial drugs.

“A key global challenge the FDA faces as a public health agency is addressing the threat of antimicrobial-resistant infections, like cUTIs. This approval represents another step forward in the FDA’s overall efforts to ensure safe and effective antimicrobial drugs are available to patients for treating infections,” John Farley, MD, acting director of the Office of Infectious Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research said in the FDA press statement.

Fetroja is a product of Shionogi.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration announced that it has approved cefiderocol (Fetroja), an IV antibacterial drug to treat complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs), including kidney infections, caused by multidrug-resistant gram-negative microorganisms in patients 18 years of age or older.

The safety and effectiveness of cefiderocol was demonstrated in a pivotal study of 448 patients with cUTIs. Published results indicated that 73% of patients had resolution of symptoms and eradication of the bacteria approximately 7 days after completing treatment, compared with 55% in patients who received an alternative antibiotic.

The approval is for patients who have limited or no alternative treatment options and includes a label warning regarding cefiderocol’s higher all-cause mortality observed in comparison to patients treated with other antibiotics in a trial of critically ill patients having multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacterial infections (clinical trials. gov NCT02714595).

The cause of the increase in mortality has not been determined, according to the FDA. Some of the deaths in the study were attributable to worsening or complications of infection, or underlying comorbidities, in patients treated for hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia (i.e., nosocomial pneumonia), bloodstream infections, or sepsis. Thus, safety and efficacy of cefiderocol has not been established for the treating these types of infections, according to the announcement.

Adverse reactions observed in patients treated with cefiderocol included diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, elevations in liver tests, rash, infusion-site reactions, and candidiasis. The FDA added that cefiderocol should not be used in persons known to have a severe hypersensitivity to beta-lactam antibacterial drugs.

“A key global challenge the FDA faces as a public health agency is addressing the threat of antimicrobial-resistant infections, like cUTIs. This approval represents another step forward in the FDA’s overall efforts to ensure safe and effective antimicrobial drugs are available to patients for treating infections,” John Farley, MD, acting director of the Office of Infectious Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research said in the FDA press statement.

Fetroja is a product of Shionogi.

[email protected]

As wildfires increase the likelihood of respiratory illnesses for residents in California and Queensland, Australia, a new report from the Lancet warns that such health risks will become increasingly common without action to address climate change. But, the authors stressed, it’s still possible to prevent some health effects and mitigate others.

Given the magnitude of the issue, lead author Nick Watts, MBBS, MA, framed the issue in terms of what an individual child born today will face in his or her future. If the world continues on its current trajectory, such a child will eventually live in a world at least 4º C above average preindustrial temperatures.

“We roughly know what that looks like from a climate perspective,” said Dr. Watts, executive director of The Lancet Countdown: Tracking Progress on Health and Climate Change, during a telebriefing on the report.

“We have no idea of what that looks like from a public health perspective, but we know it is catastrophic,” he continued. “We know that it has the potential to undermine the last 50 years of gains in public health and overwhelm the health systems that we rely on.”

Health sector a significant, growing contributor

The report described the changes to which climate change has already contributed and addresses both the health threats and the way institutions and states are currently responding to those threats. It also included policy briefs specific to individual countries and an extensive appendix with projections data.

The authors noted that progress in mitigating fossil fuel combustion – the biggest driver of rising temperatures – is “intermittent at best,” with carbon dioxide emissions continuing to rise in 2018. The past decade has included 8 of the 10 hottest years on record. “Many of the indicators contained in this report suggest the world is following this ‘business as usual’ pathway,” the authors wrote.

In fact, the trend of coal-produced energy that had been declining actually increased 1.7% between 2016 and 2018. Perhaps ironically, given the focus of the report, “the health­care sector is responsible for about 4.6% of global emissions, a value which is steadily rising across most major economies,” Dr. Watts and colleagues reported.

The potential health risks from climate change range from increased chronic illness, such as asthma and cardiovascular disease, to the increased spread of infectious diseases, especially vector-borne diseases, including dengue fever, malaria, and chikungunya. Increases in the frequency and intensity of severe weather events can lead to increased acute and longer-term morbidity and mortality.

Though children will suffer the brunt of negative health impact from climate change, the effects will touch people at every stage of life, from in utero development through old age, the authors emphasized.

“Downward trends in global yield potential for all major crops tracked since 1960 threaten food production and food security, with infants often the worst affected by the potentially permanent effects of undernutrition,” the authors reported. Children are also most susceptible to diarrheal disease and infectious diseases, particularly dengue.

Mitigating actions available

But the report focused as much on solutions and mitigation strategies as it did on the worst-case scenario without action. Speakers during the telebriefing emphasized the responsibility of all people, including physicians and other health care providers, to play a role in countering the public health disaster that could result from inaction on climate.

“Thankfully, here we have the treatment for climate change, solutions to shift away from the carbon pollution and towards clean energy and working to find the best way to protect ourselves and each other from climate change,” Renee N. Salas, MD, MPH, lead author of the 2019 Lancet Countdown U.S. Policy Brief and a Harvard C-CHANGE Fellow, said during the press briefing. “All we need is political will.”

Salas compared the present moment to that period when a physician still has the ability to save a critically ill patient’s life with fast action.

“If I don’t act quickly, the patient may still die even though that treatment would have saved their life earlier,” she said. “We are in that narrow window.”

Physicians have a responsibility to speak to patients and families frankly about not only specific conditions, such as asthma, but also the climate-related causes of those conditions, such as increasing air pollution, said Gina McCarthy, director of the Harvard Center for Climate, Health and the Global Environment and the 13th administrator U.S. Environmental Policy Administration. Physicians are trusted advisers and therefore need to speak up because climate change is “about the health and well-being and the future of children,” she said.

Political polarization is one of the biggest challenges to addressing climate change and stymies efforts to take action, according to Richard Carmona, MD, who served as the 17th U.S. Surgeon General.

“The thing that frustrated me as a surgeon general and continues to frustrate me today is that these very scientifically vetted issues are reduced to political currency that creates divisiveness, and things don’t get done,” he said during the briefing.

“We have to move beyond that and elevate this discussion to one of the survival of our civilization and the health and safety and security of all nations in the world,” continued Dr. Carmona, who is also a professor of public health at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

The report notes that the warming is already “occurring faster than governments are able, or willing, to respond,” likely contributing to the increased outcry across the world from youth about the need to act.

And anyone can take some kind of action, Ms. McCarthy said. Her aim is to make the reality of climate change effects personal so that people understand its impact on them as well as what they can do.

“The report provides a list of actions that policy makers can take today to reduce the threat of climate change” as well as information on “how we can adapt and be more resilient as communities” while facing climate change’s challenges, she said.

Ms. McCarthy encouraged people to pay particular attention to the report’s mitigation and adaptation recommendations, “because I want them to know that climate change isn’t a lost cause,” she said. The actions people can demand of policymakers will not only avoid the worst-case health scenario but can also improve health today, she added.

“We can do better than to dwell on the problem,” Ms. McCarthy said. “We need people now to be hopeful about climate change, to do as others have suggested and demand action and take action in their own lives. We can use that to really drive solutions.”

Annual report assesses numerous indicators

The Lancet Countdown is an annual report supported by the Wellcome Trust that pulls together research from 35 academic institutions and United Nations agencies across the world to provide an update on what the authors described as “41 health indicators across five key domains: climate change impacts, exposures and vulnerability; adaptation, planning, and resilience for health; mitigation action and health cobenefits; economics and finance; [and] public and political engagement.”

Given the complexity of the issue of climate change and the wide range of possible effects and preventive measures, contributing researchers included not just climate scientists but also ecologists, mathematicians, engineers, hydrologists, social and political scientists, physicians and other public health professionals, and experts in energy, food, and transportation.

The research was supported by the Wellcome Trust. Multiple authors also received support from a range of government institutions and public and private foundations and fellowships. No relevant financial relationships were noted.
 

SOURCE: Watts N et al. Lancet. 2019 Nov 13. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32596-6.

This story first appeared in Medscape.com.

As wildfires increase the likelihood of respiratory illnesses for residents in California and Queensland, Australia, a new report from the Lancet warns that such health risks will become increasingly common without action to address climate change. But, the authors stressed, it’s still possible to prevent some health effects and mitigate others.

Given the magnitude of the issue, lead author Nick Watts, MBBS, MA, framed the issue in terms of what an individual child born today will face in his or her future. If the world continues on its current trajectory, such a child will eventually live in a world at least 4º C above average preindustrial temperatures.

“We roughly know what that looks like from a climate perspective,” said Dr. Watts, executive director of The Lancet Countdown: Tracking Progress on Health and Climate Change, during a telebriefing on the report.

“We have no idea of what that looks like from a public health perspective, but we know it is catastrophic,” he continued. “We know that it has the potential to undermine the last 50 years of gains in public health and overwhelm the health systems that we rely on.”

Health sector a significant, growing contributor

The report described the changes to which climate change has already contributed and addresses both the health threats and the way institutions and states are currently responding to those threats. It also included policy briefs specific to individual countries and an extensive appendix with projections data.

The authors noted that progress in mitigating fossil fuel combustion – the biggest driver of rising temperatures – is “intermittent at best,” with carbon dioxide emissions continuing to rise in 2018. The past decade has included 8 of the 10 hottest years on record. “Many of the indicators contained in this report suggest the world is following this ‘business as usual’ pathway,” the authors wrote.

In fact, the trend of coal-produced energy that had been declining actually increased 1.7% between 2016 and 2018. Perhaps ironically, given the focus of the report, “the health­care sector is responsible for about 4.6% of global emissions, a value which is steadily rising across most major economies,” Dr. Watts and colleagues reported.

The potential health risks from climate change range from increased chronic illness, such as asthma and cardiovascular disease, to the increased spread of infectious diseases, especially vector-borne diseases, including dengue fever, malaria, and chikungunya. Increases in the frequency and intensity of severe weather events can lead to increased acute and longer-term morbidity and mortality.

Though children will suffer the brunt of negative health impact from climate change, the effects will touch people at every stage of life, from in utero development through old age, the authors emphasized.

“Downward trends in global yield potential for all major crops tracked since 1960 threaten food production and food security, with infants often the worst affected by the potentially permanent effects of undernutrition,” the authors reported. Children are also most susceptible to diarrheal disease and infectious diseases, particularly dengue.

Mitigating actions available

But the report focused as much on solutions and mitigation strategies as it did on the worst-case scenario without action. Speakers during the telebriefing emphasized the responsibility of all people, including physicians and other health care providers, to play a role in countering the public health disaster that could result from inaction on climate.

“Thankfully, here we have the treatment for climate change, solutions to shift away from the carbon pollution and towards clean energy and working to find the best way to protect ourselves and each other from climate change,” Renee N. Salas, MD, MPH, lead author of the 2019 Lancet Countdown U.S. Policy Brief and a Harvard C-CHANGE Fellow, said during the press briefing. “All we need is political will.”

Salas compared the present moment to that period when a physician still has the ability to save a critically ill patient’s life with fast action.

“If I don’t act quickly, the patient may still die even though that treatment would have saved their life earlier,” she said. “We are in that narrow window.”

Physicians have a responsibility to speak to patients and families frankly about not only specific conditions, such as asthma, but also the climate-related causes of those conditions, such as increasing air pollution, said Gina McCarthy, director of the Harvard Center for Climate, Health and the Global Environment and the 13th administrator U.S. Environmental Policy Administration. Physicians are trusted advisers and therefore need to speak up because climate change is “about the health and well-being and the future of children,” she said.

Political polarization is one of the biggest challenges to addressing climate change and stymies efforts to take action, according to Richard Carmona, MD, who served as the 17th U.S. Surgeon General.

“The thing that frustrated me as a surgeon general and continues to frustrate me today is that these very scientifically vetted issues are reduced to political currency that creates divisiveness, and things don’t get done,” he said during the briefing.

“We have to move beyond that and elevate this discussion to one of the survival of our civilization and the health and safety and security of all nations in the world,” continued Dr. Carmona, who is also a professor of public health at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

The report notes that the warming is already “occurring faster than governments are able, or willing, to respond,” likely contributing to the increased outcry across the world from youth about the need to act.

And anyone can take some kind of action, Ms. McCarthy said. Her aim is to make the reality of climate change effects personal so that people understand its impact on them as well as what they can do.

“The report provides a list of actions that policy makers can take today to reduce the threat of climate change” as well as information on “how we can adapt and be more resilient as communities” while facing climate change’s challenges, she said.

Ms. McCarthy encouraged people to pay particular attention to the report’s mitigation and adaptation recommendations, “because I want them to know that climate change isn’t a lost cause,” she said. The actions people can demand of policymakers will not only avoid the worst-case health scenario but can also improve health today, she added.

“We can do better than to dwell on the problem,” Ms. McCarthy said. “We need people now to be hopeful about climate change, to do as others have suggested and demand action and take action in their own lives. We can use that to really drive solutions.”

Annual report assesses numerous indicators

The Lancet Countdown is an annual report supported by the Wellcome Trust that pulls together research from 35 academic institutions and United Nations agencies across the world to provide an update on what the authors described as “41 health indicators across five key domains: climate change impacts, exposures and vulnerability; adaptation, planning, and resilience for health; mitigation action and health cobenefits; economics and finance; [and] public and political engagement.”

