Search This Blog

Saturday, July 7, 2018

Flint, Mich. water prosecutor amends charges against two state officials


Attorney General Bill Schuette’s special prosecutor in the Flint water crisis has added an extra involuntary manslaughter charge against Michigan Department of Health and Human Services Director Nick Lyon and tacked on a new misdemeanor charge.
Special prosecutor Todd Flood on Tuesday amended the criminal charges against the state health chief, adding a second involuntary manslaughter charge for the 2015 death of 83-year-old John Snyder of Flint.
Flood had previously charged Lyon for being criminally responsible for the December 2015 death of 85-year-old Robert Skidmore of Genesee Township, who contracted Legionnaires’ disease in June 2015 after being hospitalized at McLaren Hospital.
During Lyon’s 10-month-long preliminary exam, the state prosecutor called witnesses to testify about Snyder’s death and Lyon’s defense attorneys contested the facts surrounding the deaths of both men and pre-existing medical conditions they had.
“There’s no medical evidence that either of them died because of Legionnaires’ disease,” said John Bursch, a Grand Rapids attorney who is part of Lyon’s taxpayer-funded criminal defense team. “There’s no action or inaction of Mr. Lyon that caused them to be ill.”
The amended charges against Lyon, which includes a new misdemeanor charge of willful neglect of duty in office, were filed before the Fourth of July holiday as required by the Genesee County judge who is expected to decide by July 25 whether Lyon should stand trial for the Flint water-related deaths.
Closing arguments in the preliminary examination of Lyon are scheduled for Wednesday in Genesee County District Court in Flint.
Flood’s case hinges on convincing Judge David Goggins that the state health chief’s failure to alert the general public about the Legionnaires’ disease outbreak led to the deaths of the two elderly men.
On Thursday, Flood also filed amended charges against the state’s chief medical officer, Dr. Eden Wells, scaling back the scope of his original allegations that she tried to cover up the Legionnaires’ outbreak.
Flood’s amended complaint of a charge of involuntary manslaughter against Wells for Snyder’s death also clears up an impossible sequence of events that was contained in his original Oct. 9, 2017 complaint.
That document alleged Wells’ instruction to the county health department in December 2015 to withhold information from the public about the Legionnaires’ outbreak caused Snyder’s death on June 30, 2015.
A charge of obstruction of justice against Wells also drops Flood’s original allegations that she threatened to withhold funding from a team of researchers at Wayne State University who were studying the Legionnaires’ outbreak.
Wells’ preliminary examination has spanned 17 days in court since last October. Closing arguments in preliminary exam begin Aug. 6.
The amended charges filed Tuesday against Lyon are not considered new, as Flood informed his attorneys of them last year, Schuette spokeswoman Andrea Bitely said Friday.
The criminal prosecutions of Lyon, Wells and other officials at the state health department have generated nearly $5.3 million in legal bills as of June 22, according the department’s most recent data.
Gov. Rick Snyder has stood by Lyon and Wells as they’ve faced criminal charges and did not suspend them or other state employees in the health and environmental quality departments who have faced charges from Schuette for their roles in Flint’s lead-tainted water crisis.
Lyon’s legal bills from Willey & Chamberlain in Grand Rapids topped $1.35 million as of June 22, while Wells’ private attorneys at the Ann Arbor law firm Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels have billed the state about $555,000.
Bursch’s Bursch Law has been paid about $50,000 to date, state records show.

