More than 80% of orthopedists and orthopedic surgeons report being named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Orthopedist Malpractice Report 2021.

Orthopedists ranked third among specialists most likely to be sued, surpassed only by plastic surgeons and general surgeons (both 83%). In comparison, just over half of physicians across all specialties (51%) reported being named in lawsuit. More than one-third of orthopedists (34%) said they had been individually named in a suit, whereas just 14% of all specialists were named individually.

More than half (54%) of orthopedists said they were sued over complications from treatment or surgery. The second-most common reason orthopedists were sued was poor outcome/disease progression (30%), followed by failure to diagnose/delayed diagnosis (21%), failure to treat/delayed treatment (13%), and abnormal injury (9%).

This new report was compiled from an online survey including more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. The survey was available from May 21 to Aug. 28, 2021, and included 250 orthopedists and orthopedic surgeons. Most respondents (62%) had practiced orthopedics for more than 25 years and 60% were aged 60 years or older.

Orthopedists tended to pay more for malpractice insurance than do other specialists. Less than one-third of orthopedists (31%) reported a premium under $20,000 per year, compared with 52% of all specialists. The most common premium for orthopedists was $30,000 or more (29%), whereas only 11% of all specialists reported paying a similar premium.

Nearly 9 out of 10 (89%) of orthopedists said they were “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” by the malpractice suit. In some of these cases, the physician never personally treated the patient. Wrote one respondent: “I was part of a group of physicians and got dragged into the suit.” The vast majority of orthopedists (82%) said the suit was not warranted, which was similar to responses for physicians as a whole (83%).

Most commonly, orthopedists said lawsuits were settled before trial (34%). The second-most common outcome was the judge and jury deciding in the respondent’s favor (16%), followed by the plaintiff voluntarily dismissing the suit prior to trial (8%), and the respondent being dismissed from the suit in the first few months (8%). Very few (2%) said the judge or jury ruled in the patient’s favor, and 9% of respondents said the case was ongoing.

Most orthopedists reported that cases lasted between 1 and 2 years (41%) and 29% said a lawsuit took 3-5 years. If the plaintiff did receive a monetary award, 42% of physicians reported paying under $100,000, and 30% paid less than $500,000. This is similar to reports from other specialties, though more patients in orthopedic cases received payments under $1 million, compared with other specialties (21% vs. 15%).

More than three-quarters of orthopedists (76%) said that the lawsuit did not negatively affect their career, and more than half (52%) said they did not undergo any attitude or career changes after the suit. More orthopedists than other specialists (31% vs. 24%) did say that they trusted patients less.

When asked if they would do anything differently, one-third (33%) of orthopedists said their actions would remain the same, compared with 43% of the general physician pool. One-quarter of orthopedists said they would have not taken on the patient in the first place, and 14% noted they would have referred to another physician.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 80% of orthopedists and orthopedic surgeons report being named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Orthopedist Malpractice Report 2021.

Orthopedists ranked third among specialists most likely to be sued, surpassed only by plastic surgeons and general surgeons (both 83%). In comparison, just over half of physicians across all specialties (51%) reported being named in lawsuit. More than one-third of orthopedists (34%) said they had been individually named in a suit, whereas just 14% of all specialists were named individually.

More than half (54%) of orthopedists said they were sued over complications from treatment or surgery. The second-most common reason orthopedists were sued was poor outcome/disease progression (30%), followed by failure to diagnose/delayed diagnosis (21%), failure to treat/delayed treatment (13%), and abnormal injury (9%).

This new report was compiled from an online survey including more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. The survey was available from May 21 to Aug. 28, 2021, and included 250 orthopedists and orthopedic surgeons. Most respondents (62%) had practiced orthopedics for more than 25 years and 60% were aged 60 years or older.

Orthopedists tended to pay more for malpractice insurance than do other specialists. Less than one-third of orthopedists (31%) reported a premium under $20,000 per year, compared with 52% of all specialists. The most common premium for orthopedists was $30,000 or more (29%), whereas only 11% of all specialists reported paying a similar premium.

Nearly 9 out of 10 (89%) of orthopedists said they were “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” by the malpractice suit. In some of these cases, the physician never personally treated the patient. Wrote one respondent: “I was part of a group of physicians and got dragged into the suit.” The vast majority of orthopedists (82%) said the suit was not warranted, which was similar to responses for physicians as a whole (83%).

Most commonly, orthopedists said lawsuits were settled before trial (34%). The second-most common outcome was the judge and jury deciding in the respondent’s favor (16%), followed by the plaintiff voluntarily dismissing the suit prior to trial (8%), and the respondent being dismissed from the suit in the first few months (8%). Very few (2%) said the judge or jury ruled in the patient’s favor, and 9% of respondents said the case was ongoing.

Most orthopedists reported that cases lasted between 1 and 2 years (41%) and 29% said a lawsuit took 3-5 years. If the plaintiff did receive a monetary award, 42% of physicians reported paying under $100,000, and 30% paid less than $500,000. This is similar to reports from other specialties, though more patients in orthopedic cases received payments under $1 million, compared with other specialties (21% vs. 15%).

More than three-quarters of orthopedists (76%) said that the lawsuit did not negatively affect their career, and more than half (52%) said they did not undergo any attitude or career changes after the suit. More orthopedists than other specialists (31% vs. 24%) did say that they trusted patients less.

When asked if they would do anything differently, one-third (33%) of orthopedists said their actions would remain the same, compared with 43% of the general physician pool. One-quarter of orthopedists said they would have not taken on the patient in the first place, and 14% noted they would have referred to another physician.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 80% of orthopedists and orthopedic surgeons report being named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Orthopedist Malpractice Report 2021.

Orthopedists ranked third among specialists most likely to be sued, surpassed only by plastic surgeons and general surgeons (both 83%). In comparison, just over half of physicians across all specialties (51%) reported being named in lawsuit. More than one-third of orthopedists (34%) said they had been individually named in a suit, whereas just 14% of all specialists were named individually.

More than half (54%) of orthopedists said they were sued over complications from treatment or surgery. The second-most common reason orthopedists were sued was poor outcome/disease progression (30%), followed by failure to diagnose/delayed diagnosis (21%), failure to treat/delayed treatment (13%), and abnormal injury (9%).

This new report was compiled from an online survey including more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. The survey was available from May 21 to Aug. 28, 2021, and included 250 orthopedists and orthopedic surgeons. Most respondents (62%) had practiced orthopedics for more than 25 years and 60% were aged 60 years or older.

Orthopedists tended to pay more for malpractice insurance than do other specialists. Less than one-third of orthopedists (31%) reported a premium under $20,000 per year, compared with 52% of all specialists. The most common premium for orthopedists was $30,000 or more (29%), whereas only 11% of all specialists reported paying a similar premium.

Nearly 9 out of 10 (89%) of orthopedists said they were “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” by the malpractice suit. In some of these cases, the physician never personally treated the patient. Wrote one respondent: “I was part of a group of physicians and got dragged into the suit.” The vast majority of orthopedists (82%) said the suit was not warranted, which was similar to responses for physicians as a whole (83%).

Most commonly, orthopedists said lawsuits were settled before trial (34%). The second-most common outcome was the judge and jury deciding in the respondent’s favor (16%), followed by the plaintiff voluntarily dismissing the suit prior to trial (8%), and the respondent being dismissed from the suit in the first few months (8%). Very few (2%) said the judge or jury ruled in the patient’s favor, and 9% of respondents said the case was ongoing.

Most orthopedists reported that cases lasted between 1 and 2 years (41%) and 29% said a lawsuit took 3-5 years. If the plaintiff did receive a monetary award, 42% of physicians reported paying under $100,000, and 30% paid less than $500,000. This is similar to reports from other specialties, though more patients in orthopedic cases received payments under $1 million, compared with other specialties (21% vs. 15%).

More than three-quarters of orthopedists (76%) said that the lawsuit did not negatively affect their career, and more than half (52%) said they did not undergo any attitude or career changes after the suit. More orthopedists than other specialists (31% vs. 24%) did say that they trusted patients less.

When asked if they would do anything differently, one-third (33%) of orthopedists said their actions would remain the same, compared with 43% of the general physician pool. One-quarter of orthopedists said they would have not taken on the patient in the first place, and 14% noted they would have referred to another physician.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In June 2017, Betty Balikagala, MD, PhD, traveled to a hospital in Gulu District, in northern Uganda. It was the rainy season: a peak time for malaria transmission. Dr. Balikagala, a researcher at Juntendo University in Japan, was back in her home country to hunt for mutations in the parasite that causes the disease.

For about 4 weeks, Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues collected blood from infected patients as they were treated with a powerful cocktail of antimalarial drugs. After initial analysis, the team then shipped their samples – glass slides smeared with blood, and filter papers with blood spots – back to Japan.

In their lab at Juntendo University, they looked for traces of malaria in the blood slides, which they had prepared by drawing blood from patients every few hours. In previous years, Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues had observed the drugs efficiently clearing the infection. This time, though, the parasite lingered in some patients. “We were very surprised when we first did the parasite reading for 2017, and we noticed that there were some patients who had delayed clearance,” recalled Dr. Balikagala. “For me, it was a shock.”

Malaria kills more than half a million people per year, most of them small children. Still, between 2000 and 2020, according to the World Health Organization, interventions prevented around 10.6 million malaria deaths, mostly in Africa. Bed nets and insecticides were responsible for most of the progress. But a fairly large number of lives were also saved by a new kind of antimalarial treatment: artemisinin-based combination therapies, or ACTs, that replaced older drugs such as chloroquine.

Used as a first-line treatment, ACTs have averted a significant number of malaria deaths since their introduction in the early 2000s. ACTs pair a derivative of the drug artemisinin with one of five partner drugs or drug combinations. Delivered together, the fast-acting artemisinin component wipes out most of the parasites within a few days, and the longer-acting partner drug clears out the stragglers.

ACTs quickly became a mainstay in malaria treatment. But in 2009, researchers observed signs of resistance to artemisinin along the Thailand-Cambodia border. The artemisinin component failed to clear the parasite quickly, which meant that the partner drug had to pick up that load, creating favorable conditions for partner drug resistance, too. The Greater Mekong Subregion now experiences high rates of multidrug resistance. Scientists have feared that the spread of such resistance to Africa, which accounts for more than 90% of global malaria cases, would be disastrous.

Now, in a pair of reports published last year, scientists have confirmed the emergence of artemisinin resistance in Africa. One study, published in April, reported that ACTs had failed to work quickly for more than 10% of participants at two sites in Rwanda. The prevalence of artemisinin resistance mutations was also higher than detected in previous reports.

In September, Dr. Balikagala’s team published the report from Uganda, which also identified mutations associated with artemisinin resistance. Alarmingly, the resistant malaria parasites had risen from 3.9% of cases in 2015 to nearly 20% in 2019. Genetic analysis shows that the resistance mutations in Rwanda and Uganda have emerged independently.

The latest malaria report from the WHO, published in December, also noted worrying signs of artemisinin resistance in the Horn of Africa, on the eastern side of the continent. No peer-reviewed studies confirming such resistance have been published.

So far, the ACTs still work. But in an experimental setting, as drug resistance sets in, it can lengthen treatment by 3 or 4 days. That may not sound like much, said Timothy Wells, PhD, chief scientific officer of the nonprofit Medicines for Malaria Venture. But “the more days of therapy you need,” he said, “then the more there is the risk that people don’t finish their course of therapy.” Dropping a treatment course midway exposes the parasites to the drug, but doesn’t clear all of them, potentially leaving behind survivors with a higher chance of being drug resistant. “That’s really bad news, because then that sets up a perfect storm for creating more resistance,” said Dr. Wells.

The reports from Uganda and Rwanda have yielded a grim consensus: “We are going to see more and more of such independent emergence,” said Pascal Ringwald, MD, PhD, coordinator at the director’s office for the WHO Global Malaria Program. “This is exactly what we saw in the Greater Mekong.” Luckily, Dr. Wells said, switching to other ACTs helped to combat resistance when it was detected there, avoiding the need for prolonged treatment.

A new malaria vaccine, which recently received the go-ahead from the WHO, may eventually help reduce the number of infections, but its rollout won’t have any significant impact on drug resistance. As for new drugs, even the most promising candidate in the pipeline would take at least 4 years to become widely available.

That leaves public health workers in Africa with only one solid option: Track and surveil resistance to artemisinin and its partner drugs. Effective surveillance systems, experts say, need to ramp up quickly and widely across the continent.

But most experts say that surveillance on the continent is patchy. Indeed, there is considerable uncertainty about how widespread antimalarial resistance already is in sub-Saharan Africa – and disagreement over how to interpret initial reports of emerging partner drug resistance in some countries.

“Our current systems are not as good as they should be,” said Philip Rosenthal, MD, a malaria researcher at the University of California, San Francisco. The new reports of artemisinin resistance, he added, “can be seen as a wake-up call to improve surveillance.”

Malaria drugs have failed before. In the early 20th century, chloroquine helped beat back the pathogen worldwide. Then, about a decade after World War II, resistance to chloroquine surfaced along the Thailand-Cambodia border.

By the 1970s, chloroquine-resistant malaria had spread across India and into Africa, where it killed millions, many of them children. “In retrospect, we know that chloroquine was used for many years after there was a huge resistance problem,” said Dr. Rosenthal. “This probably led to millions of excess deaths that could have been avoided if we were using other drugs.”

The scurry to find new drugs yielded artemisinin. Used by Chinese herbalists some 2,000 years ago to treat malaria-like symptoms, artemisinin was rediscovered in the 1970s by biomedical researchers in China, and its use became widespread in the 2000s.

Haunted by the failure of chloroquine, though, researchers have remained on the lookout for signs that the malaria parasite is evolving to resist artemisinin or its partner drugs. The gold-standard method is a therapeutic efficacy study, which involves closely monitoring infected patients as they are treated with antimalarial drugs, to see how well the drugs perform and if there are any signs of resistance.

The WHO recommends conducting these studies at several sites in a country every 2 years. But “each country interprets that with their capability,” said Philippe Guérin, MD, PhD, director of the WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network at the University of Oxford, England. Efficacy studies are slow, costly, and labor intensive. Also, “you don’t get a very good geographical representation,” said Dr. Guérin, because you can do a new clinical trial in only so many places at a time.

To get around the problems associated with efficacy studies, researchers also turn to molecular surveillance. Researchers draw a few drops of blood from an infected individual onto a filter paper, then scan it in the laboratory for certain genetic mutations associated with resistance. The technique is relatively easy and cheap.

With these kinds of surveillance data, policymakers can choose which drugs to use in a particular region. Moreover, early detection of resistance can prompt health authorities to take actions to limit the spread of resistance, including more aggressive screening and treatment campaigns, and expanded efforts to control the mosquitoes that spread malaria.

In practice, though, this warning system is frayed. “There is really no organized surveillance system for the continent,” said Dr. Rosenthal. “Surveillance is haphazard.”

In countries lacking a robust health care system or mired in political instability, experts say, resistance could be spreading undetected. For example, the border of South Sudan is just 60 miles from the site in northern Uganda where Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues confirmed resistance to artemisinin. “Because of the security issues and the refugee-weakened system, there is no surveillance that tells us what is happening in South Sudan,” said Dr. Guérin. The same applies in some parts of the nearby Democratic Republic of the Congo, he added.

In the past, regional antimalarial networks, such as the now defunct East African Network for Monitoring of Antimalarial Treatment, have addressed some surveillance gaps. These networks can help standardize protocols and coordinate surveillance efforts. But such networks have suffered from recent lapses in donor funding. The East African network “will be awakened,” Dr. Balikagala predicted, as concerns about artemisinin-resistant malaria grow.

In southern Africa, eight countries have come together to form the Elimination Eight Initiative, a coalition to facilitate malaria elimination efforts across national borders, which may help jump-start surveillance efforts there.

Dr. Ringwald said drug resistance is a priority for him and his WHO colleagues. At a malaria policy advisory committee meeting last fall, he said, the issue was “high on the agenda.” However, when pressed for answers on how the WHO plans to combat drug resistance in Africa, Dr. Ringwald emailed Undark an excerpt from the organization’s 2021 World Malaria Report. The report states that the WHO will “work with countries to develop a regional plan for a coordinated response,” but does not lay out any specifics on that response plan. The Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, part of the African Union, did not respond to requests for comment on its plans to bolster surveillance.

“There is an ethical obligation to researchers, and to people responsible for surveillance, that if you pick up these problems, share them as quickly as possible, react to them as strongly as possible,” said Karen Barnes, a clinical pharmacologist at the University of Cape Town who cochairs the South African Malaria Elimination Committee. “And try very, very hard” to make sure “that it’s not going to be the same as when we had chloroquine resistance in Africa.”

In absence of more robust surveillance, reports have also identified worrying – but, some scientists say, inconclusive – signs of partner drug resistance.

A series of four studies conducted between 2013 and 2019 at several sites in Angola found the efficacy of artemether-lumefantrine – the most widely used ACT in Africa – had dropped below 90%, the WHO threshold for acceptable malaria treatment. Peer-reviewed studies from Burkina Faso and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have reported similar results.

