Immunogenicity, Safety, and Efficacy of a Standalone Universal Influenza Vaccine, FLU-v, in Healthy Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 172, No 7

Background: FLU-v is a broad-spectrum influenza vaccine that induces antibodies and cell-mediated immunity. Objective: To compare the safety, immunogenicity, and exploratory efficacy of different formulations and dosing regimens of FLU-v versus placebo. Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-center phase 2b clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02962908; EudraCT: 2015-001932-38) Setting: The Netherlands. Participants: 175 healthy adults aged 18 to 60 years. Intervention: 0.5-mL subcutaneous injection of 500 µg of adjuvanted (1 dose) or nonadjuvanted (2 doses) FLU-v (A-FLU-v or NA-FLU-v) or adjuvanted or nonadjuvanted placebo (A-placebo or NA-placebo) (2:2:1:1 ratio). Measurements: Vaccine-specific cellular responses at days 0, 42, and 180 were assessed via flow cytometry and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Solicited information on adverse events (AEs) was collected for 21 days after vaccination. Unsolicited information on AEs was collected throughout the study. Results: The AEs with the highest incidence were mild to moderate injection site reactions. The difference between A-FLU-v and A-placebo in the median fold increase in secreted interferon-γ (IFN-γ) was 38.2-fold (95% CI, 4.7- to 69.7-fold; P = 0.001) at day 42 and 25.0-fold (CI, 5.7- to 50.9-fold; P < 0.001) at day 180. The differences between A-FLU-v and A-placebo in median fold increase at day 42 were 4.5-fold (CI, 2.3- to 9.8-fold; P < 0.001) for IFN-γ–producing CD4+ T cells, 4.9-fold (CI, 1.3- to 40.0-fold; P < 0.001) for tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), 7.0-fold (CI, 3.5- to 18.0-fold; P < 0.001) for interleukin-2 (IL-2), and 1.7-fold (CI, 0.1- to 4.0-fold; P = 0.004) for CD107a. At day 180, differences were 2.1-fold (CI, 0.0- to 6.0-fold; P = 0.030) for IFN-γ and 5.7-fold (CI, 2.0- to 15.0-fold; P < 0.001) for IL-2, with no difference for TNF-α or CD107a. No differences were seen between NA-FLU-v and NA-placebo. Limitation: The study was not powered to evaluate vaccine efficacy against influenza infection. Conclusion: Adjuvanted FLU-v is immunogenic and merits phase 3 development to explore efficacy. Primary Funding Source: SEEK and the European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, European Member States within the UNISEC (Universal Influenza Vaccines Secured) project.

Assessment and Management of Patients at Risk for Suicide: Synopsis of the 2019 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guidelines

Description: In May 2019, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) approved an update to the 2013 joint clinical practice guideline for assessing and managing patients who are at risk for suicide. This guideline provides health care providers with a framework by which to screen for, evaluate, treat, and manage the individual needs and preferences of VA and DoD patients who may be at risk for suicide. Methods: In January 2018, the VA/DoD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group convened to develop a joint VA/DoD guideline including clinical stakeholders and conforming to the National Academy of Medicine's tenets for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. The guideline panel drafted key questions, systematically searched and evaluated the literature through April 2018, created algorithms, and advanced 22 recommendations in accordance with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. Recommendations: This synopsis, which includes 3 clinical practice algorithms, summarizes the key recommendations of the guideline related to screening and evaluation, risk management and treatment, and other management methods. Risk management and treatment recommendations address both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic approaches for patients with suicidal ideation and behavior. Other management methods address lethal means safety (such as restricting access to firearms, poisons, and medications and installing barriers to prevent jumping from lethal heights) and population health strategies.

Use of Antibiotics Without a Prescription in the U.S. Population: A Scoping Review: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 171, No 4

Background: Use of antibiotics without a prescription may increase unnecessary and inappropriate drug use or doses as well as global risk for antimicrobial resistance. Purpose: To perform a scoping review of research on the prevalence of nonprescription antibiotic use in the United States and to examine the factors that influence it. Data Sources: Searches of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and relevant Web sites without language restrictions from January 2000 to March 2019. Study Selection: Studies reporting nonprescription use of antibiotics, storage of antibiotics, intention to use antibiotics without a prescription, and factors influencing nonprescription use. Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently screened citations and full texts and performed data abstraction. Data Synthesis: Of 17 422 screened articles, 31 met inclusion criteria. Depending on population characteristics, prevalence of nonprescription antibiotic use varied from 1% to 66%, storage of antibiotics for future use varied from 14% to 48%, and prevalence of intention to use antibiotics without a prescription was 25%. Antibiotics were obtained without a prescription from various sources, including previously prescribed courses, local markets or stores, and family or friends. Reported factors contributing to nonprescription use included easy access through markets or stores that obtain antibiotics internationally for under-the-counter sales, difficulty accessing the health care system, costs of physician visits, long waiting periods in clinics, and transportation problems. Limitation: Scarce evidence and heterogeneous methods and outcomes. Conclusion: Nonprescription antibiotic use is a seemingly prevalent and understudied public health problem in the United States. An increased understanding of risk factors and pathways that are amenable to intervention is essential to decrease this unsafe practice. Primary Funding Source: None.