Given the complexity of the issue of climate change and the wide range of possible effects and preventive measures, contributing researchers included not just climate scientists but also ecologists, mathematicians, engineers, hydrologists, social and political scientists, physicians and other public health professionals, and experts in energy, food, and transportation.

The research was supported by the Wellcome Trust. Multiple authors also received support from a range of government institutions and public and private foundations and fellowships. No relevant financial relationships were noted.
 

SOURCE: Watts N et al. Lancet. 2019 Nov 13. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32596-6.

This story first appeared in Medscape.com.

As wildfires increase the likelihood of respiratory illnesses for residents in California and Queensland, Australia, a new report from the Lancet warns that such health risks will become increasingly common without action to address climate change. But, the authors stressed, it’s still possible to prevent some health effects and mitigate others.

Given the magnitude of the issue, lead author Nick Watts, MBBS, MA, framed the issue in terms of what an individual child born today will face in his or her future. If the world continues on its current trajectory, such a child will eventually live in a world at least 4º C above average preindustrial temperatures.

“We roughly know what that looks like from a climate perspective,” said Dr. Watts, executive director of The Lancet Countdown: Tracking Progress on Health and Climate Change, during a telebriefing on the report.

“We have no idea of what that looks like from a public health perspective, but we know it is catastrophic,” he continued. “We know that it has the potential to undermine the last 50 years of gains in public health and overwhelm the health systems that we rely on.”

Health sector a significant, growing contributor

The report described the changes to which climate change has already contributed and addresses both the health threats and the way institutions and states are currently responding to those threats. It also included policy briefs specific to individual countries and an extensive appendix with projections data.

The authors noted that progress in mitigating fossil fuel combustion – the biggest driver of rising temperatures – is “intermittent at best,” with carbon dioxide emissions continuing to rise in 2018. The past decade has included 8 of the 10 hottest years on record. “Many of the indicators contained in this report suggest the world is following this ‘business as usual’ pathway,” the authors wrote.

In fact, the trend of coal-produced energy that had been declining actually increased 1.7% between 2016 and 2018. Perhaps ironically, given the focus of the report, “the health­care sector is responsible for about 4.6% of global emissions, a value which is steadily rising across most major economies,” Dr. Watts and colleagues reported.

The potential health risks from climate change range from increased chronic illness, such as asthma and cardiovascular disease, to the increased spread of infectious diseases, especially vector-borne diseases, including dengue fever, malaria, and chikungunya. Increases in the frequency and intensity of severe weather events can lead to increased acute and longer-term morbidity and mortality.

Though children will suffer the brunt of negative health impact from climate change, the effects will touch people at every stage of life, from in utero development through old age, the authors emphasized.

“Downward trends in global yield potential for all major crops tracked since 1960 threaten food production and food security, with infants often the worst affected by the potentially permanent effects of undernutrition,” the authors reported. Children are also most susceptible to diarrheal disease and infectious diseases, particularly dengue.

Mitigating actions available

But the report focused as much on solutions and mitigation strategies as it did on the worst-case scenario without action. Speakers during the telebriefing emphasized the responsibility of all people, including physicians and other health care providers, to play a role in countering the public health disaster that could result from inaction on climate.

“Thankfully, here we have the treatment for climate change, solutions to shift away from the carbon pollution and towards clean energy and working to find the best way to protect ourselves and each other from climate change,” Renee N. Salas, MD, MPH, lead author of the 2019 Lancet Countdown U.S. Policy Brief and a Harvard C-CHANGE Fellow, said during the press briefing. “All we need is political will.”

Salas compared the present moment to that period when a physician still has the ability to save a critically ill patient’s life with fast action.

“If I don’t act quickly, the patient may still die even though that treatment would have saved their life earlier,” she said. “We are in that narrow window.”

Physicians have a responsibility to speak to patients and families frankly about not only specific conditions, such as asthma, but also the climate-related causes of those conditions, such as increasing air pollution, said Gina McCarthy, director of the Harvard Center for Climate, Health and the Global Environment and the 13th administrator U.S. Environmental Policy Administration. Physicians are trusted advisers and therefore need to speak up because climate change is “about the health and well-being and the future of children,” she said.

Political polarization is one of the biggest challenges to addressing climate change and stymies efforts to take action, according to Richard Carmona, MD, who served as the 17th U.S. Surgeon General.

“The thing that frustrated me as a surgeon general and continues to frustrate me today is that these very scientifically vetted issues are reduced to political currency that creates divisiveness, and things don’t get done,” he said during the briefing.

“We have to move beyond that and elevate this discussion to one of the survival of our civilization and the health and safety and security of all nations in the world,” continued Dr. Carmona, who is also a professor of public health at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

The report notes that the warming is already “occurring faster than governments are able, or willing, to respond,” likely contributing to the increased outcry across the world from youth about the need to act.

And anyone can take some kind of action, Ms. McCarthy said. Her aim is to make the reality of climate change effects personal so that people understand its impact on them as well as what they can do.

“The report provides a list of actions that policy makers can take today to reduce the threat of climate change” as well as information on “how we can adapt and be more resilient as communities” while facing climate change’s challenges, she said.

Ms. McCarthy encouraged people to pay particular attention to the report’s mitigation and adaptation recommendations, “because I want them to know that climate change isn’t a lost cause,” she said. The actions people can demand of policymakers will not only avoid the worst-case health scenario but can also improve health today, she added.

“We can do better than to dwell on the problem,” Ms. McCarthy said. “We need people now to be hopeful about climate change, to do as others have suggested and demand action and take action in their own lives. We can use that to really drive solutions.”

Annual report assesses numerous indicators

The Lancet Countdown is an annual report supported by the Wellcome Trust that pulls together research from 35 academic institutions and United Nations agencies across the world to provide an update on what the authors described as “41 health indicators across five key domains: climate change impacts, exposures and vulnerability; adaptation, planning, and resilience for health; mitigation action and health cobenefits; economics and finance; [and] public and political engagement.”

Given the complexity of the issue of climate change and the wide range of possible effects and preventive measures, contributing researchers included not just climate scientists but also ecologists, mathematicians, engineers, hydrologists, social and political scientists, physicians and other public health professionals, and experts in energy, food, and transportation.

The research was supported by the Wellcome Trust. Multiple authors also received support from a range of government institutions and public and private foundations and fellowships. No relevant financial relationships were noted.
 

SOURCE: Watts N et al. Lancet. 2019 Nov 13. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32596-6.

This story first appeared in Medscape.com.

“You and I are living in a time when some miracle drugs no longer perform miracles and families are being ripped apart by a microscopic enemy. The time for action is now and we can be part of the solution,” said Robert R. Redfield, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in his foreword to the new CDC report on antibiotic resistance.

In this update of the previous 2013 report, the CDC details how antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi cause more than 2.8 million infections and 35,000 deaths in the United States each year. The current report uses EHRs and other data sources obtained by the CDC for relevant infections extrapolated to develop national disease incidence. The report focuses on “the top 18 pathogens that require attention now,” advises specific steps be taken to address these pathogens, and puts into perspective the future of antibiotic development, their use and abuse, and the continuing threat of antibiotic resistance.

The CDC categorizes these 18 pathogens as either an urgent, serious, or concerning threat.

Urgent Threats

• Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, which cause pneumonia and wound, bloodstream, and urinary tract infections; they tend to affect patients in ICUs. Of particular concern, some Acinetobacter are resistant to nearly all antibiotics, with few new drugs in development (8,500 hospital infections in 2017; 700 deaths).
• Candida auris, a drug-resistant fungus that was first identified in 2009 in Asia and has quickly become a cause of severe infections around the world; it is extremely difficult to eradicate from health care settings. It began spreading in the United States in 2015, with 323 cases reported in 2018 (90% resistant to at least one antifungal, and 30% resistant to at least two antifungals).
• Clostridioides difficile, which can cause life-threatening diarrhea, most often in people who have taken antibiotics for other conditions. It is the most common health care–associated infection, and although decreasing in the health care system, it has not decreased in community settings (223,900 hospital infections in 2017, and 12,800 estimated deaths).
• Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, which most frequently infect patients who require devices such as catheters and those taking long courses of some antibiotics. Of particular concern is the fact that these bacteria contain a transmissible plasmid that can transfer their drug resistance to other pathogens (13,100 hospital infections in 2017, and 1,100 estimated deaths).
• Drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae, which is a sexually transmitted disease that can result in life-threatening ectopic pregnancy, lead to infertility, and can increase the risk of getting and giving HIV; it can also cause cardiovascular and neurological problems. It is resistant to all but one class of antibiotics, and half of all infections are resistant to at least one antibiotic (550,000 drug-resistant infections yearly).

Serious Threats

• Drug-resistant Campylobacter.
• Drug-resistant Candida.
• Extended spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Enterobacteriaceae.
• Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci.
• Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
• Drug-resistant nontyphoidal Salmonella.
• Drug-resistant Salmonella serotype Typhi.
• Drug-resistant Shigella.
• Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).
• Drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae.
• Drug-resistant Tuberculosis.

Concerning Threats

These comprise erythromycin-resistant group A Streptococcus and clindamycin-resistant group B Streptococcus.

In addition, the CDC has established a Watch List of three pathogens to be wary of: azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus, drug-resistant Mycoplasma genitalium, and drug-resistant Bordetella pertussis.

Because antibiotic resistance is a global phenomenon caused by and affecting everyone, the CDC provided solutions to the problem of antibiotic resistance at every level of society. This “comprehensive and coordinated response implements the U.S. National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria” and includes cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, Department of State, and Department of Agriculture, according to the report.

The key components of this response include using data and new technologies to detect and track antibiotic resistance; infection prevention and containment, especially in terms of outbreak response; improving antibiotic use across populations (one successful example being a 16% decrease of outpatient antibiotic prescribing to children during 2011-2017); improvements in the identification and intervention in the environment including water and soil and in sanitation; and a significant investment in vaccines, diagnostics, and novel therapeutics (the CDC provided nearly $110 million to 96 institutions for work in these areas).

The report also details some hope in the development of new antibiotics. As of June 2019, there were 42 new antibiotics in development, including 4 with new drug applications submitted, 17 with the potential to treat serious gram negative bacteria, and 11 that could address the urgent threats of gonorrhea or C. difficile. Overall, a quarter of these new antibiotics represent a novel drug class or use a novel mechanism of action.

Furthermore, 84% of U.S. hospitals report a stewardship program meeting all seven of CDC’s Core Elements of Hospital Antibiotic Stewardship. Proper stewardship is at the core of preventing the development of new antibiotic resistant pathogen strains.

In addition, the CDC noted a 5% overall decline in antibiotic prescribing in outpatient settings during 2011-2016.

“The problem will get worse if we do not act now, but we can make a difference,” according to Dr. Redfield. “Simply, here’s what works. Preventing infections protects everyone. Improving antibiotic use in people and animals slows the threat and helps preserve today’s drugs and those yet to come. Detecting threats and implementing interventions to keep germs from becoming widespread saves lives.”

In response to the release of the report, the AMA issued a supporting statement and cited its collection of educational resources for physicians focused on antibiotic use, resistance, and stewardship.

Similarly, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) stated that hospitals were “a bright spot” in the CDC report and offered tools and resources available to educate and inform health care professionals about best practices in infection prevention and control, as well as antibiotic stewardship.

[email protected]

SOURCE: CDC. Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States 2019.

“You and I are living in a time when some miracle drugs no longer perform miracles and families are being ripped apart by a microscopic enemy. The time for action is now and we can be part of the solution,” said Robert R. Redfield, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in his foreword to the new CDC report on antibiotic resistance.

In this update of the previous 2013 report, the CDC details how antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi cause more than 2.8 million infections and 35,000 deaths in the United States each year. The current report uses EHRs and other data sources obtained by the CDC for relevant infections extrapolated to develop national disease incidence. The report focuses on “the top 18 pathogens that require attention now,” advises specific steps be taken to address these pathogens, and puts into perspective the future of antibiotic development, their use and abuse, and the continuing threat of antibiotic resistance.

The CDC categorizes these 18 pathogens as either an urgent, serious, or concerning threat.

Urgent Threats

• Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, which cause pneumonia and wound, bloodstream, and urinary tract infections; they tend to affect patients in ICUs. Of particular concern, some Acinetobacter are resistant to nearly all antibiotics, with few new drugs in development (8,500 hospital infections in 2017; 700 deaths).
• Candida auris, a drug-resistant fungus that was first identified in 2009 in Asia and has quickly become a cause of severe infections around the world; it is extremely difficult to eradicate from health care settings. It began spreading in the United States in 2015, with 323 cases reported in 2018 (90% resistant to at least one antifungal, and 30% resistant to at least two antifungals).
• Clostridioides difficile, which can cause life-threatening diarrhea, most often in people who have taken antibiotics for other conditions. It is the most common health care–associated infection, and although decreasing in the health care system, it has not decreased in community settings (223,900 hospital infections in 2017, and 12,800 estimated deaths).
• Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, which most frequently infect patients who require devices such as catheters and those taking long courses of some antibiotics. Of particular concern is the fact that these bacteria contain a transmissible plasmid that can transfer their drug resistance to other pathogens (13,100 hospital infections in 2017, and 1,100 estimated deaths).
• Drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae, which is a sexually transmitted disease that can result in life-threatening ectopic pregnancy, lead to infertility, and can increase the risk of getting and giving HIV; it can also cause cardiovascular and neurological problems. It is resistant to all but one class of antibiotics, and half of all infections are resistant to at least one antibiotic (550,000 drug-resistant infections yearly).

