February 24, 2012

How Dirty Medical Devices Expose Patients to Infection

cmimg_72392

Joe Eaton
February 23rd 2012

It seemed simple enough at the time. In 2009, John Harrison, a 63-year-old oil industry sales manager in Mission, Texas, had surgery to repair the rotator cuff in his right shoulder, a routine procedure that usually requires at most a single night’s stay in the hospital, followed by physical therapy. For Harrison, however, there was nothing routine about the ordeal that ensued. In the weeks following the surgery, his scar turned bright red, hot to the touch, and oozed thick fluid that looked “like butter squeezed from a bag.” Alarmed, Harrison’s wife Laura called The Methodist Hospital in Houston, where the surgery was performed. The doctor urged Harrison to immediately make the seven-hour drive back to Houston for an emergency checkup. That night, surgeons opened up Harrison’s shoulder and found that infection had eaten away part of his shoulder bone and rotator cuff. Screws and metal hardware surgeons placed in his shoulder had pulled loose. Sutures had come undone. Surgeons cleaned out Harrison’s shoulder, installed two drains and gave him antibiotics to battle the infection.

When Harrison awoke from that surgery, he imagined his nightmare was over. But in reality, it had just begun. Since then, what began as a simple operation has turned into a lengthy struggle that left him for months at a time dependent on hired nurses, unable to dress himself, take a shower, or work, and afraid for his life. “I’m a pretty tough guy, being in the oil patch,” said Harrison, a soft-spoken man who tends to understate the severity of his ordeal. But the pain “felt like someone hit your shoulder with a baseball bat with a razor blade attached to it.”

Harrison at first blamed himself, thinking he had not taken proper care of his surgical wound. The truth was much worse: Harrison was one of at least seven joint surgery patients at Methodist who acquired dangerous infections during a two-week period. The outbreak led Methodist to close operating rooms and cancel knee and shoulder surgeries while hospital and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) investigators searched for the cause. They found two likely sources in unlikely, yet terrifying, spots—deep inside a hand-held power tool called an arthroscopic shaver, which surgeons use to shave away bone and tissue during surgery, and inside a long narrow metal tube called an inflow/outflow cannula, which is used to irrigate and suction the surgical site. During the Methodist investigation, the hospital inspected surgical tools with a tiny video camera to make sure places impossible to see with the naked eye were clean. They were not. Inside the cannulas and arthroscopic shavers, the video camera made startling finds. Human tissue and bone were stuck in both devices. The camera also discovered a bristle from a cleaning brush in an arthroscopic shaver. Further investigation revealed that Methodist had not cleaned the cannulas with brushes, as manufacturer instructions require. Instead, the hospital ran tap water through the instruments.

The case of the dirty arthroscopic shavers, however, was even more frightening. According to accounts by Methodist staff and a government infection control researcher, the hospital followed the cleaning instructions provided by Stryker, the Kalamazoo, Mich. manufacturer of the shavers used on all the infected patients. The instruments had been properly cleaned, but they were still dirty. That set off alarms that would travel through the larger medical community. Dr. Pritish Tosh, a former investigator at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Epidemic Intelligence Service, blames the Methodist infections on those dirty devices. “Evidence from the investigation suggests the Methodist infection outbreak was most likely caused by retained tissue…,” Tosh wrote in a paper published in 2011 in the journal Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. The bacteria that caused the infections were “likely introduced into the case patients’ joint spaces” by dirty instruments or fluid that passed through them.

Investigators say hospital-acquired infections are notoriously difficult to track to their sources, but Tosh’s account is likely the only explanation Harrison is going to get for why he endured seven follow-up surgeries, but still cannot raise his arm when he wakes up in the morning. “I’m angry,” said Harrison. “This is 2.5 years. I should be at the time of my life where I need to enjoy it a little bit.” In 2011, Harrison filed a lawsuit against Stryker and Methodist. Early this year, Harrison settled with Methodist for an undisclosed amount. His case against Stryker has been moved to federal court. Harrison’s attorney, Carl Shaw, declined to comment on the lawsuit. Stryker also declined to comment, but paperwork the company filed in court denies Harrison’s claims, arguing among several defenses that the firm’s arthroscopic shavers “conformed with the prevailing standard and customs of the state-of-the-art of the industry.”

A Larger Problem

Was the Methodist case a fluke? Hardly. Filthy, dangerous medical implements have been showing up in hospitals and outpatient surgery centers with alarming regularity. In 2009, the Department of Veterans Affairs admitted that 10,737 veterans in Florida, Tennessee and Georgia were given endoscopies or colonoscopies between 2002 and 2009 with endoscopes that may have been improperly cleaned. Some of those patients later tested positive for HIV, hepatitis C, or hepatitis B. Several lawsuits filed against the VA by veterans are currently working their way through the courts, and attorneys expect many others to follow. Investigation of a 2008 hepatitis C outbreak that sickened at least six people in Las Vegas revealed that an outpatient surgery center was improperly cleaning endoscopes and reusing biopsy forceps designed for a single use. Following that outbreak, a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) pilot program inspected 1500 outpatient surgery centers and cited 28 percent for infection control deficiencies related to equipment cleaning and sterilization.