The studies have not found genes associated with artemisinin resistance, suggesting that the partner drug, lumefantrine, might be faltering. But several malaria researchers told Undark they were skeptical of the studies’ methods and viewed the results as preliminary. “I would have preferred that we look at data with a standardized protocol and exclude any confounding factors like poor microscopy or analytical method,” said Dr. Ringwald.

Mateusz Plucinski, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Malaria Branch who participated in the Angola research, defended the findings. “The persistence of artemether-lumefantrine efficacy near or under 90% in Angola likely suggests that there is likely a true signal of decreased susceptibility of parasites to this drug,” he wrote in an email to this news organization. In response to the data, Angolan health officials have begun using a different ACT.

For now, it’s unclear how bad the situation is in Africa – or what the years ahead could bring. The research community and the authorities are “at the level of just watching and seeing what happens at this stage,” said Leann Tilley, PhD, a biochemist at the University of Melbourne who researches antimalarial resistance. But experts say that if artemisinin resistance does flare up and starts impinging on the partner drug, policymakers might need to consider changing to a different ACT, or even deploy triple ACTs, with two partner drugs.

Some experts are hopeful that artemisinin resistance will spread more slowly in Africa than it has in southeast Asia. But if high-grade resistance to artemisinin and partner drugs were to arise, it would put Africa in a bind. There are no immediate replacements for ACTs at the moment. The Medicines for Malaria Venture drug pipeline has about 30 molecules that show promise in preliminary testing, and about 15 molecules that are undergoing clinical trials for efficacy and safety, said Dr. Wells. But even the drugs that are at the end of the pipeline will take about 5-6 years from approval by regulatory authorities to be incorporated into WHO guidelines, he noted – if they make it through trials at all.

Dr. Wells cited one promising compound, from the drug maker Novartis, that recently performed well in early clinical trials. Still, Dr. Wells said, the drug won’t be ready to be deployed in Africa until around 2026.

Funds for malaria control and elimination programs remain limited, and scientists worry that, between COVID-19 and the malaria vaccine rollout, attention and resources for conducting surveillance and drug resistance work might dry up. “I really hope that those that do have resources available will understand that investing in Africa’s response to artemisinin resistance today, preferably yesterday, is probably one of the best places that they can put their money,” said Barnes.

The annals of malaria have shown time and again that once resistance emerges, it spreads widely and imperils progress against the deadly disease. For Africa, the writing is on the wall, she said. The bigger question, she asked, is this: “Are we capable of learning from history?”

A version of this article first appeared on Undark.com.

In June 2017, Betty Balikagala, MD, PhD, traveled to a hospital in Gulu District, in northern Uganda. It was the rainy season: a peak time for malaria transmission. Dr. Balikagala, a researcher at Juntendo University in Japan, was back in her home country to hunt for mutations in the parasite that causes the disease.

For about 4 weeks, Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues collected blood from infected patients as they were treated with a powerful cocktail of antimalarial drugs. After initial analysis, the team then shipped their samples – glass slides smeared with blood, and filter papers with blood spots – back to Japan.

In their lab at Juntendo University, they looked for traces of malaria in the blood slides, which they had prepared by drawing blood from patients every few hours. In previous years, Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues had observed the drugs efficiently clearing the infection. This time, though, the parasite lingered in some patients. “We were very surprised when we first did the parasite reading for 2017, and we noticed that there were some patients who had delayed clearance,” recalled Dr. Balikagala. “For me, it was a shock.”

Malaria kills more than half a million people per year, most of them small children. Still, between 2000 and 2020, according to the World Health Organization, interventions prevented around 10.6 million malaria deaths, mostly in Africa. Bed nets and insecticides were responsible for most of the progress. But a fairly large number of lives were also saved by a new kind of antimalarial treatment: artemisinin-based combination therapies, or ACTs, that replaced older drugs such as chloroquine.

Used as a first-line treatment, ACTs have averted a significant number of malaria deaths since their introduction in the early 2000s. ACTs pair a derivative of the drug artemisinin with one of five partner drugs or drug combinations. Delivered together, the fast-acting artemisinin component wipes out most of the parasites within a few days, and the longer-acting partner drug clears out the stragglers.

ACTs quickly became a mainstay in malaria treatment. But in 2009, researchers observed signs of resistance to artemisinin along the Thailand-Cambodia border. The artemisinin component failed to clear the parasite quickly, which meant that the partner drug had to pick up that load, creating favorable conditions for partner drug resistance, too. The Greater Mekong Subregion now experiences high rates of multidrug resistance. Scientists have feared that the spread of such resistance to Africa, which accounts for more than 90% of global malaria cases, would be disastrous.

Now, in a pair of reports published last year, scientists have confirmed the emergence of artemisinin resistance in Africa. One study, published in April, reported that ACTs had failed to work quickly for more than 10% of participants at two sites in Rwanda. The prevalence of artemisinin resistance mutations was also higher than detected in previous reports.

In September, Dr. Balikagala’s team published the report from Uganda, which also identified mutations associated with artemisinin resistance. Alarmingly, the resistant malaria parasites had risen from 3.9% of cases in 2015 to nearly 20% in 2019. Genetic analysis shows that the resistance mutations in Rwanda and Uganda have emerged independently.

The latest malaria report from the WHO, published in December, also noted worrying signs of artemisinin resistance in the Horn of Africa, on the eastern side of the continent. No peer-reviewed studies confirming such resistance have been published.

So far, the ACTs still work. But in an experimental setting, as drug resistance sets in, it can lengthen treatment by 3 or 4 days. That may not sound like much, said Timothy Wells, PhD, chief scientific officer of the nonprofit Medicines for Malaria Venture. But “the more days of therapy you need,” he said, “then the more there is the risk that people don’t finish their course of therapy.” Dropping a treatment course midway exposes the parasites to the drug, but doesn’t clear all of them, potentially leaving behind survivors with a higher chance of being drug resistant. “That’s really bad news, because then that sets up a perfect storm for creating more resistance,” said Dr. Wells.

The reports from Uganda and Rwanda have yielded a grim consensus: “We are going to see more and more of such independent emergence,” said Pascal Ringwald, MD, PhD, coordinator at the director’s office for the WHO Global Malaria Program. “This is exactly what we saw in the Greater Mekong.” Luckily, Dr. Wells said, switching to other ACTs helped to combat resistance when it was detected there, avoiding the need for prolonged treatment.

A new malaria vaccine, which recently received the go-ahead from the WHO, may eventually help reduce the number of infections, but its rollout won’t have any significant impact on drug resistance. As for new drugs, even the most promising candidate in the pipeline would take at least 4 years to become widely available.

That leaves public health workers in Africa with only one solid option: Track and surveil resistance to artemisinin and its partner drugs. Effective surveillance systems, experts say, need to ramp up quickly and widely across the continent.

But most experts say that surveillance on the continent is patchy. Indeed, there is considerable uncertainty about how widespread antimalarial resistance already is in sub-Saharan Africa – and disagreement over how to interpret initial reports of emerging partner drug resistance in some countries.

“Our current systems are not as good as they should be,” said Philip Rosenthal, MD, a malaria researcher at the University of California, San Francisco. The new reports of artemisinin resistance, he added, “can be seen as a wake-up call to improve surveillance.”

Malaria drugs have failed before. In the early 20th century, chloroquine helped beat back the pathogen worldwide. Then, about a decade after World War II, resistance to chloroquine surfaced along the Thailand-Cambodia border.

By the 1970s, chloroquine-resistant malaria had spread across India and into Africa, where it killed millions, many of them children. “In retrospect, we know that chloroquine was used for many years after there was a huge resistance problem,” said Dr. Rosenthal. “This probably led to millions of excess deaths that could have been avoided if we were using other drugs.”

The scurry to find new drugs yielded artemisinin. Used by Chinese herbalists some 2,000 years ago to treat malaria-like symptoms, artemisinin was rediscovered in the 1970s by biomedical researchers in China, and its use became widespread in the 2000s.

Haunted by the failure of chloroquine, though, researchers have remained on the lookout for signs that the malaria parasite is evolving to resist artemisinin or its partner drugs. The gold-standard method is a therapeutic efficacy study, which involves closely monitoring infected patients as they are treated with antimalarial drugs, to see how well the drugs perform and if there are any signs of resistance.

The WHO recommends conducting these studies at several sites in a country every 2 years. But “each country interprets that with their capability,” said Philippe Guérin, MD, PhD, director of the WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network at the University of Oxford, England. Efficacy studies are slow, costly, and labor intensive. Also, “you don’t get a very good geographical representation,” said Dr. Guérin, because you can do a new clinical trial in only so many places at a time.

To get around the problems associated with efficacy studies, researchers also turn to molecular surveillance. Researchers draw a few drops of blood from an infected individual onto a filter paper, then scan it in the laboratory for certain genetic mutations associated with resistance. The technique is relatively easy and cheap.

With these kinds of surveillance data, policymakers can choose which drugs to use in a particular region. Moreover, early detection of resistance can prompt health authorities to take actions to limit the spread of resistance, including more aggressive screening and treatment campaigns, and expanded efforts to control the mosquitoes that spread malaria.

In practice, though, this warning system is frayed. “There is really no organized surveillance system for the continent,” said Dr. Rosenthal. “Surveillance is haphazard.”

In countries lacking a robust health care system or mired in political instability, experts say, resistance could be spreading undetected. For example, the border of South Sudan is just 60 miles from the site in northern Uganda where Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues confirmed resistance to artemisinin. “Because of the security issues and the refugee-weakened system, there is no surveillance that tells us what is happening in South Sudan,” said Dr. Guérin. The same applies in some parts of the nearby Democratic Republic of the Congo, he added.

In the past, regional antimalarial networks, such as the now defunct East African Network for Monitoring of Antimalarial Treatment, have addressed some surveillance gaps. These networks can help standardize protocols and coordinate surveillance efforts. But such networks have suffered from recent lapses in donor funding. The East African network “will be awakened,” Dr. Balikagala predicted, as concerns about artemisinin-resistant malaria grow.

In southern Africa, eight countries have come together to form the Elimination Eight Initiative, a coalition to facilitate malaria elimination efforts across national borders, which may help jump-start surveillance efforts there.

Dr. Ringwald said drug resistance is a priority for him and his WHO colleagues. At a malaria policy advisory committee meeting last fall, he said, the issue was “high on the agenda.” However, when pressed for answers on how the WHO plans to combat drug resistance in Africa, Dr. Ringwald emailed Undark an excerpt from the organization’s 2021 World Malaria Report. The report states that the WHO will “work with countries to develop a regional plan for a coordinated response,” but does not lay out any specifics on that response plan. The Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, part of the African Union, did not respond to requests for comment on its plans to bolster surveillance.

“There is an ethical obligation to researchers, and to people responsible for surveillance, that if you pick up these problems, share them as quickly as possible, react to them as strongly as possible,” said Karen Barnes, a clinical pharmacologist at the University of Cape Town who cochairs the South African Malaria Elimination Committee. “And try very, very hard” to make sure “that it’s not going to be the same as when we had chloroquine resistance in Africa.”

In absence of more robust surveillance, reports have also identified worrying – but, some scientists say, inconclusive – signs of partner drug resistance.

A series of four studies conducted between 2013 and 2019 at several sites in Angola found the efficacy of artemether-lumefantrine – the most widely used ACT in Africa – had dropped below 90%, the WHO threshold for acceptable malaria treatment. Peer-reviewed studies from Burkina Faso and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have reported similar results.

The studies have not found genes associated with artemisinin resistance, suggesting that the partner drug, lumefantrine, might be faltering. But several malaria researchers told Undark they were skeptical of the studies’ methods and viewed the results as preliminary. “I would have preferred that we look at data with a standardized protocol and exclude any confounding factors like poor microscopy or analytical method,” said Dr. Ringwald.

Mateusz Plucinski, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Malaria Branch who participated in the Angola research, defended the findings. “The persistence of artemether-lumefantrine efficacy near or under 90% in Angola likely suggests that there is likely a true signal of decreased susceptibility of parasites to this drug,” he wrote in an email to this news organization. In response to the data, Angolan health officials have begun using a different ACT.

For now, it’s unclear how bad the situation is in Africa – or what the years ahead could bring. The research community and the authorities are “at the level of just watching and seeing what happens at this stage,” said Leann Tilley, PhD, a biochemist at the University of Melbourne who researches antimalarial resistance. But experts say that if artemisinin resistance does flare up and starts impinging on the partner drug, policymakers might need to consider changing to a different ACT, or even deploy triple ACTs, with two partner drugs.

Some experts are hopeful that artemisinin resistance will spread more slowly in Africa than it has in southeast Asia. But if high-grade resistance to artemisinin and partner drugs were to arise, it would put Africa in a bind. There are no immediate replacements for ACTs at the moment. The Medicines for Malaria Venture drug pipeline has about 30 molecules that show promise in preliminary testing, and about 15 molecules that are undergoing clinical trials for efficacy and safety, said Dr. Wells. But even the drugs that are at the end of the pipeline will take about 5-6 years from approval by regulatory authorities to be incorporated into WHO guidelines, he noted – if they make it through trials at all.

Dr. Wells cited one promising compound, from the drug maker Novartis, that recently performed well in early clinical trials. Still, Dr. Wells said, the drug won’t be ready to be deployed in Africa until around 2026.

Funds for malaria control and elimination programs remain limited, and scientists worry that, between COVID-19 and the malaria vaccine rollout, attention and resources for conducting surveillance and drug resistance work might dry up. “I really hope that those that do have resources available will understand that investing in Africa’s response to artemisinin resistance today, preferably yesterday, is probably one of the best places that they can put their money,” said Barnes.

The annals of malaria have shown time and again that once resistance emerges, it spreads widely and imperils progress against the deadly disease. For Africa, the writing is on the wall, she said. The bigger question, she asked, is this: “Are we capable of learning from history?”

A version of this article first appeared on Undark.com.

In June 2017, Betty Balikagala, MD, PhD, traveled to a hospital in Gulu District, in northern Uganda. It was the rainy season: a peak time for malaria transmission. Dr. Balikagala, a researcher at Juntendo University in Japan, was back in her home country to hunt for mutations in the parasite that causes the disease.

For about 4 weeks, Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues collected blood from infected patients as they were treated with a powerful cocktail of antimalarial drugs. After initial analysis, the team then shipped their samples – glass slides smeared with blood, and filter papers with blood spots – back to Japan.

In their lab at Juntendo University, they looked for traces of malaria in the blood slides, which they had prepared by drawing blood from patients every few hours. In previous years, Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues had observed the drugs efficiently clearing the infection. This time, though, the parasite lingered in some patients. “We were very surprised when we first did the parasite reading for 2017, and we noticed that there were some patients who had delayed clearance,” recalled Dr. Balikagala. “For me, it was a shock.”

Malaria kills more than half a million people per year, most of them small children. Still, between 2000 and 2020, according to the World Health Organization, interventions prevented around 10.6 million malaria deaths, mostly in Africa. Bed nets and insecticides were responsible for most of the progress. But a fairly large number of lives were also saved by a new kind of antimalarial treatment: artemisinin-based combination therapies, or ACTs, that replaced older drugs such as chloroquine.

Used as a first-line treatment, ACTs have averted a significant number of malaria deaths since their introduction in the early 2000s. ACTs pair a derivative of the drug artemisinin with one of five partner drugs or drug combinations. Delivered together, the fast-acting artemisinin component wipes out most of the parasites within a few days, and the longer-acting partner drug clears out the stragglers.

ACTs quickly became a mainstay in malaria treatment. But in 2009, researchers observed signs of resistance to artemisinin along the Thailand-Cambodia border. The artemisinin component failed to clear the parasite quickly, which meant that the partner drug had to pick up that load, creating favorable conditions for partner drug resistance, too. The Greater Mekong Subregion now experiences high rates of multidrug resistance. Scientists have feared that the spread of such resistance to Africa, which accounts for more than 90% of global malaria cases, would be disastrous.

Now, in a pair of reports published last year, scientists have confirmed the emergence of artemisinin resistance in Africa. One study, published in April, reported that ACTs had failed to work quickly for more than 10% of participants at two sites in Rwanda. The prevalence of artemisinin resistance mutations was also higher than detected in previous reports.

In September, Dr. Balikagala’s team published the report from Uganda, which also identified mutations associated with artemisinin resistance. Alarmingly, the resistant malaria parasites had risen from 3.9% of cases in 2015 to nearly 20% in 2019. Genetic analysis shows that the resistance mutations in Rwanda and Uganda have emerged independently.

The latest malaria report from the WHO, published in December, also noted worrying signs of artemisinin resistance in the Horn of Africa, on the eastern side of the continent. No peer-reviewed studies confirming such resistance have been published.

So far, the ACTs still work. But in an experimental setting, as drug resistance sets in, it can lengthen treatment by 3 or 4 days. That may not sound like much, said Timothy Wells, PhD, chief scientific officer of the nonprofit Medicines for Malaria Venture. But “the more days of therapy you need,” he said, “then the more there is the risk that people don’t finish their course of therapy.” Dropping a treatment course midway exposes the parasites to the drug, but doesn’t clear all of them, potentially leaving behind survivors with a higher chance of being drug resistant. “That’s really bad news, because then that sets up a perfect storm for creating more resistance,” said Dr. Wells.