Serious Threats

• Drug-resistant Campylobacter.
• Drug-resistant Candida.
• Extended spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Enterobacteriaceae.
• Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci.
• Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
• Drug-resistant nontyphoidal Salmonella.
• Drug-resistant Salmonella serotype Typhi.
• Drug-resistant Shigella.
• Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).
• Drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae.
• Drug-resistant Tuberculosis.

Concerning Threats

These comprise erythromycin-resistant group A Streptococcus and clindamycin-resistant group B Streptococcus.

In addition, the CDC has established a Watch List of three pathogens to be wary of: azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus, drug-resistant Mycoplasma genitalium, and drug-resistant Bordetella pertussis.

Because antibiotic resistance is a global phenomenon caused by and affecting everyone, the CDC provided solutions to the problem of antibiotic resistance at every level of society. This “comprehensive and coordinated response implements the U.S. National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria” and includes cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, Department of State, and Department of Agriculture, according to the report.

The key components of this response include using data and new technologies to detect and track antibiotic resistance; infection prevention and containment, especially in terms of outbreak response; improving antibiotic use across populations (one successful example being a 16% decrease of outpatient antibiotic prescribing to children during 2011-2017); improvements in the identification and intervention in the environment including water and soil and in sanitation; and a significant investment in vaccines, diagnostics, and novel therapeutics (the CDC provided nearly $110 million to 96 institutions for work in these areas).

The report also details some hope in the development of new antibiotics. As of June 2019, there were 42 new antibiotics in development, including 4 with new drug applications submitted, 17 with the potential to treat serious gram negative bacteria, and 11 that could address the urgent threats of gonorrhea or C. difficile. Overall, a quarter of these new antibiotics represent a novel drug class or use a novel mechanism of action.

Furthermore, 84% of U.S. hospitals report a stewardship program meeting all seven of CDC’s Core Elements of Hospital Antibiotic Stewardship. Proper stewardship is at the core of preventing the development of new antibiotic resistant pathogen strains.

In addition, the CDC noted a 5% overall decline in antibiotic prescribing in outpatient settings during 2011-2016.

“The problem will get worse if we do not act now, but we can make a difference,” according to Dr. Redfield. “Simply, here’s what works. Preventing infections protects everyone. Improving antibiotic use in people and animals slows the threat and helps preserve today’s drugs and those yet to come. Detecting threats and implementing interventions to keep germs from becoming widespread saves lives.”

In response to the release of the report, the AMA issued a supporting statement and cited its collection of educational resources for physicians focused on antibiotic use, resistance, and stewardship.

Similarly, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) stated that hospitals were “a bright spot” in the CDC report and offered tools and resources available to educate and inform health care professionals about best practices in infection prevention and control, as well as antibiotic stewardship.

[email protected]

SOURCE: CDC. Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States 2019.

“You and I are living in a time when some miracle drugs no longer perform miracles and families are being ripped apart by a microscopic enemy. The time for action is now and we can be part of the solution,” said Robert R. Redfield, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in his foreword to the new CDC report on antibiotic resistance.

In this update of the previous 2013 report, the CDC details how antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi cause more than 2.8 million infections and 35,000 deaths in the United States each year. The current report uses EHRs and other data sources obtained by the CDC for relevant infections extrapolated to develop national disease incidence. The report focuses on “the top 18 pathogens that require attention now,” advises specific steps be taken to address these pathogens, and puts into perspective the future of antibiotic development, their use and abuse, and the continuing threat of antibiotic resistance.

The CDC categorizes these 18 pathogens as either an urgent, serious, or concerning threat.

Urgent Threats

• Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, which cause pneumonia and wound, bloodstream, and urinary tract infections; they tend to affect patients in ICUs. Of particular concern, some Acinetobacter are resistant to nearly all antibiotics, with few new drugs in development (8,500 hospital infections in 2017; 700 deaths).
• Candida auris, a drug-resistant fungus that was first identified in 2009 in Asia and has quickly become a cause of severe infections around the world; it is extremely difficult to eradicate from health care settings. It began spreading in the United States in 2015, with 323 cases reported in 2018 (90% resistant to at least one antifungal, and 30% resistant to at least two antifungals).
• Clostridioides difficile, which can cause life-threatening diarrhea, most often in people who have taken antibiotics for other conditions. It is the most common health care–associated infection, and although decreasing in the health care system, it has not decreased in community settings (223,900 hospital infections in 2017, and 12,800 estimated deaths).
• Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, which most frequently infect patients who require devices such as catheters and those taking long courses of some antibiotics. Of particular concern is the fact that these bacteria contain a transmissible plasmid that can transfer their drug resistance to other pathogens (13,100 hospital infections in 2017, and 1,100 estimated deaths).
• Drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae, which is a sexually transmitted disease that can result in life-threatening ectopic pregnancy, lead to infertility, and can increase the risk of getting and giving HIV; it can also cause cardiovascular and neurological problems. It is resistant to all but one class of antibiotics, and half of all infections are resistant to at least one antibiotic (550,000 drug-resistant infections yearly).

Serious Threats

• Drug-resistant Campylobacter.
• Drug-resistant Candida.
• Extended spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Enterobacteriaceae.
• Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci.
• Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
• Drug-resistant nontyphoidal Salmonella.
• Drug-resistant Salmonella serotype Typhi.
• Drug-resistant Shigella.
• Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).
• Drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae.
• Drug-resistant Tuberculosis.

Concerning Threats

These comprise erythromycin-resistant group A Streptococcus and clindamycin-resistant group B Streptococcus.

In addition, the CDC has established a Watch List of three pathogens to be wary of: azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus, drug-resistant Mycoplasma genitalium, and drug-resistant Bordetella pertussis.

Because antibiotic resistance is a global phenomenon caused by and affecting everyone, the CDC provided solutions to the problem of antibiotic resistance at every level of society. This “comprehensive and coordinated response implements the U.S. National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria” and includes cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, Department of State, and Department of Agriculture, according to the report.

The key components of this response include using data and new technologies to detect and track antibiotic resistance; infection prevention and containment, especially in terms of outbreak response; improving antibiotic use across populations (one successful example being a 16% decrease of outpatient antibiotic prescribing to children during 2011-2017); improvements in the identification and intervention in the environment including water and soil and in sanitation; and a significant investment in vaccines, diagnostics, and novel therapeutics (the CDC provided nearly $110 million to 96 institutions for work in these areas).

The report also details some hope in the development of new antibiotics. As of June 2019, there were 42 new antibiotics in development, including 4 with new drug applications submitted, 17 with the potential to treat serious gram negative bacteria, and 11 that could address the urgent threats of gonorrhea or C. difficile. Overall, a quarter of these new antibiotics represent a novel drug class or use a novel mechanism of action.

Furthermore, 84% of U.S. hospitals report a stewardship program meeting all seven of CDC’s Core Elements of Hospital Antibiotic Stewardship. Proper stewardship is at the core of preventing the development of new antibiotic resistant pathogen strains.

In addition, the CDC noted a 5% overall decline in antibiotic prescribing in outpatient settings during 2011-2016.

“The problem will get worse if we do not act now, but we can make a difference,” according to Dr. Redfield. “Simply, here’s what works. Preventing infections protects everyone. Improving antibiotic use in people and animals slows the threat and helps preserve today’s drugs and those yet to come. Detecting threats and implementing interventions to keep germs from becoming widespread saves lives.”

In response to the release of the report, the AMA issued a supporting statement and cited its collection of educational resources for physicians focused on antibiotic use, resistance, and stewardship.

Similarly, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) stated that hospitals were “a bright spot” in the CDC report and offered tools and resources available to educate and inform health care professionals about best practices in infection prevention and control, as well as antibiotic stewardship.

[email protected]

SOURCE: CDC. Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States 2019.

SAN ANTONIO – The first new treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection to receive Food and Drug Administration approval in 22 years performed so well in a pivotal phase 3 trial that it is worthy of consideration as best-in-class first-line therapy, David Y. Graham, MD, asserted at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

The drug, recently approved as Talicia, is a rifabutin-based triple therapy. Each capsule contains 50 mg of rifabutin, 1,000 mg of amoxicillin, and 40 mg of omeprazole. As in the pivotal phase 3 trial led by Dr. Graham, the approved treatment regimen calls for adults to take four capsules every 8 hours for 14 days.

The impetus for developing the new therapy centers on the growing problem of resistance to long-standard agents for H. pylori eradication, including metronidazole and clarithromycin. The World Health Organization has declared H. pylori eradication to be a high priority for therapeutic development. Rifabutin resistance is rare: In one study, 413 of 414 strains of H. pylori were sensitive to the antibiotic, noted Dr. Graham, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

He presented the results of the pivotal phase 3, double-blind, multicenter, active comparator trial, known as ERADICATE Hp2, in which 455 participants with confirmed H. pylori infection were randomized to a course of the all-in-one-capsule triple drug combo or to dual therapy with four capsules, each containing 1,000 mg of amoxicillin and 40 mg of omeprazole, every 8 hours for 14 days.

The primary endpoint was H. pylori eradication as documented by a negative urea breath test obtained 4-6 weeks after completing 14 days of treatment. The rate was 84% with the rifabutin-based combo, compared with 58% seen with the high-dose dual therapy. Moreover, in a prespecified secondary analysis restricted to the 391 participants who were confirmed to be actually taking their medication as evidenced by a positive blood level measured on day 13, the eradication rates rose to 90% and 65%, respectively.

The antimicrobial resistance rates documented in this study were eye opening: 17% of patients’ strains were resistant to clarithromycin, 44% to metronidazole, and 10.5% to both. Of concern, 6.4% of participants’ strains were amoxicillin resistant.

“For the first time we saw a low level – but a definite level – of amoxicillin resistance. That’s something we had not seen previously,” Dr. Graham said.

No rifabutin resistance was detected before or after treatment.

The side effect profiles of the two treatment regimens were similar. Diarrhea was reported by 9% of participants, headache by 7%, and nausea by 5%. No serious adverse events occurred in the 14-day study.

The efficacy of the rifabutin-based therapy wasn’t affected by metronidazole or clarithromycin resistance.

The ERADICATE Hp2 trial was sponsored by RedHill Biopharma of Tel Aviv. Dr. Graham reported having no financial conflicts.

[email protected]

SAN ANTONIO – The first new treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection to receive Food and Drug Administration approval in 22 years performed so well in a pivotal phase 3 trial that it is worthy of consideration as best-in-class first-line therapy, David Y. Graham, MD, asserted at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

The drug, recently approved as Talicia, is a rifabutin-based triple therapy. Each capsule contains 50 mg of rifabutin, 1,000 mg of amoxicillin, and 40 mg of omeprazole. As in the pivotal phase 3 trial led by Dr. Graham, the approved treatment regimen calls for adults to take four capsules every 8 hours for 14 days.

The impetus for developing the new therapy centers on the growing problem of resistance to long-standard agents for H. pylori eradication, including metronidazole and clarithromycin. The World Health Organization has declared H. pylori eradication to be a high priority for therapeutic development. Rifabutin resistance is rare: In one study, 413 of 414 strains of H. pylori were sensitive to the antibiotic, noted Dr. Graham, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

He presented the results of the pivotal phase 3, double-blind, multicenter, active comparator trial, known as ERADICATE Hp2, in which 455 participants with confirmed H. pylori infection were randomized to a course of the all-in-one-capsule triple drug combo or to dual therapy with four capsules, each containing 1,000 mg of amoxicillin and 40 mg of omeprazole, every 8 hours for 14 days.

The primary endpoint was H. pylori eradication as documented by a negative urea breath test obtained 4-6 weeks after completing 14 days of treatment. The rate was 84% with the rifabutin-based combo, compared with 58% seen with the high-dose dual therapy. Moreover, in a prespecified secondary analysis restricted to the 391 participants who were confirmed to be actually taking their medication as evidenced by a positive blood level measured on day 13, the eradication rates rose to 90% and 65%, respectively.

The antimicrobial resistance rates documented in this study were eye opening: 17% of patients’ strains were resistant to clarithromycin, 44% to metronidazole, and 10.5% to both. Of concern, 6.4% of participants’ strains were amoxicillin resistant.

“For the first time we saw a low level – but a definite level – of amoxicillin resistance. That’s something we had not seen previously,” Dr. Graham said.

No rifabutin resistance was detected before or after treatment.

The side effect profiles of the two treatment regimens were similar. Diarrhea was reported by 9% of participants, headache by 7%, and nausea by 5%. No serious adverse events occurred in the 14-day study.

The efficacy of the rifabutin-based therapy wasn’t affected by metronidazole or clarithromycin resistance.

The ERADICATE Hp2 trial was sponsored by RedHill Biopharma of Tel Aviv. Dr. Graham reported having no financial conflicts.

