ISP https://isp.paradoxmp.com Mon, 04 Dec 2023 10:05:12 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6 https://isp.paradoxmp.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/cropped-Untitled-32x32.png ISP https://isp.paradoxmp.com 32 32 Dexamethasone and Surgical-Site Infection https://isp.paradoxmp.com/dexamethasone-and-surgical-site-infection/ https://isp.paradoxmp.com/dexamethasone-and-surgical-site-infection/#respond Fri, 15 Sep 2023 07:15:09 +0000 https://isp.paradoxmp.com/?p=5922 Reading Time: 14 minutes ]]> Reading Time: 14 minutes

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The glucocorticoid dexamethasone prevents nausea and vomiting after surgery, but there is concern that it may increase the risk of surgical-site infection.

METHODS

In this pragmatic, international, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned 8880 adult patients who were undergoing nonurgent, noncardiac surgery of at least 2 hours’ duration, with a skin incision length longer than 5 cm and a postoperative overnight hospital stay, to receive 8 mg of intravenous dexamethasone or matching placebo while under anesthesia. Randomization was stratified according to diabetes status and trial center. The primary outcome was surgical-site infection within 30 days after surgery. The prespecified noninferiority margin was 2.0 percentage points.

RESULTS

A total of 8725 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat population (4372 in the dexamethasone group and 4353 in the placebo group), of whom 13.2% (576 in the dexamethasone group and 572 in the placebo group) had diabetes mellitus. Of the 8678 patients included in the primary analysis, surgical-site infection occurred in 8.1% (354 of 4350 patients) assigned to dexamethasone and in 9.1% (394 of 4328) assigned to placebo (risk difference adjusted for diabetes status, −0.9 percentage points; 95.6% confidence interval [CI], −2.1 to 0.3; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The results for superficial, deep, and organ-space surgical-site infections and in patients with diabetes were similar to those of the primary analysis. Postoperative nausea and vomiting in the first 24 hours after surgery occurred in 42.2% of patients in the dexamethasone group and in 53.9% in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.82). Hyperglycemic events in patients without diabetes occurred in 22 of 3787 (0.6%) in the dexamethasone group and in 6 of 3776 (0.2%) in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexamethasone was noninferior to placebo with respect to the incidence of surgical-site infection within 30 days after nonurgent, noncardiac surgery. (Funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and others; PADDI Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12614001226695

 

Postoperative nausea and vomiting are major challenges in perioperative care and occur in 25 to 30% of all patients who undergo surgery and in up to 80% of patients in high-risk populations.1 Dexamethasone is an inexpensive, effective, long-acting agent for the prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting1,2 and is administered to more than 50% of patients who undergo surgery with general anesthesia.3 However, the drug has rapid and extensive effects on immune function.4,5 Therefore, there has been concern that dexamethasone may increase the risk of postoperative infection, particularly in vulnerable populations such as patients with diabetes.6-8 Surgical-site infections are common complications after surgery and are associated with increased mortality and excess health expenditure,9 estimated at $10 billion annually in the United States.10 We conducted the Perioperative Administration of Dexamethasone and Infection (PADDI) trial to assess the effects of dexamethasone on the risk of surgical-site infections in adults undergoing nonurgent, noncardiac surgery.

Methods

TRIAL DESIGN

In this pragmatic, international, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, triple-blind (patient, anesthesiologist, and assessor), noninferiority trial, patients were assigned to receive 8 mg of intravenous dexamethasone or matching placebo after induction of general anesthesia and before surgical incision. The rationale and design of the trial have been reported previously.11 The trial and the protocol (available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org) were approved by the institutional review board at each participating site.

PATIENT SELECTION AND RANDOMIZATION

Eligible adult patients had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification of I to IV (on a scale of I to VI, with higher classes indicating more severe systemic disease) and were undergoing elective or expedited nonurgent, noncardiac surgery with general anesthesia and an expected operative duration of at least 2 hours as well as an expected postoperative hospital stay of at least 1 night. Patients were excluded if they were undergoing surgery that was time critical, that involved an expected total incision length of 5 cm or shorter, that was associated with a primary infection (e.g., infection related to a prosthesis), or that required the use of intraoperative dexamethasone. Patients were also excluded if they had poorly controlled diabetes mellitus (defined as a glycated hemoglobin level of >9.0%). Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by means of a Web-based service to receive dexamethasone or placebo in random permuted blocks of size 6 and 12, stratified according to trial center and a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus.

TRIAL PROCEDURES

Dexamethasone or placebo (supplied in a 2-ml vial and labeled with a randomization letter) was administered as an intravenous bolus within 5 minutes after induction of anesthesia by the attending anesthesiologist. All other aspects of patient care (including prophylactic antibiotic agents, management of blood glucose levels, and medication for patients with diabetes) followed local protocols and established guidelines. Nontrial glucocorticoids were prohibited for up to 30 days after the index surgical procedure.

The primary outcome was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat, per-protocol, and as-treated populations. The primary analysis was performed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which excluded patients who did not undergo eligible surgery (i.e., surgery with a total incision length of >5 cm when the patient was under general anesthesia), who withdrew consent or whose clinician withdrew the patient from the trial, who could not receive dexamethasone or placebo because they were not available at the center, or who met other exclusion criteria. The per-protocol population included the same criteria as those for the modified intention-to-treat population and further excluded patients who did not receive dexamethasone or placebo or who received open-label dexamethasone (or other glucocorticoid) either intraoperatively or within 30 days postoperatively. All secondary and tertiary outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population only.

BLINDING, DATA QUALITY, AND SAFETY

The members of the clinical end-point committee, who were unaware of trial-group assignments, adjudicated all primary-outcome events. A list of committee members and details regarding the monitoring of data quality and site audits are provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available at NEJM.org. Two interim analyses were conducted (after 3379 and 5380 patients had been enrolled) by the independent data and safety monitoring committee, and the trial proceeded to completion.

