Search This Blog

Friday, January 17, 2020

Sepsis Associated With Almost 20 Percent of Global Deaths

From 1990 to 2017, there was a decrease in sepsis incidence and mortality, although considerable regional variation exists, according to a study published online Jan. 16 in The Lancet.
Kristina E. Rudd, M.D., from the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues used multiple cause-of-death data from 109 million individual death records to calculate mortality related to sepsis. The percentage of sepsis-related deaths by underlying Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study cause was modeled in each location worldwide. In-hospital sepsis-associated case fatality was calculated using data for 8.7 million individual hospital records.
The researchers found that an estimated 48.9 million incident cases of sepsis were recorded worldwide in 2017 and 11.0 million sepsis deaths were reported, corresponding to 19.7 percent of all global deaths. From 1990 to 2017, there was a 37.0 percent decrease in age-standardized sepsis incidence and a 52.8 percent decrease in mortality. Across regions, there was considerable variation in sepsis incidence and mortality; the highest burden was seen in sub-Saharan Africa, Oceania, south Asia, east Asia, and southeast Asia.
“We have shown a global trend of decreasing sepsis burden but, importantly, substantial differences between regions remain, in total number of sepsis deaths, age distribution of sepsis deaths, and case-fatality,” the authors write. “These differences by location are alarming and deserve urgent attention from the global health, research, and policy communities.”
Several authors disclosed financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

U.S. Drug Deaths Might Be Twice as High as Thought

Drugs may kill twice as many Americans as government records suggest, a new study claims.
In 2016, the reported rate of drug-related deaths among 15- to 64-year-olds was 9% — compared with about 4% several years earlier — with 63,000 deaths classified as drug-related.
However, the new study concluded that the actual number of drug-related deaths could have been about 142,000 in 2016.
“Drugs can kill in other ways,” said study co-author Samuel Preston. He is a professor of sociology and a member of the Population Studies Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
“Infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS and hepatitis, impaired judgment, suicide, circulatory disease — these are all affected by drug use. People who are perpetual drug users have much higher mortality in general,” Preston explained in a university news release.
For the study, his team analyzed more than 44 million death certificates issued nationwide over 18 years and identified just over 667,000 that were coded as drug-related.
But the team’s models showed that these drug-coded deaths — which include drug overdoses and mental and behavioral disorders related to drugs — accounted for only about half of all drug-associated deaths.
“It’s obvious that the drug epidemic is a major American disaster,” Preston said. “The basic records being kept are annual reports on the number of deaths from drug overdose. But that’s only part of the picture.”
According to study co-author Dana Glei, “The drug epidemic is probably killing a lot more Americans than we think. That’s the main point we’re trying to make.” Glei is senior research investigator at the Center for Population and Health at Georgetown University, in Washington, D.C.
The study found that drug use decreased life expectancy after age 15 by an average of 1.4 years for men and by 0.7 years for women. But those figures were more than two times higher in West Virginia, the state hardest hit by the country’s opioid crisis.
Glei said that the drug use-related decreases in life expectancy “may not sound like a lot, but it’s a big effect. It’s big enough to account for the recent reversal of life-expectancy trends in the United States.”
West Virginia had the highest rates of drug-associated deaths among 15- to 64-year-olds: 39% for men and 27% for women. Other states with high rates included Massachusetts, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Ohio.
The lowest rate for both sexes was in Nebraska, with Iowa, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota rounding out the five states with the lowest rates among men.
In terms of regions, rates are high in the Southwest, Appalachia and New England, and low in the Great Plains, the findings showed.
The study was published Jan. 15 in the journal PLOS One.

Analyst action, Jan. 17

Amedisys (NASDAQ:AMED) initiated with Outperform rating and $206 (14% upside) price target at Credit Suisse.
BeiGene (NASDAQ:BGNE) resumed with Overweight rating at Morgan Stanley.
Karyopharm Therapeutics (NASDAQ:KPTI) downgraded to Neutral with a $19 (1% upside) price target at Wedbush.
Syros Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:SYRS) downgraded to Neutral with a $9 (2% downside risk) price target at Wedbush.

Durect down premarket after split ad com vote on bupivacaine

DURECT (NASDAQ:DRRX) is down 13% premarket on light volume following yesterday’s 6-6 vote from an FDA advisory committee on bupivacaine extended-release solution for the treatment of post-surgical pain.
The company’s application is a resubmission. It received a CRL in February 2014 in response to its first filing citing the need for more safety data.

