Skip to main content

CDC on Fungal Meningitis: Consider LP in Asymptomatic Patients


Clinicians should consider performing lumbar puncture in asymptomatic patients who received epidural or paraspinal injections with contaminated steroid products linked to the ongoing and widening fungal meningitis outbreak, officials with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said today during a Clinician Outreach and Community Action (COCA) call.
As of today, there are 328 cases of fungal infection and 24 deaths in 18 states linked to injectable methylprednisolone acetate produced by the New England Compounding Center (NECC) in Framingham, Massachusetts. This includes 5 peripheral joint infections.
Since early in the outbreak, the CDC has recommended against antifungal prophylactic or presumptive treatment of exposed asymptomatic patients in the absence of diagnostic testing with results indicating meningitis. This recommendation "remains unchanged," Tom Chiller, MD, MPH, medical epidemiologist in the Division of Foodborne, Waterborne & Environmental Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases at CDC said during the call.
On the basis of ongoing investigation, the CDC has determined that patients who received epidural or paraspinal injections with contaminated steroid product within the last 6 weeks (42 days) may be at greatest risk of developing meningitis and therefore additional monitoring should be considered. The agency says clinicians have 2 options:
Option 1:
  • Continue to closely monitor for development of symptoms, with a low threshold for performing lumbar puncture should the patient become symptomatic. When diagnostic lumbar punctures are performed, they should be done through a site other than the site used for epidural injection when possible.
Option 2: (This option, the CDC says, is estimated to reduce the maximal risk for stroke or death from approximately 0.4% to 0.3% in comparison to option 1).
  • Perform lumbar puncture, through a site other than the site used for epidural injection when possible.
  • If the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) examination shows less than or equal to 5 white blood cells (WBCs), the patient should continue to be followed very closely for onset of symptoms. If the patient remains asymptomatic, clinicians can consider repeating weekly lumbar punctures until 6 weeks (42 days) have passed since the last epidural or paraspinal injection with contaminated steroid product, at which time the patient can be monitored closely for the development of symptoms, with a low threshold for performing lumbar puncture should the patient become symptomatic.
  • Patients with more than 5 WBCs in CSF should be treated for fungal meningitis according to current treatment guidance.
  • In making a management decision, clinicians should also consider the risk associated with lumbar puncture (eg, post–lumbar puncture headache, CSF leak, the theoretical risk that fungi could be transferred from the epidural space into the subarachnoid space of a patient who has received epidural or paraspinal injections with contaminated steroid products).
The CDC also advises that patients who received their last epidural or paraspinal injection with contaminated steroid product more than 6 weeks (42 days) ago should continue to be closely monitored as previously recommended for development of symptoms, with a low threshold for performing lumbar puncture should the patient become symptomatic. When diagnostic lumbar punctures are performed, they should be done through a site other than the site used for epidural injection when possible, the CDC says.
During the call, Dr. Chiller emphasized that, "with our clinical expert team we are reviewing these guidelines on a daily basis and modifying them based on information we receive from treating clinicians as well as case reports of patients with these infections."
Risk Estimates Over Time
The CDC notes that as of October 22, 2012, at least 26 days should have passed since any patient received an injection with medication from these lots given that the medication was recalled on September 26, 2012.
They say the estimated remaining risk of developing meningitis is "likely to be no greater than 5% on the 26th day following their last epidural or paraspinal injection, and then decreases to a risk of no greater than 1% by 6 weeks (42 days) following injection."
The majority of these patients will have risks for meningitis much lower than this, the agency notes, "and their risk will continue to decrease as more time elapses since their last injection."
In addition, the CDC says the estimated remaining risk of stroke or death is likely to be no greater than 0.4% on the 26th day following their last epidural or paraspinal injection, and then decreases to a risk of no greater than 0.08% by 6 weeks (42 days) following injection. Again, most of these patients will have risks of stroke or death much lower than this, "and their risk will continue to decrease as more time elapses since their last injection," the CDC says.
For the most recent information about this and other clinical guidance, as well as case definitions being used in the current investigation, visit CDC's Clinician Guidance Web page.
"Serious" Problems at NECC
Meanwhile, in a report released Tuesday the Massachusetts Department of Health said a preliminary investigation of NECC revealed "serious deficiencies and significant violations of pharmacy law and regulations that clearly placed the public's health and safety at risk."
The report says the company distributed 2 of the recalled lots of methylprednisolone acetate before receiving results of sterility testing. It also says final sterilization of product did not follow proper standards for autoclaving (sterilization through high-pressure steam) as is required. The preliminary investigation also found "visible black particulate matter" in several recalled sealed vials of the drug.
Further, that early investigation showed evidence that NECC distributed large batches of compounded sterile products directly to facilities apparently for general use rather than requiring a prescription for an individual patient.
Customer Lists Available
On Wednesday, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made available 2 lists of customers who received potentially contaminated products that were shipped on or after May 21, 2012, from NECC.
The first list includes customer names and addresses, organized by state.
The second list contains the same basic information as the first list but is organized alphabetically by customer name and also includes the specific products shipped, the quantities of product shipped, and the shipping date.
During today's COCA call, Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at FDA, emphasized that these lists were prepared according to information provided by NECC, and the agency "cannot vouch" for the completeness or accuracy of the lists.
A notice on the FDA Web site adds: "Products shipped by NECC may be missing from the lists and facility information may be incomplete. Nevertheless, this is the best information we have available, at this time, to help inform facilities and health care providers of NECC products shipped to their facilities since May 21, 2012."