Last summer, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which regulates medical devices, held a little-noticed workshop to address concerns regarding dirty devices. Over two days, manufacturers, hospital representatives, and officials from the CDC and FDA described the challenges of thoroughly cleaning complex but reusable medical devices between procedures. Jahan Azizi, a risk management clinical engineer at the University of Michigan Health System, presented the most ominous data and conclusions to the crowd of around 200 government and industry insiders. “This is unfortunately after lunch, and I apologize for that if you have a weak stomach,” Azizi said, as he described how his team ran a tiny surgical video camera inside 350 surgery-ready suction tips (a common tool surgeons use to suction blood and fluids). All of the suctions tips, Azizi said, contained blood, bone, tissue, even rust.

But what Azizi found next was even more troubling. After discovering the debris, Azizi’s team ran the 350 suction tips through the manufacturer’s recommended cleaning and disinfection processes and reexamined them. All but seven of the suction tips still contained debris. The problem, Azizi claimed, was a design flaw that caused debris to clog out of reach of cleaning brushes. “I don’t know who approved this or who made this a reusable item, but this is not a reusable or cleanable item,” Azizi said about a particular suction tip, adding that when he cut the tip open, “a handful of stuff came out.” Azizi said he chose suction tips because they are included in almost every tray of instruments surgeons use, but that the lesson is far reaching. “There are a lot of them that are difficult or impossible to clean,” Azizi said.

A critic of the device manufacturing industry, Azizi blames poor manufacturer design for the difficulty of cleaning devices, but experts say bad design is but one of a litany of reasons why dirty instruments are being used on patients. At the FDA workshop, experts pointed to several other reasons, including the proliferation of highly complex surgical instruments, inadequate device testing by manufacturers, and the struggle faced by poorly-paid hospital employees who clean and sterilize devices between procedures, often under pressure from nurses and surgeons who need the devices quickly for the next operation.

It is difficult to know exactly how often dirty instruments are to blame for the infections that plague hospitals, since bacteria can hide anywhere, from a doctor’s unwashed hands to a nurse’s dirty scrubs. But experts say it happens far more often than generally understood. “The cases we hear about,” said Dr. Melissa Schaefer, a CDC medical officer, “are only the tip of the iceberg.”

From Hand Scalpels to Robots, High-Tech Creates New Cleaning Challenges

Decades ago, medical instruments were almost exclusively made of steel and glass, and many looked like the tools used by a butcher or an auto mechanic. Cleaning these tools was simple, and sterilization required little more than a heavy shot of steam. The tremendous growth of minimally invasive surgeries in the 1990s, however, brought flexible endoscopes that are passed through tiny incisions to see inside patients. Instruments became smaller, more specialized and complex, with moving parts, tiny holes, and long narrow channels running the length of the implements. Manufacturers turned to materials like tungsten, plastic, and other polymers. Progress continues. As surgeons begin to rely on robotics, devices are becoming even more elaborate.

Intricate modern instruments revolutionized surgery, but they have proven difficult to clean. Those tiny internal channels become clogged with unseen tissue and blood. Steam sterilization melts and destroys some modern devices. Instruments made of materials like rubber may not heat all the way through, as many metals do, creating sterilization challenges. “Cleaning was once a basic factory job,” said Joe Lewelling, vice-president of standards development at the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. “Now it’s very complex. It takes a lot of steps. It’s more like a laboratory process.”

Theoretically, if a device is truly impossible to clean, it should never end up on hospital shelves. The FDA, as part of its medical device clearance process, requires device manufacturers to verify that their cleaning instructions are effective. Few in the industry, however, believe the regulation works. Instead of testing their tools in the real world of hospitals, industry veterans say, manufacturers usually hire independent labs to evaluate their cleaning instructions under perfect conditions. “If the lab can do the test, the lab has done their job for the manufacturer,” Trabue Bryans, a vice president and general manager of the lab company WuXi App Tec, said at an October meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation at the FDA. “We have all the time in the world.” Stryker, the manufacturer of the arthroscopic shavers used in the Methodist infection cases, declined to say whether it tested its reprocessing instructions in hospitals.

The Basement

In hospitals, the struggle to clean and sterilize surgical implements usually takes place in the basement, in hot, humid, “central sterile processing” units where employees, some making as little as $8.50 an-hour, work in fast-paced conditions to keep equipment in rotation. Technicians are responsible for cleaning and sterilizing a vast range of instruments, from the tiniest forceps to intricate modern power tools. At the largest hospitals, as many as 40,000 devices pass through every day. Charles Hancock, an independent medical device sterilization consultant in New York who has worked in the industry since the 1960s, said some central sterile departments are clean and efficient, while others are dirty and overcrowded with a “dungeon mentality.” Most, he said, are somewhere in the middle.