The reports from Uganda and Rwanda have yielded a grim consensus: “We are going to see more and more of such independent emergence,” said Pascal Ringwald, MD, PhD, coordinator at the director’s office for the WHO Global Malaria Program. “This is exactly what we saw in the Greater Mekong.” Luckily, Dr. Wells said, switching to other ACTs helped to combat resistance when it was detected there, avoiding the need for prolonged treatment.

A new malaria vaccine, which recently received the go-ahead from the WHO, may eventually help reduce the number of infections, but its rollout won’t have any significant impact on drug resistance. As for new drugs, even the most promising candidate in the pipeline would take at least 4 years to become widely available.

That leaves public health workers in Africa with only one solid option: Track and surveil resistance to artemisinin and its partner drugs. Effective surveillance systems, experts say, need to ramp up quickly and widely across the continent.

But most experts say that surveillance on the continent is patchy. Indeed, there is considerable uncertainty about how widespread antimalarial resistance already is in sub-Saharan Africa – and disagreement over how to interpret initial reports of emerging partner drug resistance in some countries.

“Our current systems are not as good as they should be,” said Philip Rosenthal, MD, a malaria researcher at the University of California, San Francisco. The new reports of artemisinin resistance, he added, “can be seen as a wake-up call to improve surveillance.”

Malaria drugs have failed before. In the early 20th century, chloroquine helped beat back the pathogen worldwide. Then, about a decade after World War II, resistance to chloroquine surfaced along the Thailand-Cambodia border.

By the 1970s, chloroquine-resistant malaria had spread across India and into Africa, where it killed millions, many of them children. “In retrospect, we know that chloroquine was used for many years after there was a huge resistance problem,” said Dr. Rosenthal. “This probably led to millions of excess deaths that could have been avoided if we were using other drugs.”

The scurry to find new drugs yielded artemisinin. Used by Chinese herbalists some 2,000 years ago to treat malaria-like symptoms, artemisinin was rediscovered in the 1970s by biomedical researchers in China, and its use became widespread in the 2000s.

Haunted by the failure of chloroquine, though, researchers have remained on the lookout for signs that the malaria parasite is evolving to resist artemisinin or its partner drugs. The gold-standard method is a therapeutic efficacy study, which involves closely monitoring infected patients as they are treated with antimalarial drugs, to see how well the drugs perform and if there are any signs of resistance.

The WHO recommends conducting these studies at several sites in a country every 2 years. But “each country interprets that with their capability,” said Philippe Guérin, MD, PhD, director of the WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network at the University of Oxford, England. Efficacy studies are slow, costly, and labor intensive. Also, “you don’t get a very good geographical representation,” said Dr. Guérin, because you can do a new clinical trial in only so many places at a time.

To get around the problems associated with efficacy studies, researchers also turn to molecular surveillance. Researchers draw a few drops of blood from an infected individual onto a filter paper, then scan it in the laboratory for certain genetic mutations associated with resistance. The technique is relatively easy and cheap.

With these kinds of surveillance data, policymakers can choose which drugs to use in a particular region. Moreover, early detection of resistance can prompt health authorities to take actions to limit the spread of resistance, including more aggressive screening and treatment campaigns, and expanded efforts to control the mosquitoes that spread malaria.

In practice, though, this warning system is frayed. “There is really no organized surveillance system for the continent,” said Dr. Rosenthal. “Surveillance is haphazard.”

In countries lacking a robust health care system or mired in political instability, experts say, resistance could be spreading undetected. For example, the border of South Sudan is just 60 miles from the site in northern Uganda where Dr. Balikagala and her colleagues confirmed resistance to artemisinin. “Because of the security issues and the refugee-weakened system, there is no surveillance that tells us what is happening in South Sudan,” said Dr. Guérin. The same applies in some parts of the nearby Democratic Republic of the Congo, he added.

In the past, regional antimalarial networks, such as the now defunct East African Network for Monitoring of Antimalarial Treatment, have addressed some surveillance gaps. These networks can help standardize protocols and coordinate surveillance efforts. But such networks have suffered from recent lapses in donor funding. The East African network “will be awakened,” Dr. Balikagala predicted, as concerns about artemisinin-resistant malaria grow.

In southern Africa, eight countries have come together to form the Elimination Eight Initiative, a coalition to facilitate malaria elimination efforts across national borders, which may help jump-start surveillance efforts there.

Dr. Ringwald said drug resistance is a priority for him and his WHO colleagues. At a malaria policy advisory committee meeting last fall, he said, the issue was “high on the agenda.” However, when pressed for answers on how the WHO plans to combat drug resistance in Africa, Dr. Ringwald emailed Undark an excerpt from the organization’s 2021 World Malaria Report. The report states that the WHO will “work with countries to develop a regional plan for a coordinated response,” but does not lay out any specifics on that response plan. The Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, part of the African Union, did not respond to requests for comment on its plans to bolster surveillance.

“There is an ethical obligation to researchers, and to people responsible for surveillance, that if you pick up these problems, share them as quickly as possible, react to them as strongly as possible,” said Karen Barnes, a clinical pharmacologist at the University of Cape Town who cochairs the South African Malaria Elimination Committee. “And try very, very hard” to make sure “that it’s not going to be the same as when we had chloroquine resistance in Africa.”

In absence of more robust surveillance, reports have also identified worrying – but, some scientists say, inconclusive – signs of partner drug resistance.

A series of four studies conducted between 2013 and 2019 at several sites in Angola found the efficacy of artemether-lumefantrine – the most widely used ACT in Africa – had dropped below 90%, the WHO threshold for acceptable malaria treatment. Peer-reviewed studies from Burkina Faso and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have reported similar results.

The studies have not found genes associated with artemisinin resistance, suggesting that the partner drug, lumefantrine, might be faltering. But several malaria researchers told Undark they were skeptical of the studies’ methods and viewed the results as preliminary. “I would have preferred that we look at data with a standardized protocol and exclude any confounding factors like poor microscopy or analytical method,” said Dr. Ringwald.

Mateusz Plucinski, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Malaria Branch who participated in the Angola research, defended the findings. “The persistence of artemether-lumefantrine efficacy near or under 90% in Angola likely suggests that there is likely a true signal of decreased susceptibility of parasites to this drug,” he wrote in an email to this news organization. In response to the data, Angolan health officials have begun using a different ACT.

For now, it’s unclear how bad the situation is in Africa – or what the years ahead could bring. The research community and the authorities are “at the level of just watching and seeing what happens at this stage,” said Leann Tilley, PhD, a biochemist at the University of Melbourne who researches antimalarial resistance. But experts say that if artemisinin resistance does flare up and starts impinging on the partner drug, policymakers might need to consider changing to a different ACT, or even deploy triple ACTs, with two partner drugs.

Some experts are hopeful that artemisinin resistance will spread more slowly in Africa than it has in southeast Asia. But if high-grade resistance to artemisinin and partner drugs were to arise, it would put Africa in a bind. There are no immediate replacements for ACTs at the moment. The Medicines for Malaria Venture drug pipeline has about 30 molecules that show promise in preliminary testing, and about 15 molecules that are undergoing clinical trials for efficacy and safety, said Dr. Wells. But even the drugs that are at the end of the pipeline will take about 5-6 years from approval by regulatory authorities to be incorporated into WHO guidelines, he noted – if they make it through trials at all.

Dr. Wells cited one promising compound, from the drug maker Novartis, that recently performed well in early clinical trials. Still, Dr. Wells said, the drug won’t be ready to be deployed in Africa until around 2026.

Funds for malaria control and elimination programs remain limited, and scientists worry that, between COVID-19 and the malaria vaccine rollout, attention and resources for conducting surveillance and drug resistance work might dry up. “I really hope that those that do have resources available will understand that investing in Africa’s response to artemisinin resistance today, preferably yesterday, is probably one of the best places that they can put their money,” said Barnes.

The annals of malaria have shown time and again that once resistance emerges, it spreads widely and imperils progress against the deadly disease. For Africa, the writing is on the wall, she said. The bigger question, she asked, is this: “Are we capable of learning from history?”

A version of this article first appeared on Undark.com.

Fifteen years ago, Mrs. Smith was hospitalized for a dural sinus thrombosis.

This is a scary enough diagnosis as it is, but with the miracle of modern medicine she did great. She still checks in with me every year or so, but hasn’t had any recurrence.

Three years ago she tripped over her dog (amazing how often that seems to happen) and broke her arm. She landed in the hospital and needed orthopedic surgery, so they consulted me about the safety of getting her off the antiplatelet agent she was taking since stopping Coumadin.

When I arrived someone had already written an admitting note, which included a past history of “subdural hematoma, maintained on daily aspirin.”

Where this error came from, I don’t know. When I asked Mrs. Smith, she was quite clear on her correct diagnosis, and said she’d given it to the person who admitted her. So I dictated a consult, and typed it into my progress note each day. My notes made it clear that she’d had a dural sinus thrombosis and not a subdural hematoma.

This isn’t just nitpicking, obviously. They’re entirely different disorders. While the point may not be critical to her needing wrist surgery, these are medical records, and medical records need to be as accurate as possible for this, and future hospital stays and for physicians to be aware of.

I signed off after a few days and didn’t think much of it until I was faxed a copy of her discharge summary. Which listed “subdural hematoma, maintained on daily aspirin.”

Apparently no one read my notes. Not that I’m really surprised.

We’re now 3 years later. As do many patients of her age, Mrs. Smith has landed in the hospital a few times since then. COVID, syncope, another fall. In each one of them the “subdural hematoma, maintained on daily aspirin” shows up.

At the most recent incident, the hospital’s neurologist called and asked me why I was treating a subdural hematoma with aspirin, then said Mrs. Smith had told him it was a dural sinus thrombosis. I said she was right, and he said “that makes more sense” and that he’d put it in his note.

He did, but it didn’t change anything. The discharge summary still listed “subdural hematoma, maintained on daily aspirin.”

At some point resistance is futile.

The stupidity of the whole thing is frustrating, as is knowing that it’s not just Mrs. Smith. The same scenario of incorrect history and medications is propagated from visit to visit. Taking a history is too time consuming for some. It’s easier to just read off, or cut and paste, a previous note. In cases where the patient can’t give a history I understand this. But when they can it’s just being too rushed – or lazy – to care.

It’s easy to blame EMRs as the culprits. Bashing them is fashionable. But in this case I can’t. They make it easier, but it’s nothing new. I remember a night almost 30 years ago when I was doing an admission at the Phoenix VA. When I picked up the most recent volume of the patient’s old chart to look at labs, the previous H&P said “see old chart.”

The problem is human nature. Not the computer.

But in this field the fallout can be serious – the wrong precautions taken, or medication given, based on a nonexistent contraindication. In medicine the stakes are high. Our decisions are only as good as the information we base them on, and if that information is wrong ...

Shortcuts have consequences.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Fifteen years ago, Mrs. Smith was hospitalized for a dural sinus thrombosis.

This is a scary enough diagnosis as it is, but with the miracle of modern medicine she did great. She still checks in with me every year or so, but hasn’t had any recurrence.

Three years ago she tripped over her dog (amazing how often that seems to happen) and broke her arm. She landed in the hospital and needed orthopedic surgery, so they consulted me about the safety of getting her off the antiplatelet agent she was taking since stopping Coumadin.

When I arrived someone had already written an admitting note, which included a past history of “subdural hematoma, maintained on daily aspirin.”

Where this error came from, I don’t know. When I asked Mrs. Smith, she was quite clear on her correct diagnosis, and said she’d given it to the person who admitted her. So I dictated a consult, and typed it into my progress note each day. My notes made it clear that she’d had a dural sinus thrombosis and not a subdural hematoma.

This isn’t just nitpicking, obviously. They’re entirely different disorders. While the point may not be critical to her needing wrist surgery, these are medical records, and medical records need to be as accurate as possible for this, and future hospital stays and for physicians to be aware of.

I signed off after a few days and didn’t think much of it until I was faxed a copy of her discharge summary. Which listed “subdural hematoma, maintained on daily aspirin.”

Apparently no one read my notes. Not that I’m really surprised.

We’re now 3 years later. As do many patients of her age, Mrs. Smith has landed in the hospital a few times since then. COVID, syncope, another fall. In each one of them the “subdural hematoma, maintained on daily aspirin” shows up.

At the most recent incident, the hospital’s neurologist called and asked me why I was treating a subdural hematoma with aspirin, then said Mrs. Smith had told him it was a dural sinus thrombosis. I said she was right, and he said “that makes more sense” and that he’d put it in his note.

He did, but it didn’t change anything. The discharge summary still listed “subdural hematoma, maintained on daily aspirin.”

At some point resistance is futile.

The stupidity of the whole thing is frustrating, as is knowing that it’s not just Mrs. Smith. The same scenario of incorrect history and medications is propagated from visit to visit. Taking a history is too time consuming for some. It’s easier to just read off, or cut and paste, a previous note. In cases where the patient can’t give a history I understand this. But when they can it’s just being too rushed – or lazy – to care.

It’s easy to blame EMRs as the culprits. Bashing them is fashionable. But in this case I can’t. They make it easier, but it’s nothing new. I remember a night almost 30 years ago when I was doing an admission at the Phoenix VA. When I picked up the most recent volume of the patient’s old chart to look at labs, the previous H&P said “see old chart.”

The problem is human nature. Not the computer.

But in this field the fallout can be serious – the wrong precautions taken, or medication given, based on a nonexistent contraindication. In medicine the stakes are high. Our decisions are only as good as the information we base them on, and if that information is wrong ...

Shortcuts have consequences.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Fifteen years ago, Mrs. Smith was hospitalized for a dural sinus thrombosis.

This is a scary enough diagnosis as it is, but with the miracle of modern medicine she did great. She still checks in with me every year or so, but hasn’t had any recurrence.

Three years ago she tripped over her dog (amazing how often that seems to happen) and broke her arm. She landed in the hospital and needed orthopedic surgery, so they consulted me about the safety of getting her off the antiplatelet agent she was taking since stopping Coumadin.

When I arrived someone had already written an admitting note, which included a past history of “subdural hematoma, maintained on daily aspirin.”

Where this error came from, I don’t know. When I asked Mrs. Smith, she was quite clear on her correct diagnosis, and said she’d given it to the person who admitted her. So I dictated a consult, and typed it into my progress note each day. My notes made it clear that she’d had a dural sinus thrombosis and not a subdural hematoma.

This isn’t just nitpicking, obviously. They’re entirely different disorders. While the point may not be critical to her needing wrist surgery, these are medical records, and medical records need to be as accurate as possible for this, and future hospital stays and for physicians to be aware of.

I signed off after a few days and didn’t think much of it until I was faxed a copy of her discharge summary. Which listed “subdural hematoma, maintained on daily aspirin.”

Apparently no one read my notes. Not that I’m really surprised.

We’re now 3 years later. As do many patients of her age, Mrs. Smith has landed in the hospital a few times since then. COVID, syncope, another fall. In each one of them the “subdural hematoma, maintained on daily aspirin” shows up.

At the most recent incident, the hospital’s neurologist called and asked me why I was treating a subdural hematoma with aspirin, then said Mrs. Smith had told him it was a dural sinus thrombosis. I said she was right, and he said “that makes more sense” and that he’d put it in his note.

He did, but it didn’t change anything. The discharge summary still listed “subdural hematoma, maintained on daily aspirin.”

At some point resistance is futile.

The stupidity of the whole thing is frustrating, as is knowing that it’s not just Mrs. Smith. The same scenario of incorrect history and medications is propagated from visit to visit. Taking a history is too time consuming for some. It’s easier to just read off, or cut and paste, a previous note. In cases where the patient can’t give a history I understand this. But when they can it’s just being too rushed – or lazy – to care.

It’s easy to blame EMRs as the culprits. Bashing them is fashionable. But in this case I can’t. They make it easier, but it’s nothing new. I remember a night almost 30 years ago when I was doing an admission at the Phoenix VA. When I picked up the most recent volume of the patient’s old chart to look at labs, the previous H&P said “see old chart.”

The problem is human nature. Not the computer.

But in this field the fallout can be serious – the wrong precautions taken, or medication given, based on a nonexistent contraindication. In medicine the stakes are high. Our decisions are only as good as the information we base them on, and if that information is wrong ...

Shortcuts have consequences.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

High plasma concentrations of buprenorphine may reduce fentanyl-induced respiratory depression, new research suggests.

The primary endpoint measure in a small “proof of principal” pharmacology study was effect of escalating fentanyl dosing on respiratory depression by way of decreased isohypercapnic minute ventilation (VE) – or volume of gas inhaled or exhaled per minute from the lungs.

sdominick/iStock/Getty Images

Results showed the maximum decrease in highest-dose fentanyl-induced VE was almost 50% less for opioid-tolerant patients receiving a 2.0 ng/mL concentration of steady-state plasma buprenorphine than when receiving matching placebo.