FDA is currently advising that doctors follow up with patients when the following 3 conditions are met:
  • The medication was an injectable product purchased from or produced by NECC, including an ophthalmic drug that is injectable or used in conjunction with eye surgery, or a cardioplegic solution;
  • The medication was shipped by NECC on or after May 21, 2012; and
  • The medication was administered to patients on or after May 21, 2012.
"Since the May 21, 2012 date is the date the first of three lots of methylprednisolone acetate implicated in the current outbreak was produced, products produced and shipped by NECC on or after May 21, 2012 are believed at this time to be of greatest risk of contamination," the FDA said.
"Now that we have shipping information available, we are updating FDA's recommendation to health care providers so that they can focus their attention on following up with the patients who are believed to be at greatest risk of receiving a contaminated product."
The FDA has provided clinicians with a template for a Patient Notification Letter. This template is for healthcare professionals notifying patients administered a drug produced by NECC that has been recalled.
Find the latest MedWatch safety alert on the outbreak here:
Unsung Public Health Heroes
In an FDA Voice blog post, FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, MD, acknowledged efforts of many individuals over the last few weeks.
"When there is a multi-state outbreak of illnesses, what federal agencies are doing in response is often the focus of attention," she said. "All too often, the dedicated efforts of countless other public servants at the state, county, and local levels aren't acknowledged as much."
"As we all strive to resolve the tragic outbreak of fungal meningitis tied to contaminated steroid injections, I want to recognize the invaluable role of our colleagues across the country. These front line public health officials at all levels of government work alongside the FDA and CDC every day, and even more closely in times of crises."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Missing Data Lead FDA Panel to Vote Against Rivaroxaban for ACS May 23, 2012 (Updated May 24, 2012) (Silver Spring, Maryland) — The missing data issues plaguing the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 trial of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting, the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, or ticlopidine. Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the ATLAS ACS TIMI 46 phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the risk of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, but the studies were hindered by early patient withdrawals and missing data. We Don't Know What We're Missing Based on the ATLAS ACS 2 results, FDA reviewer Dr Karen Hicks recommended approval of rivaroxaban for the requested indications except all-cause mortality. However, another FDA reviewer, Dr Thomas Marciniak, was adamant that the trial results are not interpretable because about 12% of the patients had incomplete follow-up, far higher than the 1% to 1.5% differences in the end-point rates between rivaroxaban and placebo. A total of 1294 subjects discontinued the trial prematurely, and the company was only able to contact 183, of which 177 were confirmed to be alive. Because of the patient dropouts, the company adopted a "modified intention-to-treat analysis," whereby patients were observed for 30 days after randomization or the global end date for the trial, instead of observing all the patients until the end of the trial as the FDA originally suggested. Marciniak criticized the sponsor's efforts to follow the patients and said that three patient deaths not counted in the modified intention-to-treat analysis may just be the "tip of the iceberg." Because the percentage of patients whose ultimate vital status remains unknown is much greater than the reported differences in mortality rates, the claimed mortality benefits are not reliable. The majority of the panel sided with Marciniak. For example, Dr Sanjay Kaul (University of California, Los Angeles) voted "no" because "there was enough uncertainty in the quality and robustness of the data that dissuaded me from voting yes. . . . The 'missingness' of the data doesn't invalidate it, but it certainly makes it hard to infer [the conclusion]." Dr Steven Nissen (Cleveland Clinic, OH) said that the decision to use the modified intention-to-treat analysis had a "profound impact" on the interpretability of the data. "It's saying we don't care what happens after 30 days, [and] that colored the trial in ways we couldn't recover from." Given the risk of major bleeding, "I want to see better evidence that this strategy of adding an Xa inhibitor or a direct thrombin inhibitor or something else to a good antiplatelet agent is robustly better for the patient," Nissen said. He recommends that the companies run a new trial of the 2.5 twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban using a strict intention-to-treat approach, but, he said, "I don't expect the death benefit to be too robust." Several panelists said they were concerned that the patients who dropped out of the trial were disproportionately likely to have a bleeding event, which led them to quit the trial, or a "protopathic" event, as statistician Dr Scott Emerson (University of Washington, Seattle) put it. "We're worried that an impending event is what is changing their behavior. We see that all the time in clinical trials--that regularly measured end points do not pick up [all of] the events," he said. He said that since the company was only able to contact 183 of the over 1200 patients who dropped out, it is possible that the dropouts skew the outcomes comparison of the trial. "Differential event rates after dropout are the number-one thing we're afraid of, so you have to explore it" in a statistical sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of these unknown outcomes. "It would not surprise me if, at the end of the day, these data did not hold up under a proper sensitivity analysis," he said. "What I want to know is, among the people who had events, how differential was the follow-up, but I can tell you by just looking at it, there was a very slightly different amount of follow-up of the people in the treatment arm. But I don't know whether everyone in the treatment arm was cured and they were trekking in the Himalayas and everyone in the placebo arm went home to die. I don't know that that's not the case." Dr Maury Krantz (University of Colorado, Denver) voted in favor of approval but said he does not know how rivaroxaban would perform in general clinical practice, especially when used with aspirin and clopidogrel. "I felt very much torn by this. This isn't a simple paradigm shift. It means going to triple therapy, which is really a three-headed monster in many ways. I think that what you're going to see in practice, if this is not done carefully with the proper labeling and secondary studies, is really dramatic magnification of bleeding and perhaps minimization of the efficacy benefit."