While instruments are often cleaned and sent back to surgery rapidly—perhaps too rapidly—Hancock said they also sometimes sit around for hours, or days, before they are cleaned, which allows blood and tissue to dry and harden. If a device is improperly cleaned prior to sterilization, the process can bake the blood and tissue on the instrument. With devices in rotation for years, or even decades, Hancock said the number of dirty devices currently in hospital supplies is likely massive. But even in the best of conditions, many surgical tools are tough to clean. “Sometimes we have to beat the instrument on the table to loosen up the bone,” said Sharon Greene-Golden, a central sterile processing manager at Bon Secours Mary Immaculate Hospital in Newport News, Va., and president-elect of the International Association of Healthcare Central Service Materiel Management (IAHCSMM), which advocates for the central sterile industry.“Labor and delivery sends trays that look like they have been to a massacre,” Greene-Golden said. “You get instruments that are covered in blood and amniotic fluid. They stink. Everything is terrible about them.”

Dressed in gowns, face shields, and rubber gloves, workers treat every instrument “as if the case had Ebola,” Greene-Golden said. But hospitals across the country have a limited number of tools and frequently pressure central sterile processing units to clean them as fast as possible in order to keep patients moving through profitable surgery suites. Since techs are the low man on the totem pole, it’s hard to push back against nurses and surgical staff. Worst of all, central sterile techs say doctors and nurses rarely acknowledge their role in successful surgeries. Except when an important person or a doctor’s family member is on the table, that is. “They call and say, ‘Dr. Jones’s wife is having surgery,’” Green-Golden said. “You didn’t call when I was having surgery. You didn’t call when my momma was having surgery.”

The fast pace, low prestige, and low pay leads to high staff turnover, sometimes for fast food or retail jobs. For those who stay, there is resentment. Candace Alston, 36, worked as a central sterile processing technician for ten years, at two different Virginia hospitals. While many others rotated through the basement, working a month or two before finding other jobs, Alston stayed. The gore got to her at first, Alston said, but she soon got used to it. “I enjoyed the work. I enjoyed the job,” she said. Alston finally quit her job in August to study business administration online. The problem was compensation, Alston said, which had increased to $12 an hour, up from $8.50 when she started a decade earlier. “It’s demanding. You have people’s lives in your hands,” she said. “We have a lot of responsibility but not the pay.”

Robert Tremblay, a 27-year-old tech at a Boston hospital, said the job is frantic, especially in decontamination, the first step of device reprocessing, which he likens to “cleaning the dishes before you put them in the dishwasher.” But cleaning medical instruments is much more complex and tedious, Tremblay said, requiring special brushes to remove blood, bone and tissue from the nooks, crevices and channels. Skip one step, and the device is dirty. Does it happen? “All the time,” Tremblay said. As Tremblay worked at the decontamination sink a few months ago, he cut his finger with a dirty dental pick, and had to be tested for HIV. Most central sterile workers have a similar story. Still Tremblay, who has a biology degree and is working toward a nursing degree, said jobs in the field are plentiful and it’s “better than working at Dunkin’ Donuts.”

If these secrets of central sterile processing are unknown to patients, they are equally mysterious to the doctors who use the equipment. Speaking at the FDA summit last summer, Dr. Daniel Schwartz, a chief medical officer at CMS, said that when he was in private urology practice, he assumed the tools he used were safe. Later, at CMS, Schwartz said he learned about “bio-burden, soil, design issues, and instruments that made it difficult to impossible to clean” and began to worry. “And my guess is most physicians would feel the same way if they heard some of the things that we're talking about today,” he said.

Central sterile techs play a key role in making sure clean devices make it to surgery suites, yet only New Jersey requires techs to be certified, despite a recent push by IAHCSMM and state organizations. “The people who do your nails, they have to take an infection control course before they can apply for a license,” said Mary Olivera, the director of sterilization at a New York City medical facility and past president of the New York State Association of Central Service Professionals. “Same with a dog groomer. Yet the people who deal with lifesaving equipment, they are required to have zero education.”

Earlier this month, New York State Assemblyman Harry Bronson (D-Rochester) and Sen. Mark Grisanti (R-Buffalo) introduced bills that would require professional certification for central sterile workers. Since 2007, Olivera and others have unsuccessfully pushed bills in the New York state legislature that would mandate licensure or certification. Jo Colacci, government affairs director at IAHCSMM, said hospital employee unions opposed previous bills proposing mandates.

FDA 'Safety Review' Reveals Problems, then Vanishes

The fact that arthroscopic shavers retain tissue between patients is no surprise to Danny Tipei, the owner of Inex Surgical, a large surgical repair company outside Chicago that repairs broken arthroscopic shavers for hospitals and surgical centers. Tipei said it’s common for his technicians to take apart a shaver and find it clogged with flesh or bone. “It looks like dried fruit, like skin from an apple that you leave for four or five days outside,” Tipei said. “It will be all dried out and twisted. We have tiny forceps that we use to remove it.”