Risk for apnea requiring stimulation after fentanyl dosing was also significantly lower with buprenorphine.

“Even though the study is small, a lot of data were collected which will allow us to very accurately predict which plasma concentrations, and therefore drug doses, are needed to protect people adequately in practice,” study coinvestigator Geert Jan Groeneveld, MD, PhD, neurologist and clinical pharmacologist at the Centre for Human Drug Research, Leiden, the Netherlands, and professor of clinical neuropharmacology at Leiden University Medical Center, told this news organization.

He added the “beautiful results” were in line with what the researchers expected and although further research is needed, the study provides a lot of useful information for clinicians.

“I think this is an approach that works, and this study makes that clear,” Dr. Groeneveld added.

The findings were published online Jan. 27, 2022, in PLoS One.
 

High death rate from synthetic opioids

A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted that, between June 2020 and June 2021, there were more than 100,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States. Of these, more than 73,000 were attributed to opioids and more than 60,000 to synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

Most opioid-related overdose deaths in the United States are attributable to synthetic opioids “that can unexpectedly cause respiratory depression by being ingested as a substitute for heroin or with [other] drugs,” Indivior noted in a press release.

Buprenorphine is a partial agonist that “binds with high affinity to mu-opioid receptors but displays partial respiratory depression effects,” the investigators wrote.

As reported by this news organization, the Food and Drug Administration approved buprenorphine extended release (Sublocade, Indivior) in 2017 as the first once-monthly injection for the treatment of opioid use disorder.

In the current study, which was conducted in Leiden, the Netherlands, the investigators used continuous intravenous buprenorphine in order to “mimic” the sustained plasma concentrations of the drug that can be delivered with the long-acting injectable, noted Christian Heidbreder, PhD, chief scientific officer at Indivior.

“This was an experimental medicine study, whereby we used intravenous buprenorphine to really understand the interaction with escalating doses of fentanyl” on respiratory depression, he told this news organization.
 

Two-part, two-period study

In part A, period one of the two-period crossover study, 14 healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to receive for 360 minutes continuous infusion of 0.02 or 0.05 mg/70 kg per hour of buprenorphine to target plasma concentrations of 0.2 or 0.5 ng/mL, respectively, or matching placebo. In the second period, participants received the alternative infusion – either placebo or the active drug.

In part B, eight opioid-tolerant patients who had used high-dose opioids for at least 3 months prior received a higher infusion rate of 0.1, 0.2, or 0.5 mg/70 kg per hour to target plasma concentrations of 1, 2, or 5 ng/mL, respectively.

The 2 ng/mL “is a very important threshold for us” and the result from several previous experiments, Dr. Heidbreder noted. So the investigators targeted that concentration as well as one below and one “much higher” in the current study.

“Because tolerance to opioid effects is poorly characterized in patients receiving long-term opioids, opioid-tolerant participants in part B had a fixed treatment sequence, receiving placebo infusion plus fentanyl challenges in period 1 to optimize the fentanyl dose escalation before buprenorphine and fentanyl were coadministered in period 2,” the investigators reported.

All participants received up to four escalating doses of intravenous fentanyl after reaching target buprenorphine plasma concentrations.

For healthy volunteers, the planned fentanyl doses were 0.075, 0.15, 0.25, and 0.35 mg/70 kg. For the opioid-tolerant patients, the doses were 0.25, 0.35, 0.5, and 0.7 mg/70 kg.

The infusions began after baseline VE had stabilized at 20 plus or minus 2 L/min, which is about four times above normal resting VE.
 

First clinical evidence?

Results showed fentanyl-induced adverse changes in VE were less at higher concentrations of buprenorphine plasma.

Opioid-tolerant patients receiving the 2.0 ng/mL concentration of buprenorphine had a 33.7% decrease in highest dose fentanyl-induced VE versus an 82.3% decrease when receiving placebo.

In addition, fentanyl reduced VE up to 49% (95% confidence interval, 21%-76%) in opioid-tolerant patients in all buprenorphine concentration groups combined versus reducing VE up to 100% (95% CI, 68%-132%) during placebo infusion (P = .006).

In addition, buprenorphine was associated with a lower risk versus placebo for apnea requiring verbal stimulation after fentanyl dosing (odds ratio, 0.07; P = .001).

For the healthy volunteers, the first fentanyl bolus reduced VE by 26% for those at target buprenorphine concentration of 0.5 ng/mL versus 51% when receiving placebo (P = .001). The second bolus reduced VE by 47% versus 79%, respectively (P < .001).

“Discontinuations for apnea limited treatment comparisons beyond the second fentanyl injection,” the investigators reported.

Overall, the findings “provide the first clinical evidence that high sustained plasma concentrations of buprenorphine may protect against respiratory depression induced by potent opioids,” they added.

Additional research is now “warranted to assess the competitive interaction of buprenorphine and fentanyl (as well as other illicitly manufactured fentanyl analogs) as we continue to deepen our understanding of buprenorphine as an evidence-based treatment for patients struggling with opioid use disorder,” Dr. Heidbreder said in a press release.

It’s unclear whether the study’s findings are generalizable to other populations, said Dr. Heidbreder.

“So what we are going to do next is to see what is actually happening in a real world, much broader patient population; and for that we’ll be using [the injectable] Sublocade as the medication of choice,” said Dr. Heidbreder.

“Conceptually, we feel confident about these data, but now we need to demonstrate what is happening in the real world,” he added.

The study was funded by Indivior. Dr. Groeneveld has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Heidbreder is an employee of Indivior.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

High plasma concentrations of buprenorphine may reduce fentanyl-induced respiratory depression, new research suggests.

The primary endpoint measure in a small “proof of principal” pharmacology study was effect of escalating fentanyl dosing on respiratory depression by way of decreased isohypercapnic minute ventilation (VE) – or volume of gas inhaled or exhaled per minute from the lungs.

sdominick/iStock/Getty Images

Results showed the maximum decrease in highest-dose fentanyl-induced VE was almost 50% less for opioid-tolerant patients receiving a 2.0 ng/mL concentration of steady-state plasma buprenorphine than when receiving matching placebo.

Risk for apnea requiring stimulation after fentanyl dosing was also significantly lower with buprenorphine.

“Even though the study is small, a lot of data were collected which will allow us to very accurately predict which plasma concentrations, and therefore drug doses, are needed to protect people adequately in practice,” study coinvestigator Geert Jan Groeneveld, MD, PhD, neurologist and clinical pharmacologist at the Centre for Human Drug Research, Leiden, the Netherlands, and professor of clinical neuropharmacology at Leiden University Medical Center, told this news organization.

He added the “beautiful results” were in line with what the researchers expected and although further research is needed, the study provides a lot of useful information for clinicians.

“I think this is an approach that works, and this study makes that clear,” Dr. Groeneveld added.

The findings were published online Jan. 27, 2022, in PLoS One.
 

High death rate from synthetic opioids

A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted that, between June 2020 and June 2021, there were more than 100,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States. Of these, more than 73,000 were attributed to opioids and more than 60,000 to synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

Most opioid-related overdose deaths in the United States are attributable to synthetic opioids “that can unexpectedly cause respiratory depression by being ingested as a substitute for heroin or with [other] drugs,” Indivior noted in a press release.

Buprenorphine is a partial agonist that “binds with high affinity to mu-opioid receptors but displays partial respiratory depression effects,” the investigators wrote.

As reported by this news organization, the Food and Drug Administration approved buprenorphine extended release (Sublocade, Indivior) in 2017 as the first once-monthly injection for the treatment of opioid use disorder.

In the current study, which was conducted in Leiden, the Netherlands, the investigators used continuous intravenous buprenorphine in order to “mimic” the sustained plasma concentrations of the drug that can be delivered with the long-acting injectable, noted Christian Heidbreder, PhD, chief scientific officer at Indivior.

“This was an experimental medicine study, whereby we used intravenous buprenorphine to really understand the interaction with escalating doses of fentanyl” on respiratory depression, he told this news organization.
 

Two-part, two-period study

In part A, period one of the two-period crossover study, 14 healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to receive for 360 minutes continuous infusion of 0.02 or 0.05 mg/70 kg per hour of buprenorphine to target plasma concentrations of 0.2 or 0.5 ng/mL, respectively, or matching placebo. In the second period, participants received the alternative infusion – either placebo or the active drug.

In part B, eight opioid-tolerant patients who had used high-dose opioids for at least 3 months prior received a higher infusion rate of 0.1, 0.2, or 0.5 mg/70 kg per hour to target plasma concentrations of 1, 2, or 5 ng/mL, respectively.

The 2 ng/mL “is a very important threshold for us” and the result from several previous experiments, Dr. Heidbreder noted. So the investigators targeted that concentration as well as one below and one “much higher” in the current study.

“Because tolerance to opioid effects is poorly characterized in patients receiving long-term opioids, opioid-tolerant participants in part B had a fixed treatment sequence, receiving placebo infusion plus fentanyl challenges in period 1 to optimize the fentanyl dose escalation before buprenorphine and fentanyl were coadministered in period 2,” the investigators reported.

All participants received up to four escalating doses of intravenous fentanyl after reaching target buprenorphine plasma concentrations.

For healthy volunteers, the planned fentanyl doses were 0.075, 0.15, 0.25, and 0.35 mg/70 kg. For the opioid-tolerant patients, the doses were 0.25, 0.35, 0.5, and 0.7 mg/70 kg.

The infusions began after baseline VE had stabilized at 20 plus or minus 2 L/min, which is about four times above normal resting VE.
 

First clinical evidence?

Results showed fentanyl-induced adverse changes in VE were less at higher concentrations of buprenorphine plasma.

Opioid-tolerant patients receiving the 2.0 ng/mL concentration of buprenorphine had a 33.7% decrease in highest dose fentanyl-induced VE versus an 82.3% decrease when receiving placebo.

In addition, fentanyl reduced VE up to 49% (95% confidence interval, 21%-76%) in opioid-tolerant patients in all buprenorphine concentration groups combined versus reducing VE up to 100% (95% CI, 68%-132%) during placebo infusion (P = .006).

In addition, buprenorphine was associated with a lower risk versus placebo for apnea requiring verbal stimulation after fentanyl dosing (odds ratio, 0.07; P = .001).

For the healthy volunteers, the first fentanyl bolus reduced VE by 26% for those at target buprenorphine concentration of 0.5 ng/mL versus 51% when receiving placebo (P = .001). The second bolus reduced VE by 47% versus 79%, respectively (P < .001).

“Discontinuations for apnea limited treatment comparisons beyond the second fentanyl injection,” the investigators reported.

Overall, the findings “provide the first clinical evidence that high sustained plasma concentrations of buprenorphine may protect against respiratory depression induced by potent opioids,” they added.

Additional research is now “warranted to assess the competitive interaction of buprenorphine and fentanyl (as well as other illicitly manufactured fentanyl analogs) as we continue to deepen our understanding of buprenorphine as an evidence-based treatment for patients struggling with opioid use disorder,” Dr. Heidbreder said in a press release.

It’s unclear whether the study’s findings are generalizable to other populations, said Dr. Heidbreder.

“So what we are going to do next is to see what is actually happening in a real world, much broader patient population; and for that we’ll be using [the injectable] Sublocade as the medication of choice,” said Dr. Heidbreder.

“Conceptually, we feel confident about these data, but now we need to demonstrate what is happening in the real world,” he added.

The study was funded by Indivior. Dr. Groeneveld has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Heidbreder is an employee of Indivior.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

High plasma concentrations of buprenorphine may reduce fentanyl-induced respiratory depression, new research suggests.

The primary endpoint measure in a small “proof of principal” pharmacology study was effect of escalating fentanyl dosing on respiratory depression by way of decreased isohypercapnic minute ventilation (VE) – or volume of gas inhaled or exhaled per minute from the lungs.

sdominick/iStock/Getty Images

Results showed the maximum decrease in highest-dose fentanyl-induced VE was almost 50% less for opioid-tolerant patients receiving a 2.0 ng/mL concentration of steady-state plasma buprenorphine than when receiving matching placebo.

Risk for apnea requiring stimulation after fentanyl dosing was also significantly lower with buprenorphine.

“Even though the study is small, a lot of data were collected which will allow us to very accurately predict which plasma concentrations, and therefore drug doses, are needed to protect people adequately in practice,” study coinvestigator Geert Jan Groeneveld, MD, PhD, neurologist and clinical pharmacologist at the Centre for Human Drug Research, Leiden, the Netherlands, and professor of clinical neuropharmacology at Leiden University Medical Center, told this news organization.

He added the “beautiful results” were in line with what the researchers expected and although further research is needed, the study provides a lot of useful information for clinicians.

“I think this is an approach that works, and this study makes that clear,” Dr. Groeneveld added.

The findings were published online Jan. 27, 2022, in PLoS One.
 

High death rate from synthetic opioids

A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted that, between June 2020 and June 2021, there were more than 100,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States. Of these, more than 73,000 were attributed to opioids and more than 60,000 to synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

Most opioid-related overdose deaths in the United States are attributable to synthetic opioids “that can unexpectedly cause respiratory depression by being ingested as a substitute for heroin or with [other] drugs,” Indivior noted in a press release.

Buprenorphine is a partial agonist that “binds with high affinity to mu-opioid receptors but displays partial respiratory depression effects,” the investigators wrote.

As reported by this news organization, the Food and Drug Administration approved buprenorphine extended release (Sublocade, Indivior) in 2017 as the first once-monthly injection for the treatment of opioid use disorder.

In the current study, which was conducted in Leiden, the Netherlands, the investigators used continuous intravenous buprenorphine in order to “mimic” the sustained plasma concentrations of the drug that can be delivered with the long-acting injectable, noted Christian Heidbreder, PhD, chief scientific officer at Indivior.

“This was an experimental medicine study, whereby we used intravenous buprenorphine to really understand the interaction with escalating doses of fentanyl” on respiratory depression, he told this news organization.
 

Two-part, two-period study

In part A, period one of the two-period crossover study, 14 healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to receive for 360 minutes continuous infusion of 0.02 or 0.05 mg/70 kg per hour of buprenorphine to target plasma concentrations of 0.2 or 0.5 ng/mL, respectively, or matching placebo. In the second period, participants received the alternative infusion – either placebo or the active drug.

In part B, eight opioid-tolerant patients who had used high-dose opioids for at least 3 months prior received a higher infusion rate of 0.1, 0.2, or 0.5 mg/70 kg per hour to target plasma concentrations of 1, 2, or 5 ng/mL, respectively.

The 2 ng/mL “is a very important threshold for us” and the result from several previous experiments, Dr. Heidbreder noted. So the investigators targeted that concentration as well as one below and one “much higher” in the current study.

“Because tolerance to opioid effects is poorly characterized in patients receiving long-term opioids, opioid-tolerant participants in part B had a fixed treatment sequence, receiving placebo infusion plus fentanyl challenges in period 1 to optimize the fentanyl dose escalation before buprenorphine and fentanyl were coadministered in period 2,” the investigators reported.

All participants received up to four escalating doses of intravenous fentanyl after reaching target buprenorphine plasma concentrations.

For healthy volunteers, the planned fentanyl doses were 0.075, 0.15, 0.25, and 0.35 mg/70 kg. For the opioid-tolerant patients, the doses were 0.25, 0.35, 0.5, and 0.7 mg/70 kg.

The infusions began after baseline VE had stabilized at 20 plus or minus 2 L/min, which is about four times above normal resting VE.
 

First clinical evidence?

Results showed fentanyl-induced adverse changes in VE were less at higher concentrations of buprenorphine plasma.

Opioid-tolerant patients receiving the 2.0 ng/mL concentration of buprenorphine had a 33.7% decrease in highest dose fentanyl-induced VE versus an 82.3% decrease when receiving placebo.

In addition, fentanyl reduced VE up to 49% (95% confidence interval, 21%-76%) in opioid-tolerant patients in all buprenorphine concentration groups combined versus reducing VE up to 100% (95% CI, 68%-132%) during placebo infusion (P = .006).

In addition, buprenorphine was associated with a lower risk versus placebo for apnea requiring verbal stimulation after fentanyl dosing (odds ratio, 0.07; P = .001).

For the healthy volunteers, the first fentanyl bolus reduced VE by 26% for those at target buprenorphine concentration of 0.5 ng/mL versus 51% when receiving placebo (P = .001). The second bolus reduced VE by 47% versus 79%, respectively (P < .001).

“Discontinuations for apnea limited treatment comparisons beyond the second fentanyl injection,” the investigators reported.

Overall, the findings “provide the first clinical evidence that high sustained plasma concentrations of buprenorphine may protect against respiratory depression induced by potent opioids,” they added.

Additional research is now “warranted to assess the competitive interaction of buprenorphine and fentanyl (as well as other illicitly manufactured fentanyl analogs) as we continue to deepen our understanding of buprenorphine as an evidence-based treatment for patients struggling with opioid use disorder,” Dr. Heidbreder said in a press release.

It’s unclear whether the study’s findings are generalizable to other populations, said Dr. Heidbreder.