U Tenn. Med Center admits drug addicted patients under strict conduct rules


Almost a year ago, the University of Tennessee Medical Center in Knoxville started requiring addicted patients admitted for medical treatment of drug-use associated infections to submit to tough new conduct rules.
They must agree to a search by security, turn over their clothing and all personal property, hand over their cellphone, not leave the hospital floor, and receive no visitors. If they won’t sign an agreement to follow those rules, they must leave.
UTMC leaders say the policy, approved by the board of governors and implemented last August, was necessary to keep patients and hospital staff safe, and support nurses and other staff who were feeling burned out in dealing with these often-challenging patients. They say the approach has improved staff attitudes toward these patients and led to better care.
The policy was inspired by a similar, though more flexible, program started four years ago at Providence Regional Medical Center in Everett, Wash. Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville says it’s considering adopting a similar protocol.
Experts say they haven’t seen this tried elsewhere, but University of Tennessee officials say the extreme measures are necessary and have worked. “This is done first and foremost for patient safety,” said Dr. Jerry Epps, UTMC’s senior vice president and chief medical officer. “When patients are bringing in needles and drugs, and their friends are coming in with drugs, and they can shoot up in the bathroom and maybe kill themselves, I argue we’re doing our best to protect patients and team members from this dreadful problem.”
In the midst of the nation’s spiraling substance abuse epidemic, many hospitals around the country are struggling with how to handle the surging number of patients coming for treatment of medical problems associated with chronic drug use. There’s wide agreement that these patients sometimes bring a host of problems into the hospital—illicit drugs, unsavory associates, defiant attitudes, bad personal hygiene, crime, chaos and the threat of overdose deaths. Everyone is scrambling to figure out how to offer them the best care while protecting staff and other patients.

Too hard on addicts?

But UTMC’s policy, which experts say may be the strictest in the country, has sparked a sharp debate about its ethics and therapeutic effectiveness. A number of doctors who treat drug-addicted patients call it a harsh and counterproductive way to handle people with a chronic, relapsing illness.
“When COPD patients smoke, we don’t discharge them,” said Dr. Larry Graham, president of Mercy Health’s Behavioral Health Institute in Ohio. “We educate them, try to get buy-in and offer smoking substitutes. If we’re not creating no-visitor rules for those patients, we shouldn’t do it for patients with chemical dependencies.”
UTMC leaders admit that a significant number of patients have not responded well to the new policy, which some see as forced detox. About 42% of the 343 patients admitted since August for treatment of drug-use associated infections—including osteomyelitis, endocarditis, sepsis and soft-tissue infection—have left the hospital against medical advice before completing their antibiotic treatment.
“Previously the hospital was known as a place where you could get medications provided by the hospital as well as illicit drugs brought in by contacts,” Epps said. Now, “once (patients) realize they won’t have illicit drugs, they won’t stay.”
Even physicians opposed to UTMC’s approach acknowledge that these patients often pose tough challenges. “This is a super-frustrating area of clinical care and I can’t judge someone for taking a command-and-control approach,” said Dr. Timothy Lahey, an infectious disease specialist and ethicist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. “But I think it’s misguided.”
Lahey and others argue that there are more ethical and effective ways to handle these patients, through an individualized, multidisciplinary approach. “If patients feel they are being restricted, they may leave and relapse,” said Dr. David Kasick, who leads a team of consulting psychiatrists working with medical and surgical teams at Ohio State University Medical Center. “We try to work with them on being safe in the last restrictive way, not one-size-fits-all.”
Mercy’s Graham agreed. “If a patient or guest has brought in drugs and we’re aware of it, the team has to sit down with the patient and say, ‘This can’t keep going on because it puts everyone at risk. What do we need to do that would be helpful to you?’ I can’t say we never discharge a patient, but we haven’t had to do it very often.”
A key split between the two camps is over acceptance of addicted patients continuing to possess and use illicit drugs while receiving hospital treatment.
The UTMC approach requires patients to give up all illicit drugs during their hospital stay and rely on pain medications and withdrawal management drugs such as methadone and buprenorphine provided by the hospital. “If they choose not to accept the plan of care, they have to leave,” Epps said.
The alternative view is that addicted patients will find ways to continue using, and that it’s best to openly discuss that and partner with patients to reduce the chances of harm and increase the odds of successful medical treatment and recovery from addiction.
“If someone is addicted and determined to use, they will, and we can’t stop them,” Lahey said. “What we can do is be their ally and be there to help when they want help. If we become police or parental figures in their minds, it’s less likely they’ll reach out for help.”
Graham said it’s essential to educate staff to reduce biased and stigmatizing attitudes toward drug-addicted patients, which he thinks is what produces policies like UTMC’s.
Further complicating the handling of these patients is the difficulty of treating them for pain arising from drug-use associated infections, given their high tolerance for narcotics and the risk of their misusing those medications. UTMC and Providence Regional, for instance, administer pain meds in liquid form to prevent patients from hoarding tablets and using them to shoot up.
Another challenge is that the most effective way of administering intravenous antibiotic treatment for infections is through a peripherally inserted central catheter line. Clinicians worry that patients will inject illicit drugs through the line in a nonsterile way, risking new infections and overdose.
Thus, clinicians must decide whether to forgo use of a PICC line, or take precautions to reduce the risk of misuse of the line, particularly if patients leave before treatment is completed and antibiotic treatment must be continued on an outpatient basis. Providers can either put a lockbox on the PICC line or switch patients to oral antibiotics.