ETHICS, GOVERNANCE, AND FUNDING

Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Alfred Health oversaw the trial. The members of the steering committee designed the trial, gathered and analyzed the data, and vouch for the accuracy and completeness of the data and adherence of the trial to the protocol. The writing committee wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and the authors, some of whom were members of the steering committee, prepared the manuscript and made the decision to submit it for publication. There was no commercial involvement in the trial. The statistical analysis plan is available with the protocol at NEJM.org.

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome was the occurrence of a surgical-site infection within 30 days after surgery, determined according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definitions, which comprise three categories: superficial incisional, deep incisional, and organ-space infection (Tables S1 and S2 in the Supplementary Appendix).12 Secondary outcomes included superficial, deep, and organ-space infections within 30 days after surgery, assessed separately; deep and organ-space infections within 90 days after surgery in patients who had insertion of prosthetic material, considered separately; other infections (including urinary tract infections, pneumonia, catheter-related infections, and sepsis) within 30 days after the index procedure; the quality of recovery (as assessed with the use of the 15-item quality-of-recovery [QoR-15] scale, with scores ranging from 0 to 150 and higher scores indicating better quality of recovery) on days 1 and 3013; chronic postsurgical pain at 6 months after surgery; and death or persistent new-onset disability within 6 months after surgery.14 Details regarding tertiary outcomes, adverse events, and safety outcomes (including myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, and other serious adverse events) are provided in the Supplementary Appendix.

Patients were followed in the postanesthesia care unit, on the first 3 postoperative days, at hospital discharge, and at 30 days and 6 months after surgery. Active postoperative surveillance of surgical-site infection involved several processes. A wound assessment was performed on day 3 if the patient was still hospitalized. On day 30 and at 6 months, patients completed a telephone interview for wound assessment, and their medical records were reviewed to identify the occurrence of trial outcomes. Research staff members collated source documentation to enable outcome adjudication. Scores on the QoR-15 scale were assessed on days 1 and 30.13 Details regarding the outcome adjudication process and assessments (including additional assessments of pain and disability that are not included in this article) are provided in the Supplementary Appendix.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

A noninferiority margin of 2.0 percentage points was determined with the assistance of clinical experts and was set on the basis of a modified Delphi process and an anticipated incidence of surgical-site infection of 9%.15 With an expected incidence of infection of 9% in each group, we determined that 4303 patients per group would be needed to give the trial 90% power to detect noninferiority of dexamethasone; noninferiority would be concluded if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in infection rates was less than 2.0 percentage points. As prespecified in the trial protocol, two interim analyses were planned — when one third and two thirds of the total number of patients had been enrolled. The analyses would use two-sided repeated asymmetric confidence intervals to preserve an overall confidence level of 95% and would use the O’Brien–Fleming function to determine the upper boundary of the confidence intervals and the power-spending function for the lower boundaries. The 90% power using these confidence intervals was confirmed by means of numerical simulation. Target recruitment was set at 8880 patients to account for a 3% loss to follow-up. An overall 5% significance level was used, and no correction for multiple testing was applied, apart from adjustment for the multiplicity of interim analyses for the primary outcome.

The absolute difference in 30-day infection rates was estimated with the use of binomial regression with an identity-link function, with adjustment for diabetes status; a risk ratio was also calculated using a logarithmic-link function. The analyses used 95.6% asymmetric confidence intervals based on the actual timing of the two interim analyses and spending functions. Noninferiority P values were calculated as one-sided, based on a null hypothesis of inferiority, with a significance level of 2.37% to account for the interim analyses.16 Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for missing data by imputing outcomes under “worst–best” and “best–worst” case scenarios (Table S10).17

Comparisons between groups for secondary and tertiary outcomes were estimated as risk ratios (for binary outcomes), differences in medians (for continuous outcomes), and hazard ratios (for time-to-event outcomes). Information regarding all statistical analyses is provided in the statistical analysis plan.

Planned subgroup analyses for the primary outcome were assessed with the use of regression models with terms for the interactions between the subgroup and randomized group and between the subgroup and diabetes status. Results are reported with 95.6% confidence intervals for each subgroup, accounting for the interim analyses. The subgroups were defined on the basis of diabetes status, sex, risk of infection, age quintile, and country of enrollment. Exploratory analyses in additional prespecified subgroups were body-mass index, ASA physical status classification, wound classification (clean or contaminated), smoking status, average intraoperative fraction of inspired oxygen during anesthesia (quintile), and duration of surgery (quintile).

Results

PATIENT ENROLLMENT AND FOLLOW-UP

Recruitment began on March 10, 2016; the last patient underwent randomization on July 29, 2019, and the final follow-up was completed on February 26, 2020. Of the 26,909 patients who met eligibility requirements, 8880 agreed to participate and underwent randomization. A total of 4444 patients were assigned to receive dexamethasone and 4436 to receive placebo. Of these patients, 8725 (98.3%) met the criteria for inclusion in the modified intention-to-treat population (4372 in the dexamethasone group and 4353 in the placebo group) (Figure 1). Of these 8725 patients, 1148 (13.2%) had diabetes mellitus, and 1116 (97.2%) had type 2 diabetes (Table 1).

The median number of patients per site was 98 (range, 2 to 937). The list of sites and details of their recruitment are provided in Table S3. In the modified intention-to-treat population, 30-day data were available for 8678 of 8725 patients (99.5%). There were no clinically important differences in baseline or intraoperative characteristics between the two groups (Table 1 and Tables S4 through S8). Of the patients in the modified intention-to-treat population with 30-day data, 276 of 4350 patients (6.3%) in the dexamethasone group and 286 of 4328 (6.6%) in the placebo group had protocol deviations (Figure 1).

PRIMARY OUTCOME

In the modified intention-to-treat population, surgical-site infection within 30 days after surgery occurred in 354 of 4350 patients (8.1%) in the dexamethasone group and in 394 of 4328 (9.1%) in the placebo group (risk difference adjusted for diabetes status, −0.9 percentage points; 95.6% confidence interval [CI], −2.1 to 0.3), a result consistent with noninferiority (risk ratio, 0.89; 95.6% CI, 0.77 to 1.03; P<0.001 for noninferiority) (Table 2). The results of the primary analysis were consistent with noninferiority in the per-protocol population (risk difference, −0.9 percentage points; 95.6% CI, −2.1 to 0.3; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and in the as-treated population (risk difference, 0.04 percentage points; 95.6% CI, −1.2 to 1.2; P=0.001 for noninferiority) (Figs. S1 and S2). These results differed minimally in sensitivity analyses with imputation for missing data and after adjustment for trial site (Tables S10 and S11).