[email protected]

SAN ANTONIO – The first new treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection to receive Food and Drug Administration approval in 22 years performed so well in a pivotal phase 3 trial that it is worthy of consideration as best-in-class first-line therapy, David Y. Graham, MD, asserted at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

The drug, recently approved as Talicia, is a rifabutin-based triple therapy. Each capsule contains 50 mg of rifabutin, 1,000 mg of amoxicillin, and 40 mg of omeprazole. As in the pivotal phase 3 trial led by Dr. Graham, the approved treatment regimen calls for adults to take four capsules every 8 hours for 14 days.

The impetus for developing the new therapy centers on the growing problem of resistance to long-standard agents for H. pylori eradication, including metronidazole and clarithromycin. The World Health Organization has declared H. pylori eradication to be a high priority for therapeutic development. Rifabutin resistance is rare: In one study, 413 of 414 strains of H. pylori were sensitive to the antibiotic, noted Dr. Graham, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

He presented the results of the pivotal phase 3, double-blind, multicenter, active comparator trial, known as ERADICATE Hp2, in which 455 participants with confirmed H. pylori infection were randomized to a course of the all-in-one-capsule triple drug combo or to dual therapy with four capsules, each containing 1,000 mg of amoxicillin and 40 mg of omeprazole, every 8 hours for 14 days.

The primary endpoint was H. pylori eradication as documented by a negative urea breath test obtained 4-6 weeks after completing 14 days of treatment. The rate was 84% with the rifabutin-based combo, compared with 58% seen with the high-dose dual therapy. Moreover, in a prespecified secondary analysis restricted to the 391 participants who were confirmed to be actually taking their medication as evidenced by a positive blood level measured on day 13, the eradication rates rose to 90% and 65%, respectively.

The antimicrobial resistance rates documented in this study were eye opening: 17% of patients’ strains were resistant to clarithromycin, 44% to metronidazole, and 10.5% to both. Of concern, 6.4% of participants’ strains were amoxicillin resistant.

“For the first time we saw a low level – but a definite level – of amoxicillin resistance. That’s something we had not seen previously,” Dr. Graham said.

No rifabutin resistance was detected before or after treatment.

The side effect profiles of the two treatment regimens were similar. Diarrhea was reported by 9% of participants, headache by 7%, and nausea by 5%. No serious adverse events occurred in the 14-day study.

The efficacy of the rifabutin-based therapy wasn’t affected by metronidazole or clarithromycin resistance.

The ERADICATE Hp2 trial was sponsored by RedHill Biopharma of Tel Aviv. Dr. Graham reported having no financial conflicts.

[email protected]

A 19-year-old man was diagnosed with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) at age 7 and is currently being treated with an infusible monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy. Early in the day, he receives an infusion at an outpatient clinic. That night, he begins to experience numbness and tingling in his right upper extremity, which prompts a visit to an urgent care clinic. There, the clinician administers IV fluids to the patient. After his symptoms improve, the patient is discharged home.

The next morning, he has a new onset of left-side shoulder and neck pain with a pulsating headache. The patient reports his symptoms to his primary care provider (PCP), who instructs him to visit the emergency department (ED) for evaluation and treatment of a possible infection.

EXAMINATION

The patient arrives at the ED with a 102.4°F fever, vomiting, cough, mild congestion, diaphoresis, generalized myalgias, and chills. He also reports depression and anxiety, saying that for the past 7 days, “I haven’t felt like my normal self.”

Medical history includes moderate persistent asthma that is not well controlled, status asthmaticus, and use of an electronic vaporizing device for inhaling nicotine and marijuana/tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Besides mAb infusions, his medications include hydrocodone/acetaminophen, prochlorperazine, gabapentin, hydroxyzine, trazodone, albuterol, and montelukast.

Examination reveals vital signs within normal limits. Lab work confirms elevated white blood cell count and absolute neutrophil count. Chest x-ray shows diffuse bilateral interstitial and patchy airspace opacities. He is diagnosed with bilateral pneumonia and is admitted and started on an IV antibiotic.

Within 24 hours, a new chest x-ray shows worsening symptoms. CT of the chest with contrast reveals diffuse bilateral ground-glass and airspace opacities suggestive of acute respiratory distress syndrome; bilateral thickening of the pulmonary interstitium; trace bilateral pleural effusions; increased caliber of the main pulmonary artery; and mediastinal and right hilar lymphadenopathy.

Subsequently, the patient developed sepsis and went into acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. He is transferred to the ICU, and pulmonology is consulted. A bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) reveals neutrophil predominance; fungal, bacterial, and viral cultures are negative. The patient is started on broad-spectrum IV antibiotics and high-dose IV steroids. After 4 days, he begins to improve and is transferred out of the ICU. He is discharged with oral steroids and antibiotics.

Continue to: DISCUSSION

Fortunately, the PCP and the ED provider identified risk factors that contributed to the patient’s pneumonia and its subsequent worsening to sepsis and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory effect of mAb therapy increased the patient’s risk for infection and the severity of infection, which is why vigilant safety monitoring and surveillance is essential with mAb treatment.¹ Bloodwork should be performed at least every 6 months and include a complete blood count, complete metabolic panel with differential, and JC virus antibody test. Additionally, urinalysis should be performed prior to every mAb infusion. All testing recommended in the package insert for the patient’s prescribed therapy should be performed.

The patient’s history of asthma and his chronic vaping predisposed him to respiratory infections. In mice studies, exposure to e-cigarette vapor has been shown to be cytotoxic to airway cells and to decrease macrophage and neutrophil antimicrobial function.² Exposure also alters immunomodulating cytokines in the airway, increases inflammatory markers seen in BAL and serum samples, and increases the virulence of Staphylococcus aureus.²

TREATMENT AND PATIENT EDUCATION

The PCP’s treatment plan included patient education about the importance of infection control measures when receiving a mAb; this includes practicing good hand and environmental hygiene, maintaining vaccinations, avoiding or reducing exposure to individuals who have infections or colds, avoiding large crowds (especially during flu season), and following recommendations for nutrition and hydration. The PCP also discussed how to recognize the early signs and symptoms of an infection—and the need for vigilant safety monitoring. The PCP described available options for smoking cessation, including nicotine replacement products, prescription non-nicotine medications, behavioral therapy, and/or counseling (individual, group or telephone) and discussed the risks associated with consuming nicotine and/or marijuana/THC and using electronic vaporizing devices.

The PCP emphasized the importance of completing the entire course of the oral antibiotics prescribed at discharge. The patient and the PCP agreed to the following plan of care: appointments with a pulmonologist and a neurologist within the next 2 weeks, and follow-up visits with the PCP every 6 months (or more frequently, as needed) and with a neurologist at least every 6 months (or as indicated by his medication’s prescribing recommendations).

A 19-year-old man was diagnosed with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) at age 7 and is currently being treated with an infusible monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy. Early in the day, he receives an infusion at an outpatient clinic. That night, he begins to experience numbness and tingling in his right upper extremity, which prompts a visit to an urgent care clinic. There, the clinician administers IV fluids to the patient. After his symptoms improve, the patient is discharged home.

The next morning, he has a new onset of left-side shoulder and neck pain with a pulsating headache. The patient reports his symptoms to his primary care provider (PCP), who instructs him to visit the emergency department (ED) for evaluation and treatment of a possible infection.

EXAMINATION

The patient arrives at the ED with a 102.4°F fever, vomiting, cough, mild congestion, diaphoresis, generalized myalgias, and chills. He also reports depression and anxiety, saying that for the past 7 days, “I haven’t felt like my normal self.”

Medical history includes moderate persistent asthma that is not well controlled, status asthmaticus, and use of an electronic vaporizing device for inhaling nicotine and marijuana/tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Besides mAb infusions, his medications include hydrocodone/acetaminophen, prochlorperazine, gabapentin, hydroxyzine, trazodone, albuterol, and montelukast.

Examination reveals vital signs within normal limits. Lab work confirms elevated white blood cell count and absolute neutrophil count. Chest x-ray shows diffuse bilateral interstitial and patchy airspace opacities. He is diagnosed with bilateral pneumonia and is admitted and started on an IV antibiotic.

Within 24 hours, a new chest x-ray shows worsening symptoms. CT of the chest with contrast reveals diffuse bilateral ground-glass and airspace opacities suggestive of acute respiratory distress syndrome; bilateral thickening of the pulmonary interstitium; trace bilateral pleural effusions; increased caliber of the main pulmonary artery; and mediastinal and right hilar lymphadenopathy.

Subsequently, the patient developed sepsis and went into acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. He is transferred to the ICU, and pulmonology is consulted. A bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) reveals neutrophil predominance; fungal, bacterial, and viral cultures are negative. The patient is started on broad-spectrum IV antibiotics and high-dose IV steroids. After 4 days, he begins to improve and is transferred out of the ICU. He is discharged with oral steroids and antibiotics.

Continue to: DISCUSSION

Fortunately, the PCP and the ED provider identified risk factors that contributed to the patient’s pneumonia and its subsequent worsening to sepsis and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory effect of mAb therapy increased the patient’s risk for infection and the severity of infection, which is why vigilant safety monitoring and surveillance is essential with mAb treatment.¹ Bloodwork should be performed at least every 6 months and include a complete blood count, complete metabolic panel with differential, and JC virus antibody test. Additionally, urinalysis should be performed prior to every mAb infusion. All testing recommended in the package insert for the patient’s prescribed therapy should be performed.

The patient’s history of asthma and his chronic vaping predisposed him to respiratory infections. In mice studies, exposure to e-cigarette vapor has been shown to be cytotoxic to airway cells and to decrease macrophage and neutrophil antimicrobial function.² Exposure also alters immunomodulating cytokines in the airway, increases inflammatory markers seen in BAL and serum samples, and increases the virulence of Staphylococcus aureus.²

TREATMENT AND PATIENT EDUCATION

The PCP’s treatment plan included patient education about the importance of infection control measures when receiving a mAb; this includes practicing good hand and environmental hygiene, maintaining vaccinations, avoiding or reducing exposure to individuals who have infections or colds, avoiding large crowds (especially during flu season), and following recommendations for nutrition and hydration. The PCP also discussed how to recognize the early signs and symptoms of an infection—and the need for vigilant safety monitoring. The PCP described available options for smoking cessation, including nicotine replacement products, prescription non-nicotine medications, behavioral therapy, and/or counseling (individual, group or telephone) and discussed the risks associated with consuming nicotine and/or marijuana/THC and using electronic vaporizing devices.

The PCP emphasized the importance of completing the entire course of the oral antibiotics prescribed at discharge. The patient and the PCP agreed to the following plan of care: appointments with a pulmonologist and a neurologist within the next 2 weeks, and follow-up visits with the PCP every 6 months (or more frequently, as needed) and with a neurologist at least every 6 months (or as indicated by his medication’s prescribing recommendations).

A 19-year-old man was diagnosed with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) at age 7 and is currently being treated with an infusible monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy. Early in the day, he receives an infusion at an outpatient clinic. That night, he begins to experience numbness and tingling in his right upper extremity, which prompts a visit to an urgent care clinic. There, the clinician administers IV fluids to the patient. After his symptoms improve, the patient is discharged home.

The next morning, he has a new onset of left-side shoulder and neck pain with a pulsating headache. The patient reports his symptoms to his primary care provider (PCP), who instructs him to visit the emergency department (ED) for evaluation and treatment of a possible infection.

EXAMINATION

The patient arrives at the ED with a 102.4°F fever, vomiting, cough, mild congestion, diaphoresis, generalized myalgias, and chills. He also reports depression and anxiety, saying that for the past 7 days, “I haven’t felt like my normal self.”

Medical history includes moderate persistent asthma that is not well controlled, status asthmaticus, and use of an electronic vaporizing device for inhaling nicotine and marijuana/tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Besides mAb infusions, his medications include hydrocodone/acetaminophen, prochlorperazine, gabapentin, hydroxyzine, trazodone, albuterol, and montelukast.

Examination reveals vital signs within normal limits. Lab work confirms elevated white blood cell count and absolute neutrophil count. Chest x-ray shows diffuse bilateral interstitial and patchy airspace opacities. He is diagnosed with bilateral pneumonia and is admitted and started on an IV antibiotic.

Within 24 hours, a new chest x-ray shows worsening symptoms. CT of the chest with contrast reveals diffuse bilateral ground-glass and airspace opacities suggestive of acute respiratory distress syndrome; bilateral thickening of the pulmonary interstitium; trace bilateral pleural effusions; increased caliber of the main pulmonary artery; and mediastinal and right hilar lymphadenopathy.

Subsequently, the patient developed sepsis and went into acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. He is transferred to the ICU, and pulmonology is consulted. A bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) reveals neutrophil predominance; fungal, bacterial, and viral cultures are negative. The patient is started on broad-spectrum IV antibiotics and high-dose IV steroids. After 4 days, he begins to improve and is transferred out of the ICU. He is discharged with oral steroids and antibiotics.

Continue to: DISCUSSION

Fortunately, the PCP and the ED provider identified risk factors that contributed to the patient’s pneumonia and its subsequent worsening to sepsis and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory effect of mAb therapy increased the patient’s risk for infection and the severity of infection, which is why vigilant safety monitoring and surveillance is essential with mAb treatment.¹ Bloodwork should be performed at least every 6 months and include a complete blood count, complete metabolic panel with differential, and JC virus antibody test. Additionally, urinalysis should be performed prior to every mAb infusion. All testing recommended in the package insert for the patient’s prescribed therapy should be performed.