How they developed the approach

Epps said he first learned last year about the severe problems UTMC staffers were having with patients being treated for infections associated with drug use when he was developing a new clinical protocol for standardizing pain treatment.
He found out about the large amount of drugs and paraphernalia being confiscated by security, the verbal abuse staff endured, the drug deals taking place, and the lack of consistency in the plan of care for these patients. Some nurses were making moral judgments about those patients that were affecting their care. He feared nurses were feeling overwhelmed and would start leaving.
After multiple meetings with physicians, nurses, other clinical staff, security and administrators, Epps crafted a plan of care for patients to sign, modeled on a patient contract used by Providence Regional. The goal was to have everyone present a united front, so patients couldn’t play individual doctors and nurses against each other.
That care plan has been modified over time, for instance allowing patients to earn back certain privileges—such as being allowed to have a cellphone and leaving the hospital floor for an outdoor break—based on good behavior. The policy has been extended to drug-addicted patients who are admitted for reasons other than infections.
“It’s one of the best things we’ve done for our team members to help them become more empathetic,” said Janell Cecil, UTMC’s chief nursing officer. “They aren’t being berated and abused, and that has changed the attitude of everyone involved.”
“Nurses were ready to quit over this,” said Laura Harper, a UTMC nurse manager. “This plan of care has rejuvenated them. Now they don’t mind taking care of these patients.”
But Epps acknowledges that major challenges remain, particularly getting patients into addiction treatment after discharge. That’s a big problem in Tennessee, which hasn’t expanded Medicaid to low-income adults, making it harder to find a payment source for an extended course of residential medication-assisted treatment.
That contributed to UTMC’s 18% readmission rate for patients with drug-use associated infections since the new rules were implemented. One patient returned nine times. “The lack of addiction treatment resources is the most disheartening thing for our team members,” Epps said. “Only 10% of our patients are getting addiction treatment. That’s appalling.”
Some patients respond angrily when asked to sign the written plan of care, he said. They often leave as soon as they find out they can’t have visitors. Or they may stay only two or three days until their abscess is drained and they feel better, even though most patients need three to six weeks of IV antibiotic treatment to cure their infections.
“After the way I was treated tonight at UT, I will be contacting a medical malpractice attorney,” one patient wrote in an online review of her experience. “I am sick of being judged because of my history & will not stand for it any longer! … I will speak out for myself & all recovering addicts.”
Epps said he understands that people feel it’s harsh. “But we don’t force patients to participate in this plan of care,” he said. “They are fully involved, they have autonomy, and they can refuse it.”
Arthur Caplan, director of medical ethics at the NYU School of Medicine, said he could accept short-term restrictions on the autonomy of addicted patients if that increases success in treating this difficult population. Yet he doesn’t see it as an ethical way to treat patients outside of mental health settings.
Still, he views such a restrictive policy, which he hasn’t seen at any other acute-care institution, as a research program that should be evaluated based on treatment effectiveness. UTMC’s 42% rate of patients leaving against medical advice seems high to him. “If you come up with a very tough treatment policy, and only about half the people sign it or complete it, my hunch is it won’t take us to where we need to go with that population,” he said.
Martin Green, immediate past president of the International Association for Healthcare Security and Safety, said he’s seen similar approaches in mental health facilities but never in an acute-care hospital.
“I’m not saying it’s the wrong thing to do, but it’s a new one on me,” he said. “The patient is in a hospital, not a jail. It may be a violation of that person’s human rights.”
But success with these patients is iffy no matter what approach providers take.
UTMC’s Cecil cited as a success story a patient who received antibiotic treatment for a drug-use associated infection under the new conduct rules, got clean after leaving the hospital, and returned several times to visit and thank the nurses. “That makes it all worthwhile,” she said.
Asked whether this patient would agree to an interview, a hospital spokeswoman checked. “I have sad news to report,” she replied the next day. “We learned that he overdosed and passed away this spring.”