At The Methodist Hospital, however, the infection outbreak and dirty shavers set off government alarms. Maureen Disbot, vice president of quality at Methodist, said the hospital brought in Stryker representatives and showed them how the device was retaining tissue, even after it was cleaned according to instructions. “We actually invited the manufacturer here when we started uncovering our findings, to make sure our interpretations are correct,” Disbot said. After consulting with Stryker, Disbot said the hospital was confident that it followed the manufacturer’s cleaning instructions. The problem, she said, was not the hospital’s cleaning method. Stryker declined to comment on Disbot’s account, but documents it filed in Harrison’s case say any damages resulted from acts or omissions by third parties.

After discovering the dirty instruments, Methodist informed the FDA, which in July of 2009 launched a safety review of arthroscopic shavers. But more than 2.5 years later, the FDA has done little to solve the problem, despite review findings that experts alternatively call “gross” and “scary.” According to FDA spokeswoman Karen Riley, the agency, as part of the safety review, asked arthroscopic shaver manufacturers to study how well their shavers were being cleaned at health care institutions. The FDA declined to make public what the manufacturers found, claiming the information is proprietary. But according to industry insider accounts, the findings showed serious potential for patient harm.

Nigel Wilkinson, senior vice president of regulatory affairs and quality at Massachusetts-based manufacturer Smith & Nephew, which manufactures shavers, presented his company’s findings at the FDA workshop this summer. Wilkinson said Smith & Nephew inspected 72 shavers at eight hospitals and surgery centers, and that all but three of the devices contained “residuals” after cleaning by hospital staff. Wilkinson said none of the technicians at the medical facilities followed the company’s 11-step instructions, which order imprecise tasks including “scrub interfaces several times using a twisting action if possible.” In a telephone interview, Wilkinson said the investigation showed that many technicians are not properly trained and do not have adequate access to manufacturer instructions. The company did not, however, investigate whether or not tissue remained even after technicians perfectly followed the company’s instructions. Asked if he thought the company’s shavers currently on the market are clean, he paused. “I would hope so,” he said. “But we’ve got thousands in the marketplace. I could not say what is going on with all of them.”

Azizi, at the University of Michigan Health System, said in addition to surgical suction tips, his team also inspected 15 arthroscopic shavers. He found biological material and other debris in all of them. Stryker declined to release the results of the arthroscopic shaver study it performed at the request of the FDA, but Rodney Parker, senior manager of clinical sciences at the firm, said the company’s results were similar to Smith and Nephew’s. Despite the Methodist case, Parker said he isn’t worried about the device being a major cause of infections, since it has been on the market for decades. Asked about the dirty devices manufacturers found during the FDA safety review, he said he didn’t know who is to blame. “Is it the cleaning that did it or is it the design that did it? I don’t know,” Parker said. “Can we do a better job at education? Yeah.”

Stryker spokeswoman Tamara Cutler declined to comment further on the issues of cleanliness with the company’s arthroscopic shavers, but forwarded this email message: “As a global medical device company, we work with many regulatory agencies, including the FDA, to ensure our products and practices meet all quality and safety standards.”

In October 2009, five months after the infection outbreak at Methodist, Stryker issued clarified cleaning instructions for their arthroscopic shavers. The process included ten steps, the final one recommending cleaning staff use a digital scope to visually inspect the insides of the handpiece. “If visible soil remains, repeat steps 1–9, focusing on areas that have soil remaining.”

Since the infections, Disbot said Methodist technicians inspect the interior of every shaver with a tiny video camera to make sure it is clean before it is used. “We regret that our patients had this experience,” Disbot said, “but we have done everything and we have now fixed the problem. That’s what we stand on.” But Disbot admits it’s questionable whether or not the lessons learned at a large academic hospital have trickled down to smaller hospitals. “I can’t say that a rural hospital in Michigan knows about Methodist’s work,” she said.

Despite the Methodist infections and the alarming FDA safety review findings, the agency has ordered no system-wide mandatory check of arthroscopic shavers. No products have been recalled. The FDA posted an alert on its website encouraging facilities that use the shavers to evaluate the adequacy of their cleaning procedures, and file a voluntary report to the agency if they find shavers retaining tissue between users. The agency said it has received no further reports of shavers retaining tissue. Manufacturers, including Stryker, also sent warnings to their customers. Asked why the agency has not done more in the face of evidence on dirty devices, Riley at the FDA said “these are important products that have been used for decades with little evidence of risk to public health as a result of reprocessing.” Further, Riley wrote that “in 2010, there were 2.1 million arthroscopic procedures of the knee performed and yet total adverse events from all causes was 1 percent. This does not merit withdrawal of a valuable device.”