The patient’s history of asthma and his chronic vaping predisposed him to respiratory infections. In mice studies, exposure to e-cigarette vapor has been shown to be cytotoxic to airway cells and to decrease macrophage and neutrophil antimicrobial function.² Exposure also alters immunomodulating cytokines in the airway, increases inflammatory markers seen in BAL and serum samples, and increases the virulence of Staphylococcus aureus.²

TREATMENT AND PATIENT EDUCATION

The PCP’s treatment plan included patient education about the importance of infection control measures when receiving a mAb; this includes practicing good hand and environmental hygiene, maintaining vaccinations, avoiding or reducing exposure to individuals who have infections or colds, avoiding large crowds (especially during flu season), and following recommendations for nutrition and hydration. The PCP also discussed how to recognize the early signs and symptoms of an infection—and the need for vigilant safety monitoring. The PCP described available options for smoking cessation, including nicotine replacement products, prescription non-nicotine medications, behavioral therapy, and/or counseling (individual, group or telephone) and discussed the risks associated with consuming nicotine and/or marijuana/THC and using electronic vaporizing devices.

The PCP emphasized the importance of completing the entire course of the oral antibiotics prescribed at discharge. The patient and the PCP agreed to the following plan of care: appointments with a pulmonologist and a neurologist within the next 2 weeks, and follow-up visits with the PCP every 6 months (or more frequently, as needed) and with a neurologist at least every 6 months (or as indicated by his medication’s prescribing recommendations).

PORTLAND—“We are now working with an HIV population that is aging, and along with aging comes a lot of other diseases, such as heart and lung disease, that often result in the use of medications,” began Jennifer Cocohoba, PharmD, AAHIP, Professor of Clinical Pharmacy, UCSF School of Pharmacy. She explained that “the growing problem of having too many medications applies to all, but is particularly important among those living with HIV.”

Polypharmacy, as often defined in research studies, is the taking of at least 5 prescription medications. About 40% of US adults fall into this category, “and it’s not much different for people with HIV,” Cocohoba said. “Persons living with HIV experience polypharmacy at about the same rate.” But people living with HIV may reach that number faster, given that 2 to 3 of the 5 drugs may be for HIV. In addition, those living with HIV are potentially at greater risk for drug interactions.

Quality, not just quantity

Cocohoba explained that it’s important to pay attention to the number of medications a patient is taking because the greater the number, the greater the likelihood of interactions and adverse effects and the more difficult it is for patients to adhere to their medication regimens.

“But we should be looking also at appropriateness of using those medications in a particular person,” she continued, which moves into the realm of quality. She reviewed some criteria that can be used to evaluate the quality of prescribing.

The BEERS Criteria, published by the American Geriatric Society, present classes and specific medications that may be inappropriate in certain elderly persons. Benzodiazepines, for example, commonly used to treat anxiety, are not metabolized as efficiently in the elderly as they are in younger patients. As a result, older adults may experience sedation, falls, or other potentially harmful sequelae. “If a patient age 65 or older is taking a benzodiazepine, that’s a red flag for a clinician to look at that medication and see if it’s really the best choice or whether alternatives might be more appropriate,” explained Cocohoba.

START/STOPP Criteria. Other criteria include the Screening Tool To Alert To Right Treatment (START) and the Screening Tool Of Older People's Prescriptions (STOPP). START focuses on looking for medications that would be appropriate for a particular patient but that are missing from the patient’s medication list, while STOPP focuses on looking for medications that are on the list that might be inappropriate, much like the BEERS Criteria.

The Good Palliative Geriatric Practice Algorithm is a clinical decision-making tool that aids clinicians in thinking through whether a medication is appropriate or inappropriate and whether to maintain, alter, or discontinue the therapy. Cocohoba said it’s often used as a partner to BEERS.

Continue to: Reducing polypharmacy in HIV treatment

Cocohoba explained that there are essentially 2 frameworks for reducing polypharmacy that can be applied to HIV treatment regimens.

Consolidation. With consolidation, the focus is on reducing pill burden—but not by omitting medications. “It’s about looking into simpler dosage forms or combination medications to improve adherence and make life easier,” Cocohoba explained. “Same regimen, fewer pills.”

Simplification, on the other hand, is removing, and thus reducing the number of, agents a patient is taking. The question clinicians should be asking is, according to Cocohoba, “In what situations is it safe to strip down therapy to the bare essentials for the purposes of exposing people to fewer medications, reducing adverse effects, and keeping treatment as manageable as possible to optimize adherence?”

Simplification may be applied to either treatment-naïve or treatment-experienced patients. With the former, clinicians consider, for example, whether patients can be started on HIV treatment consisting of 2 rather than 3 medications. In the latter, “Clinicians may be dealing with patients who are fully virally suppressed on certain regimens and have been for a while; here we see if we can subtract medications, reducing say from triple to double therapy, while maintaining suppression,” explained Cocohoba.

“We want to offer people robust HIV treatment that is going to maintain viral suppression and prevent sequelae of HIV disease,” Cocohoba said, “but we need to balance that with safety, tolerability, and adherence.”

Continue to: An ongoing discussion and multidisciplinary effort

“Medications can easily pile [up],” Cocohoba said, “so it’s important for clinicians to regularly review medication lists with patients to see if maybe they aren’t using certain agents anymore.” Another reason for clinicians to periodically review medication lists is to make certain they are aware of agents being prescribed by the patient’s other health care providers.

Polypharmacy is the responsibility of everyone on the health care team, both prescribers and nonprescribers, such as social workers and case managers, explained Cocohoba. “If ever there was a health care problem that could use an interdisciplinary approach, polypharmacy is it.”

PORTLAND—“We are now working with an HIV population that is aging, and along with aging comes a lot of other diseases, such as heart and lung disease, that often result in the use of medications,” began Jennifer Cocohoba, PharmD, AAHIP, Professor of Clinical Pharmacy, UCSF School of Pharmacy. She explained that “the growing problem of having too many medications applies to all, but is particularly important among those living with HIV.”

Polypharmacy, as often defined in research studies, is the taking of at least 5 prescription medications. About 40% of US adults fall into this category, “and it’s not much different for people with HIV,” Cocohoba said. “Persons living with HIV experience polypharmacy at about the same rate.” But people living with HIV may reach that number faster, given that 2 to 3 of the 5 drugs may be for HIV. In addition, those living with HIV are potentially at greater risk for drug interactions.

Quality, not just quantity

Cocohoba explained that it’s important to pay attention to the number of medications a patient is taking because the greater the number, the greater the likelihood of interactions and adverse effects and the more difficult it is for patients to adhere to their medication regimens.

“But we should be looking also at appropriateness of using those medications in a particular person,” she continued, which moves into the realm of quality. She reviewed some criteria that can be used to evaluate the quality of prescribing.

The BEERS Criteria, published by the American Geriatric Society, present classes and specific medications that may be inappropriate in certain elderly persons. Benzodiazepines, for example, commonly used to treat anxiety, are not metabolized as efficiently in the elderly as they are in younger patients. As a result, older adults may experience sedation, falls, or other potentially harmful sequelae. “If a patient age 65 or older is taking a benzodiazepine, that’s a red flag for a clinician to look at that medication and see if it’s really the best choice or whether alternatives might be more appropriate,” explained Cocohoba.

START/STOPP Criteria. Other criteria include the Screening Tool To Alert To Right Treatment (START) and the Screening Tool Of Older People's Prescriptions (STOPP). START focuses on looking for medications that would be appropriate for a particular patient but that are missing from the patient’s medication list, while STOPP focuses on looking for medications that are on the list that might be inappropriate, much like the BEERS Criteria.

The Good Palliative Geriatric Practice Algorithm is a clinical decision-making tool that aids clinicians in thinking through whether a medication is appropriate or inappropriate and whether to maintain, alter, or discontinue the therapy. Cocohoba said it’s often used as a partner to BEERS.

Continue to: Reducing polypharmacy in HIV treatment

Cocohoba explained that there are essentially 2 frameworks for reducing polypharmacy that can be applied to HIV treatment regimens.

Consolidation. With consolidation, the focus is on reducing pill burden—but not by omitting medications. “It’s about looking into simpler dosage forms or combination medications to improve adherence and make life easier,” Cocohoba explained. “Same regimen, fewer pills.”

Simplification, on the other hand, is removing, and thus reducing the number of, agents a patient is taking. The question clinicians should be asking is, according to Cocohoba, “In what situations is it safe to strip down therapy to the bare essentials for the purposes of exposing people to fewer medications, reducing adverse effects, and keeping treatment as manageable as possible to optimize adherence?”

Simplification may be applied to either treatment-naïve or treatment-experienced patients. With the former, clinicians consider, for example, whether patients can be started on HIV treatment consisting of 2 rather than 3 medications. In the latter, “Clinicians may be dealing with patients who are fully virally suppressed on certain regimens and have been for a while; here we see if we can subtract medications, reducing say from triple to double therapy, while maintaining suppression,” explained Cocohoba.

“We want to offer people robust HIV treatment that is going to maintain viral suppression and prevent sequelae of HIV disease,” Cocohoba said, “but we need to balance that with safety, tolerability, and adherence.”

Continue to: An ongoing discussion and multidisciplinary effort

“Medications can easily pile [up],” Cocohoba said, “so it’s important for clinicians to regularly review medication lists with patients to see if maybe they aren’t using certain agents anymore.” Another reason for clinicians to periodically review medication lists is to make certain they are aware of agents being prescribed by the patient’s other health care providers.

Polypharmacy is the responsibility of everyone on the health care team, both prescribers and nonprescribers, such as social workers and case managers, explained Cocohoba. “If ever there was a health care problem that could use an interdisciplinary approach, polypharmacy is it.”

PORTLAND—“We are now working with an HIV population that is aging, and along with aging comes a lot of other diseases, such as heart and lung disease, that often result in the use of medications,” began Jennifer Cocohoba, PharmD, AAHIP, Professor of Clinical Pharmacy, UCSF School of Pharmacy. She explained that “the growing problem of having too many medications applies to all, but is particularly important among those living with HIV.”

Polypharmacy, as often defined in research studies, is the taking of at least 5 prescription medications. About 40% of US adults fall into this category, “and it’s not much different for people with HIV,” Cocohoba said. “Persons living with HIV experience polypharmacy at about the same rate.” But people living with HIV may reach that number faster, given that 2 to 3 of the 5 drugs may be for HIV. In addition, those living with HIV are potentially at greater risk for drug interactions.

Quality, not just quantity

Cocohoba explained that it’s important to pay attention to the number of medications a patient is taking because the greater the number, the greater the likelihood of interactions and adverse effects and the more difficult it is for patients to adhere to their medication regimens.

“But we should be looking also at appropriateness of using those medications in a particular person,” she continued, which moves into the realm of quality. She reviewed some criteria that can be used to evaluate the quality of prescribing.

The BEERS Criteria, published by the American Geriatric Society, present classes and specific medications that may be inappropriate in certain elderly persons. Benzodiazepines, for example, commonly used to treat anxiety, are not metabolized as efficiently in the elderly as they are in younger patients. As a result, older adults may experience sedation, falls, or other potentially harmful sequelae. “If a patient age 65 or older is taking a benzodiazepine, that’s a red flag for a clinician to look at that medication and see if it’s really the best choice or whether alternatives might be more appropriate,” explained Cocohoba.

START/STOPP Criteria. Other criteria include the Screening Tool To Alert To Right Treatment (START) and the Screening Tool Of Older People's Prescriptions (STOPP). START focuses on looking for medications that would be appropriate for a particular patient but that are missing from the patient’s medication list, while STOPP focuses on looking for medications that are on the list that might be inappropriate, much like the BEERS Criteria.

The Good Palliative Geriatric Practice Algorithm is a clinical decision-making tool that aids clinicians in thinking through whether a medication is appropriate or inappropriate and whether to maintain, alter, or discontinue the therapy. Cocohoba said it’s often used as a partner to BEERS.

Continue to: Reducing polypharmacy in HIV treatment

Cocohoba explained that there are essentially 2 frameworks for reducing polypharmacy that can be applied to HIV treatment regimens.

Consolidation. With consolidation, the focus is on reducing pill burden—but not by omitting medications. “It’s about looking into simpler dosage forms or combination medications to improve adherence and make life easier,” Cocohoba explained. “Same regimen, fewer pills.”

Simplification, on the other hand, is removing, and thus reducing the number of, agents a patient is taking. The question clinicians should be asking is, according to Cocohoba, “In what situations is it safe to strip down therapy to the bare essentials for the purposes of exposing people to fewer medications, reducing adverse effects, and keeping treatment as manageable as possible to optimize adherence?”

Simplification may be applied to either treatment-naïve or treatment-experienced patients. With the former, clinicians consider, for example, whether patients can be started on HIV treatment consisting of 2 rather than 3 medications. In the latter, “Clinicians may be dealing with patients who are fully virally suppressed on certain regimens and have been for a while; here we see if we can subtract medications, reducing say from triple to double therapy, while maintaining suppression,” explained Cocohoba.