Billions in payments expected by insurers under Obamacare halted


The Trump administration on Saturday confirmed it is suspending billions of dollars in payments expected by insurers under the Affordable Care Act, saying the halt is necessary because of a federal judge’s ruling in a lawsuit over the program.
The ruling prevents the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which administers the program known as risk adjustment, from making further collections or payments, including amounts for the 2017 benefit year, until the litigation is resolved, the agency said.
The amount frozen for the 2017 benefit year is $10.4 billion, according to a statement from CMS. Those payments, which are drawn from insurers and go to other insurers, had been expected to go out this fall.
“We were disappointed by the court’s recent ruling. As a result of this litigation, billions of dollars in risk adjustment payments and collections are now on hold,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in the statement.

Docs Concerned on Receiving Unsolicited Genomic Results for Healthy Patients


A group of researchers led by the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network at Vanderbilt University surveyed physicians for their perspectives on genomic test results they didn’t order, which the researchers termed “unsolicited genomics results” (UGRs). The investigators asked the doctors how such information has affected their clinical practices and patients, in order to understand clinicians’ worries and provide a more complete picture of how genomic screening could be used with real-time healthcare delivery.
In the study, which was published yesterday in Genetics in Medicine, the researchers interviewed primary care providers and non-geneticist specialists at four sites associated with eMERGE. First, the team asked questions that probed the doctors’ opinions about the forthcoming results from eMERGE III — a panel sequencing about 110 genes linked to treatable and preventable diseases — as well as general UGRs. The 25 clinicians then discussed how UGRs would affect actionability, impact on patients, healthcare workflows, the return-of-results process, and responsibility for results.
The researchers found that physicians prioritize the usefulness of UGRs and the need for clear, evidence-based paths for action, as well as clinical decision support. Many physicians were also concerned that they would not know how to respond to UGRs, which may potentially limit the results’ utility.
Physicians further identified possible benefits of UGRs, including targeted screening, earlier intervention, and establishing care with the appropriate specialists. In addition, some clinicians believe that UGRs could improve routine patient care, as the results could explain symptoms that they didn’t understand at first or missed during initial diagnosis.
However, clinicians also identified potential harms the UGRs may cause patients, including anxiety, false reassurance, and clinical disutility. The study’s participants noted that they could do little to fix psychological distress about diseases or conditions that patients might develop after learning about their genetic results. The physicians believed that UGRs could cause unnecessary interventions and joint risks, complications, and increased costs for patients.
The clinicians also worried about their own professional potential workflow issues as well, including responding to UGRs and unreimbursed time. Some thought that explaining UGRs to their patients would limit the time needed for other important procedures during a patient visits. The researchers also pointed out that doctors did not know if they would be reimbursed for professional time spent on interpreting UGRs.
In addition, a number of clinicians worried that their patients’ genetic information would disappear or be transferred improperly if they changed providers or health systems. According to the authors, physicians “expected a low threshold for referring to other providers when faced with UGRs due to personal lack of expertise and a sense that specialists would be better suited to respond to results.”
If they used UGRs, physicians argued for increased expectations for improved clinical decision support with the UGRs, and integrating the information with set plans to help patients before their medical appointments. They wanted the support to include information on prognosis, penetrance, and urgency, in addition to specific recommendations for screening, referrals, and the potential for testing relatives.
However, the physicians had different opinions regarding who held responsibility for replying to the UGRs. While certain providers did not believe they are responsible for that aspect because genetic testing existed outside their realm of medical knowledge, others emphasized that the process needed a clear transfer of responsibility to a treating physician.
In addition, the physicians did not know who should “own” the patients’ UGRs, especially those of patients visiting multiple specialists. At the same time, certain doctors acknowledged that once they found out about an individual’s results, they felt personally obligated to reach out to their patient regardless of who actually ordered the initial test.
Overall, the clinicians understood the eMERGE III project to be a “form of opportunistic medical screening, and they raised concerns that large panel-based risk testing lacked validation compared with familiar evidence-based screening practices,” the authors wrote.
The researchers acknowledged that at least three academic centers involved in the study were heavily invested in genomics, which limited general application to other healthcare settings where clinicians are likely even less prepared to deal with UGRs. In addition the small sample size did not allow the team to observe any underlying differences in perspectives among provider types.
In the future, the team said it will assess healthcare professionals’ actions and impressions in response to UGRs returned through eMERGE. In addition, the authors noted that future studies in eMERGE III will “focus on how the UGRs affect the health behaviors, subjective wellbeing, and health outcomes of tested individuals.”
The researchers believe that future strategic workflow of UGRs will eventually help allow physicians to expedite patient treatment.