Charles Hancock, the New York private sterilization consultant, claimed Riley’s numbers are meaningless. It’s well-known in the industry, Hancock said, that hospitals frown on staff reporting all but the most obvious and severe adverse events because it draws scrutiny. “No one disputes that,” Hancock. “Those numbers are irrelevant.” The true number, he said, is likely much higher. Workers in sterile processing units are also agree that dirty devices are a widespread problem. Asked if dirty devices are regularly making their way into surgical suites at some hospitals, Lesa Jackson, a supervisor of sterile processing at St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital in Houston, said she has no doubt. “Oh yes,” she said. “Yes. Yes.”

Riley at the FDA said the safety review of arthroscopic shavers has been folded into a larger effort to ensure that all medical devices are correctly reprocessed. So far, that effort has resulted in draft agency guidance released last summer suggesting manufactureres develop more robust reprocessing instructions appropriate for the real world hospital environment. The draft also suggests changes to pre-market device testing criteria. The draft guidance, if and when it becomes final (a FDA spokeswoman said it is unclear when the final rules will be released) will serve as a guide for device manufacturers as they seek FDA clearance for new devices. But the guidance, which the draft points out “does not establish legally enforceable responsibilities,” would have little or no effect on the thousands of devices already being used by surgeons, including the arthroscopic shaver used on John Harrison.

More than 2.5 years after his initial surgery, Harrison’s shoulder looks like it has been hit by shrapnel. He can’t scratch his head. He can’t cast a fishing lure. He may face additional surgeries to bring his range of motion back to what it was before he first went under the knife, a prospect he finds terrifying. Most of all, he regrets putting his wife, Laura, through the struggle. Harrison said he was delirious on that journey back to the hospital after his initial surgery. Laura drove and talked to him to keep him awake. He was “out of it” for much of the next year, and his caregiving fell to her. And it was Laura who first learned from doctors about just how much danger Harrison was in. Soon after his second surgery, Harrison wanted to leave the hospital and go home, and did not understand why he couldn’t. That’s when Laura told him what he was facing. “She says, ‘John, we’re not trying to make you better. We’re trying to save your life,’” Harrison recalls. “I took my IV with me, went into the bathroom, and had a good cry.”

Joe Eaton writes for iWatch News, a project of the Center for Public Integrity, from where this article is reprinted.

Source

Hepatitis C - Silent Killer - Graph

AP120220135

February 24, 2012 By Jeffrey Norris

(Click picture to enlarge)

hepc-f

(Medical Xpress) -- Hepatitis C virus — not AIDS-causing HIV — is the leading chronic virus infection leading to death in the United States, and its victims most often are baby boomers. More than half who are infected do not know it.

Researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found in a study published in the February 21 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine that hepatitis C had overtaken HIV as a cause of death in the United States by 2007.

Deaths in the United States due to HIV infection have been steadily decreasing, and dropped below 13,000 in 2007, while deaths from hepatitis C infection have been steadily increasing, first surpassing 15,000 per year in 2007.

The good news, according to UCSF liver specialist Alex Monto, MD, is that there has been progress in fighting both diseases, and the kinds of drug combination strategies that have done so much to transform HIV infection from a death sentence to a manageable disease are poised to further boost cure rates for those infected with hepatitis C.

“We know that not enough people with risk factors get tested,” Monto says. “There are a lot of people walking around with hepatitis C who don’t know it.”

Monto directs the liver clinic at the UCSF-affiliated San Francisco Veteran’s Affairs Medical Center, one of four hepatitis C centers nationally within the VA system. Like boomers, veterans are disproportionately affected by hepatitis C. The VA cares for 165,000 patients who are chronically infected with the virus.

Three Million in U.S. Diagnosed with Hep C

Chronic Hepatitis C has been diagnosed in about three million people in the United States. It often causes no symptoms, and many who have been infected for years or even decades may remain unaware of it until symptoms finally appear. The ultimate cause of death attributable to chronic infection is cirrhosis or liver cancer, although the disease progresses to cirrhosis in fewer than half of cases. There is no vaccine.

“The main risk factor in the United States is past injection-drug use,” Monto says. “The others most at risk are those who received blood transfusions before 1992,” Monto says, referring to the year when high-quality screening of the blood supply was implemented.

Compared to HIV or hepatitis B, the risk of hepatitis C being transmitted by sex is low, Monto says, but among men who have sex with men there has been an increase in reports of the virus being sexually transmitted, more so among those who are infected with HIV.

“Anybody with a history of ever being exposed to injection drugs or who received a transfusion before the blood supply was screened should be tested,” Monto says. “That’s not controversial at all. What has been controversial is whether or not all baby boomers should be screened.”

Another study in this week’s edition of the journal suggests that a one-time blood test ordered by primary care providers to screen for antibodies to hepatitis C in those born between 1945 and 1965 would be cost effective — costing $2,874 for each chronically infected patient identified — and would lead to the identification of more than 800,000 previously undiagnosed cases.

Those who are chronically infected may be able to reduce the likelihood of disease progression by avoiding alcohol, by maintaining a healthy weight, and by being vaccinated against hepatitis A and hepatitis B, Monto says.