The effect of dexamethasone on the incidence of surgical-site infection was consistent across all prespecified subgroups (Figure 2). Noninferiority of dexamethasone to placebo was shown in patients with or without diabetes (risk difference in patients with diabetes, −2.9 percentage points [95.6% CI, −6.9 to 1.0]; risk difference in patients without diabetes, −0.7 percentage points [95.6% CI, −2.0 to 0.6]). There was also no compelling evidence of heterogeneity according to the presence or absence of diabetes or according to other subgroups in the per-protocol or as-treated populations (Figs. S1 and S2).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Secondary outcomes are shown in Table 2. The incidences of superficial, deep, or organ-space infections assessed individually were similar in the two groups. The incidence of deep or organ-space surgical-site infections within 90 days after surgery in patients with implanted prosthetic material was also similar in the two groups, when considered separately or together. Sepsis that had occurred by the day of discharge was observed in 0.9% of patients in the dexamethasone group and in 1.5% of patients in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.87). The median QoR-15 scores on day 1 were 109 and 104, respectively (median difference, 5.0 points; 95% CI, 3.8 to 6.2). Chronic postsurgical pain at 6 months after surgery was observed in 8.7% of patients in the dexamethasone group and in 7.1% in the placebo group (risk ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.42).

TERTIARY AND SAFETY OUTCOMES

The results for the tertiary outcomes are presented in Table S9. Nausea and vomiting in the first 24 hours after surgery occurred in 42.2% of patients in the dexamethasone group and in 53.9% in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.82). Safety outcomes and adverse events are reported in Table S13. Hyperglycemic events in patients without diabetes occurred in 22 of 3787 (0.6%) in the dexamethasone group and in 6 of 3776 (0.2%) in the placebo group. The median difference in blood glucose level between the preoperative blood glucose value and the maximum value recorded up to postoperative day 2 was 3.6 mmol per liter (interquartile range, 2.5 to 4.9 [65 mg per deciliter; interquartile range, 45 to 88]) and 2.4 mmol per liter (interquartile range, 1.4 to 3.6 [43 mg per deciliter; interquartile range, 25 to 65]), respectively. Insulin treatment in patients without diabetes was administered to 19 patients (0.5%) in the dexamethasone group and 4 (0.1%) in the placebo group.

Discussion

In this large, pragmatic, noninferiority trial involving patients undergoing nonurgent, noncardiac surgery of 2 hours or more in duration while the patients were under general anesthesia and involving an overnight hospital stay of at least 1 day, a single 8-mg dose of dexamethasone was found to be noninferior to placebo with respect to the primary outcome of surgical-site infection within 30 days after surgery. This finding was consistent across all prespecified subgroups, including patients with or without diabetes mellitus, and held true for the individual subtypes of surgical-site infections.

Long-term glucocorticoid therapy is associated with an increased risk of surgical-site infection and wound dehiscence.18-19 There has therefore been concern that a single intraoperative dose of dexamethasone could influence the risk of surgical-site infections because it has a biologic half-life of up to 72 hours20 and leads to innate immune-cell gene expression and activation effects.5 Previous trials have not shown an increase in the risk of infection associated with the use of dexamethasone.21-23 These trials either used multiple doses of dexamethasone and examined composite end points23 or administered a single intraoperative dose that was smaller than that used in our trial.21 Some trials also excluded patients with diabetes mellitus22 or did not examine the risk of surgical-site infection as the primary outcome.21-23 We assessed a single 8-mg dose of dexamethasone because this dose is commonly used in practice and has additional analgesic benefits over the 4-mg dose when used as an antiemetic.1,3

The percentage of patients with surgical-site infection at 30 days in this trial involving patients undergoing noncardiac surgery was 8.1% in the dexamethasone group and 9.1% in the placebo group. These results are consistent with the findings in a placebo-controlled, randomized trial that assessed the effects of a larger dose of dexamethasone in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. In that trial, the incidence of wound infection appeared to be similar in the two groups; however, the overall risk of all postoperative infections was lower in the dexamethasone group than in the placebo group.24 Our observation that the results in the subgroup of patients with diabetes mellitus were similar to those of the primary analysis is reassuring, since patients with diabetes are at a higher risk for complications related to infection and for hyperglycemia, and there is therefore reluctance to use dexamethasone in patients with diabetes.3,7 The percentage of patients with diabetes in this trial (13.2%) was at the lower end of previous reports in patients who had undergone noncardiac surgery (14 to 19%).25,26 This may be because of the lower prevalence of diabetes in our population than in the predominantly North American populations in previous trials.27

Limitations of our trial warrant attention. Nonadherence to the assigned treatment may bias the analyses in the modified intention-to-treat population toward noninferiority. However, nonadherence was low and was similar in the two groups (6.3% in the dexamethasone group and 6.6% in the placebo group). Nonadherence was largely explained by the administration of supplemental nontrial glucocorticoids in the postoperative period, which underscores the common use of postoperative glucocorticoids in practice for wound-related issues such as ongoing pain or swelling. The analyses in the per-protocol and as-treated populations similarly supported the noninferiority of dexamethasone, although these results do not represent comparisons of trial groups according to randomized assignment. In addition, in this pragmatic trial, we did not collect data on perioperative factors that might influence the risk of surgical-site infection, such as subtypes of gastrointestinal surgery, the types of preoperative bowel and skin preparation, or wound treatment and details of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (drug class and duration of treatment). In a trial of this size, however, we would expect these factors to be evenly distributed between the groups. It is possible that the postoperative surveillance may have missed some mild infections among patients who did not return for further treatment, but we would expect such events to have been uncommon and unlikely to have altered our findings.