Palliative sedation, an end-of-life practice that is legal everywhere


Toward the end, the pain had practically driven Elizabeth Martin mad.
By then, the cancer had spread everywhere, from her colon to her spine, her liver, her adrenal glands and one of her lungs. Eventually, it penetrated her brain. No medication made the pain bearable. A woman who had been generous and good-humored turned into someone hardly recognizable to her loving family: paranoid, snarling, violent.
Sometimes, she would flee into the California night in her bedclothes, “as if she were trying to outrun the pain,” her older sister Anita Freeman recalled.
Ms. Martin fantasized about having her sister drive her into the mountains and leave her with the liquid morphine drops she had surreptitiously collected over three months — medicine that didn’t relieve her pain but might be enough to kill her if she took it all at once. Ms. Freeman couldn’t bring herself to do it, fearing the legal consequences and the possibility that her sister would survive and end up in even worse shape.
California’s aid-in-dying law, authorizing doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to certain terminally ill patients, was still two years from going into effect in 2016. But Ms. Martin did have one alternative to the agonizing death she feared: palliative sedation.
Under palliative sedation, a doctor gives a terminally ill patient enough sedatives to induce unconsciousness. The goal is to reduce or eliminate suffering, but in many cases the patient dies without regaining consciousness.
The medical staff at the Long Beach acute care center where Ms. Martin was a patient gave her phenobarbital. Once they calibrated the dosage properly, she never woke up again. She died within a week, not the one or two months her doctors had predicted before the sedation. She was 66.
“At least she got into that coma state versus four to eight weeks of torture,” Ms. Freeman said.
While aid-in-dying, or “death with dignity,” is now legal in seven states and Washington, D.C., medically assisted suicide retains tough opposition. Palliative sedation, though, has been administered since the hospice care movement began in the 1960s and is legal everywhere.
Doctors in Catholic hospitals practice palliative sedation even though the Catholic Church opposes aid-in-dying. According to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the church believes that “patients should be kept as free of pain as possible so that they may die comfortably and with dignity.”
Since there are no laws barring palliative sedation, the dilemma facing doctors who use it is moral rather than legal, said Timothy Quill, who teaches psychiatry, bioethics and palliative care medicine at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York.
Some doctors are hesitant about using it “because it brings them right up to the edge of euthanasia,” Dr. Quill said.
But Dr. Quill believes that any doctor who treats terminally ill patients has an obligation to consider palliative sedation. “If you are going to practice palliative care, you have to practice some sedation because of the overwhelming physical suffering of some patients under your charge.”
Doctors wrestle with what constitutes unbearable suffering, and at what point palliative sedation is appropriate — if ever. Policies vary from one hospital to another, one hospice to another, and one palliative care practice to another.
The boundary between aid-in-dying and palliative sedation “is fuzzy, gray and conflated,” said David Grube, a national medical director at the advocacy group Compassion and Choices. In both cases, the goal is to relieve suffering.
But many doctors who use palliative sedation say the bright line that distinguishes palliative sedation from euthanasia, including aid-in-dying, is intent.
“There are people who believe they are the same. I am not one of them,” said Thomas Strouse, a psychiatrist and specialist in palliative care medicine at the UCLA Medical Center. “The goal of aid-in-dying is to be dead; that is the patient’s goal. The goal in palliative sedation is to manage intractable symptoms, maybe through reduction of consciousness or complete unconsciousness.”
Other groups such as the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, which advocates for quality end-of-life care, recommend that providers use as little medication as needed to achieve “the minimum level of consciousness reduction necessary” to make symptoms tolerable.
Sometimes that means a light unconsciousness, in which the patient may still be somewhat aware of the presence of others. On other occasions it might mean a deep unconsciousness, not unlike a coma. In some cases, the palliative sedation is limited; in others it continues until death.