Treatment Often Cures Hepatitis C

About four out of five who are infected do not rid themselves of the virus without treatment. For about a decade the standard treatment was a combination of two drugs — pegylated interferon given once per week by subcutaneous injection, and daily ribavirin pills, with treatment lasting from six to 11 months. This treatment represented a vast improvement — offering cure rates of 40 percent to 50 percent in most patients, according to Monto.

Within the past year two new drugs of a type known as protease inhibitors have become available. These are valuable for the 75 percent of U.S. hepatitis C patients infected with a form of the virus called genotype 1. With the protease inhibitors added to the mix, the duration of treatment may be shorter, and the cure rate has increased to about 70 percent in patients who have not previously been treated, Monto says. A cure may be less likely for those who have been previously treated, depending on how they responded to earlier treatment.

“New therapies are clearly getting better, and there are probably 25 to 30 new drugs in the pipeline, with many coming out in the next few years,” Monto says. “There are going to be drugs that are better than the ones we have so far.” Several UCSF researchers, including Monto, are helping to evaluate new drugs in clinical trials. UCSF researchers also are investigating the role of the immune system in hepatitis C and hepatitis B infection.

Not to Be Confused with Hepatitis B

Hepatitis B chronically infects about half as many as hepatitis C in the United States, and hits those of Asian descent especially hard — they account for half of hepatitis B infections. Hepatitis B is responsible for about 1,800 deaths yearly in the United States.

Despite the similar names, the two viruses are not closely related. Hepatitis B is spread much more easily through sexual intercourse, and passes from mother to newborn child much more easily. In most adults who become infected the immune system successfully controls infection. Only about five percent of adults exposed to hepatitis B become chronically infected, according to Monto.

There are vaccines for hepatitis B. A UCSF laboratory team led by William Rutter, PhD, now professor emeritus, first demonstrated that an uncontaminated source of material for a hepatitis B vaccine could be obtained by mass-producing viral proteins in genetically engineered, laboratory-grown yeast. This was the groundwork leading to the first marketed genetically engineered vaccine, made by Chiron, a company co-founded by Rutter.

Provided by University of California, San Francisco (news : web)

Source

logo_prweb

Clinical trials conducted by Burman's Specialty Pharmacy found Incivek and Victrelis to hold much more promise than the previous regimen did of treating Hepatitis C, according to research exclusively shared with Atlantic Information Services's Specialty Pharmacy News.

Washington, DC (PRWEB) February 24, 2012

One specialty pharmacy’s real-world data for two drugs approved in 2011 for the treatment of hepatitis C support clinical trials data showing that the new therapies hold much more promise than the previous regimen did of clearing the virus, Atlantic Information Services's Specialty Pharmacy News has learned. The drugs, Incivek and Victrelis, also could cut the current 48-week treatment time down to 24 weeks for certain patients if they achieve an early viral response. With patients who were among the first to be dosed recently hitting the 24-week mark in their regimens, Burman’s Specialty Pharmacy has shared exclusive data with Specialty Pharmacy News on what it has seen so far among about 700 people it has treated with Merck & Co., Inc.’s Victrelis and Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Incivek.

Within the patient population naïve to previous hepatitis C treatment, 66% on Victrelis achieved an early viral response. Similarly, among a sample of 77 patients taking Incivek, 75% of the naïve patients were eligible for response-guided therapy, a percentage that is “actually a little bit better than controlled studies,” Steve Burman, CEO of Burman’s Medical Supplies and Specialty Pharmacy and president of Burman’s Pharmacy said. He pointed to an earlier study that showed each patient in which an early viral response is identified “can save the health system a minimum of $16,200 via shortened duration of treatment.”

Other data findings included:

  • 91% of prior relapsers taking Incivek were eligible for response-guided therapy, which is “pretty much what’s expected,” according to Burman.
  • There were no “problems with patient compliance on Victrelis,” which “was an industry concern because it’s a complicated regimen,” Burman told Specialty Pharmacy News.
  • As far as side effects of the drugs, “we have slightly more anemia with Victrelis, which was expected,” Burman said. Ultimately, though, his specialty pharmacy has seen “a little more anemia but not as many side effects with Victrelis.”

To read the story in its entirety, visit http://aishealth.com/sites/all/files/marketplace_pdf_samples/spn0212.pdf.

Specialty Pharmacy News is a monthly newsletter packed with 12 pages of business news and management strategies for containing costs and improving outcomes related to high-cost specialty products. Designed for health plans, specialty pharmacies, PBMs, pharma companies, providers and employers, the hard-hitting newsletter contains valuable insights into benefit design tactics, specialty markets for certain conditions, formulary decisions, merger and acquisition activity, payer-provider partnerships, patient adherence strategies, and new products.