“So what we are going to do next is to see what is actually happening in a real world, much broader patient population; and for that we’ll be using [the injectable] Sublocade as the medication of choice,” said Dr. Heidbreder.

“Conceptually, we feel confident about these data, but now we need to demonstrate what is happening in the real world,” he added.

The study was funded by Indivior. Dr. Groeneveld has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Heidbreder is an employee of Indivior.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Young women appear to be at a higher risk of ischemic stroke than young men, according to a new systematic review of studies on this topic.

The review included 19 studies that reported on sex-specific stroke incidence among young adults and found that overall, in young adults aged 18-35 years, there were 44% more women with ischemic strokes than men.

This gap narrowed in the age group 35-45 years, for which there was conflicting evidence whether more men or women have ischemic strokes.

“An assertion that young women may be disproportionately at risk of ischemic stroke represents a significant departure from our current scientific understanding and may have important implications about the etiology of ischemic strokes in young adults,” the authors note.

“One of the take-home messages from this study is that stroke happens across the entire age spectrum, including young adults, even if they do not have traditional risk factors,” study coauthor Sharon N. Poisson, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, told this news organization.

“If a young person presents with focal neurological symptoms, the possibility of a stroke should not be discounted just because they may not fit the typical profile of a stroke patient. We need more education of the population that young people – including young women – can have a stroke and that fast action to call emergency services is critical,” she said.  

The study was published online Jan. 24 in the journal Stroke as part of a special “Go Red for Women” spotlight issue.

The researchers note that historically it has been believed that men have a higher incidence of stroke in every age group until very old age. However, recent evidence focused on the young adult age group has reported that there are more young women (ages 18-45) with ischemic strokes compared with young men, suggesting that young women may be disproportionately at risk compared with their male counterparts.

Pointing out that a better understanding of these sex differences is important in implementing strategies that can more effectively prevent and treat strokes in this age group, the researchers conducted the current review to synthesize the updated evidence.

They searched PubMed from January 2008 to July 2021 for relevant studies that were population-based and reported stroke incidence by sex or sex-specific incidence rate ratios of young adults age 45 and younger. Statistical synthesis was performed to estimate sex difference by age group (less than or equal to 35, 35-45 and less than or equal to 45 years) and stroke type.

They found 19 relevant studies, including three that reported on overlapping data, with a total of 69,793 young adults (33,775 women and 36,018 men).   

Nine studies did not show a statistically significant sex difference among young adults less than or equal to 45 years. Three studies found higher rates of ischemic stroke among men among young adults less than or equal to 30 to 35 years. Four studies showed more women with ischemic strokes among young adults less than or equal to 35 years.

Overall, there was an effect of a significantly higher incidence of ischemic stroke in women younger than age 35 years, with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.44. In the 35- to 45-year age group, there was a nonsignificant sex difference in the rate of ischemic stroke, with a slight trend toward a higher incidence in women (IRR, 1.08).

“In this study the sex difference was not clear in the 35-45 age group. But in the age group of over 45 years we know that men have a higher risk of stroke than women, which is probably related to a higher level of atherosclerotic risk factors,” Dr. Poisson commented.

“Interpreting data on stroke in young people is challenging, as stroke is not so common in this population,” she said. “Combining multiple studies helps, but this also introduces a lot of variability, so we need to interpret these results with some caution. However, this is certainly intriguing data and suggests that something interesting may be going on in young adults,” she added. “These observations give us an initial clue that we need to look further into this issue.”

The study did not look at the possible mechanisms behind the results, as the current data came from administrative datasets that are limited in terms of the information collected.  

But Dr. Poisson noted that the traditional risk factors for stroke are high blood pressure and the usual atherosclerotic factors such as high cholesterol.

“These are normally more common in men than in women, and myocardial infarction is more common in younger men than in younger women. But the observation that young women may have a higher risk of stroke than young men suggests that something different may be going on in the mechanism for stroke.” 

She pointed out that women have some unique risk factors for stroke, including oral contraceptive use, pregnancy, and the postpartum period, particularly pre-eclampsia during pregnancy. In addition, migraine, especially migraine with aura, is associated with an increased stroke risk, and migraine is more common in young women than in young men.  

“We don’t completely understand the role of these risk factors, but they may contribute to the results that we found,” Dr. Poisson commented. “The role of estrogen in stroke is complicated. While estrogen is generally thought to be protective against atherosclerotic risk factors, it also increases risk of clotting, so high estrogen states like pregnancy increase risk of stroke,” she added.  

To better understand what is happening, prospectively collected clinical data on younger patients who have had a stroke are needed. Some such studies are underway, but a concerted effort to do this in a large, multicenter registry would be desirable, Dr. Poisson said.

She noted that the presentation of a stroke in young people would be similar to that in the older population, with the most recent acronym to help recognize stroke symptoms being “BE FAST” – balance, eyes (vision), face (drooping), arm, speech (slurred), time (call emergency services quickly).

Call for more women in clinical trials

In an accompanying commentary, Cheryl Bushnell, MD, professor of neurology at Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and Moira Kapral, MD, professor in medicine and health policy at the University of Toronto, say these findings support the need for further study to understand and address the causes and risk factors of stroke in young women.

However, they point out that representation and reporting of women in clinical trials of acute stroke continues to be suboptimal, and they call for improved incorporation of sex and gender into study design, analysis, and interpretation, which they say is critical for producing research that is broadly generalizable and applicable to different populations. 

Coauthor Stacey L. Daugherty, MD, is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Poisson and Dr. Kapral have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bushnell reports ownership interest in Care Directions.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Young women appear to be at a higher risk of ischemic stroke than young men, according to a new systematic review of studies on this topic.

The review included 19 studies that reported on sex-specific stroke incidence among young adults and found that overall, in young adults aged 18-35 years, there were 44% more women with ischemic strokes than men.

This gap narrowed in the age group 35-45 years, for which there was conflicting evidence whether more men or women have ischemic strokes.

“An assertion that young women may be disproportionately at risk of ischemic stroke represents a significant departure from our current scientific understanding and may have important implications about the etiology of ischemic strokes in young adults,” the authors note.

“One of the take-home messages from this study is that stroke happens across the entire age spectrum, including young adults, even if they do not have traditional risk factors,” study coauthor Sharon N. Poisson, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, told this news organization.

“If a young person presents with focal neurological symptoms, the possibility of a stroke should not be discounted just because they may not fit the typical profile of a stroke patient. We need more education of the population that young people – including young women – can have a stroke and that fast action to call emergency services is critical,” she said.  

The study was published online Jan. 24 in the journal Stroke as part of a special “Go Red for Women” spotlight issue.

The researchers note that historically it has been believed that men have a higher incidence of stroke in every age group until very old age. However, recent evidence focused on the young adult age group has reported that there are more young women (ages 18-45) with ischemic strokes compared with young men, suggesting that young women may be disproportionately at risk compared with their male counterparts.

Pointing out that a better understanding of these sex differences is important in implementing strategies that can more effectively prevent and treat strokes in this age group, the researchers conducted the current review to synthesize the updated evidence.

They searched PubMed from January 2008 to July 2021 for relevant studies that were population-based and reported stroke incidence by sex or sex-specific incidence rate ratios of young adults age 45 and younger. Statistical synthesis was performed to estimate sex difference by age group (less than or equal to 35, 35-45 and less than or equal to 45 years) and stroke type.

They found 19 relevant studies, including three that reported on overlapping data, with a total of 69,793 young adults (33,775 women and 36,018 men).   

Nine studies did not show a statistically significant sex difference among young adults less than or equal to 45 years. Three studies found higher rates of ischemic stroke among men among young adults less than or equal to 30 to 35 years. Four studies showed more women with ischemic strokes among young adults less than or equal to 35 years.

Overall, there was an effect of a significantly higher incidence of ischemic stroke in women younger than age 35 years, with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.44. In the 35- to 45-year age group, there was a nonsignificant sex difference in the rate of ischemic stroke, with a slight trend toward a higher incidence in women (IRR, 1.08).

“In this study the sex difference was not clear in the 35-45 age group. But in the age group of over 45 years we know that men have a higher risk of stroke than women, which is probably related to a higher level of atherosclerotic risk factors,” Dr. Poisson commented.

“Interpreting data on stroke in young people is challenging, as stroke is not so common in this population,” she said. “Combining multiple studies helps, but this also introduces a lot of variability, so we need to interpret these results with some caution. However, this is certainly intriguing data and suggests that something interesting may be going on in young adults,” she added. “These observations give us an initial clue that we need to look further into this issue.”

The study did not look at the possible mechanisms behind the results, as the current data came from administrative datasets that are limited in terms of the information collected.  

But Dr. Poisson noted that the traditional risk factors for stroke are high blood pressure and the usual atherosclerotic factors such as high cholesterol.

“These are normally more common in men than in women, and myocardial infarction is more common in younger men than in younger women. But the observation that young women may have a higher risk of stroke than young men suggests that something different may be going on in the mechanism for stroke.” 

She pointed out that women have some unique risk factors for stroke, including oral contraceptive use, pregnancy, and the postpartum period, particularly pre-eclampsia during pregnancy. In addition, migraine, especially migraine with aura, is associated with an increased stroke risk, and migraine is more common in young women than in young men.  

“We don’t completely understand the role of these risk factors, but they may contribute to the results that we found,” Dr. Poisson commented. “The role of estrogen in stroke is complicated. While estrogen is generally thought to be protective against atherosclerotic risk factors, it also increases risk of clotting, so high estrogen states like pregnancy increase risk of stroke,” she added.  

To better understand what is happening, prospectively collected clinical data on younger patients who have had a stroke are needed. Some such studies are underway, but a concerted effort to do this in a large, multicenter registry would be desirable, Dr. Poisson said.

She noted that the presentation of a stroke in young people would be similar to that in the older population, with the most recent acronym to help recognize stroke symptoms being “BE FAST” – balance, eyes (vision), face (drooping), arm, speech (slurred), time (call emergency services quickly).

Call for more women in clinical trials

In an accompanying commentary, Cheryl Bushnell, MD, professor of neurology at Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and Moira Kapral, MD, professor in medicine and health policy at the University of Toronto, say these findings support the need for further study to understand and address the causes and risk factors of stroke in young women.

However, they point out that representation and reporting of women in clinical trials of acute stroke continues to be suboptimal, and they call for improved incorporation of sex and gender into study design, analysis, and interpretation, which they say is critical for producing research that is broadly generalizable and applicable to different populations. 

Coauthor Stacey L. Daugherty, MD, is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Poisson and Dr. Kapral have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bushnell reports ownership interest in Care Directions.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Young women appear to be at a higher risk of ischemic stroke than young men, according to a new systematic review of studies on this topic.

The review included 19 studies that reported on sex-specific stroke incidence among young adults and found that overall, in young adults aged 18-35 years, there were 44% more women with ischemic strokes than men.

This gap narrowed in the age group 35-45 years, for which there was conflicting evidence whether more men or women have ischemic strokes.

“An assertion that young women may be disproportionately at risk of ischemic stroke represents a significant departure from our current scientific understanding and may have important implications about the etiology of ischemic strokes in young adults,” the authors note.

“One of the take-home messages from this study is that stroke happens across the entire age spectrum, including young adults, even if they do not have traditional risk factors,” study coauthor Sharon N. Poisson, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, told this news organization.

“If a young person presents with focal neurological symptoms, the possibility of a stroke should not be discounted just because they may not fit the typical profile of a stroke patient. We need more education of the population that young people – including young women – can have a stroke and that fast action to call emergency services is critical,” she said.  

The study was published online Jan. 24 in the journal Stroke as part of a special “Go Red for Women” spotlight issue.

The researchers note that historically it has been believed that men have a higher incidence of stroke in every age group until very old age. However, recent evidence focused on the young adult age group has reported that there are more young women (ages 18-45) with ischemic strokes compared with young men, suggesting that young women may be disproportionately at risk compared with their male counterparts.

Pointing out that a better understanding of these sex differences is important in implementing strategies that can more effectively prevent and treat strokes in this age group, the researchers conducted the current review to synthesize the updated evidence.

They searched PubMed from January 2008 to July 2021 for relevant studies that were population-based and reported stroke incidence by sex or sex-specific incidence rate ratios of young adults age 45 and younger. Statistical synthesis was performed to estimate sex difference by age group (less than or equal to 35, 35-45 and less than or equal to 45 years) and stroke type.

They found 19 relevant studies, including three that reported on overlapping data, with a total of 69,793 young adults (33,775 women and 36,018 men).   

Nine studies did not show a statistically significant sex difference among young adults less than or equal to 45 years. Three studies found higher rates of ischemic stroke among men among young adults less than or equal to 30 to 35 years. Four studies showed more women with ischemic strokes among young adults less than or equal to 35 years.

Overall, there was an effect of a significantly higher incidence of ischemic stroke in women younger than age 35 years, with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.44. In the 35- to 45-year age group, there was a nonsignificant sex difference in the rate of ischemic stroke, with a slight trend toward a higher incidence in women (IRR, 1.08).

“In this study the sex difference was not clear in the 35-45 age group. But in the age group of over 45 years we know that men have a higher risk of stroke than women, which is probably related to a higher level of atherosclerotic risk factors,” Dr. Poisson commented.

“Interpreting data on stroke in young people is challenging, as stroke is not so common in this population,” she said. “Combining multiple studies helps, but this also introduces a lot of variability, so we need to interpret these results with some caution. However, this is certainly intriguing data and suggests that something interesting may be going on in young adults,” she added. “These observations give us an initial clue that we need to look further into this issue.”

The study did not look at the possible mechanisms behind the results, as the current data came from administrative datasets that are limited in terms of the information collected.  

But Dr. Poisson noted that the traditional risk factors for stroke are high blood pressure and the usual atherosclerotic factors such as high cholesterol.

“These are normally more common in men than in women, and myocardial infarction is more common in younger men than in younger women. But the observation that young women may have a higher risk of stroke than young men suggests that something different may be going on in the mechanism for stroke.” 

She pointed out that women have some unique risk factors for stroke, including oral contraceptive use, pregnancy, and the postpartum period, particularly pre-eclampsia during pregnancy. In addition, migraine, especially migraine with aura, is associated with an increased stroke risk, and migraine is more common in young women than in young men.  

“We don’t completely understand the role of these risk factors, but they may contribute to the results that we found,” Dr. Poisson commented. “The role of estrogen in stroke is complicated. While estrogen is generally thought to be protective against atherosclerotic risk factors, it also increases risk of clotting, so high estrogen states like pregnancy increase risk of stroke,” she added.  

To better understand what is happening, prospectively collected clinical data on younger patients who have had a stroke are needed. Some such studies are underway, but a concerted effort to do this in a large, multicenter registry would be desirable, Dr. Poisson said.

She noted that the presentation of a stroke in young people would be similar to that in the older population, with the most recent acronym to help recognize stroke symptoms being “BE FAST” – balance, eyes (vision), face (drooping), arm, speech (slurred), time (call emergency services quickly).

Call for more women in clinical trials

In an accompanying commentary, Cheryl Bushnell, MD, professor of neurology at Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and Moira Kapral, MD, professor in medicine and health policy at the University of Toronto, say these findings support the need for further study to understand and address the causes and risk factors of stroke in young women.

However, they point out that representation and reporting of women in clinical trials of acute stroke continues to be suboptimal, and they call for improved incorporation of sex and gender into study design, analysis, and interpretation, which they say is critical for producing research that is broadly generalizable and applicable to different populations. 

Coauthor Stacey L. Daugherty, MD, is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Poisson and Dr. Kapral have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bushnell reports ownership interest in Care Directions.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Moderna announced today that its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine has received full Food and Drug Administration approval for adults 18 years and older.

The move lifts an FDA emergency use authorization for the vaccine, which started Dec. 18, 2020.

The Moderna vaccine also now has a new trade name: Spikevax.

The FDA approval comes a little more than 5 months after the agency granted full approval to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on Aug. 23. At the time, the Pfizer vaccine received the trade name Comirnaty.

The FDA approved the Moderna vaccine based on how well it works and its safety for 6 months after a second dose, including follow-up data from a phase 3 study, Moderna announced this morning through a news release. The FDA also announced the news.

Spikevax is the first Moderna product to be fully licensed in the United States.

The United States joins more than 70 other countries where regulators have approved the vaccine. A total of 807 million doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine were shipped worldwide in 2021, the company reported.

“The full licensure of Spikevax in the U.S. now joins that in Canada, Japan, the European Union, the U.K., Israel, and other countries, where the adolescent indication is also approved,” Stéphane Bancel, Moderna chief executive officer, said in the release.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Moderna announced today that its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine has received full Food and Drug Administration approval for adults 18 years and older.

The move lifts an FDA emergency use authorization for the vaccine, which started Dec. 18, 2020.

The Moderna vaccine also now has a new trade name: Spikevax.

The FDA approval comes a little more than 5 months after the agency granted full approval to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on Aug. 23. At the time, the Pfizer vaccine received the trade name Comirnaty.

The FDA approved the Moderna vaccine based on how well it works and its safety for 6 months after a second dose, including follow-up data from a phase 3 study, Moderna announced this morning through a news release. The FDA also announced the news.