Whether palliative sedation hastens death remains an open question. Pain-management doctors say sedation slows breathing and lowers blood pressure and heart rates to potentially dangerous levels.
In the vast majority of cases, it is accompanied by the cessation of food, drink and antibiotics, which can precipitate death. But palliative sedation is also administered when the underlying disease has made death imminent.
“Some patients are super sick,” Dr. Quill said. “The wheels are coming off, they’re delirious, out of their minds.”
In that circumstance, palliative sedation doesn’t accelerate death, he said. “For other patients who are not actively dying, it might hasten death to some extent, bringing it on in hours rather than days.” He emphasized, however, that in all cases the goal isn’t death but relief from suffering.
One review of studies on palliative sedation concluded that it “does not seem to have any detrimental effect on survival of patients with terminal cancer.” But even that 30-year survey acknowledged that, without randomized control trials, it’s impossible to be definitive.
There is widespread agreement that palliative sedation is appropriate for intractable physical pain, extreme nausea and vomiting when other treatments have failed.
Doctors are divided about whether palliative sedation is appropriate for alleviating suffering that is not physiological, what medical journals refer to as “existential suffering.” The hospice and palliative care group defines it as “suffering that arises from a loss or interruption of meaning, purpose, or hope in life.”
Some argue that such suffering is every bit as agonizing as physical suffering. Existential suffering is the motivation that prompts many to seek aid-in-dying.
Terminally ill patients who took their own lives under Oregon’s aid-in-dying law were far less likely to cite physical pain than psychosocial reasons such as loss of autonomy, loss of dignity or being a burden on loved ones.
Using palliative sedation to relieve existential suffering is less common in the United States than it is in other Western countries, according to UCLA’s Dr. Strouse and other American practitioners. “I am not comfortable with supplying palliative sedation for existential suffering,” Dr. Strouse said. “I’ve never done that and probably wouldn’t.”
In states where aid-in-dying is legal, terminally ill patients rarely choose between aid-in-dying and palliative sedation, said Anthony Back, co-director of the University of Washington’s Cambia Palliative Care Center of Excellence. In Washington, patients with a prognosis of six months to live or less must make two verbal requests to their doctor at least 15 days apart and sign a written form. They also must be healthy enough to take the legal drugs themselves.
“If you are starting the death-with-dignity process, you’re not at a point where a doctor would recommend palliative sedation,” Dr. Back said. “And with terminal sedation, the patient doesn’t have that kind of time and is too sick to take all those meds orally,” he said of the aid-in-dying drugs.
But Dr. Back does tell terminally ill patients who don’t want or don’t qualify for aid-in-dying that, when the time is right and no other treatments alleviate their symptoms, “I would be willing to make sure that you get enough sedation so you won’t be awake and miserable.”
Whether palliative sedation truly ends suffering is not knowable, although doctors perceive indications that it does.
“You might be able to tell if their blood pressure goes up. Same with their pulse,” said Nancy Crumpacker, a retired oncologist in Oregon. “And you read their faces. If they are still bothered somehow, it will show in their facial expression.”
Harlan Seymour didn’t need to rely on those signs after his wife, Jennifer Glass, a well-known San Francisco public relations executive, received palliative sedation in 2015. A nonsmoker, she had metastatic lung cancer and faced a miserable death from suffocation brought on by fluids filling her lungs, her husband said.
She desperately wanted to die, he said, but aid-in-dying, which she advocated for, wasn’t yet legal. Instead, she received palliative sedation.
“The expectation was this cocktail would put her into a peaceful sleep and she would pass away” within a day or two, Mr. Seymour said. “Instead, she woke up the third night in a panic.”
Doctors upped her dosage, putting her into a deep unconsciousness. Still, she didn’t die until the seventh day. She was 52. Mr. Seymour wishes aid-in-dying had been available for his wife, but he did regard palliative sedation as a mercy for her.
“Palliative sedation is slow-motion aid-in-dying,” he said. “It was better than being awake and suffocating, but it wasn’t a good alternative.”