We found no evidence of differences between the groups in the prespecified safety outcomes. Higher differences in the blood glucose level between the preoperative blood glucose value and the maximum value in the dexamethasone group and a higher incidence of hyperglycemic events and insulin use in patients without diabetes are expected consequences of treatment with dexamethasone. The apparent increase in the incidence of new-onset chronic postsurgical pain is an unexpected finding that has not been identified in previous studies.28 We did not adjust for multiplicity, and this finding may be explained by chance. Future analyses will further assess pain and disability outcomes. Tertiary analyses supported reductions in the risk of nausea and the use of antiemetics in the first 24 hours after surgery associated with dexamethasone, a finding consistent with previous reports.1-3,22

In patients undergoing nonurgent, noncardiac surgery involving general anesthesia, a single 8-mg intraoperative dose of dexamethasone was noninferior to placebo with respect to the risk of surgical-site infection within 30 days after surgery.

Supported by a grant (APP1079501) from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), a grant (GRF 14101816) from the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong, and Monash University. Dr. Corcoran was supported by a Health Department of Western Australia Raine Foundation Clinical Practitioner Fellowship, Dr. Myles by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1135937), and Dr. Cheng by an NHMRC Career Development Fellowship.

Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available at NEJM.org.

data sharing statement provided by the authors is available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.

We thank Jaspreet Sidhu for managing the trial; Adam Meehan for data management, construction of the Web-based electronic database, and provision of the Web-based randomization service; Karen Goulding for assistance and advice regarding graphic representation and the provision of support services for the data and safety monitoring committee; Chris Frampton, Mark Williams, and all members of the committees overseeing the trial; and the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists Clinical Trials Network.

Author Affiliations

From Royal Perth Hospital (T.B.C., P.C., K.M.H.), the University of Western Australia (T.B.C., E.O., K.M.H.), Murdoch University (K.M.H.), and Fiona Stanley Hospital (E.O.), Perth, and the Alfred Hospital (P.S.M., A.C.C., L.A.B.), Monash University (T.B.C., P.S.M., A.B.F., A.C.C., L.A.B., K.L., C.M.), the University of Melbourne (K.L., D.S.), and Royal Melbourne Hospital (K.L.), Melbourne, VIC — all in Australia; the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong (M.T.V.C.); and Auckland City Hospital and the University of Auckland — both in Auckland, New Zealand (T.G.S.).

Address reprint requests to Dr. Corcoran at the Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine, Royal Perth Hospital, Wellington St., Perth, WA 6000, Australia, or at .

Participating centers and investigators in the PADDI trial are listed in the Supplementary Appendix, available at NEJM.org.

]]>
https://isp.paradoxmp.com/dexamethasone-and-surgical-site-infection/feed/ 0
Dexamethasone https://isp.paradoxmp.com/dexamethasone/ https://isp.paradoxmp.com/dexamethasone/#respond Fri, 15 Sep 2023 07:10:55 +0000 https://isp.paradoxmp.com/?p=5918 Reading Time: 10 minutes ]]> Reading Time: 10 minutes

Continuing Education Activity

Dexamethasone has a wide variety of uses in the medical field. As a treatment, dexamethasone has been useful in treating acute exacerbation of multiple sclerosis, allergies, cerebral edema, inflammation, and shock. Patients with COVID-19, asthma, atopic and contact dermatitis, and drug hypersensitivity reactions have benefited from dexamethasone. Clinicians use it as a diagnostic agent for Cushing disease. This activity will highlight the mechanism of action, adverse event profile, FDA-approved, and off-label uses, administration, dosing, contraindications, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, monitoring parameters, and relevant interactions of dexamethasone, pertinent for interprofessional team members using dexamethasone for any of its intended indications.

Objectives:

  • Outline the various indications of dexamethasone.
  • Summarize the mechanism of action of dexamethasone.
  • Describe the contraindications of dexamethasone.
  • Review the importance of improving care coordination among interprofessional team members to improve outcomes for patients where dexamethasone can play a role in diagnosis or treatment.

Indications

Dexamethasone has a wide variety of uses in the medical field. As a treatment, dexamethasone has been useful in treating acute exacerbations of multiple sclerosis, allergies, cerebral edema, inflammation, and shock. Patients with conditions such as asthma, atopic and contact dermatitis, and drug hypersensitivity reactions have benefited from dexamethasone.[1] In endocrinology, dexamethasone has been found useful as a test for Cushing syndrome.[2]

Off-label indications are as follows. Dexamethasone is useful in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. It is also used in the prevention and treatment of altitude sickness. It has also seen use in the treatment of spinal cord compression due to metastases in oncological cases.[3]

Dexamethasone is recommended for severely ill patients with COVID-19 who are on supplemental oxygen or ventilatory support; however, clinicians should not use it to manage patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.[4]

Mechanism of Action

Dexamethasone is a potent glucocorticoid with very little, if any, mineralocorticoid activity.[5] Dexamethasone’s effect on the body occurs in a variety of ways. It works by suppressing the migration of neutrophils and decreasing lymphocyte colony proliferation. The capillary membrane becomes less permeable, as well. Lysosomal membranes have increased stability. There are higher concentrations of vitamin A compounds in the serum, prostaglandin, and some cytokines (interleukin-1, interleukin-12, interleukin-18, tumor necrosis factor, interferon-gamma, and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor) become inhibited. Increased surfactant levels and improved pulmonary circulation have also been shown with dexamethasone. Dexamethasone is metabolized by the liver and excreted in the urine mainly.

COVID-19 produces a hyperinflammatory state. Hence therapeutic effectiveness of dexamethasone is likely due to the broad anti-inflammatory activities of glucocorticoids.[6] In a clinical trial of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those receiving either mechanical ventilation or oxygen.[7]

Pharmacokinetics: According to the manufacturer’s labeling, the pharmacokinetics of oral dexamethasone is dose-proportional between the dose range of 0.5 to 40 mg.