“We want to offer people robust HIV treatment that is going to maintain viral suppression and prevent sequelae of HIV disease,” Cocohoba said, “but we need to balance that with safety, tolerability, and adherence.”

Continue to: An ongoing discussion and multidisciplinary effort

“Medications can easily pile [up],” Cocohoba said, “so it’s important for clinicians to regularly review medication lists with patients to see if maybe they aren’t using certain agents anymore.” Another reason for clinicians to periodically review medication lists is to make certain they are aware of agents being prescribed by the patient’s other health care providers.

Polypharmacy is the responsibility of everyone on the health care team, both prescribers and nonprescribers, such as social workers and case managers, explained Cocohoba. “If ever there was a health care problem that could use an interdisciplinary approach, polypharmacy is it.”

PORTLAND—The investigational drug islatravir “could be a game changer in the field of HIV," said David H. Spach, MD, Professor of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Washington, Seattle, in a session called, "Antiretroviral therapy 2019 update: Mechanism of action, new medications, current guidelines, and controversies."

Dr. Spach reported that islatravir, a nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation inhibitor (NRTTI), is highly potent, is well tolerated, has a high genetic barrier to resistance, and has an extremely long half-life, according to the findings of preliminary studies. Its long half-life enables subdermal implantation and maintenance of therapeutic levels even after a year in place. Researchers are studying the compound in combination with other agents for treatment and independently for preexposure prophylaxis.

Another noteworthy investigational agent, according to Dr. Spach, is cabotegravir, an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) with the potential for intramuscular administration every 4 to 8 weeks. Dr. Spach explained that researchers are studying the agent in 3 different clinical situations: oral cabotegravir in combination with rilpivirine for lead-in therapy; an extended-release injectable of cabotegravir and rilpivirine for maintenance antiretroviral (ARV) treatment every 4 weeks; and an extended-release cabotegravir injectable for preexposure prophylaxis every 8 weeks. The agent is highly potent, with a high genetic barrier to resistance.

ARV: The current state of affairs

"We are in an era now where everyone who is living with HIV ideally should be receiving fully suppressive antiretroviral therapy," remarked Dr. Spach. He explained that not only does this benefit the person living with HIV by reducing the onset and progression of chronic inflammatory disease states that occur along with HIV, such as cardiovascular disease, stroke, and cancer, but also "fully suppressive ARV therapy virtually eliminates sexual transmission of HIV to another person."

Spach explained that the most recent (2018) Health and Human Services ARV therapy guidelines have greatly simplified the choices for ARV therapy. The current recommendations for initial ARV therapy for most people are to use a 2-drug backbone regimen, consisting of 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), combined with a single anchor drug, which should be an INSTI. The INSTI should have the highest potency and highest genetic barrier to resistance available, which effectively means using a regimen that contains either dolutegravir or bictegravir. The latter is available only in combination with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide as a single-tablet regimen.

Spach also explained that "the guidelines have moved away from using boosted regimens for initial therapy, so elvitegravir boosted with cobicistat and protease inhibitors (PIs) boosted with ritonavir or cobicistat are no longer recommended as preferred initial therapy, although boosted PIs are still very useful as second- or third-line therapies."

Newer medications

Doravirine, a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), was approved by the FDA in 2018. "It probably won't have a big impact on initial therapy, but it is likely to have a significant effect on second- and third-line therapy," Dr. Spach said. "Because of its high potency and high genetic barrier to resistance, those taking etravirine twice a day, for example, may be able to simplify to once-a-day doravirine." In addition, "Doravirine may have advantages over rilpivirine in that it has no restrictions when used with acid-suppressing agents such as H2 blockers or proton pump inhibitors."

Continue to: Ibalizumab

Ibalizumab. Another newer agent “worth mentioning,” according to Dr. Spach, is ibalizumab. This monoclonal antibody has a unique mechanism of action. It is 1 of only 2 drugs used for HIV treatment that targets human receptors (all of the others work by inhibiting either an HIV enzyme or binding to the HIV virus itself). Ibalizumab targets the D2 region of the CD4 receptor. It is an injectable (intravenous) compound administered with an initial loading dose and then every 2 weeks thereafter. Dr. Spach reported that the data surrounding ibalizumab show that it is effective as an add-on medication in more advanced resistant settings. Also, it provides an option for people who can't take oral drugs, such as those who have had major surgery or trauma.

Remaining questions

Dr. Spach explained that 1 of the questions that remains is whether to prescribe ARV therapy for patients who are viremic controllers (those who inherently control HIV through their own immunologic response to a level < 200 copies) or elite controllers (those whose own immunologic response controls the virus to a level < 50 copies, which is in the undetectable range). Both of these groups still have a higher risk for hospitalization and for HIV-related inflammatory conditions such as heart disease, according to Dr. Spach. Current thinking among most experts is to initiate and maintain therapy as long as it is tolerated well.

3 drugs to 2? Another question that remains is whether to switch patients who are doing well on 3-drug maintenance therapy to 2-drug maintenance therapy. According to Dr Spach, studies involving the combination dolutegravir/rilpivirine indicate that patients who have suppressed HIV RNA levels for at least 6 months on a 3-drug maintenance regimen do well after switching to the 2-drug combination dolutegravir/rilpivirine, as long as they do not have baseline resistance to either dolutegravir or rilpivirine. But he questioned the need for the change if the individual is tolerating a 3-drug regimen well, saying that given the safety of current regimens, the only broader motivating force may be cost savings. For now, he said, if patients are without complaints or tolerability issues on 3 drugs, leave them alone.

INSTIs and weight gain. The last issue is weight gain with the use of INSTIs. Preliminary data suggest disproportionate weight gain with these drugs (on the order of about 6 kg over a year and half, which may be 2-3 kg greater than that which occurs with PI-based and NNRTI-based regimens). At this point, experts do not recommend avoiding these agents, mainly because of the tremendous benefits that have been observed with INSTIs. Dr. Spach concluded, "Although we will continue to use INSTIs widely in clinical practice, there may be a subset of individuals taking an INSTI who have pronounced weight gain and may need to switch to another regimen that does not contain an INSTI.”

PORTLAND—The investigational drug islatravir “could be a game changer in the field of HIV," said David H. Spach, MD, Professor of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Washington, Seattle, in a session called, "Antiretroviral therapy 2019 update: Mechanism of action, new medications, current guidelines, and controversies."

Dr. Spach reported that islatravir, a nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation inhibitor (NRTTI), is highly potent, is well tolerated, has a high genetic barrier to resistance, and has an extremely long half-life, according to the findings of preliminary studies. Its long half-life enables subdermal implantation and maintenance of therapeutic levels even after a year in place. Researchers are studying the compound in combination with other agents for treatment and independently for preexposure prophylaxis.

Another noteworthy investigational agent, according to Dr. Spach, is cabotegravir, an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) with the potential for intramuscular administration every 4 to 8 weeks. Dr. Spach explained that researchers are studying the agent in 3 different clinical situations: oral cabotegravir in combination with rilpivirine for lead-in therapy; an extended-release injectable of cabotegravir and rilpivirine for maintenance antiretroviral (ARV) treatment every 4 weeks; and an extended-release cabotegravir injectable for preexposure prophylaxis every 8 weeks. The agent is highly potent, with a high genetic barrier to resistance.

ARV: The current state of affairs

"We are in an era now where everyone who is living with HIV ideally should be receiving fully suppressive antiretroviral therapy," remarked Dr. Spach. He explained that not only does this benefit the person living with HIV by reducing the onset and progression of chronic inflammatory disease states that occur along with HIV, such as cardiovascular disease, stroke, and cancer, but also "fully suppressive ARV therapy virtually eliminates sexual transmission of HIV to another person."

Spach explained that the most recent (2018) Health and Human Services ARV therapy guidelines have greatly simplified the choices for ARV therapy. The current recommendations for initial ARV therapy for most people are to use a 2-drug backbone regimen, consisting of 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), combined with a single anchor drug, which should be an INSTI. The INSTI should have the highest potency and highest genetic barrier to resistance available, which effectively means using a regimen that contains either dolutegravir or bictegravir. The latter is available only in combination with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide as a single-tablet regimen.

Spach also explained that "the guidelines have moved away from using boosted regimens for initial therapy, so elvitegravir boosted with cobicistat and protease inhibitors (PIs) boosted with ritonavir or cobicistat are no longer recommended as preferred initial therapy, although boosted PIs are still very useful as second- or third-line therapies."

Newer medications

Doravirine, a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), was approved by the FDA in 2018. "It probably won't have a big impact on initial therapy, but it is likely to have a significant effect on second- and third-line therapy," Dr. Spach said. "Because of its high potency and high genetic barrier to resistance, those taking etravirine twice a day, for example, may be able to simplify to once-a-day doravirine." In addition, "Doravirine may have advantages over rilpivirine in that it has no restrictions when used with acid-suppressing agents such as H2 blockers or proton pump inhibitors."

Continue to: Ibalizumab

Ibalizumab. Another newer agent “worth mentioning,” according to Dr. Spach, is ibalizumab. This monoclonal antibody has a unique mechanism of action. It is 1 of only 2 drugs used for HIV treatment that targets human receptors (all of the others work by inhibiting either an HIV enzyme or binding to the HIV virus itself). Ibalizumab targets the D2 region of the CD4 receptor. It is an injectable (intravenous) compound administered with an initial loading dose and then every 2 weeks thereafter. Dr. Spach reported that the data surrounding ibalizumab show that it is effective as an add-on medication in more advanced resistant settings. Also, it provides an option for people who can't take oral drugs, such as those who have had major surgery or trauma.

Remaining questions

Dr. Spach explained that 1 of the questions that remains is whether to prescribe ARV therapy for patients who are viremic controllers (those who inherently control HIV through their own immunologic response to a level < 200 copies) or elite controllers (those whose own immunologic response controls the virus to a level < 50 copies, which is in the undetectable range). Both of these groups still have a higher risk for hospitalization and for HIV-related inflammatory conditions such as heart disease, according to Dr. Spach. Current thinking among most experts is to initiate and maintain therapy as long as it is tolerated well.

3 drugs to 2? Another question that remains is whether to switch patients who are doing well on 3-drug maintenance therapy to 2-drug maintenance therapy. According to Dr Spach, studies involving the combination dolutegravir/rilpivirine indicate that patients who have suppressed HIV RNA levels for at least 6 months on a 3-drug maintenance regimen do well after switching to the 2-drug combination dolutegravir/rilpivirine, as long as they do not have baseline resistance to either dolutegravir or rilpivirine. But he questioned the need for the change if the individual is tolerating a 3-drug regimen well, saying that given the safety of current regimens, the only broader motivating force may be cost savings. For now, he said, if patients are without complaints or tolerability issues on 3 drugs, leave them alone.

INSTIs and weight gain. The last issue is weight gain with the use of INSTIs. Preliminary data suggest disproportionate weight gain with these drugs (on the order of about 6 kg over a year and half, which may be 2-3 kg greater than that which occurs with PI-based and NNRTI-based regimens). At this point, experts do not recommend avoiding these agents, mainly because of the tremendous benefits that have been observed with INSTIs. Dr. Spach concluded, "Although we will continue to use INSTIs widely in clinical practice, there may be a subset of individuals taking an INSTI who have pronounced weight gain and may need to switch to another regimen that does not contain an INSTI.”

PORTLAND—The investigational drug islatravir “could be a game changer in the field of HIV," said David H. Spach, MD, Professor of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Washington, Seattle, in a session called, "Antiretroviral therapy 2019 update: Mechanism of action, new medications, current guidelines, and controversies."

Dr. Spach reported that islatravir, a nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation inhibitor (NRTTI), is highly potent, is well tolerated, has a high genetic barrier to resistance, and has an extremely long half-life, according to the findings of preliminary studies. Its long half-life enables subdermal implantation and maintenance of therapeutic levels even after a year in place. Researchers are studying the compound in combination with other agents for treatment and independently for preexposure prophylaxis.

Another noteworthy investigational agent, according to Dr. Spach, is cabotegravir, an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) with the potential for intramuscular administration every 4 to 8 weeks. Dr. Spach explained that researchers are studying the agent in 3 different clinical situations: oral cabotegravir in combination with rilpivirine for lead-in therapy; an extended-release injectable of cabotegravir and rilpivirine for maintenance antiretroviral (ARV) treatment every 4 weeks; and an extended-release cabotegravir injectable for preexposure prophylaxis every 8 weeks. The agent is highly potent, with a high genetic barrier to resistance.

ARV: The current state of affairs

"We are in an era now where everyone who is living with HIV ideally should be receiving fully suppressive antiretroviral therapy," remarked Dr. Spach. He explained that not only does this benefit the person living with HIV by reducing the onset and progression of chronic inflammatory disease states that occur along with HIV, such as cardiovascular disease, stroke, and cancer, but also "fully suppressive ARV therapy virtually eliminates sexual transmission of HIV to another person."

Spach explained that the most recent (2018) Health and Human Services ARV therapy guidelines have greatly simplified the choices for ARV therapy. The current recommendations for initial ARV therapy for most people are to use a 2-drug backbone regimen, consisting of 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), combined with a single anchor drug, which should be an INSTI. The INSTI should have the highest potency and highest genetic barrier to resistance available, which effectively means using a regimen that contains either dolutegravir or bictegravir. The latter is available only in combination with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide as a single-tablet regimen.