NSAIDs in Early Pregnancy Up Miscarriage Risk


study in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology analyzed pregnant women from the Kaiser Permanente healthcare system and compared newly pregnant women who took non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or acetaminophen or neither and found that using NSAIDs around conception carried a more than fourfold higher risk of early miscarriage.
While it is known that NSAIDs should be avoided after week 32 (to prevent premature closure of the ductus arteriosus), there are mixed messages regarding the use of NSAIDs during conception or early pregnancy.
The researchers enrolled 1,097 pregnant women, all of whom were very early in pregnancy (median gestational age at enrollment was 39 days) to best ascertain fetal outcomes (including miscarriage). Among the eligible women contacted, 63% agreed to participate in the study.
NSAID use during pregnancy was associated with a significantly (59%) increased risk of miscarriage compared with unexposed controls (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.59) or a 45% increased risk in those exposed to acetaminophens (adjusted HR 1.45). Nearly one-quarter of the women who took NSAIDs had miscarriages within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, compared with 16% of those who took acetaminophen and 17% of women who took neither medication.
Most of the risk was evident for NSAID use around conception (adjusted HR 1.89), with a statistically significant dose-response relationship (adjusted HR 1.37) for NSAID use of 14 days or less (adjusted HR 1.85) for NSAID use of 15 days or more.
The association was stronger for early miscarriage at less than 8 weeks gestational age (adjusted HR 4.08, 95% CI 2.25-7.41). Women with a lower body-mass index (BMI) — i.e., <25 — appeared to be more susceptible to the effect of NSAID use around conception (adjusted HR 3.78) than women with high BMI (≥25) (adjusted HR 1.03).
NSAIDs are also among the most commonly used drugs by pregnant women, and the risk may be greater with longer NSAID use, since women who used NSAIDs for at least 2 weeks or more had more miscarriages than those who took them for less time.
NSAID use around conception was associated with an increased risk of miscarriage, with a dose-response relationship, especially in women with a lower BMI.
Jack Cush, MD, is the director of clinical rheumatology at the Baylor Research Institute and a professor of medicine and rheumatology at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas. He is the executive editor of RheumNow.com. A version of this article first appeared on RheumNow, a news, information and commentary site dedicated to the field of rheumatology. Register to receive their free rheumatology newsletter.

Hybio Pharma, Chinese consortium to acquire German pharma firm AMW


Germany-based drug delivery systems developer AMW has signed an agreement to be acquired by a consortium led by private equity firm Yunfeng (YF) Capital and Chinese drug developer Hybio Pharmaceutical.
The deal covers AMWs specialist pharmaceutical company located in Warngau, as well as its subsidiary Endomedica in Halle.
Founded in 2008, AMW develops, manufactures and sells advanced pharmaceutical formulations, including transdermal drug delivery systems and subcutaneous biodegradable sustained-release implants. Its products have indications in the fields of oncology, neurology, dermatology, diabetes and pain treatment.
Its portfolio includes Buprenorphine and Rivastigmin patches, along with Goserelin and Leuprorelin implants. The firm additionally has a pipeline of new products for various applications.
After the completion of the transaction, the Chinese consortium plans to support further growth of the company, invest in the development of new products and accelerate its internationalisation efforts.
Commenting on the deal, AMW managing director Wilfried Fischer said: The commitment of the new owner to the existing product pipeline as well as the willingness to make use of the technology to start new development projects perfectly matches AMWs long-term strategy.
Hybio Pharmaceutical is a biopharmaceutical company involved in research, development, production and commercialisation of peptides and peptide-based drugs.
The acquisition forms part of the new owners international expansion strategy through addition of products and a research and development (R&D) pipeline.
YF Capital vice-president Albert Huang said: Both Hybio and YF Capital intend to maintain and accelerate the growth of the companys current structure including the transdermal and parenteral products, business sites in Warngau and Halle, as well as the skilled employees and management team.
With the capacity of a financially strong strategic partners, we do believe that AMW can proceed to the next level in the pharma business, also we strongly believe the collaboration between AMW and Hybio will be highly beneficial for both parties, addressing global market growth opportunities.
The new owners intend to leverage AMWs global sales force, primarily in the US and China markets.