Specialty Pharmacy News is written by an editorial team with extensive experience in pharma/health care business publishing — led by Managing Editor Angela Maas, who has been with AIS since 2005, and has decades of experience editing, reporting and writing for trade and consumer publications. Angela also is the managing editor of AIS’s Web and email news content.

For more information on Specialty Pharmacy News visit http://aishealth.com/spn.

About AIS
AIS develops highly targeted news, data and strategies for managers in hospitals, health plans, medical group practices, pharmaceutical companies and other health care organizations. Learn more at http://www.AISHealth.com.

###

Source

Prospect of ‘personalised’ anti-viral therapy

research42-221x300

February 24, 2012 By Gary Culliton

In his latest Clinical Update, Gary Culliton looks at recent developments in the treatment of the hepatitis C virus and advances made possible by new protease inhibitor therapies.

Hepatitis C virus infection is a disease that will be “cracked” in the long term, believes Dr Stephen Stewart, Consultant Hepatologist at the Centre for Liver Disease at Dublin’s Mater Hospital. “It’s perfectly reasonable to expect that hepatitis C will be eradicated in 10 years’ time,” Dr Stewart said.

Though hard-to-treat patients continue to pose a challenge, a new era of personalised anti-viral therapy is coming. Non-interferon based drugs are now having very high sustained virological responses. Among the questions that will be asked are whether the patient has symptoms from hepatitis C, is it causing harm (will the patient die of something else before the virus ever causes harm) and what is the likely response to treatment.

The difficult-to-treat genotype has been genotype 1 HCV. With pegylated interferon and ribavirin, ‘cure’ rates of 50 per cent were being achieved. Guidelines can predict a likelihood of response to standard therapy and indicate when triple therapy might be used.

Certain things will determine likelihood of response to pegylated interferon. These include the height of the viral load, the degree of scarring in the liver, the age of the patient and the virus genotype. The Liver Centre in the Mater seeks to identify a polymorphism in the IL 28b gene, which very strongly determines response to interferon.

There are a variety of different tests.

Pegylated interferon and ribavirin have been the standard of care until very recently. This therapy stimulates the immune system to help clear hepatitis C. Interferon stimulates a variety of different genes to produce antiviral compounds and to boost the host immune response against the virus. The aim is to prompt the body to produce its own compounds. There are approximately 500 genes that are switched on by interferon. Not all of them are fully understood. These would help the patient to fight hepatitis C. People with very advanced disease cannot easily be treated as there is conflict in the liver in patients on interferon, between the host and the virus.

Sustained virologic response (SVR) is the target. SVR has been dramatically improved in treatment-naïve and re-treated patients, Dr Stewart said.

Up to now, genotype 1 HCV patients who failed on pegylated interferon and ribavirin would not have continued with the therapy. Trials have been conducted on boceprevir and telaprevir.

Four particularly difficult-to-treat patients at the Mater have received telaprevir under a named patient programme. In two Phase III studies, the addition of boceprevir to peginterferon alfa-2b and ribavirin (PR) significantly improved sustained virologic response (SVR). A recent study (Bruce R Bacon et al, NEJM 2011) found that the addition of boceprevir to peginterferon–ribavirin resulted in significantly higher rates of sustained virologic response in previously-treated patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection, as compared with peginterferon–ribavirin alone.

The HCV RESPOND-2 and HCV SPRINT-2 studies each evaluated two treatment strategies to potentially shorten overall treatment duration compared to the use of PR alone for 48 weeks, which is the current standard duration of therapy. These protease inhibitors are directly-acting antiviral agents.

The virus is prevented from breaking into its components and reorganising into the complete viral article. These agents act on the virus, rather than the host. Triple therapy — including these agents with pegylated interferon and ribavirin — increases average response from about 50 per cent to around 80 per cent in treatment-naïve patients. These are also effective agents in people who have been treated with pegylated interferon and ribavirin and who have failed therapy. Given a choice between a year on interferon involving a likely response of 50 per cent or six months on interferon with boceprevir or telaprevir involving an 80 per cent chance of cure, few hepatologists would argue against triple therapy on clinical grounds, Dr Stewart said.

There will be a debate about the cost and to whom the therapy should be given, however. Patients will go through the full course of treatment if the end result is that they are hepatitis C negative, Dr Stewart said. The “number one aim” is to increase the percentage of patients who are cured, he said. Secondary aims would include reducing the period of treatment.

The body produces interferon when faced with viral infections. Treatment with it can be accompanied by flu-like symptoms, which can be severe in some cases. Interferon treatment can cost €50,000 per year.

Guidance on when and whether there will be reimbursement is awaited. Some hepatitis C cases are mild: these patients may never die of hepatitis C and it may be judged more cost-effective not to treat it.

Internationally, researchers are trying to develop algorithms that help to determine the likelihood of a good response with standard therapy.

Efforts to prevent the HCV from ‘subverting the immune system’

One of the problems with treatment of hepatitis C is that some of the viral genotypes are easier to treat than others. “Patients with genotype 1 HCV are generally less receptive to interferon treatment than genotype 2 or 3 HCV,” said Dr Aideen Long of the Institute of Molecular Medicine at St James’s Hospital in Dublin.