Spach also explained that "the guidelines have moved away from using boosted regimens for initial therapy, so elvitegravir boosted with cobicistat and protease inhibitors (PIs) boosted with ritonavir or cobicistat are no longer recommended as preferred initial therapy, although boosted PIs are still very useful as second- or third-line therapies."

Newer medications

Doravirine, a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), was approved by the FDA in 2018. "It probably won't have a big impact on initial therapy, but it is likely to have a significant effect on second- and third-line therapy," Dr. Spach said. "Because of its high potency and high genetic barrier to resistance, those taking etravirine twice a day, for example, may be able to simplify to once-a-day doravirine." In addition, "Doravirine may have advantages over rilpivirine in that it has no restrictions when used with acid-suppressing agents such as H2 blockers or proton pump inhibitors."

Continue to: Ibalizumab

Ibalizumab. Another newer agent “worth mentioning,” according to Dr. Spach, is ibalizumab. This monoclonal antibody has a unique mechanism of action. It is 1 of only 2 drugs used for HIV treatment that targets human receptors (all of the others work by inhibiting either an HIV enzyme or binding to the HIV virus itself). Ibalizumab targets the D2 region of the CD4 receptor. It is an injectable (intravenous) compound administered with an initial loading dose and then every 2 weeks thereafter. Dr. Spach reported that the data surrounding ibalizumab show that it is effective as an add-on medication in more advanced resistant settings. Also, it provides an option for people who can't take oral drugs, such as those who have had major surgery or trauma.

Remaining questions

Dr. Spach explained that 1 of the questions that remains is whether to prescribe ARV therapy for patients who are viremic controllers (those who inherently control HIV through their own immunologic response to a level < 200 copies) or elite controllers (those whose own immunologic response controls the virus to a level < 50 copies, which is in the undetectable range). Both of these groups still have a higher risk for hospitalization and for HIV-related inflammatory conditions such as heart disease, according to Dr. Spach. Current thinking among most experts is to initiate and maintain therapy as long as it is tolerated well.

3 drugs to 2? Another question that remains is whether to switch patients who are doing well on 3-drug maintenance therapy to 2-drug maintenance therapy. According to Dr Spach, studies involving the combination dolutegravir/rilpivirine indicate that patients who have suppressed HIV RNA levels for at least 6 months on a 3-drug maintenance regimen do well after switching to the 2-drug combination dolutegravir/rilpivirine, as long as they do not have baseline resistance to either dolutegravir or rilpivirine. But he questioned the need for the change if the individual is tolerating a 3-drug regimen well, saying that given the safety of current regimens, the only broader motivating force may be cost savings. For now, he said, if patients are without complaints or tolerability issues on 3 drugs, leave them alone.

INSTIs and weight gain. The last issue is weight gain with the use of INSTIs. Preliminary data suggest disproportionate weight gain with these drugs (on the order of about 6 kg over a year and half, which may be 2-3 kg greater than that which occurs with PI-based and NNRTI-based regimens). At this point, experts do not recommend avoiding these agents, mainly because of the tremendous benefits that have been observed with INSTIs. Dr. Spach concluded, "Although we will continue to use INSTIs widely in clinical practice, there may be a subset of individuals taking an INSTI who have pronounced weight gain and may need to switch to another regimen that does not contain an INSTI.”

Tinea versicolor (TV), or pityriasis versicolor, is a noninflammatory, superficial cutaneous fungal infection caused by Malassezia furfur, also known as Pityrosporum orbiculare or P. ovale. In its hyphal form, it produces skin lesions that appear as scaly, round or oval, hypopigmented, hyperpigmented, or pink macules or patches. Lesions are asymptomatic. The condition is more commonly seen in warm climates or during the summer months. Malassezia requires an oily environment for growth. Typically, TV appears in sebum-producing areas on the trunk. However, other sites may be affected such as the scalp, groin, and flexural areas. Infants may have facial lesions. Hypopigmentation may persist for months, even after lesions are treated, and takes time to resolve.

The differential diagnosis of hypopigmented lesions of tinea versicolor includes vitiligo, hypopigmented mycosis fungoides, progressive macular hypomelanosis (PMH), secondary syphilis, and pityriasis alba. Potassium hydroxide (KOH) preparations can be performed in the office for TV to reveal short, thick fungal hyphae with multiple spores, often referred to as “spaghetti and meatballs.” Use of a Wood’s light may aid in diagnosis. In TV, lesions may fluoresce yellow-green in adjacent follicles, unlike PMH, which characteristically show orange-red follicular fluorescence. A skin biopsy is necessary to rule out hypopgimented mycosis fungoides or syphilis. Histologically in TV, hyphae and spores will be present in the stratum corneum or in hair follicles. These are readily seen with PAS or GMS (Grocott methenamine silver) stains. There is usually no inflammation and skin appears “normal.” A biopsy was performed in this patient that revealed PAS positive hyphae.

Treatment for TV can be topical or systemic. Antifungal azole shampoo or creams, selenium sulfide shampoo, sulfur preparations, and allylamine creams have all been reported as useful treatments. Oral itraconazole or fluconazole are often given as systemic treatments. Monthly or weekly topical therapy may help prevent relapse.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

Tinea versicolor (TV), or pityriasis versicolor, is a noninflammatory, superficial cutaneous fungal infection caused by Malassezia furfur, also known as Pityrosporum orbiculare or P. ovale. In its hyphal form, it produces skin lesions that appear as scaly, round or oval, hypopigmented, hyperpigmented, or pink macules or patches. Lesions are asymptomatic. The condition is more commonly seen in warm climates or during the summer months. Malassezia requires an oily environment for growth. Typically, TV appears in sebum-producing areas on the trunk. However, other sites may be affected such as the scalp, groin, and flexural areas. Infants may have facial lesions. Hypopigmentation may persist for months, even after lesions are treated, and takes time to resolve.

The differential diagnosis of hypopigmented lesions of tinea versicolor includes vitiligo, hypopigmented mycosis fungoides, progressive macular hypomelanosis (PMH), secondary syphilis, and pityriasis alba. Potassium hydroxide (KOH) preparations can be performed in the office for TV to reveal short, thick fungal hyphae with multiple spores, often referred to as “spaghetti and meatballs.” Use of a Wood’s light may aid in diagnosis. In TV, lesions may fluoresce yellow-green in adjacent follicles, unlike PMH, which characteristically show orange-red follicular fluorescence. A skin biopsy is necessary to rule out hypopgimented mycosis fungoides or syphilis. Histologically in TV, hyphae and spores will be present in the stratum corneum or in hair follicles. These are readily seen with PAS or GMS (Grocott methenamine silver) stains. There is usually no inflammation and skin appears “normal.” A biopsy was performed in this patient that revealed PAS positive hyphae.

Treatment for TV can be topical or systemic. Antifungal azole shampoo or creams, selenium sulfide shampoo, sulfur preparations, and allylamine creams have all been reported as useful treatments. Oral itraconazole or fluconazole are often given as systemic treatments. Monthly or weekly topical therapy may help prevent relapse.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

Tinea versicolor (TV), or pityriasis versicolor, is a noninflammatory, superficial cutaneous fungal infection caused by Malassezia furfur, also known as Pityrosporum orbiculare or P. ovale. In its hyphal form, it produces skin lesions that appear as scaly, round or oval, hypopigmented, hyperpigmented, or pink macules or patches. Lesions are asymptomatic. The condition is more commonly seen in warm climates or during the summer months. Malassezia requires an oily environment for growth. Typically, TV appears in sebum-producing areas on the trunk. However, other sites may be affected such as the scalp, groin, and flexural areas. Infants may have facial lesions. Hypopigmentation may persist for months, even after lesions are treated, and takes time to resolve.

The differential diagnosis of hypopigmented lesions of tinea versicolor includes vitiligo, hypopigmented mycosis fungoides, progressive macular hypomelanosis (PMH), secondary syphilis, and pityriasis alba. Potassium hydroxide (KOH) preparations can be performed in the office for TV to reveal short, thick fungal hyphae with multiple spores, often referred to as “spaghetti and meatballs.” Use of a Wood’s light may aid in diagnosis. In TV, lesions may fluoresce yellow-green in adjacent follicles, unlike PMH, which characteristically show orange-red follicular fluorescence. A skin biopsy is necessary to rule out hypopgimented mycosis fungoides or syphilis. Histologically in TV, hyphae and spores will be present in the stratum corneum or in hair follicles. These are readily seen with PAS or GMS (Grocott methenamine silver) stains. There is usually no inflammation and skin appears “normal.” A biopsy was performed in this patient that revealed PAS positive hyphae.

Treatment for TV can be topical or systemic. Antifungal azole shampoo or creams, selenium sulfide shampoo, sulfur preparations, and allylamine creams have all been reported as useful treatments. Oral itraconazole or fluconazole are often given as systemic treatments. Monthly or weekly topical therapy may help prevent relapse.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

BOSTON – A short course of direct-acting antiviral therapy combined with ezetimibe prevented or rapidly cured hepatitis C virus infection in transplant recipients receiving organs from infected donors, results of a recent study show.

The regimen, given right before transplantation and for 7 days afterward, reduced the cost of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy and allowed patients to complete hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy before hospital discharge, according to authors of the study, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

If confirmed in subsequent studies, this regimen could become the standard of care for donor-positive, recipient-negative transplantation, said lead study author Jordan J. Feld, MD, R. Phelan Chair in translational liver disease research at the University of Toronto and research director at the Toronto Centre for Liver Disease.

“Transplant recipients are understandably nervous about accepting organs from people with HCV infection,” said Dr. Feld in a press release. “This very short therapy allows them to leave hospital free of HCV, which is a huge benefit. Not only is it cheaper and likely safer, but the patients really prefer not having to worry about HCV with all of the other challenges after a transplant.”

Results of this study come at a time when the proportion of overdose death organ donors is on the rise, from just 1% in 2000 to 15% in 2016, according to Dr. Feld. Overdose deaths account for the largest percentage of HCV-infected donors, most of whom are young and often otherwise healthy, he added.

Recipients of HCV-infected organs can be cured after transplant as a number of studies have previously shown. However, preventing transmission would be better than cure, Dr. Feld said, in part because of issues with drug-drug interactions, potential for relapse, and issues with procuring the drugs after transplant.

Accordingly, Dr. Feld and colleagues sought to evaluate “preemptive” treatment with DAA therapy combined with ezetimibe, which they said has been shown to inhibit HCV entry blockers. The recipients, who were listed for heart, lung, kidney, or kidney-pancreas transplant, were given glecaprevir/pibrentasvir plus ezetimibe starting 6-12 hours prior to transplantation, and then daily for 7 days.

The median age was 36 years for the 16 donors reported, and 61 years for the 25 recipients. Most recipients (12 patients) had a lung transplant, while 8 had a heart transplant, 4 had a kidney transplant, and 1 had a kidney-pancreas transplant.

There were no virologic failures, according to the investigators, with sustained virologic response (SVR) after 6 weeks in 7 patients, and SVR after 12 weeks in the remaining 18. Three recipients did have detectable HCV RNA, though all cleared and had SVR at 6 weeks in one case, and SVR at 12 weeks in the other two, according to the investigators’ report.

Of 22 serious adverse events noted in the study, 1 was considered treatment related, according to the report, and there were 2 deaths among lung transplant patients, caused by sepsis in 1 case to sepsis and subarachnoid hemorrhage in another.

It’s not clear whether ezetimibe is needed in this short-duration regimen, but in any case, it is well tolerated and inexpensive, and so there is “minimal downside” to include it, Dr. Feld and coinvestigators wrote in their report.

Dr. Feld reported disclosures related to Abbvie, Abbott, Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, and Roche.

SOURCE: Feld JJ et al. The Liver Meeting 2019, Abstract 38.

BOSTON – A short course of direct-acting antiviral therapy combined with ezetimibe prevented or rapidly cured hepatitis C virus infection in transplant recipients receiving organs from infected donors, results of a recent study show.

The regimen, given right before transplantation and for 7 days afterward, reduced the cost of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy and allowed patients to complete hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy before hospital discharge, according to authors of the study, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

If confirmed in subsequent studies, this regimen could become the standard of care for donor-positive, recipient-negative transplantation, said lead study author Jordan J. Feld, MD, R. Phelan Chair in translational liver disease research at the University of Toronto and research director at the Toronto Centre for Liver Disease.

“Transplant recipients are understandably nervous about accepting organs from people with HCV infection,” said Dr. Feld in a press release. “This very short therapy allows them to leave hospital free of HCV, which is a huge benefit. Not only is it cheaper and likely safer, but the patients really prefer not having to worry about HCV with all of the other challenges after a transplant.”

Results of this study come at a time when the proportion of overdose death organ donors is on the rise, from just 1% in 2000 to 15% in 2016, according to Dr. Feld. Overdose deaths account for the largest percentage of HCV-infected donors, most of whom are young and often otherwise healthy, he added.

Recipients of HCV-infected organs can be cured after transplant as a number of studies have previously shown. However, preventing transmission would be better than cure, Dr. Feld said, in part because of issues with drug-drug interactions, potential for relapse, and issues with procuring the drugs after transplant.