Absorption: Dexamethasone median time to peak concentrations (Tmax) is 1 hour (range: 0.5 to 4 hours). A high-fat, high-calorie diet decreased C max by 23% of a single 20 mg dose of dexamethasone.
Distribution: Dexamethasone is about 77% bound to human plasma proteins in vitro.
Elimination: The mean terminal half-life of dexamethasone is 4 hours (18%), and oral clearance is 15.7 L/hr following a single dose of dexamethasone.
Metabolism: Dexamethasone is metabolized by CYP3A4.
Excretion: Renal excretion of dexamethasone is less than 10% of total body clearance. Less than 10% of dexamethasone is excreted in the urine.

Administration

Dexamethasone is available in various formulations. It is available in strengths ranging from 0.5 mg to 6 mg as a tablet. Other administration forms are an injectable suspension or an oral solution.

  • Oral tablets: 0.5 mg, 0.75 mg, 1 mg, 1.5 mg, 2 mg, 4 mg, 6 mg
  • Oral elixir or solution: 0.5 mg/5 mL
  • Oral concentrate: Dexamethasone Intensol: 1 mg/mL ( contains alcohol)
  • Injection dexamethasone sodium phosphate: 4 mg/mL, 20 mg/5 mL, 120 mg/30 mL, 10 mg/mL, 100 mg/10 mL

Adult Dosing

  • In treating inflammation, it is advisable to start with low doses of 0.75 mg/day, which may be titrated to 9 mg/day, with dosing divided into 2 to 4 doses throughout the day, which applies to intravenous, intramuscular, and oral administrations. Less may be used when directly administered to the lesion or tissue with dosing ranging from 0.2 to 6 mg per day.
  • For acute multiple sclerosis exacerbations, 30 mg oral daily doses for seven days are recommended, followed by one month of 4 to 12 mg daily doses.
  • As cerebral edema may be a life-threatening condition, aggressive treatment is necessary. The recommendation is for 10 mg of intravenous dexamethasone, followed by 4 mg of intramuscular administration given every 6 hours. In this instance, it is necessary to titrate down over seven days to discontinue dexamethasone therapy.
  • The regimen is 1 to 6 mg/kg of intravenous dexamethasone as a one-time bolus in treating circulatory shock. The clinician may substitute this regimen with 40 mg given intravenously every 2 to 6 hours. Treatment with high-dose dexamethasone is not recommended beyond 2 to 3 days.
  • Research has shown that allergic reactions improve with a 6-day regiment beginning with 4 to 8 mg intramuscular injection on the first day. This dose is followed by oral doses on days 2 to 6, beginning with 1.5 mg every 12 hours for days 2 and 3, 0.75 mg every 12 hours for the third day, and finally 0.75 mg daily for days 5 and 6. Therefore, the patient should be appropriately titrated by day 7 with no dosing necessary on day 7.
  • Patients with COVID-19 (severe COVID-19): 6 mg once daily for ten days.
  • Cushing syndrome test begins with a low dose test. There are two versions of this test: the standard two-day and the overnight tests.

    • A 0.5 mg oral dose of dexamethasone is given every 6 hours for two days with the standard test. Six hours after giving the final dose, serum cortisol levels are measured. The overnight test begins with a 1 mg oral dose of dexamethasone at 11:00 PM with a second 1 mg oral dose at midnight. The following morning, serum cortisol levels are tested between 8:00 AM and 9:00 AM. The test is interpreted positive screening for Cushing syndrome if the final cortisol reading is high, signaling that the more specific confirmative high dose dexamethasone suppression test should follow.
    • The high-dose dexamethasone suppression test has three forms: the standard 2-day, overnight, and intravenous (IV). With all three versions of the test, baseline serum cortisol levels need to be determined before commencing with the test. Baseline serum is measurable with a 24-hour urinary free cortisol test. The standard 2-day test uses 2 mg of oral dexamethasone given every 6 hours for two days. During the 2-day exam, urine is collected and tested for free cortisol, and 6 hours after the final dose of dexamethasone, blood is drawn to measure the serum cortisol level. The overnight test begins with an 8 mg oral dose of dexamethasone at 11:00 PM. The following morning between 8:00 AM, and 9:00 AM, serum cortisol is measured. The IV test is the shortest of the tests. The patient receives one milligram of dexamethasone via continuous intravenous infusion hourly for 7 hours. Serum cortisol is measured at the end of 7 hours.

     

Use in Specific Population

Patients with Hepatic Impairment

No dosage adjustments are provided in the manufacturer’s labeling.

Patients with Renal Impairment

The effect of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics of dexamethasone has not been studied.

Pregnancy Considerations

Corticosteroids, including dexamethasone, readily cross the placenta. Adverse developmental consequences, including orofacial clefts (cleft lip with or without cleft palate), and intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), have been documented using corticosteroids during pregnancy. In animal studies, the administration of corticosteroids to pregnant animals during organogenesis resulted in structural abnormalities, embryo-fetal mortality, and growth alteration. Advise pregnant women of dexamethasone’s potential risk to a fetus. Dexamethasone is administered with anti-myeloma products that can cause embryo-fetal harm and are contraindicated for use in pregnancy. Human Data suggests that dexamethasone should be used during pregnancy only if the potential benefit justifies the potential risk to the fetus. Multiple courses of antenatal dexamethasone had been associated with reduced birth weight, susceptibility to infections, and increased blood glucose levels in newborns. Neonatal hypoglycemia was also reported. Also, infants should be carefully observed for signs of hypoadrenalism with in-utero exposure to substantial doses of corticosteroids via maternal administration.