Spikevax is the first Moderna product to be fully licensed in the United States.

The United States joins more than 70 other countries where regulators have approved the vaccine. A total of 807 million doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine were shipped worldwide in 2021, the company reported.

“The full licensure of Spikevax in the U.S. now joins that in Canada, Japan, the European Union, the U.K., Israel, and other countries, where the adolescent indication is also approved,” Stéphane Bancel, Moderna chief executive officer, said in the release.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Moderna announced today that its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine has received full Food and Drug Administration approval for adults 18 years and older.

The move lifts an FDA emergency use authorization for the vaccine, which started Dec. 18, 2020.

The Moderna vaccine also now has a new trade name: Spikevax.

The FDA approval comes a little more than 5 months after the agency granted full approval to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on Aug. 23. At the time, the Pfizer vaccine received the trade name Comirnaty.

The FDA approved the Moderna vaccine based on how well it works and its safety for 6 months after a second dose, including follow-up data from a phase 3 study, Moderna announced this morning through a news release. The FDA also announced the news.

Spikevax is the first Moderna product to be fully licensed in the United States.

The United States joins more than 70 other countries where regulators have approved the vaccine. A total of 807 million doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine were shipped worldwide in 2021, the company reported.

“The full licensure of Spikevax in the U.S. now joins that in Canada, Japan, the European Union, the U.K., Israel, and other countries, where the adolescent indication is also approved,” Stéphane Bancel, Moderna chief executive officer, said in the release.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

I’m in a crowded commercial kitchen, and everywhere I look I see bottles of colorful drinks and jars holding faded vegetables suspended in brine. The smell of fermented cabbage permeates the room. I open a mason jar, which lets out a loud hiss. I’d spent months researching the gut-brain axis during my PhD, hoping to understand the role that fermented food may play in our mental health. So I enrolled in a class on how to make fermented foods.

The teacher is praising these ancient foods as a magical cure for every ailment you can imagine. I’m uncomfortable – not because of the smell, but because I’ve never found a scientific article that definitively supported this idea. I’m subconsciously applying a fact filter and wondering what the other unsuspecting students must think. I let this slide, since I’m here to learn the art of fermentation. I bravely take a spoonful of sauerkraut. The salty brine overwhelms my senses. Gulp!

If you’ve ever eaten sauerkraut, kimchi, tempeh, kombucha, or kefir, then you’ve had a fermented food (or drink). The first time I gave them a proper go (with a mind open to enjoying them), I noticed the sour, vinegar-like taste and the noticeable absence of sugar. It didn’t take me long to get used to the taste. After a while of drinking my bubbly kombucha, I noticed that my palate had adapted and sweet flavors felt overpowering.

Fermentation is a natural process of curdling or culturing that has been used for thousands of years to preserve foods. Fermented foods and drinks are made through “desired microbial growth and enzymatic conversions of food components” (as opposed to undesirable microbial growth, which happens when your food spoils). Fermented foods are made either by the bacteria and yeast already present in the environment/food material or by introducing bacteria or yeast to help start the fermentation process.

For example, when I made sauerkraut, I shredded the cabbage, added salt, then pummeled and squeezed the cabbage until it released its own juices, which also allowed the “probiotic” lactic acid bacteria in the cabbage to kickstart the fermentation process. Probiotic bacteria like Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium are considered probiotic good bugs, and are also present in many yogurts and cheeses.

We can’t necessarily call our sauerkraut a “probiotic food” because we don’t know the exact probiotic strains that are in our sauerkraut and whether they are present in the correct “probiotic” dose. It’s also worth noting that foods and drinks that are produced by fermentation don’t necessarily need to have live bacteria in them when you eat them to still be considered a fermented food. For example, sourdough is born from a bubbly live starter culture that contains yeast and bacteria, but once cooked it might no longer have any live bacteria in it.

So, what about the health claims?

Microbial fermentation may interact with health through multiple different biological pathways. It can enhance the nutritional composition of the final food, create bioactive compounds, and change the composition of the gut microbiota (potentially outcompeting harmful pathogens). The lactic acid bacteria in fermented food might also help to influence your immune system and strengthen your intestinal barrier. Some fermented foods, like tempeh, also contain prebiotics; these are fibers that escape your digestion and are broken down by your gut bacteria, including your lactic acid bacteria, which feed off prebiotic fiber to help grow their colonies. In a recent diet experiment, a high-fiber diet was compared with a diet high in fermented foods (eg, yogurt, fermented vegetables, kefir, fermented cheese); those who ate higher fermented food had lower markers of inflammation and an increased diversity of gut microbiota (which is thought to be a good thing in adults). So, in theory, fermented foods sound good.

Still wanting to understand more, and dispel a few myths, a team of researchers and I investigated what’s known about the link between fermented foods and mental health. We looked at the pathways by which fermented foods might affect mental health, such as by reducing inflammation and strengthening the intestinal barrier. These pathways are relevant because they might reduce your brain’s exposure to certain inflammatory molecules that can impact brain function and mental health.

Fermented foods also contain neurotransmitters that are important to mental health. Research about fermented food and mental health is still in its early infancy. Animal studies provide experimental evidence that fermented foods can help with symptoms of depression and anxiety – but that’s in animals. The problem is in knowing how the animal findings relate to our human experience.

We found eight studies in humans that experimented with fermented foods (for example, fermented milk products) to measure their impact on depression, anxiety, and stress in adults, but the studies were all so different that we were unable to make firm conclusions. It is still difficult to know what the active ingredient in fermented foods is. Is it the microbes? Is it the byproducts? Is it the nutrition? And how much of each is needed, and what are safe levels of each? We really need more studies, with detailed descriptions of exactly what is in each food being tested. At this stage, there is not enough human evidence to make firm clinical recommendations for eating fermented food to improve mental health symptoms.

I’ve since moved on from sauerkraut to making sourdough bread as a COVID lockdown project (as this involves a fermented starter culture). When my delicious fresh bread comes out of the oven, my world is paused for a few minutes, and my family mill around to enjoy the warm, fresh bread. While it may be too soon to tell whether fermented foods help our mental health, my sourdough itself has sure helped us.

Dr. Dawson is a nutritionist and bioinformatician research fellow at the Food & Mood Centre at Deakin University, Geelong, Australia. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I’m in a crowded commercial kitchen, and everywhere I look I see bottles of colorful drinks and jars holding faded vegetables suspended in brine. The smell of fermented cabbage permeates the room. I open a mason jar, which lets out a loud hiss. I’d spent months researching the gut-brain axis during my PhD, hoping to understand the role that fermented food may play in our mental health. So I enrolled in a class on how to make fermented foods.

The teacher is praising these ancient foods as a magical cure for every ailment you can imagine. I’m uncomfortable – not because of the smell, but because I’ve never found a scientific article that definitively supported this idea. I’m subconsciously applying a fact filter and wondering what the other unsuspecting students must think. I let this slide, since I’m here to learn the art of fermentation. I bravely take a spoonful of sauerkraut. The salty brine overwhelms my senses. Gulp!

If you’ve ever eaten sauerkraut, kimchi, tempeh, kombucha, or kefir, then you’ve had a fermented food (or drink). The first time I gave them a proper go (with a mind open to enjoying them), I noticed the sour, vinegar-like taste and the noticeable absence of sugar. It didn’t take me long to get used to the taste. After a while of drinking my bubbly kombucha, I noticed that my palate had adapted and sweet flavors felt overpowering.

Fermentation is a natural process of curdling or culturing that has been used for thousands of years to preserve foods. Fermented foods and drinks are made through “desired microbial growth and enzymatic conversions of food components” (as opposed to undesirable microbial growth, which happens when your food spoils). Fermented foods are made either by the bacteria and yeast already present in the environment/food material or by introducing bacteria or yeast to help start the fermentation process.

For example, when I made sauerkraut, I shredded the cabbage, added salt, then pummeled and squeezed the cabbage until it released its own juices, which also allowed the “probiotic” lactic acid bacteria in the cabbage to kickstart the fermentation process. Probiotic bacteria like Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium are considered probiotic good bugs, and are also present in many yogurts and cheeses.

We can’t necessarily call our sauerkraut a “probiotic food” because we don’t know the exact probiotic strains that are in our sauerkraut and whether they are present in the correct “probiotic” dose. It’s also worth noting that foods and drinks that are produced by fermentation don’t necessarily need to have live bacteria in them when you eat them to still be considered a fermented food. For example, sourdough is born from a bubbly live starter culture that contains yeast and bacteria, but once cooked it might no longer have any live bacteria in it.

So, what about the health claims?

Microbial fermentation may interact with health through multiple different biological pathways. It can enhance the nutritional composition of the final food, create bioactive compounds, and change the composition of the gut microbiota (potentially outcompeting harmful pathogens). The lactic acid bacteria in fermented food might also help to influence your immune system and strengthen your intestinal barrier. Some fermented foods, like tempeh, also contain prebiotics; these are fibers that escape your digestion and are broken down by your gut bacteria, including your lactic acid bacteria, which feed off prebiotic fiber to help grow their colonies. In a recent diet experiment, a high-fiber diet was compared with a diet high in fermented foods (eg, yogurt, fermented vegetables, kefir, fermented cheese); those who ate higher fermented food had lower markers of inflammation and an increased diversity of gut microbiota (which is thought to be a good thing in adults). So, in theory, fermented foods sound good.

Still wanting to understand more, and dispel a few myths, a team of researchers and I investigated what’s known about the link between fermented foods and mental health. We looked at the pathways by which fermented foods might affect mental health, such as by reducing inflammation and strengthening the intestinal barrier. These pathways are relevant because they might reduce your brain’s exposure to certain inflammatory molecules that can impact brain function and mental health.

Fermented foods also contain neurotransmitters that are important to mental health. Research about fermented food and mental health is still in its early infancy. Animal studies provide experimental evidence that fermented foods can help with symptoms of depression and anxiety – but that’s in animals. The problem is in knowing how the animal findings relate to our human experience.

We found eight studies in humans that experimented with fermented foods (for example, fermented milk products) to measure their impact on depression, anxiety, and stress in adults, but the studies were all so different that we were unable to make firm conclusions. It is still difficult to know what the active ingredient in fermented foods is. Is it the microbes? Is it the byproducts? Is it the nutrition? And how much of each is needed, and what are safe levels of each? We really need more studies, with detailed descriptions of exactly what is in each food being tested. At this stage, there is not enough human evidence to make firm clinical recommendations for eating fermented food to improve mental health symptoms.

I’ve since moved on from sauerkraut to making sourdough bread as a COVID lockdown project (as this involves a fermented starter culture). When my delicious fresh bread comes out of the oven, my world is paused for a few minutes, and my family mill around to enjoy the warm, fresh bread. While it may be too soon to tell whether fermented foods help our mental health, my sourdough itself has sure helped us.

Dr. Dawson is a nutritionist and bioinformatician research fellow at the Food & Mood Centre at Deakin University, Geelong, Australia. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I’m in a crowded commercial kitchen, and everywhere I look I see bottles of colorful drinks and jars holding faded vegetables suspended in brine. The smell of fermented cabbage permeates the room. I open a mason jar, which lets out a loud hiss. I’d spent months researching the gut-brain axis during my PhD, hoping to understand the role that fermented food may play in our mental health. So I enrolled in a class on how to make fermented foods.

The teacher is praising these ancient foods as a magical cure for every ailment you can imagine. I’m uncomfortable – not because of the smell, but because I’ve never found a scientific article that definitively supported this idea. I’m subconsciously applying a fact filter and wondering what the other unsuspecting students must think. I let this slide, since I’m here to learn the art of fermentation. I bravely take a spoonful of sauerkraut. The salty brine overwhelms my senses. Gulp!

If you’ve ever eaten sauerkraut, kimchi, tempeh, kombucha, or kefir, then you’ve had a fermented food (or drink). The first time I gave them a proper go (with a mind open to enjoying them), I noticed the sour, vinegar-like taste and the noticeable absence of sugar. It didn’t take me long to get used to the taste. After a while of drinking my bubbly kombucha, I noticed that my palate had adapted and sweet flavors felt overpowering.

Fermentation is a natural process of curdling or culturing that has been used for thousands of years to preserve foods. Fermented foods and drinks are made through “desired microbial growth and enzymatic conversions of food components” (as opposed to undesirable microbial growth, which happens when your food spoils). Fermented foods are made either by the bacteria and yeast already present in the environment/food material or by introducing bacteria or yeast to help start the fermentation process.

For example, when I made sauerkraut, I shredded the cabbage, added salt, then pummeled and squeezed the cabbage until it released its own juices, which also allowed the “probiotic” lactic acid bacteria in the cabbage to kickstart the fermentation process. Probiotic bacteria like Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium are considered probiotic good bugs, and are also present in many yogurts and cheeses.

We can’t necessarily call our sauerkraut a “probiotic food” because we don’t know the exact probiotic strains that are in our sauerkraut and whether they are present in the correct “probiotic” dose. It’s also worth noting that foods and drinks that are produced by fermentation don’t necessarily need to have live bacteria in them when you eat them to still be considered a fermented food. For example, sourdough is born from a bubbly live starter culture that contains yeast and bacteria, but once cooked it might no longer have any live bacteria in it.

So, what about the health claims?

Microbial fermentation may interact with health through multiple different biological pathways. It can enhance the nutritional composition of the final food, create bioactive compounds, and change the composition of the gut microbiota (potentially outcompeting harmful pathogens). The lactic acid bacteria in fermented food might also help to influence your immune system and strengthen your intestinal barrier. Some fermented foods, like tempeh, also contain prebiotics; these are fibers that escape your digestion and are broken down by your gut bacteria, including your lactic acid bacteria, which feed off prebiotic fiber to help grow their colonies. In a recent diet experiment, a high-fiber diet was compared with a diet high in fermented foods (eg, yogurt, fermented vegetables, kefir, fermented cheese); those who ate higher fermented food had lower markers of inflammation and an increased diversity of gut microbiota (which is thought to be a good thing in adults). So, in theory, fermented foods sound good.

Still wanting to understand more, and dispel a few myths, a team of researchers and I investigated what’s known about the link between fermented foods and mental health. We looked at the pathways by which fermented foods might affect mental health, such as by reducing inflammation and strengthening the intestinal barrier. These pathways are relevant because they might reduce your brain’s exposure to certain inflammatory molecules that can impact brain function and mental health.

Fermented foods also contain neurotransmitters that are important to mental health. Research about fermented food and mental health is still in its early infancy. Animal studies provide experimental evidence that fermented foods can help with symptoms of depression and anxiety – but that’s in animals. The problem is in knowing how the animal findings relate to our human experience.

We found eight studies in humans that experimented with fermented foods (for example, fermented milk products) to measure their impact on depression, anxiety, and stress in adults, but the studies were all so different that we were unable to make firm conclusions. It is still difficult to know what the active ingredient in fermented foods is. Is it the microbes? Is it the byproducts? Is it the nutrition? And how much of each is needed, and what are safe levels of each? We really need more studies, with detailed descriptions of exactly what is in each food being tested. At this stage, there is not enough human evidence to make firm clinical recommendations for eating fermented food to improve mental health symptoms.

I’ve since moved on from sauerkraut to making sourdough bread as a COVID lockdown project (as this involves a fermented starter culture). When my delicious fresh bread comes out of the oven, my world is paused for a few minutes, and my family mill around to enjoy the warm, fresh bread. While it may be too soon to tell whether fermented foods help our mental health, my sourdough itself has sure helped us.

Dr. Dawson is a nutritionist and bioinformatician research fellow at the Food & Mood Centre at Deakin University, Geelong, Australia. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team and star of TV’s Shark Tank, is backing a new online pharmacy that aims to reduce the prices people pay for 100 generic medications.

The Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs Company (MCCPDC) plans to offer the leukemia therapy imatinib for $47 per month, for example, compared with $120 or more with a common voucher and a retail price of $9,657 per month.

Other examples of lower-priced generics include the ulcerative colitis treatment mesalamine, which goes for $32.40 per month on the new online pharmacy versus $940 per month retail. In addition, the MCCPDC will offer the gout treatment colchicine at a lower price, charging $8.70, compared with $182 per month retail.

Likely in part because of claims of significant cost savings and in part because of Mr. Cuban’s celebrity status, the new venture is getting widespread media attention. Forbes, NPR, and TMZ have shared the news since the new digital pharmacy was announced earlier this month.

The new venture plans to charge consumers 15% above the manufacturing cost for the generic medications, plus a $3 fee for pharmacists and $5 for shipping. People will still require a prescription from their doctor to get the medications.
 

Generic pricing and social benefit

The top 100 generic products account for about half of generic sales, and there is enough competition for these high-demand medications that “the prices have come down close to zero,” said William Comanor, PhD, a health economist and professor of health policy and management at the University of California, Los Angeles. The remaining generic agents have lower-volume demand.

One prominent example is Daraprim, a decades-old treatment for the life-threatening parasitic infection toxoplasmosis. The drug jumped into the spotlight in 2015 when Martin Shkreli and his company Vyera Pharmaceuticals bought the rights to make the generic drug and raised the price overnight from $13.50 to $750. In January 2022, a U.S. judge banned Mr. Shkreli from the pharmaceutical industry and ordered him to pay an almost $65 million fine.