Accordingly, Dr. Feld and colleagues sought to evaluate “preemptive” treatment with DAA therapy combined with ezetimibe, which they said has been shown to inhibit HCV entry blockers. The recipients, who were listed for heart, lung, kidney, or kidney-pancreas transplant, were given glecaprevir/pibrentasvir plus ezetimibe starting 6-12 hours prior to transplantation, and then daily for 7 days.

The median age was 36 years for the 16 donors reported, and 61 years for the 25 recipients. Most recipients (12 patients) had a lung transplant, while 8 had a heart transplant, 4 had a kidney transplant, and 1 had a kidney-pancreas transplant.

There were no virologic failures, according to the investigators, with sustained virologic response (SVR) after 6 weeks in 7 patients, and SVR after 12 weeks in the remaining 18. Three recipients did have detectable HCV RNA, though all cleared and had SVR at 6 weeks in one case, and SVR at 12 weeks in the other two, according to the investigators’ report.

Of 22 serious adverse events noted in the study, 1 was considered treatment related, according to the report, and there were 2 deaths among lung transplant patients, caused by sepsis in 1 case to sepsis and subarachnoid hemorrhage in another.

It’s not clear whether ezetimibe is needed in this short-duration regimen, but in any case, it is well tolerated and inexpensive, and so there is “minimal downside” to include it, Dr. Feld and coinvestigators wrote in their report.

Dr. Feld reported disclosures related to Abbvie, Abbott, Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, and Roche.

SOURCE: Feld JJ et al. The Liver Meeting 2019, Abstract 38.

BOSTON – A short course of direct-acting antiviral therapy combined with ezetimibe prevented or rapidly cured hepatitis C virus infection in transplant recipients receiving organs from infected donors, results of a recent study show.

The regimen, given right before transplantation and for 7 days afterward, reduced the cost of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy and allowed patients to complete hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy before hospital discharge, according to authors of the study, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

If confirmed in subsequent studies, this regimen could become the standard of care for donor-positive, recipient-negative transplantation, said lead study author Jordan J. Feld, MD, R. Phelan Chair in translational liver disease research at the University of Toronto and research director at the Toronto Centre for Liver Disease.

“Transplant recipients are understandably nervous about accepting organs from people with HCV infection,” said Dr. Feld in a press release. “This very short therapy allows them to leave hospital free of HCV, which is a huge benefit. Not only is it cheaper and likely safer, but the patients really prefer not having to worry about HCV with all of the other challenges after a transplant.”

Results of this study come at a time when the proportion of overdose death organ donors is on the rise, from just 1% in 2000 to 15% in 2016, according to Dr. Feld. Overdose deaths account for the largest percentage of HCV-infected donors, most of whom are young and often otherwise healthy, he added.

Recipients of HCV-infected organs can be cured after transplant as a number of studies have previously shown. However, preventing transmission would be better than cure, Dr. Feld said, in part because of issues with drug-drug interactions, potential for relapse, and issues with procuring the drugs after transplant.

Accordingly, Dr. Feld and colleagues sought to evaluate “preemptive” treatment with DAA therapy combined with ezetimibe, which they said has been shown to inhibit HCV entry blockers. The recipients, who were listed for heart, lung, kidney, or kidney-pancreas transplant, were given glecaprevir/pibrentasvir plus ezetimibe starting 6-12 hours prior to transplantation, and then daily for 7 days.

The median age was 36 years for the 16 donors reported, and 61 years for the 25 recipients. Most recipients (12 patients) had a lung transplant, while 8 had a heart transplant, 4 had a kidney transplant, and 1 had a kidney-pancreas transplant.

There were no virologic failures, according to the investigators, with sustained virologic response (SVR) after 6 weeks in 7 patients, and SVR after 12 weeks in the remaining 18. Three recipients did have detectable HCV RNA, though all cleared and had SVR at 6 weeks in one case, and SVR at 12 weeks in the other two, according to the investigators’ report.

Of 22 serious adverse events noted in the study, 1 was considered treatment related, according to the report, and there were 2 deaths among lung transplant patients, caused by sepsis in 1 case to sepsis and subarachnoid hemorrhage in another.

It’s not clear whether ezetimibe is needed in this short-duration regimen, but in any case, it is well tolerated and inexpensive, and so there is “minimal downside” to include it, Dr. Feld and coinvestigators wrote in their report.

Dr. Feld reported disclosures related to Abbvie, Abbott, Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, and Roche.

SOURCE: Feld JJ et al. The Liver Meeting 2019, Abstract 38.

ATLANTA – Concomitant use of even low-dose steroids increases the risk of serious infections with antirheumatic drugs, according to a review of 170,357 Medicare patients by investigators at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Infections are a well-known side effect of high-dose glucocorticoids, but there’s been debate about prednisone doses in the 5-10 mg/day range. Guidelines generally advise tapering RA patients off steroids after they start a biologic or methotrexate, but that doesn’t always happen because there’s a common perception that low-dose steroids are safe, said lead investigator Michael George, MD, assistant professor of medicine and epidemiology at the university.

“Many people continue low-dose steroids over the long term, but even low dose seems to be associated with infection. It’s a small risk, but it should be something you are aware of; for some patients, it might be quite important,” he said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The team wanted to mimic real-world practice, so they compared infection incidence between the 53% of patients who were not on low-dose steroids with the 47% who were after at least 6 months of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy. About 56% of patients were on methotrexate, with the rest on biologics or a targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD). Average follow up was an additional 6 months, but some people were followed for several years; prednisone 5 mg/day or less was the most common dose.

There were 20,630 serious infections requiring hospitalization, most often urinary tract infection, pneumonia, bacteremia/septicemia, and skin or soft-tissue infections. The crude incidence was 11 per 100 person-years.

After propensity-score weighting to balance out about 50 potential confounders, the predicted 1-year incidence of infection was 9.3% among patients not on steroids. Among those on up to 5 mg/day of prednisone, it was 12.5%; among those on 5-10 mg/day, 17.2%; and among those on more than 10 mg/day, 23.9%.

Glucocorticoids were associated with a 37% increased rate of serious infections, even with doses at or below 5mg/day. The effect “was really similar” whether people were on a biologic, tsDMARD, or methotrexate, which was “surprising,” Dr. George said.

“When I see a patient now who is on long-term, low-dose prednisone, I don’t just say ‘okay, that’s probably safe.’ I think really hard about how much benefit they’re getting. For some people, that means I try to get them off it,” he said. For those who flare otherwise, “I might continue them on it, but recognize there is likely some risk.”

The magnitude of the infection risk was similar to that reported with tumor necrosis factors inhibitors, which might reassure patients who are reluctant to switch to a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.

“Now I can say you’ve been taking 10 mg prednisone a day, and that’s probably at least as risky,” Dr. George said.

Frequency of office visits, hospitalizations, and ED visits, as well as prior infections, comorbidities, nursing-home admissions, and use of durable medical equipment were among the potential confounders controlled for in the analysis. They stood in for direct markers of RA severity, which weren’t available in the data. “We spent a lot of time trying to make sure our groups were as similar as possible in every way except prednisone use,” he said.

Patients were in their late 60s on average, 71% white, and 81% were women. People with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases, cancer, or HIV were excluded. Dr. George said the next step is to run the same analysis in a younger cohort.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. George disclosed relationships with AbbVie and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

[email protected]

SOURCE: George M et al. ACR 2019, Abstract 848

ATLANTA – Concomitant use of even low-dose steroids increases the risk of serious infections with antirheumatic drugs, according to a review of 170,357 Medicare patients by investigators at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Infections are a well-known side effect of high-dose glucocorticoids, but there’s been debate about prednisone doses in the 5-10 mg/day range. Guidelines generally advise tapering RA patients off steroids after they start a biologic or methotrexate, but that doesn’t always happen because there’s a common perception that low-dose steroids are safe, said lead investigator Michael George, MD, assistant professor of medicine and epidemiology at the university.

“Many people continue low-dose steroids over the long term, but even low dose seems to be associated with infection. It’s a small risk, but it should be something you are aware of; for some patients, it might be quite important,” he said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The team wanted to mimic real-world practice, so they compared infection incidence between the 53% of patients who were not on low-dose steroids with the 47% who were after at least 6 months of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy. About 56% of patients were on methotrexate, with the rest on biologics or a targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD). Average follow up was an additional 6 months, but some people were followed for several years; prednisone 5 mg/day or less was the most common dose.

There were 20,630 serious infections requiring hospitalization, most often urinary tract infection, pneumonia, bacteremia/septicemia, and skin or soft-tissue infections. The crude incidence was 11 per 100 person-years.

After propensity-score weighting to balance out about 50 potential confounders, the predicted 1-year incidence of infection was 9.3% among patients not on steroids. Among those on up to 5 mg/day of prednisone, it was 12.5%; among those on 5-10 mg/day, 17.2%; and among those on more than 10 mg/day, 23.9%.

Glucocorticoids were associated with a 37% increased rate of serious infections, even with doses at or below 5mg/day. The effect “was really similar” whether people were on a biologic, tsDMARD, or methotrexate, which was “surprising,” Dr. George said.

“When I see a patient now who is on long-term, low-dose prednisone, I don’t just say ‘okay, that’s probably safe.’ I think really hard about how much benefit they’re getting. For some people, that means I try to get them off it,” he said. For those who flare otherwise, “I might continue them on it, but recognize there is likely some risk.”

The magnitude of the infection risk was similar to that reported with tumor necrosis factors inhibitors, which might reassure patients who are reluctant to switch to a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.

“Now I can say you’ve been taking 10 mg prednisone a day, and that’s probably at least as risky,” Dr. George said.

Frequency of office visits, hospitalizations, and ED visits, as well as prior infections, comorbidities, nursing-home admissions, and use of durable medical equipment were among the potential confounders controlled for in the analysis. They stood in for direct markers of RA severity, which weren’t available in the data. “We spent a lot of time trying to make sure our groups were as similar as possible in every way except prednisone use,” he said.

Patients were in their late 60s on average, 71% white, and 81% were women. People with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases, cancer, or HIV were excluded. Dr. George said the next step is to run the same analysis in a younger cohort.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. George disclosed relationships with AbbVie and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

[email protected]

SOURCE: George M et al. ACR 2019, Abstract 848

ATLANTA – Concomitant use of even low-dose steroids increases the risk of serious infections with antirheumatic drugs, according to a review of 170,357 Medicare patients by investigators at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Infections are a well-known side effect of high-dose glucocorticoids, but there’s been debate about prednisone doses in the 5-10 mg/day range. Guidelines generally advise tapering RA patients off steroids after they start a biologic or methotrexate, but that doesn’t always happen because there’s a common perception that low-dose steroids are safe, said lead investigator Michael George, MD, assistant professor of medicine and epidemiology at the university.

“Many people continue low-dose steroids over the long term, but even low dose seems to be associated with infection. It’s a small risk, but it should be something you are aware of; for some patients, it might be quite important,” he said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The team wanted to mimic real-world practice, so they compared infection incidence between the 53% of patients who were not on low-dose steroids with the 47% who were after at least 6 months of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy. About 56% of patients were on methotrexate, with the rest on biologics or a targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD). Average follow up was an additional 6 months, but some people were followed for several years; prednisone 5 mg/day or less was the most common dose.

There were 20,630 serious infections requiring hospitalization, most often urinary tract infection, pneumonia, bacteremia/septicemia, and skin or soft-tissue infections. The crude incidence was 11 per 100 person-years.

After propensity-score weighting to balance out about 50 potential confounders, the predicted 1-year incidence of infection was 9.3% among patients not on steroids. Among those on up to 5 mg/day of prednisone, it was 12.5%; among those on 5-10 mg/day, 17.2%; and among those on more than 10 mg/day, 23.9%.

Glucocorticoids were associated with a 37% increased rate of serious infections, even with doses at or below 5mg/day. The effect “was really similar” whether people were on a biologic, tsDMARD, or methotrexate, which was “surprising,” Dr. George said.

“When I see a patient now who is on long-term, low-dose prednisone, I don’t just say ‘okay, that’s probably safe.’ I think really hard about how much benefit they’re getting. For some people, that means I try to get them off it,” he said. For those who flare otherwise, “I might continue them on it, but recognize there is likely some risk.”

The magnitude of the infection risk was similar to that reported with tumor necrosis factors inhibitors, which might reassure patients who are reluctant to switch to a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.

“Now I can say you’ve been taking 10 mg prednisone a day, and that’s probably at least as risky,” Dr. George said.

Frequency of office visits, hospitalizations, and ED visits, as well as prior infections, comorbidities, nursing-home admissions, and use of durable medical equipment were among the potential confounders controlled for in the analysis. They stood in for direct markers of RA severity, which weren’t available in the data. “We spent a lot of time trying to make sure our groups were as similar as possible in every way except prednisone use,” he said.

Patients were in their late 60s on average, 71% white, and 81% were women. People with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases, cancer, or HIV were excluded. Dr. George said the next step is to run the same analysis in a younger cohort.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. George disclosed relationships with AbbVie and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

[email protected]

SOURCE: George M et al. ACR 2019, Abstract 848