Breastfeeding Considerations

Systemically administered corticosteroids appear in human milk and interfere with endogenous corticosteroid production, suppressing growth. Therefore, instruct women not to breastfeed during treatment two weeks after the last dose. Dexamethasone can decrease basal serum prolactin and thyrotropin-releasing hormone-stimulated serum prolactin increase in nonnursing women.[13]

Adverse Effects

Although dexamethasone is generally well tolerated, it does have its drawbacks as a medication. The most frequently reported adverse effect by patients is the presence of insomnia after use. Other frequent adverse effects include acne, indigestion, fluid retention, electrolyte imbalances, weight gain, increased appetite, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, acne, agitation, and depression. There have been reports of adrenal suppression, arrhythmias, spermatogenic changes, glaucoma, hypokalemia, pulmonary edema, pseudotumor cerebri, and increased intracranial pressure.[14]

Steroid-induced osteonecrosis of the femoral head(long-term treatment).[15]

Hepatotoxicity: Likelihood score: A (well-established cause of liver injury when given in high doses, due to reactivation of hepatitis-B or a hepatocellular injury after high dose treatment.[16]

Contraindications

Dexamethasone use is contraindicated if patients have systemic fungal infections, hypersensitivity to dexamethasone, or cerebral malaria. Another contraindicated is to administer live or live-attenuated vaccines during dexamethasone use. The immune system will be suppressed, placing the patient at risk of infection. It is still permissible to administer killed or inactivated vaccines. However, it bears mentioning that corticosteroids may attenuate immune response, and it is unpredictable if immunity develops.[17]

In patients with cirrhosis, diverticulitis, myasthenia gravis, renal insufficiency, or ulcerative diseases such as peptic ulcer disease or ulcerative colitis, it is important to use caution when prescribing dexamethasone.

Recommendations include using dexamethasone cautiously during pregnancy as there is an increased risk of oral cleft formations.

Clinical experience has shown that large doses can increase blood pressure. In patients with recent myocardial infarction, it is advised to caution as an increase in free wall rupture of the left ventricle has been reported using dexamethasone.

Suppression of the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA axis) occurs with use, and therefore the rapid withdrawal of dexamethasone is not recommended. It is important to gradually increase and decrease any corticosteroid due to its effect on the HPA axis.

Latent diseases such as fungal (candida, cryptococcus, pneumocystis), parasitic (toxoplasmosis, amebiasis, strongyloides), and bacterial (mycobacterium, nocardia) infections may become active due to suppression of the immune system.[18]

Steroid use may inhibit bone formation and may lead to the formation of osteoporosis. Therefore, caution is necessary when prescribing dexamethasone to populations at higher risk for osteoporosis.[19]

Monitoring

  • Serum electrolytes levels, blood pressure
  • Serum glucose levels, HbA1c
  • Periodic eye examination (long term dexamethasone increases the risk of cataracts and glaucoma)
  • Bone mineral density scans
  • Creatine kinase levels (long term use of glucocorticoids such as dexamethasone predisposes to myopathy; weakness is primarily proximal)

Toxicity

According to the manufacturer’s labeling information, the oral LD50 of dexamethasone in female mice is 6.5 g/kg. The intravenous formulation of dexamethasone has LD50 of 794 mg/kg in female mice. In the case of overdosage, no specific antidote is available. Therefore, treatment is supportive and symptomatic.

Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes

Dexamethasone is widely prescribed by all clinicians (MD, DO, NP, and PA). However, it is essential to know that this potent steroid has many adverse effects and requires critical patient monitoring. In general, clinicians should avoid long-term prescriptions, and the drug is tapered quickly if the patient is improving. If chronic use is warranted, the clinician must educate the patient about the potential side effects of the steroid. Pharmacists should assist with medication reconciliation, explain the potential risks associated with long-term steroid therapy, and report any concerns to clinicians. In addition, nurses must monitor the patient for mood changes, development of osteoporosis, weight gain, hyperglycemia, electrolyte changes, and depression. Open communication among all health care team members will enhance patient outcomes and improve patient safety using dexamethasone. [Level 5]