UnitedHealthcare maintains coverage of Vascepa

A representative of UnitedHealth Group Investor Relations confirmed via a direct message with the author that UnitedHealthcare’s coverage of Amarin’s (NASDAQ:AMRN) Vascepa (icosapent ethyl) will continue in 2020 with the same classification as 2019.
Shares up 1% premarket on light volume.

German drug assessment body not convinced by Bayer cancer drug Vitrakvi

Bayer’s Vitrakvi won European approval in September, the first drug in Europe to tackle tumors based on a rare genetic mutation regardless of where in the body the disease started.
Bayer has said it expected annual peak sales of more than 750 million euros ($836 million) from the drug. It needs a boost as many analysts regard the group’s drug development pipeline as too thin to make up for an expected decline in revenues from its two bestsellers from about 2024.
IQWiG – an independent authority that evaluates new drugs and plays an advisory role over what price German health services pay for them – in particular criticized the fact that the clinical trials lacked a comparative group that did not receive Vitrakvi.
EMA, for its part, has said it was swayed in favor of Vitrakvi by trials involving 102 patients that showed that the drug reduced the size of tumors in 67% of cases, and by the speed of tumor shrinkage.
Germany is the largest European pharmaceuticals market and the fourth biggest globally. Still, it has only slightly more than 10% the size of the U.S. market, where Vitrakvi was approved in late 2018.

‘List price’ for healthcare treatments in the U.S. may be misleading

The “list price” for healthcare treatments can vary wildly and may not reflect what will appear on a patient’s bill, a new study finds.
After reviewing listed prices for a particular therapy — radiation treatments for prostate cancer — researchers concluded that publicly-available price lists for cancer treatment may not help patients who want to shop around for the best deal.
Since 2019, hospitals have been required by the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to post prices online for the services they offer, in what is called a chargemaster.
“The prices we found were all over the map,” said Dr. Trevor Royce, an assistant professor of radiation oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the study’s senior author. “And they were much higher than what Medicare typically pays.”
The point of making hospitals create a chargemaster was to facilitate comparison shopping and to foster competition, Royce said.
The problem with the system is that the list prices may not reflect what insurance companies are actually paying for services, Royce said. “They are not the true negotiated rates that the hospitals and insurance companies agree upon,” he explained. “Those numbers might be more meaningful, but that is not what is listed publicly because they are considered to be proprietary.”
While the CMS has tried to fix the problem by issuing a new rule that would force hospitals to post negotiated rates, that change may not be implemented any time soon, Royce said. “Several hospital groups have filed lawsuits in federal court to prevent it from becoming a reality,” he added.
To get a sense of whether the CMS rule mandating hospitals post prices would help patients, Royce and colleagues concentrated on a common treatment, radiation therapy for prostate cancer, and checked prices listed at National Cancer Institute designated cancer centers.
As reported in JAMA Oncology, of the 63 designated hospitals, 52 listed a price for the treatment the researchers were looking for. “We found prices were hard to find on websites and not at all uniform,” Royce said.
In fact, prices varied wildly, with the highest price 20 times that of the lowest: $399,056 versus $18,368. The average cost was $111,728.80, which is more than 10 times the $11,091 that Medicare pays.
The wide variation in prices didn’t surprise Amanda Starc, an associate professor of strategy at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University in Chicago.
What you’ll pay generally depends on the deal your insurance company negotiated, said Starc, who wasn’t involved in the study. But there is a group of consumers for whom the numbers may have more meaning: those without insurance.
Without an insurance company to negotiate, consumers can end up with a bill for the amount shown in the chargemaster, Starc said.
As for shopping around, that’s not something everyone can do, Starc said. “If you’re looking at MRIs, you might be willing to travel a little further to get a less expensive MRI,” she added. “But that’s a little different from traveling for cancer services.”
The new study highlights the difficulty patients face trying to find out how much their care will cost, despite efforts by the CMS to make pricing more transparent, said Dr. Akila Viswanathan, interim director in the department of radiation oncology and molecular radiation sciences at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.
“Royce and Colleagues’ article shows how much ‘mis’ informative price transparency can be for patients,” Viswanathan said in an email. “Information on price does not reflect the true cost of care, nor does it reflect the charges sent to a patient on a bill. Obtaining the true cost of care and the potential financial impact on a patient remains elusive despite price transparency.”
SOURCE: bit.ly/2uXsS5h JAMA Oncology, online January 16, 2020.