Dr. Comanor agreed the price should have been raised – $13.50 “was not economically viable” – but not as steep as $750.

“Say Mark Cuban says he will cut the price from $750 to $300. He will still make money. There is a market for these low-volume products,” he said. “There would also be a social benefit.”
 

A direct-to-consumer digital pharmacy

MCCPDC is “cutting out the middleman” in two ways. The business model calls for charging consumers out of pocket, so insurance companies are not involved. Also, the company created its own pharmacy business manager firm in October 2021, allowing it to negotiate prices with drugmakers in house.

The company also announced plans to complete construction of a 22,000-square-foot pharmaceutical factory in Dallas by the end of 2022.

Reactions on social media ranged from celebratory to people disappointed their generic medication would not cost significantly less or is not provided by the digital pharmacy.

When weighted by the number of prescriptions, prices for generics have declined in the United States.

“Overall, U.S. generic prices are the lowest in the world,” Dr. Comanor said. “People say U.S. drug prices are the highest in the world. That’s true for branded, but it’s not true for generics.

“So if someone asks if U.S. drug prices are the highest or lowest in the world, the answer is both,” he said.

“Maybe there is a role to play for this new pharmacy,” Dr. Comanor said when asked if the initiative seems like a positive development.

The state of California also announced plans to provide its own generic drugs, he said.

“But you won’t see a lot of entrepreneurs getting into this because the volumes are so low. If Cuban called me, I would tell him to provide Daraprim and similar, low-volume products,” Dr. Comanor said of the billionaire. “He’s a rich guy; maybe he can do it.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team and star of TV’s Shark Tank, is backing a new online pharmacy that aims to reduce the prices people pay for 100 generic medications.

The Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs Company (MCCPDC) plans to offer the leukemia therapy imatinib for $47 per month, for example, compared with $120 or more with a common voucher and a retail price of $9,657 per month.

Other examples of lower-priced generics include the ulcerative colitis treatment mesalamine, which goes for $32.40 per month on the new online pharmacy versus $940 per month retail. In addition, the MCCPDC will offer the gout treatment colchicine at a lower price, charging $8.70, compared with $182 per month retail.

Likely in part because of claims of significant cost savings and in part because of Mr. Cuban’s celebrity status, the new venture is getting widespread media attention. Forbes, NPR, and TMZ have shared the news since the new digital pharmacy was announced earlier this month.

The new venture plans to charge consumers 15% above the manufacturing cost for the generic medications, plus a $3 fee for pharmacists and $5 for shipping. People will still require a prescription from their doctor to get the medications.
 

Generic pricing and social benefit

The top 100 generic products account for about half of generic sales, and there is enough competition for these high-demand medications that “the prices have come down close to zero,” said William Comanor, PhD, a health economist and professor of health policy and management at the University of California, Los Angeles. The remaining generic agents have lower-volume demand.

One prominent example is Daraprim, a decades-old treatment for the life-threatening parasitic infection toxoplasmosis. The drug jumped into the spotlight in 2015 when Martin Shkreli and his company Vyera Pharmaceuticals bought the rights to make the generic drug and raised the price overnight from $13.50 to $750. In January 2022, a U.S. judge banned Mr. Shkreli from the pharmaceutical industry and ordered him to pay an almost $65 million fine.

Dr. Comanor agreed the price should have been raised – $13.50 “was not economically viable” – but not as steep as $750.

“Say Mark Cuban says he will cut the price from $750 to $300. He will still make money. There is a market for these low-volume products,” he said. “There would also be a social benefit.”
 

A direct-to-consumer digital pharmacy

MCCPDC is “cutting out the middleman” in two ways. The business model calls for charging consumers out of pocket, so insurance companies are not involved. Also, the company created its own pharmacy business manager firm in October 2021, allowing it to negotiate prices with drugmakers in house.

The company also announced plans to complete construction of a 22,000-square-foot pharmaceutical factory in Dallas by the end of 2022.

Reactions on social media ranged from celebratory to people disappointed their generic medication would not cost significantly less or is not provided by the digital pharmacy.

When weighted by the number of prescriptions, prices for generics have declined in the United States.

“Overall, U.S. generic prices are the lowest in the world,” Dr. Comanor said. “People say U.S. drug prices are the highest in the world. That’s true for branded, but it’s not true for generics.

“So if someone asks if U.S. drug prices are the highest or lowest in the world, the answer is both,” he said.

“Maybe there is a role to play for this new pharmacy,” Dr. Comanor said when asked if the initiative seems like a positive development.

The state of California also announced plans to provide its own generic drugs, he said.

“But you won’t see a lot of entrepreneurs getting into this because the volumes are so low. If Cuban called me, I would tell him to provide Daraprim and similar, low-volume products,” Dr. Comanor said of the billionaire. “He’s a rich guy; maybe he can do it.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team and star of TV’s Shark Tank, is backing a new online pharmacy that aims to reduce the prices people pay for 100 generic medications.

The Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs Company (MCCPDC) plans to offer the leukemia therapy imatinib for $47 per month, for example, compared with $120 or more with a common voucher and a retail price of $9,657 per month.

Other examples of lower-priced generics include the ulcerative colitis treatment mesalamine, which goes for $32.40 per month on the new online pharmacy versus $940 per month retail. In addition, the MCCPDC will offer the gout treatment colchicine at a lower price, charging $8.70, compared with $182 per month retail.

Likely in part because of claims of significant cost savings and in part because of Mr. Cuban’s celebrity status, the new venture is getting widespread media attention. Forbes, NPR, and TMZ have shared the news since the new digital pharmacy was announced earlier this month.

The new venture plans to charge consumers 15% above the manufacturing cost for the generic medications, plus a $3 fee for pharmacists and $5 for shipping. People will still require a prescription from their doctor to get the medications.
 

Generic pricing and social benefit

The top 100 generic products account for about half of generic sales, and there is enough competition for these high-demand medications that “the prices have come down close to zero,” said William Comanor, PhD, a health economist and professor of health policy and management at the University of California, Los Angeles. The remaining generic agents have lower-volume demand.

One prominent example is Daraprim, a decades-old treatment for the life-threatening parasitic infection toxoplasmosis. The drug jumped into the spotlight in 2015 when Martin Shkreli and his company Vyera Pharmaceuticals bought the rights to make the generic drug and raised the price overnight from $13.50 to $750. In January 2022, a U.S. judge banned Mr. Shkreli from the pharmaceutical industry and ordered him to pay an almost $65 million fine.

Dr. Comanor agreed the price should have been raised – $13.50 “was not economically viable” – but not as steep as $750.

“Say Mark Cuban says he will cut the price from $750 to $300. He will still make money. There is a market for these low-volume products,” he said. “There would also be a social benefit.”
 

A direct-to-consumer digital pharmacy

MCCPDC is “cutting out the middleman” in two ways. The business model calls for charging consumers out of pocket, so insurance companies are not involved. Also, the company created its own pharmacy business manager firm in October 2021, allowing it to negotiate prices with drugmakers in house.

The company also announced plans to complete construction of a 22,000-square-foot pharmaceutical factory in Dallas by the end of 2022.

Reactions on social media ranged from celebratory to people disappointed their generic medication would not cost significantly less or is not provided by the digital pharmacy.

When weighted by the number of prescriptions, prices for generics have declined in the United States.

“Overall, U.S. generic prices are the lowest in the world,” Dr. Comanor said. “People say U.S. drug prices are the highest in the world. That’s true for branded, but it’s not true for generics.

“So if someone asks if U.S. drug prices are the highest or lowest in the world, the answer is both,” he said.

“Maybe there is a role to play for this new pharmacy,” Dr. Comanor said when asked if the initiative seems like a positive development.

The state of California also announced plans to provide its own generic drugs, he said.

“But you won’t see a lot of entrepreneurs getting into this because the volumes are so low. If Cuban called me, I would tell him to provide Daraprim and similar, low-volume products,” Dr. Comanor said of the billionaire. “He’s a rich guy; maybe he can do it.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Human clinical trials have started for an experimental HIV vaccine that uses the same kind of mRNA technology found in Moderna’s successful COVID-19 vaccine, the drug company has announced.

The first vaccinations were given Jan. 27 at George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, the company said in a news release. Phase I trials will also be run at the Hope Clinic of Emory Vaccine Center, Atlanta, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, and the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.

The vaccine is designed to prompt white blood cells to turn into antibodies that can neutralize HIV, ABC News reported. A booster shot to work with the HIV vaccine is also being studied.

For 4 decades, the human immunodeficiency virus has managed to dodge the immune system’s attempts to destroy it. Scientists have not been able to develop a vaccine, though they have made advancements in treatments, such as long-acting injectables for pre- and post-exposure prevention and treatment. HIV can lead to AIDS, which can be fatal.

The release said 56 healthy HIV-negative adults are taking part in the clinical trial, with 48 getting one or two doses of the mRNA vaccine and 32 also getting the booster. Eight people will just get the booster. All of them will be monitored for up to 6 months after receiving a final dose.

The immunogens – antigens that elicit an immune response – that are being tested were developed by the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) and Scripps Research. They will be delivered using the same messenger RNA (mRNA) technology in Moderna’s successful COVID-19 vaccine, the news release said.

About 1.2 million people in the United States had HIV at the end of 2019, according to the CDC, with more than 36,000 people being diagnosed in 2019.

The World Health Organization says 37.7 million people in the world had HIV in 2020.

“We are tremendously excited to be advancing this new direction in HIV vaccine design with Moderna’s mRNA platform,” Mark Feinberg, MD, president and CEO of IAVI, said in the news release. “The search for an HIV vaccine has been long and challenging, and having new tools in terms of immunogens and platforms could be the key to making rapid progress toward an urgently needed, effective HIV vaccine.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Human clinical trials have started for an experimental HIV vaccine that uses the same kind of mRNA technology found in Moderna’s successful COVID-19 vaccine, the drug company has announced.

The first vaccinations were given Jan. 27 at George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, the company said in a news release. Phase I trials will also be run at the Hope Clinic of Emory Vaccine Center, Atlanta, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, and the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.

The vaccine is designed to prompt white blood cells to turn into antibodies that can neutralize HIV, ABC News reported. A booster shot to work with the HIV vaccine is also being studied.

For 4 decades, the human immunodeficiency virus has managed to dodge the immune system’s attempts to destroy it. Scientists have not been able to develop a vaccine, though they have made advancements in treatments, such as long-acting injectables for pre- and post-exposure prevention and treatment. HIV can lead to AIDS, which can be fatal.

The release said 56 healthy HIV-negative adults are taking part in the clinical trial, with 48 getting one or two doses of the mRNA vaccine and 32 also getting the booster. Eight people will just get the booster. All of them will be monitored for up to 6 months after receiving a final dose.

The immunogens – antigens that elicit an immune response – that are being tested were developed by the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) and Scripps Research. They will be delivered using the same messenger RNA (mRNA) technology in Moderna’s successful COVID-19 vaccine, the news release said.

About 1.2 million people in the United States had HIV at the end of 2019, according to the CDC, with more than 36,000 people being diagnosed in 2019.

The World Health Organization says 37.7 million people in the world had HIV in 2020.

“We are tremendously excited to be advancing this new direction in HIV vaccine design with Moderna’s mRNA platform,” Mark Feinberg, MD, president and CEO of IAVI, said in the news release. “The search for an HIV vaccine has been long and challenging, and having new tools in terms of immunogens and platforms could be the key to making rapid progress toward an urgently needed, effective HIV vaccine.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Human clinical trials have started for an experimental HIV vaccine that uses the same kind of mRNA technology found in Moderna’s successful COVID-19 vaccine, the drug company has announced.

The first vaccinations were given Jan. 27 at George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, the company said in a news release. Phase I trials will also be run at the Hope Clinic of Emory Vaccine Center, Atlanta, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, and the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.

The vaccine is designed to prompt white blood cells to turn into antibodies that can neutralize HIV, ABC News reported. A booster shot to work with the HIV vaccine is also being studied.

For 4 decades, the human immunodeficiency virus has managed to dodge the immune system’s attempts to destroy it. Scientists have not been able to develop a vaccine, though they have made advancements in treatments, such as long-acting injectables for pre- and post-exposure prevention and treatment. HIV can lead to AIDS, which can be fatal.

The release said 56 healthy HIV-negative adults are taking part in the clinical trial, with 48 getting one or two doses of the mRNA vaccine and 32 also getting the booster. Eight people will just get the booster. All of them will be monitored for up to 6 months after receiving a final dose.

The immunogens – antigens that elicit an immune response – that are being tested were developed by the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) and Scripps Research. They will be delivered using the same messenger RNA (mRNA) technology in Moderna’s successful COVID-19 vaccine, the news release said.

About 1.2 million people in the United States had HIV at the end of 2019, according to the CDC, with more than 36,000 people being diagnosed in 2019.

The World Health Organization says 37.7 million people in the world had HIV in 2020.

“We are tremendously excited to be advancing this new direction in HIV vaccine design with Moderna’s mRNA platform,” Mark Feinberg, MD, president and CEO of IAVI, said in the news release. “The search for an HIV vaccine has been long and challenging, and having new tools in terms of immunogens and platforms could be the key to making rapid progress toward an urgently needed, effective HIV vaccine.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are at least as effective in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and mild preexisting interstitial lung disease (ILD) as in those without ILD. However, the risk of checkpoint inhibitor pneumonitis (CIP) is higher in patients with the dual diagnoses and they need careful monitoring when introducing an ICI, a systematic review and meta-analysis indicated.

“Patients with preexisting ILD, especially symptomatic ILD, are frequently excluded from clinical trials so almost all the patients [we analyzed] were diagnosed with mild preexisting ILD,” said Yuan Cheng, MD, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.

“At this stage, we think that mild ILD is not a contraindication to the use of anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) and anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) treatment for patients with NSCLC but whether ICIs can be used in patients with moderate to severe ILD needs further study,” she added.

The study was published online Jan. 10 in the journal CHEST.
 

Ten studies

A total of 179 patients from 10 studies were included in the review and meta-analysis. Among these, six were retrospective case-control studies, one was a retrospective noncontrolled study and three were prospective, noncontrolled clinical trials. “All the included studies were from East Asian countries,” the authors noted.

Preexisting ILD was diagnosed by use of CT or high-resolution CT. The mean age of patients was 71 years (range, 33-85 years), 87% were male and 96% of the cohort had a history of smoking. Approximately one-quarter of patients with ILD had usual interstitial pneumonitis (UIP); about the same percentage had possible UIP; one-third were diagnosed with inconsistent UIP; 14% had nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP); and 6% had indeterminate UIP.

Patients received ICIs either as first-, second-, or third-line or higher therapy and all were treated with ICI monotherapy by way of either nivolumab (Opdivo), pembrolizumab (Keytruda), or atezolizumab (Tecentriq). About 10% of patients had a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of less than 1%, one-quarter had a PD-L1 TPS of 1%-49%, and approximately two-thirds had a TPS of 50% or greater.
 

Objective response rates

Some 35% of patients with both NSCLC and preexisting ILD achieved an objective response rate (ORR) to ICI therapy and almost two-thirds of patients achieved disease control. However, there was considerable heterogeneity in ORRs between the studies where it ranged from 5.9% to 70%, the authors cautioned.

On meta-analysis, the pooled ORR was 34% (95% confidence interval, 20%-47%) but again, with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 75.9%). However, on meta-analysis of eligible studies, patients with NSCLC who had preexisting ILD were 99% more likely to achieve an ORR compared to those without ILD (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.31-3.00), the investigators pointed out.

The disease control rate (DCR) also varied considerably between studies from a low of 33.3% to a high of 100%, they added. On meta-analysis, the pooled DCR was 66% (95% CI, 56%-75%). “Meanwhile, in patients without preexisting ILD, the crude ORR and pooled ORR were 24.3% and 24% (95% CI, 17%-31%), respectively” – again with significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 87.4%).

In contrast to the ORR, there was no difference in the DCR between the two groups, with no evidence of heterogeneity. There were no significant differences between the two groups in either median progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). In patients with NSCLC and preexisting ILD, median PFS ranged from 1.4 to 8 months whereas median OS ranged from 15.6 to 27.8 months.

For those without preexisting ILD, the median PFS ranged from 2.3 to 8.1 months while median OS ranged from 17.4 to 25.5 months.
 

ICI safety

In patients with NSCLC and preexisting ILD, the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAes) of any grade was 56.7%, whereas the incidence of irAEs grade 3 and higher was 27.7%. “Among the 179 patients included in the studies, 45 developed any grade of CIP, corresponding to a crude incidence of 25.1%,” the authors noted – very similar to the pooled incidence of 27% on meta-analysis.

The pooled incidence of grade 3 and higher CIP in the same group of patients was 15%. The median time from initiation of ICIs to the development of CIP ranged from 31 to 74 days, but 88% of patients who developed CIP improved with appropriate treatment. In patients with NSCLC who did not have ILD, the pooled incidence of CIP was 10% (95% CI, 6%-13%), again with significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 78.8%). “Generally, CIP can be managed through ICI discontinuation with or without steroid administration,” the authors noted.