References

1.Corssmit EPM, Dekkers OM. Screening in adrenal tumors. Curr Opin Oncol. 2019 May;31(3):243-246. [PubMed]
2.Bano G, Mir F, Beharry N, Wilson P, Hodgson S, Schey S. A Novel Medical Treatment of Cushing’s Due to Ectopic ACTH in a Patient With Neurofibromatosis Type 1. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Winter;11(1):52-6. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
3.Teachey DT, Pui CH. Comparative features and outcomes between paediatric T-cell and B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Mar;20(3):e142-e154. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
4.Agarwal A, Rochwerg B, Lamontagne F, Siemieniuk RA, Agoritsas T, Askie L, Lytvyn L, Leo YS, Macdonald H, Zeng L, Amin W, Barragan FAJ, Bausch FJ, Burhan E, Calfee CS, Cecconi M, Chanda D, Dat VQ, De Sutter A, Du B, Freedman S, Geduld H, Gee P, Gotte M, Harley N, Hashimi M, Hunt B, Jehan F, Kabra SK, Kanda S, Kim YJ, Kissoon N, Krishna S, Kuppalli K, Kwizera A, Lado Castro-Rial M, Lisboa T, Lodha R, Mahaka I, Manai H, Mino G, Nsutebu E, Preller J, Pshenichnaya N, Qadir N, Relan P, Sabzwari S, Sarin R, Shankar-Hari M, Sharland M, Shen Y, Ranganathan SS, Souza JP, Stegemann M, Swanstrom R, Ugarte S, Uyeki T, Venkatapuram S, Vuyiseka D, Wijewickrama A, Tran L, Zeraatkar D, Bartoszko JJ, Ge L, Brignardello-Petersen R, Owen A, Guyatt G, Diaz J, Kawano-Dourado L, Jacobs M, Vandvik PO. A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19. BMJ. 2020 Sep 04;370:m3379. [PubMed]
5.Brinks J, van Dijk EHC, Habeeb M, Nikolaou A, Tsonaka R, Peters HAB, Sips HCM, van de Merbel AF, de Jong EK, Notenboom RGE, Kielbasa SM, van der Maarel SM, Quax PHA, Meijer OC, Boon CJF. The Effect of Corticosteroids on Human Choroidal Endothelial Cells: A Model to Study Central Serous Chorioretinopathy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2018 Nov 01;59(13):5682-5692. [PubMed]
6.Sharma A. Inferring molecular mechanisms of dexamethasone therapy in severe COVID-19 from existing transcriptomic data. Gene. 2021 Jul 01;788:145665. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
7.RECOVERY Collaborative Group. Horby P, Lim WS, Emberson JR, Mafham M, Bell JL, Linsell L, Staplin N, Brightling C, Ustianowski A, Elmahi E, Prudon B, Green C, Felton T, Chadwick D, Rege K, Fegan C, Chappell LC, Faust SN, Jaki T, Jeffery K, Montgomery A, Rowan K, Juszczak E, Baillie JK, Haynes R, Landray MJ. Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 25;384(8):693-704. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
8.Eckhard L, Jones T, Collins JE, Shrestha S, Fitz W. Increased postoperative dexamethasone and gabapentin reduces opioid consumption after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 Jul;27(7):2167-2172. [PubMed]
9.Matheson EC, Thomas H, Case M, Blair H, Jackson RK, Masic D, Veal G, Halsey C, Newell DR, Vormoor J, Irving JAE. Glucocorticoids and selumetinib are highly synergistic in RAS pathway-mutated childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia through upregulation of BIM. Haematologica. 2019 Sep;104(9):1804-1811. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
10.Orton S, Censani M. Iatrogenic Cushing’s Syndrome Due to Intranasal Usage of Ophthalmic Dexamethasone: A Case Report. Pediatrics. 2016 May;137(5) [PubMed]
11.Bhimraj A, Morgan RL, Shumaker AH, Lavergne V, Baden L, Cheng VC, Edwards KM, Gandhi R, Muller WJ, O’Horo JC, Shoham S, Murad MH, Mustafa RA, Sultan S, Falck-Ytter Y. Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients with COVID-19. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Apr 27; [PMC free article] [PubMed]
12.Monreal JA, Duval F, Mokrani MC, Fattah S, Palao D. Differences in multihormonal responses to the dopamine agonist apomorphine between unipolar and bipolar depressed patients. J Psychiatr Res. 2019 May;112:18-22. [PubMed]
13.Drugs and Lactation Database (LactMed) [Internet]. National Library of Medicine (US); Bethesda (MD): 2006. Dexamethasone. [PubMed]
14.Polderman JAW, Farhang-Razi V, van Dieren S, Kranke P, DeVries JH, Hollmann MW, Preckel B, Hermanides J. Adverse side-effects of dexamethasone in surgical patients – an abridged Cochrane systematic review. Anaesthesia. 2019 Jul;74(7):929-939. [PubMed]
15.Wu X, Sun W, Tan M. Noncoding RNAs in Steroid-Induced Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head. Biomed Res Int. 2019;2019:8140595. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
16.LiverTox: Clinical and Research Information on Drug-Induced Liver Injury [Internet]. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Bethesda (MD): May 7, 2021. Corticosteroids. [PubMed]
17.Kolias AG, Edlmann E, Thelin EP, Bulters D, Holton P, Suttner N, Owusu-Agyemang K, Al-Tamimi YZ, Gatt D, Thomson S, Anderson IA, Richards O, Whitfield P, Gherle M, Caldwell K, Davis-Wilkie C, Tarantino S, Barton G, Marcus HJ, Chari A, Brennan P, Belli A, Bond S, Turner C, Whitehead L, Wilkinson I, Hutchinson PJ., British Neurosurgical Trainee Research Collaborative (BNTRC) and Dex-CSDH Trial Collaborators. Dexamethasone for adult patients with a symptomatic chronic subdural haematoma (Dex-CSDH) trial: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2018 Dec 04;19(1):670. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
18.Sun W, Wang D, Yu C, Huang X, Li X, Sun S. Strong synergism of dexamethasone in combination with fluconazole against resistant Candida albicans mediated by inhibiting drug efflux and reducing virulence. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2017 Sep;50(3):399-405. [PubMed]
19.Briot K, Roux C. Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. RMD Open. 2015;1(1):e000014. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
20.Tamez-Pérez HE, Quintanilla-Flores DL, Rodríguez-Gutiérrez R, González-González JG, Tamez-Peña AL. Steroid hyperglycemia: Prevalence, early detection and therapeutic recommendations: A narrative review. World J Diabetes. 2015 Jul 25;6(8):1073-81. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
21.Mohan R, Muralidharan AR. Steroid induced glaucoma and cataract. Indian J Ophthalmol. 1989 Jan-Mar;37(1):13-6. [PubMed]
22.Blake GM, Fogelman I. Bone densitometry, steroids and osteoporosis. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2002 Nov;11(6):641-7. [PubMed]
23.Gupta A, Gupta Y. Glucocorticoid-induced myopathy: Pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Indian J Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Sep;17(5):913-6. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

]]>
https://isp.paradoxmp.com/dexamethasone/feed/ 0
A daily dose of aspirin raises the risk of falls among older people https://isp.paradoxmp.com/a-daily-dose-of-aspirin-raises-the-risk-of-falls-among-older-people/ https://isp.paradoxmp.com/a-daily-dose-of-aspirin-raises-the-risk-of-falls-among-older-people/#respond Fri, 15 Sep 2023 07:02:07 +0000 https://isp.paradoxmp.com/?p=5914 Reading Time: 2 minutes ]]> Reading Time: 2 minutes

In a trial of more than 16,000 people over 70, those who took a low-dose of aspirin every day were just under 10 per cent more likely to have a fall that required hospital care than those on placebo

People who are older than 70 may be more likely to have a serious fall if they take a low dose of aspirin every day, in a finding that may support more cautious prescribing when issuing the drug to those at risk of heart attacks and strokes.

Aspirin’s blood-thinning properties mean it is often prescribed to ward off cardiovascular complications. Research also suggests the drug may somewhat slow cognitive decline and strengthen bones, a combination that would theoretically lead to fewer serious falls.

But results from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial contradict that idea, with the most recent findings pointing towards an increase in severe falls when older people take a low dose of aspirin every day.

For an average of 4.6 years, Anna Barker at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, and her colleagues followed 16,703 white Australian people, aged 70 or over, who were described as being “relatively healthy”.