Hepatitis C therapy is principally confined to ribavirin and interferon. The virus is able to block the body’s own mechanism for making interferon itself. The virus has a protease that can interfere with the pathway that leads to the production of endogenous interferon. Protease inhibitors are emerging that target the virus’s protease.

There are a number of ways in which the virus can nullify the immune system. Dr Long’s group found that the hepatitis C virus has a way of targeting the adaptive or T cell part of the immune system. “We’ve found the virus stops T cells from the IL2 cytokine — effectively the T cell growth factor,” said Dr Long. This is important in driving proliferation of T cells. The ‘envelope protein’ of the virus binds to the T cell, causing an enzyme called protein kinase C beta to be sequestered in a part of the cell where it cannot work. It is thus not able to regulate the secretion of IL2 — for which it is required. The secretory pathway is blocked.

liver-disease-300x193

Dr Long’s group is attempting to indentify the signal that is delivered into the cell when the virus binds CD 81, a putative receptor for the hepatitis C virus

Dr Long’s group is attempting to indentify the signal that is delivered into the cell when the virus binds CD 81, a putative receptor for the hepatitis C virus. The key will be to discover how the signal the virus is delivering is getting into the cell — making the protein kinase C beta.

If this mechanism can be worked out, it can be blocked. Methods to block the interaction of the virus with CD81 are also being considered.

The hepatitis C virus is subverting the body’s own immune system. If this mechanism can be blocked, the body’s immune system can work.

Studying pathogen mechanisms for new therapies

By establishing the mechanisms that allow pathogens to evade the immune system, new targets for therapy can be devised, said Prof Cliona O’Farrelly, Professor of Comparative Immunology in the School of Biochemistry and Immunology at TCD.

Initial hepatitis C infection is asymptomatic or mild in over 90 per cent of cases. Most studies have shown that 60-85 per cent of hepatitis C-infected people develop chronic infection. A proportion of people with chronic infection develop progressive liver fibrosis, which may lead to cirrhosis, end-stage liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Hepatitis C is transmitted primarily through exposure to contaminated blood or blood products, most commonly through contaminated needles and syringes. With the advent of routine blood screening for hepatitis C antibodies, transfusion-related hepatitis C has almost disappeared. At present, injecting drug use is the most common risk factor.

research21-300x199

Recent research suggests that between 20,000 and 50,000 people in the country have the hepatitis C virus — a hidden iceberg of eventual liver disease and health problems

Recent research suggests that between 20,000 and 50,000 people in the country have the hepatitis C virus — a hidden iceberg of eventual liver disease and health problems. Even if only a proportion of these develop malignancy, liver failure and need transplantation, it will still be a significant number and have a major impact on the health service. However progress is being made across the research world, including at the Trinity Biomedical Sciences building, where research centres on immunology and pathogen evasion of the immune response.

The protease inhibitors telaprevir and boceprevir work best when given with ribavirin and alpha interferon, as a triple therapy. There have been five big studies. The protease inhibitors increase the response to ribavirin and alpha interferon up to perhaps 80 per cent. “There is huge excitement in the whole hepatology and HCV world,” Dr O’Farrelly said. “It’s the first really serious breakthrough since the virus was described back in 1987.”

Some 20 per cent of people still do not respond to therapy. A proportion of patients with chronic HCV infection will go on to develop severe liver disease. A small number develop malignancies and some will require transplantation.

Putting a patient on treatment, if their disease is going to be mild, is not ideal. A significant proportion of patients have relatively mild symptoms. The IL 28 SNP does identify chronicity; it does not identify the subgroup of chronic patients who will progress quickly.

Interferon stimulates the immune system and activates immune genes. It used to be thought that ribavirin worked by blocking HCV replication. This is not the case. It is in fact a nucleotide analogue. Dr O’Farrelly’s group at St James’s has recently produced a paper showing that ribavirin amplifies the alpha interferon response and increases its effect.

There are problems with combined ribavirin and interferon therapy. It is expensive and is associated with significant side-effects. Not everybody gets the same side-effects and there is no way of predicting which people will get the side-effects.

There are six different genotypes of HCV. Genotype 1 HCV is among the most common in Ireland. About 50 per cent of people with this genotype do not respond. This is probably because of the mechanism by which the virus evades the alpha interferon response.

There are additional side-effects with telaprevir. Treatment for anaemia might have to be considered.

Quite a few people die with hepatitis C, rather than of it. They might not need the triple therapy. “It must be really awful to go for treatment, fail the treatment and then find you didn’t need it,” said Dr O’Farrelly.

Her group is looking for predictive biomarkers and algorithms for patients who will respond. Collaborations are in progress with a number of hepatologists. A large study is now being assembled of patients who have been treated and who are going on treatment in Ireland.
Publication within 12 months is expected.

Source