However, even if most CIP can be easily managed, “the incidence of severe CIP is higher [in NSCLC patients with preexisting ILD] than in other populations,” Dr. Chen observed. “So patients with preexisting ILD should be closely monitored during ICI therapy,” she added.

Indeed, compared with patients without preexisting ILD, grade 3 or higher CIP in patients with the dual diagnosis was significantly higher at an OR of 3.23 (95%, 2.06-5.06), the investigators emphasized.

A limitation to the review and systematic meta-analysis included the fact that none of the studies analyzed were randomized clinical trials and most of the studies were retrospective and had several other shortcomings.
 

Umbrella diagnosis

Asked to comment on the review, Karthik Suresh, MD, associate professor of medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, pointed out that ILD is really an “umbrella” diagnosis that a few hundred diseases fit under, so the first question he and members of his multidisciplinary team ask is: What is the nature of the ILD in this patient? What is the actual underlying etiology?

It could, for example, be that the patient has undergone prior chemotherapy or radiation therapy and has developed ILD as a result, as Dr. Suresh and his coauthor, Jarushka Naidoo, MD, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, pointed out in their paper on how to approach patients with preexisting lung disease to avoid ICI toxicities. “We’ll go back to their prior CT scans and can see the ILD has been there for years – it’s stable and the patient’s lung function is not changing,” Dr. Suresh related to this news organization.

“That’s a very different story from a [patients] whom there are new interstitial changes, who are progressing and who are symptomatic,” he noted. Essentially, what Dr. Suresh and his team members want to know is: What is the specific subdiagnosis of this disease, how severe is it, and is it progressing? Then they need to take the tumor itself into consideration.

“Some tumors have high PD-L1 expression, others have low PD-L1 expression so response to immunotherapy is usually very different based on tumor histology,” Dr. Suresh pointed out. Thus, the next question that needs to be addressed is: What is the expected response of the tumor to ICI therapy? If a tumor is exquisitely sensitive to immunotherapy, “that changes the game,” Dr. Suresh said, “whereas with other tumors, the oncologist might say there may be some benefit but it won’t be dramatic.”

The third risk factor for ICI toxicity that needs to be evaluated is the patient’s general cardiopulmonary status – for example, if a patient has mild, even moderate, ILD but is still walking 3 miles a day, has no heart problems, and is doing fine. Another patient with the same severity of disease in turn may have mild heart failure, be relatively debilitated, and sedentary: “Performance status also plays a big role in determining treatment,” Dr. Suresh emphasized.

The presence of other pulmonary conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – common in patients with NSCLC – has to be taken into account, too. Lastly, clinicians need to ask themselves if there are any alternative therapies that might work just as well if not better than ICI therapy for this particular patient. If the patient has had genomic testing, results might indicate that the tumor has a mutation that may respond well to targeted therapies. “We put all these factors out on the table,” Dr. Suresh said.

“And you obviously have to involve the patient, too, so they understand the risks of ICI therapy and together we decide, ‘Yes, this patient with ILD should get immunotherapy or no, they should not,’ “ he said.  

The study had no specific funding. The study authors and Dr. Suresh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are at least as effective in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and mild preexisting interstitial lung disease (ILD) as in those without ILD. However, the risk of checkpoint inhibitor pneumonitis (CIP) is higher in patients with the dual diagnoses and they need careful monitoring when introducing an ICI, a systematic review and meta-analysis indicated.

“Patients with preexisting ILD, especially symptomatic ILD, are frequently excluded from clinical trials so almost all the patients [we analyzed] were diagnosed with mild preexisting ILD,” said Yuan Cheng, MD, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.

“At this stage, we think that mild ILD is not a contraindication to the use of anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) and anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) treatment for patients with NSCLC but whether ICIs can be used in patients with moderate to severe ILD needs further study,” she added.

The study was published online Jan. 10 in the journal CHEST.
 

Ten studies

A total of 179 patients from 10 studies were included in the review and meta-analysis. Among these, six were retrospective case-control studies, one was a retrospective noncontrolled study and three were prospective, noncontrolled clinical trials. “All the included studies were from East Asian countries,” the authors noted.

Preexisting ILD was diagnosed by use of CT or high-resolution CT. The mean age of patients was 71 years (range, 33-85 years), 87% were male and 96% of the cohort had a history of smoking. Approximately one-quarter of patients with ILD had usual interstitial pneumonitis (UIP); about the same percentage had possible UIP; one-third were diagnosed with inconsistent UIP; 14% had nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP); and 6% had indeterminate UIP.

Patients received ICIs either as first-, second-, or third-line or higher therapy and all were treated with ICI monotherapy by way of either nivolumab (Opdivo), pembrolizumab (Keytruda), or atezolizumab (Tecentriq). About 10% of patients had a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of less than 1%, one-quarter had a PD-L1 TPS of 1%-49%, and approximately two-thirds had a TPS of 50% or greater.
 

Objective response rates

Some 35% of patients with both NSCLC and preexisting ILD achieved an objective response rate (ORR) to ICI therapy and almost two-thirds of patients achieved disease control. However, there was considerable heterogeneity in ORRs between the studies where it ranged from 5.9% to 70%, the authors cautioned.

On meta-analysis, the pooled ORR was 34% (95% confidence interval, 20%-47%) but again, with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 75.9%). However, on meta-analysis of eligible studies, patients with NSCLC who had preexisting ILD were 99% more likely to achieve an ORR compared to those without ILD (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.31-3.00), the investigators pointed out.

The disease control rate (DCR) also varied considerably between studies from a low of 33.3% to a high of 100%, they added. On meta-analysis, the pooled DCR was 66% (95% CI, 56%-75%). “Meanwhile, in patients without preexisting ILD, the crude ORR and pooled ORR were 24.3% and 24% (95% CI, 17%-31%), respectively” – again with significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 87.4%).

In contrast to the ORR, there was no difference in the DCR between the two groups, with no evidence of heterogeneity. There were no significant differences between the two groups in either median progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). In patients with NSCLC and preexisting ILD, median PFS ranged from 1.4 to 8 months whereas median OS ranged from 15.6 to 27.8 months.

For those without preexisting ILD, the median PFS ranged from 2.3 to 8.1 months while median OS ranged from 17.4 to 25.5 months.
 

ICI safety

In patients with NSCLC and preexisting ILD, the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAes) of any grade was 56.7%, whereas the incidence of irAEs grade 3 and higher was 27.7%. “Among the 179 patients included in the studies, 45 developed any grade of CIP, corresponding to a crude incidence of 25.1%,” the authors noted – very similar to the pooled incidence of 27% on meta-analysis.

The pooled incidence of grade 3 and higher CIP in the same group of patients was 15%. The median time from initiation of ICIs to the development of CIP ranged from 31 to 74 days, but 88% of patients who developed CIP improved with appropriate treatment. In patients with NSCLC who did not have ILD, the pooled incidence of CIP was 10% (95% CI, 6%-13%), again with significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 78.8%). “Generally, CIP can be managed through ICI discontinuation with or without steroid administration,” the authors noted.

However, even if most CIP can be easily managed, “the incidence of severe CIP is higher [in NSCLC patients with preexisting ILD] than in other populations,” Dr. Chen observed. “So patients with preexisting ILD should be closely monitored during ICI therapy,” she added.

Indeed, compared with patients without preexisting ILD, grade 3 or higher CIP in patients with the dual diagnosis was significantly higher at an OR of 3.23 (95%, 2.06-5.06), the investigators emphasized.

A limitation to the review and systematic meta-analysis included the fact that none of the studies analyzed were randomized clinical trials and most of the studies were retrospective and had several other shortcomings.
 

Umbrella diagnosis

Asked to comment on the review, Karthik Suresh, MD, associate professor of medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, pointed out that ILD is really an “umbrella” diagnosis that a few hundred diseases fit under, so the first question he and members of his multidisciplinary team ask is: What is the nature of the ILD in this patient? What is the actual underlying etiology?

It could, for example, be that the patient has undergone prior chemotherapy or radiation therapy and has developed ILD as a result, as Dr. Suresh and his coauthor, Jarushka Naidoo, MD, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, pointed out in their paper on how to approach patients with preexisting lung disease to avoid ICI toxicities. “We’ll go back to their prior CT scans and can see the ILD has been there for years – it’s stable and the patient’s lung function is not changing,” Dr. Suresh related to this news organization.

“That’s a very different story from a [patients] whom there are new interstitial changes, who are progressing and who are symptomatic,” he noted. Essentially, what Dr. Suresh and his team members want to know is: What is the specific subdiagnosis of this disease, how severe is it, and is it progressing? Then they need to take the tumor itself into consideration.

“Some tumors have high PD-L1 expression, others have low PD-L1 expression so response to immunotherapy is usually very different based on tumor histology,” Dr. Suresh pointed out. Thus, the next question that needs to be addressed is: What is the expected response of the tumor to ICI therapy? If a tumor is exquisitely sensitive to immunotherapy, “that changes the game,” Dr. Suresh said, “whereas with other tumors, the oncologist might say there may be some benefit but it won’t be dramatic.”

The third risk factor for ICI toxicity that needs to be evaluated is the patient’s general cardiopulmonary status – for example, if a patient has mild, even moderate, ILD but is still walking 3 miles a day, has no heart problems, and is doing fine. Another patient with the same severity of disease in turn may have mild heart failure, be relatively debilitated, and sedentary: “Performance status also plays a big role in determining treatment,” Dr. Suresh emphasized.

The presence of other pulmonary conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – common in patients with NSCLC – has to be taken into account, too. Lastly, clinicians need to ask themselves if there are any alternative therapies that might work just as well if not better than ICI therapy for this particular patient. If the patient has had genomic testing, results might indicate that the tumor has a mutation that may respond well to targeted therapies. “We put all these factors out on the table,” Dr. Suresh said.

“And you obviously have to involve the patient, too, so they understand the risks of ICI therapy and together we decide, ‘Yes, this patient with ILD should get immunotherapy or no, they should not,’ “ he said.  

The study had no specific funding. The study authors and Dr. Suresh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are at least as effective in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and mild preexisting interstitial lung disease (ILD) as in those without ILD. However, the risk of checkpoint inhibitor pneumonitis (CIP) is higher in patients with the dual diagnoses and they need careful monitoring when introducing an ICI, a systematic review and meta-analysis indicated.

“Patients with preexisting ILD, especially symptomatic ILD, are frequently excluded from clinical trials so almost all the patients [we analyzed] were diagnosed with mild preexisting ILD,” said Yuan Cheng, MD, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.

“At this stage, we think that mild ILD is not a contraindication to the use of anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) and anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) treatment for patients with NSCLC but whether ICIs can be used in patients with moderate to severe ILD needs further study,” she added.

The study was published online Jan. 10 in the journal CHEST.
 

Ten studies

A total of 179 patients from 10 studies were included in the review and meta-analysis. Among these, six were retrospective case-control studies, one was a retrospective noncontrolled study and three were prospective, noncontrolled clinical trials. “All the included studies were from East Asian countries,” the authors noted.

Preexisting ILD was diagnosed by use of CT or high-resolution CT. The mean age of patients was 71 years (range, 33-85 years), 87% were male and 96% of the cohort had a history of smoking. Approximately one-quarter of patients with ILD had usual interstitial pneumonitis (UIP); about the same percentage had possible UIP; one-third were diagnosed with inconsistent UIP; 14% had nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP); and 6% had indeterminate UIP.

Patients received ICIs either as first-, second-, or third-line or higher therapy and all were treated with ICI monotherapy by way of either nivolumab (Opdivo), pembrolizumab (Keytruda), or atezolizumab (Tecentriq). About 10% of patients had a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of less than 1%, one-quarter had a PD-L1 TPS of 1%-49%, and approximately two-thirds had a TPS of 50% or greater.
 

Objective response rates

Some 35% of patients with both NSCLC and preexisting ILD achieved an objective response rate (ORR) to ICI therapy and almost two-thirds of patients achieved disease control. However, there was considerable heterogeneity in ORRs between the studies where it ranged from 5.9% to 70%, the authors cautioned.

On meta-analysis, the pooled ORR was 34% (95% confidence interval, 20%-47%) but again, with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 75.9%). However, on meta-analysis of eligible studies, patients with NSCLC who had preexisting ILD were 99% more likely to achieve an ORR compared to those without ILD (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.31-3.00), the investigators pointed out.

The disease control rate (DCR) also varied considerably between studies from a low of 33.3% to a high of 100%, they added. On meta-analysis, the pooled DCR was 66% (95% CI, 56%-75%). “Meanwhile, in patients without preexisting ILD, the crude ORR and pooled ORR were 24.3% and 24% (95% CI, 17%-31%), respectively” – again with significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 87.4%).

In contrast to the ORR, there was no difference in the DCR between the two groups, with no evidence of heterogeneity. There were no significant differences between the two groups in either median progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). In patients with NSCLC and preexisting ILD, median PFS ranged from 1.4 to 8 months whereas median OS ranged from 15.6 to 27.8 months.

For those without preexisting ILD, the median PFS ranged from 2.3 to 8.1 months while median OS ranged from 17.4 to 25.5 months.
 

ICI safety

In patients with NSCLC and preexisting ILD, the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAes) of any grade was 56.7%, whereas the incidence of irAEs grade 3 and higher was 27.7%. “Among the 179 patients included in the studies, 45 developed any grade of CIP, corresponding to a crude incidence of 25.1%,” the authors noted – very similar to the pooled incidence of 27% on meta-analysis.

The pooled incidence of grade 3 and higher CIP in the same group of patients was 15%. The median time from initiation of ICIs to the development of CIP ranged from 31 to 74 days, but 88% of patients who developed CIP improved with appropriate treatment. In patients with NSCLC who did not have ILD, the pooled incidence of CIP was 10% (95% CI, 6%-13%), again with significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 78.8%). “Generally, CIP can be managed through ICI discontinuation with or without steroid administration,” the authors noted.

However, even if most CIP can be easily managed, “the incidence of severe CIP is higher [in NSCLC patients with preexisting ILD] than in other populations,” Dr. Chen observed. “So patients with preexisting ILD should be closely monitored during ICI therapy,” she added.

Indeed, compared with patients without preexisting ILD, grade 3 or higher CIP in patients with the dual diagnosis was significantly higher at an OR of 3.23 (95%, 2.06-5.06), the investigators emphasized.

A limitation to the review and systematic meta-analysis included the fact that none of the studies analyzed were randomized clinical trials and most of the studies were retrospective and had several other shortcomings.
 

Umbrella diagnosis

Asked to comment on the review, Karthik Suresh, MD, associate professor of medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, pointed out that ILD is really an “umbrella” diagnosis that a few hundred diseases fit under, so the first question he and members of his multidisciplinary team ask is: What is the nature of the ILD in this patient? What is the actual underlying etiology?

It could, for example, be that the patient has undergone prior chemotherapy or radiation therapy and has developed ILD as a result, as Dr. Suresh and his coauthor, Jarushka Naidoo, MD, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, pointed out in their paper on how to approach patients with preexisting lung disease to avoid ICI toxicities. “We’ll go back to their prior CT scans and can see the ILD has been there for years – it’s stable and the patient’s lung function is not changing,” Dr. Suresh related to this news organization.

“That’s a very different story from a [patients] whom there are new interstitial changes, who are progressing and who are symptomatic,” he noted. Essentially, what Dr. Suresh and his team members want to know is: What is the specific subdiagnosis of this disease, how severe is it, and is it progressing? Then they need to take the tumor itself into consideration.

“Some tumors have high PD-L1 expression, others have low PD-L1 expression so response to immunotherapy is usually very different based on tumor histology,” Dr. Suresh pointed out. Thus, the next question that needs to be addressed is: What is the expected response of the tumor to ICI therapy? If a tumor is exquisitely sensitive to immunotherapy, “that changes the game,” Dr. Suresh said, “whereas with other tumors, the oncologist might say there may be some benefit but it won’t be dramatic.”

The third risk factor for ICI toxicity that needs to be evaluated is the patient’s general cardiopulmonary status – for example, if a patient has mild, even moderate, ILD but is still walking 3 miles a day, has no heart problems, and is doing fine. Another patient with the same severity of disease in turn may have mild heart failure, be relatively debilitated, and sedentary: “Performance status also plays a big role in determining treatment,” Dr. Suresh emphasized.

The presence of other pulmonary conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – common in patients with NSCLC – has to be taken into account, too. Lastly, clinicians need to ask themselves if there are any alternative therapies that might work just as well if not better than ICI therapy for this particular patient. If the patient has had genomic testing, results might indicate that the tumor has a mutation that may respond well to targeted therapies. “We put all these factors out on the table,” Dr. Suresh said.

“And you obviously have to involve the patient, too, so they understand the risks of ICI therapy and together we decide, ‘Yes, this patient with ILD should get immunotherapy or no, they should not,’ “ he said.  

The study had no specific funding. The study authors and Dr. Suresh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.