Half of the participants were assigned 100 milligrams of aspirin – a dose that is commonly prescribed to older people for the long term – to take once a day. The remainder had a placebo. Some of the participants took medication for other conditions, with this drug use being balanced between the aspirin and placebo groups.

During the study period, more than 1400 of the participants had at least one fall that required hospital care, says Barker.

People in the aspirin group were just under 10 per cent more likely to have such a fall, compared with those not taking aspirin. A statistical analysis suggests this wasn’t a chance finding.

There was no significant difference in fracture risk between the two­­ groups. It is unclear whether the same results apply to people of non-white ethnicities

“We need to weigh up the risks and benefits with every medication that we add into the regime for an older person, and definitely – in terms of primary prevention without indication of cardiovascular or stroke risk – we’d need to be very dubious about prescribing aspirin, knowing the increased risks that it brings with relation to serious falls,” says Barker.

This is a high-quality study that addresses an important question around the potential of regularly taking low-dose aspirin to reduce falls and fractures, says Jennifer Burns at the British Geriatrics Society. About half of people over 80 fall at least once a year, so understanding risk factors is critical, she says.

The increase in serious falls in the aspirin group may be related to the drug’s anticoagulant effect, says Burns. People who fall while taking aspirin may have considerable bleeding or bruising, prompting emergency care. Bleeding and bruising weren’t assessed in the study.

Exercises to improve balance and fitness may more effectively reduce falls as people age, says Burns.

Journal reference: JAMA Internal Medicine, DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.5028

]]>
https://isp.paradoxmp.com/a-daily-dose-of-aspirin-raises-the-risk-of-falls-among-older-people/feed/ 0
Opinion: An Alternative to Injection https://isp.paradoxmp.com/opinion-an-alternative-to-injection/ https://isp.paradoxmp.com/opinion-an-alternative-to-injection/#respond Fri, 15 Sep 2023 06:47:23 +0000 https://isp.paradoxmp.com/?p=5905 Reading Time: 3 minutes ]]> Reading Time: 3 minutes
Research on microneedle patches for vaccine delivery has grown in popularity in recent years, due to their exceptional compliance and low invasiveness.

Over the past 18 months, the world has been amazed at how fast scientists can develop vaccine candidates against COVID-19. The majority of these vaccinations are administered via hypodermic injection, which allows the vaccine’s ingredients to be swiftly assimilated into the bloodstream. However, some require multiple doses, and most must be kept at controlled, often super-cold temperatures until they can be administered by trained personnel, creating major logistical challenges.

Several researchers, including ourselves, are working on a technology that aims to provide the advantages of injectable vaccines without the drawbacks—and without the traditional needle stick: microneedles. While the technology still has a long road to the clinic, having entered human trials less than 10 years ago, we believe this it is the future of vaccine delivery, and the ongoing pandemic has highlighted the need to accelerate its development.

Basically, an array of tiny needles measuring just hundreds of microns is attached to a backing, permitting bandage-like application. Drugs can be encapsulated within water-soluble microneedles that dissolve when the patch is placed on the skin, allowing the drug to be released. Importantly, the microneedles pierce the outermost layer of tissue to allow greater absorption of the drugs compared to creams or other kinds of medical patches such as nicotine patches, but they do not penetrate deep enough to stimulate pain receptors. The patch can be self-administered and is as easy and painless as taking a pill.

The patch has its limitations. Being such a small medical device, for example, the maximum drug dose is less than 1 mg. But for treatments that do not require a high dosage, including vaccines (both antigen-based ones and nanoparticle ones, such as those used for mRNA vaccines against COVID-19), hormones, and drugs with elevated potency, microneedles are ideal. In addition to being user friendly, microneedles could elicit a more robust immunological response.

Conventional vaccine injection bypasses the skin’s immune system and introduces the antigen into the muscle or subcutaneous tissue, thereby inducing a systemic immune response. Yet, the skin, our biggest organ, also has a superb immunogenicity capacity due to the presence of many antigen-presenting cells. By delivering antigens there, microneedles could capitalize on this local response to boost the protection provided by vaccines. Indeed, animal studies suggest that microneedles elicit higher antibody production and better cellular response.

Water-soluble microneedles dissolve in the skin to release an encapsulated drug.

&nbsp

COURTESY OF CARMINE D’AMICO

Moreover, because microneedles are a dry formulation, they allow drugs to maintain their activity even without storing them at the low temperatures required of many injectable vaccines. For example, one study has shown that a vaccine for influenza can be stable for six months at 25 °C and at least a few weeks at 40 °C if incorporated into microneedles. This is critical for ensuring vaccinations reach far-flung corners of the world that do not have the resources to maintain the cold chain.

Another issue is vaccine wastage. For example, in some cases only a portion of the dose is used before a vaccine expires. It can also happen that healthcare personnel decide not to vaccinate a patient when there are not enough patients to use the whole vial. According to estimates, the wastage rates for 10-dose vials may be as high as 25 percent for liquid vaccines and 40 percent for freeze-dried vaccines. With microneedle patches, there is no wasted drug. And there are no needles that require special disposal procedures.

There are plenty of hurdles yet to be overcome. We need further clinical studies in human volunteers to demonstrate safety and efficacy of this vaccine approach, and the scale-up of production is still in its infancy. On a lab scale, usually we fill molds with the polymer solutions via vacuum or centrifugation. Once dried, the final formulation is demolded and secured to a backing. This is tedious and not practical for mass production.

Additionally, the majority of vaccinations are sterilized by filtering, which is not feasible for solid microneedle patches. While the solution may be sterilized before being placed in the molds, the final product will also need to undergo sterilization by some alternative technique not yet developed.

The recent pandemic and the possibility of others is a wake-up call to focus on these challenges. In the last year and a half, several institutions and biotech companies announced preclinical studies for a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine utilizing microneedle patches. Big pharmaceutical companies will certainly step up and invest more over the coming years in microneedle-based products. Injections have been used for centuries, but the necessity for a worldwide immunization effort is a persuasive reason to try to move forward.

]]>
https://isp.paradoxmp.com/opinion-an-alternative-to-injection/feed/ 0