Self-management of Epilepsy: A Systematic Review: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 171, No 2

Background: Although self-management is recommended for persons with epilepsy, its optimal strategies and effects are uncertain. Purpose: To evaluate the components and efficacy of self-management interventions in the treatment of epilepsy in community-dwelling persons. Data Sources: English-language searches of MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and CINAHL in April 2018; the MEDLINE search was updated in March 2019. Study Selection: Randomized and nonrandomized comparative studies of self-management interventions for adults with epilepsy. Data Extraction: An investigator assessed study characteristics; intervention details, including 6 components of self-management; and outcomes, which were verified by a second reviewer. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed independently by 2 investigators. Data Synthesis: 13 randomized and 2 nonrandomized studies (2514 patients) evaluated self-management interventions. Interventions were delivered primarily in group settings, used a median of 4 components, and followed 2 general strategies: 1 based on education and the other on psychosocial therapy. Education-based approaches improved self-management behaviors (standardized mean difference, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.0 to 1.04]), and psychosocial therapy–based approaches improved quality of life (mean difference, 6.64 [CI, 2.51 to 10.77]). Overall, self-management interventions did not reduce seizure rates, but 1 educational intervention decreased a composite of seizures, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations. Limitation: High ROB in most studies, incomplete intervention descriptions, and studies limited to English-language publications. Conclusion: There is limited evidence that self-management strategies modestly improve some patient outcomes that are important to persons with epilepsy. Overall, self-management research in epilepsy is limited by the range of interventions tested, the small number of studies using self-monitoring technology, and uncertainty about components and strategies associated with benefit. Primary Funding Source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (PROSPERO: CRD42018098604)

Lost Evidence From Registered Large Long-Unpublished Randomized Controlled Trials: A Survey

Are We There Yet? Another Milepost in the Journey to Identify Appropriate Candidates for Aspirin Primary Prevention

Ethics, Transparency, and Public Health at the Intersection of Innovation and Facebook's Suicide Prevention Efforts

Would You Refer This Patient With Cancer to a Palliative Care Specialist?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 170, No 7

In 2016, the American Society of Clinical Oncology published a guideline recommending that all patients with advanced cancer be referred to palliative care providers. This recommendation was based on a series of trials showing that palliative care, when added to standard oncology treatment, improves outcomes, including quality of life. Here, 2 oncologists, 1 of whom is also a palliative care specialist, debate the guideline and discuss how best to care for a 71-year-old woman with metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma who has a short life expectancy but feels well and has no symptoms related to her cancer or chemotherapy.

Menopausal Estrogen-Alone Therapy and Health Outcomes in Women With and Without Bilateral Oophorectomy: A Randomized Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 171, No 6

Background: Whether health outcomes of menopausal estrogen therapy differ between women with and without bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) is unknown. Objective: To examine estrogen therapy outcomes by BSO status, with additional stratification by 10-year age groups. Design: Subgroup analyses of the randomized Women's Health Initiative Estrogen-Alone Trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00000611) Setting: 40 U.S. clinical centers. Participants: 9939 women aged 50 to 79 years with prior hysterectomy and known oophorectomy status. Intervention: Conjugated equine estrogens (CEE) (0.625 mg/d) or placebo for a median of 7.2 years. Measurements: Incidence of coronary heart disease and invasive breast cancer (the trial's 2 primary end points), all-cause mortality, and a “global index” (these end points plus stroke, pulmonary embolism, colorectal cancer, and hip fracture) during the intervention phase and 18-year cumulative follow-up. Results: The effects of CEE alone did not differ significantly according to BSO status. However, age modified the effect of CEE in women with prior BSO. During the intervention phase, CEE was significantly associated with a net adverse effect (hazard ratio for global index, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.09 to 1.86]) in older women (aged ≥70 years), but the global index was not elevated in younger women (P trend by age = 0.016). During cumulative follow-up, women aged 50 to 59 years with BSO had a treatment-associated reduction in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.68 [CI, 0.48 to 0.96]), whereas older women with BSO had no reduction (P trend by age = 0.034). There was no significant association between CEE and outcomes among women with conserved ovaries, regardless of age. Limitations: The timing of CEE in relation to BSO varied; several comparisons were made without adjustment for multiple testing. Conclusion: The effects of CEE did not differ by BSO status in the overall cohort, but some findings varied by age. Among women with prior BSO, in those aged 70 years or older, CEE led to adverse effects during the treatment period, whereas women randomly assigned to CEE before age 60 seemed to derive mortality benefit over the long term. Primary Funding Source: The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Wyeth Ayerst donated the study drugs.

Assuring Gender Safety and Equity in Health Care: The Time for Action Is Now