This website is intended for healthcare professionals only.
Take a look at a selection of our recent media coverage:
29th July 2019
26th July 2019
25th July 2019
Australian researchers have successfully completed a trial on a vaccine designed to eliminate the risk of a severe allergic reaction to European honeybee stings.
The clinical trial at Flinders University and the Royal Adelaide Hospital included 27 adults with a history of allergic reactions to bee stings.
The vaccine used in the trial contained a unique sugar-based ingredient called an adjuvant, developed in Australia, which is designed to help the body neutralise the bee venom at a faster rate.
Professor Nikolai Petrovsky says the adjuvant used to enhance the bee sting vaccines has now been successfully given to over a thousand individuals across a range of different vaccines including in the current bee sting allergy trial.
“Our technology is like adding a turbocharger to a car and in this case makes the bee allergy vaccine much more powerful, allowing the immune system to better neutralise the bee venom and prevent allergic symptoms,” says Professor Petrovsky.
Associate Professor Robert Heddle, lead investigator in the trial, says the aim was to see if the Advax adjuvant would safely speed up and improve bee sting immunotherapy.
“The results of the study were very promising and confirmed the safety of this approach to improving bee sting immunotherapy.”
Dr Anthony Smith, an investigator in the trial, says while a commercial bee venom therapy is already available, it requires patients to have over 50 injections over a 3 year period to build up their immune system.
“The current treatment option for serious bee venom allergies is lengthy and cumbersome, so I hope this enhanced bee venom therapy brings about faster, but longer lasting protection to bee stings for allergic individuals.”
Reference
Heddle R et al. Randomized controlled trial demonstrating the benefits of delta inulin adjuvanted immunotherapy in patients with bee venom allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2019;DOI:10.1016/j.jaci.2019.03.035
A simple finger-prick blood test could help prevent unnecessary prescribing of antibiotics for people with COPD, according to a new study by researchers from Cardiff University, University of Oxford and King’s College London.
With funding from the National Institute for Health Research, the team demonstrated that using a CRP finger-prick blood test resulted in 20% fewer people using antibiotics for COPD flare-ups.
Importantly, this reduction in antibiotic use did not have a negative effect on patients’ recovery over the first two weeks after their consultation at their GP surgery, or on their well-being or use of health care services over the following six months.
Safely reducing the use of antibiotics in this way may help in the battle against antibiotic resistance.
More than a million people in the UK have COPD, which is a lung condition associated with smoking and other environmental pollutants. People living with the condition often experience exacerbations, or flare-ups, and when this happens, three out of four are prescribed antibiotics. However, two -thirds of these flare-ups are not caused by bacterial infections and antibiotics often do not benefit patients.
Professor Nick Francis, from Cardiff University’s School of Medicine, said: “Governments, commissioners, clinicians, and patients living with COPD around the world are urgently seeking tools to help them know when it is safe to withhold antibiotics and focus on treating flare-ups with other treatments.
“This is a patient population that are often considered to be at high risk from not receiving antibiotics, but we were able to achieve a reduction in antibiotic use that is about twice the magnitude of that achieved by most other antimicrobial stewardship interventions, and demonstrate that this approach was safe.”
The finger-prick test measures the amount of C- reactive protein (CRP) – a marker of inflammation that rises rapidly in the blood in response to serious infections. People with a COPD flare-up who have a low CRP level in the blood appear to receive little benefit from antibiotic treatment.
Professor Chris Butler, from the University of Oxford, said: “This rigorous clinical trial speaks directly to the pressing issues of; preserving the usefulness of our existing antibiotics; the potential of stratified, personalised care; the importance of contextually-appropriate evidence about point of care testing in reducing unnecessary antibiotic use, and; enhancing the quality of care for people with the common condition of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
“Most antibiotics are prescribed in primary medical care, and many of these prescriptions do not benefit patients: point of care testing is being vigorously promoted as a critical solution for better targeted antibiotic prescribing. However, there have been virtually no trials of point of care tests that measure impact on clinician behaviour, patient behaviour and patient outcomes. Acute exacerbations of chronic pulmonary disease account for considerable proportion of unnecessary antibiotic use, but a good solution to the problem in ambulatory care (where most of the antibiotics are prescribed) has not been identified until now. Ours is the first trial of biomarker guided management of AECOPD in ambulatory care, and has found an effect that should be practice-changing.”