May 23, 2012   (Updated May 24, 2012)  (Silver Spring, Maryland)  —  The missing data issues plaguing the  ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51   trial of the factor Xa inhibitor  rivaroxaban  (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the  FDA  Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting , the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus  clopidogrel , or  ticlopidine . Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the  ATLAS ACS TIMI 46   phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the ri...
Post a Comment
Read more

Antidepressants Linked to Higher Diabetes Risk in Kids

Pediatric patients who use antidepressants may have an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, the authors of a new study report. In a retrospective cohort study of more than 119,000 youths 5 to 20 years of age, the risk for incident type 2 diabetes was nearly twice as high among current users of certain types of antidepressants as among former users, Mehmet Burcu, PhD, and colleagues report in an article  published online October 16 in  JAMA Pediatrics . The risk intensified with increasing duration of use, greater cumulative doses, and higher daily doses of these antidepressants. The findings point to a growing need for closer monitoring of these products, including greater balancing of risks and benefits, in the pediatric population, the authors caution. They undertook the study because, despite growing evidence of an association between antidepressant use and an increased risk for type 2 diabetes in adults, similar research in pediatric patients was scarce. "To our know...
Post a Comment
Read more

Contact Precautions May Have Unintended Consequences

Contact precautions, including gloves, gowns, and isolated rooms, have helped stem the transmission of hospital pathogens but have also had some negative consequences, according to findings from a new study. Healthcare worker (HCWs) visited patients on contact precautions less frequently than other patients and spent less time with those patients when they did visit, report Daniel J. Morgan, MD, from the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, and colleagues. Moreover, patients on contact precautions also received fewer outside visitors. "Less contact with HCWs suggests that other unintended consequences of contact precautions still exist," Dr. Morgan and coauthors write. "The resulting decrease in HCW contact may lead to increased adverse events and a lower quality of patient care due to less consistent patient monitoring and poorer adherence to standard adverse event prevention methods (such...
Post a Comment
Read more