Jonathan Bidmead and Margaret Barnard were the patient and public representatives on the PACE study, providing a voice for patients with COPD: Jonathan Bidmead commented: “We need to highlight not only how many people are saved by antibiotics but also that many are harmed though unnecessary antibiotic use. As a COPD sufferer, I know that antibiotics are routinely used at the first sign of an exacerbation: this study has shown that doctors can use a simple finger-prick test in a consultation to better identify those instances where antibiotics will probably do no good and may even do some harm. This can help us focus on other treatments that may be more helpful for some exacerbations.”
Professor Hywel Williams, Director of the NIHR’s Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme, said: “This is a really important study which provides clear evidence that a simple biomarker blood test carried out in GP surgeries on people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease experiencing flare-ups, has the potential to reduce unnecessary prescribing of antibiotics, without adversely affecting recovery from these flare-ups. This in turn helps tackle the wider global health hazards of antimicrobial resistance (AMR).
“The NIHR is committed to research in areas of greatest health need, such as AMR. This study is one of a number which we have funded over the last few years in this crucial area, in our sustained effort to tackle this worldwide threat.“
Reference
Butler C. C-Reactive Protein Testing to Guide Antibiotic Prescribing for COPD Exacerbations. N Engl J Med 2019;381(2):111 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1803185
19th July 2019
Patients with cystic fibrosis who take ivacaftor appear to have fewer respiratory infections over time than those not taking the drug, according to research published online in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society.
Cystic fibrosis is caused by mutations in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene. Ivacaftor (Kalydeco®) is prescribed to patients whose CF is caused by a “gating” mutation. This group of mutations, which are responsible for about 4% of all CF cases, prevents chloride from moving in and out of cells. By restoring the gate’s function, ivacaftor has been shown to improve lung function and quality of life.
In “Ivacaftor Is Associated with Reduced Lung Infection by Key Cystic Fibrosis Pathogens: A Cohort Study Using National Registry Data,” researchers in the UK report that ivacaftor may also reduce some of the most common lung infections in patients with CF, including P. aeruginosa. If this is true, they say, it may mean that some patients taking ivacaftor can take fewer antibiotics long term and still remain clinically stable.
“People with CF notice improvement in lung function and quality of life soon after they start taking ivacaftor, but they still have to live with a considerable treatment burden from all the other medications they take,” said lead author Freddy Frost, BMBS, a cystic fibrosis physician at Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital. “At present, we simply don’t know whether it’s safe to stop some of those other treatments. The fact we have seen reduced infections in this study suggests there may be some people who can safely discontinue medications targeted towards those infections.”
Using data from a CF registry in the UK, the authors compared CF patients (age six and older) who took ivacaftor with those CF patients who did not take the drug over a three-year period.
The study found that ivacaftor was associated with a 32% reduction in the number of people infected with P. aeruginosa and a 15% reduction in Staphylococcus aureus. These reductions resulted from both increased clearance of the infection in those already infected and in reduced acquisition in those not infected.
The authors said that with people starting ivacaftor and other drugs that correct defects in the CF gene from an early age, the possibility of preventing these infections is particularly exciting. “If these drugs are taken before chronic infection starts, the risk of developing infection in the future may be reduced considerably,” Dr. Frost said.
Ivacaftor was also associated with reduced Aspergillus spp. infections. The drug did not appear to reduce Burkholderia cepacia complex infections.
Dr. Frost said that the study adds to the increasing evidence of the long-term benefits of ivacaftor. “However,” he added, “randomised, controlled trials will be needed to know if it is safe to reduce the overall treatment burden of CF by decreasing antibiotic use in patients taking ivacaftor or other drugs that target defects in the CF gene.”
18th July 2019