MDedge Endocrinology

The Biden administration’s new test-to-treat program is simple on the surface: if you feel like you may have COVID-19, go to a pharmacy, get tested, and, if positive, get treated with an antiviral medication on the spot.

But the program is not that simple to groups representing physicians and pharmacists.

One large physicians’ group is concerned that the program leaves doctors on the margins, and may put patients at risk if there are adverse effects from the medications. Pharmacists groups, on the other hand, say the program is too restrictive, according to an article by the research group Advisory Board.

Recently, the White House announced that more than 1,000 pharmacy clinics across the United States had registered to participate in the initiative, according to CNN. Ordering of the drugs is underway in many of these clinics, a White House official told the network.

Besides retail clinics in chain pharmacies, the antivirals will also be available in community health centers, long-term-care facilities, and Veterans Health Administration clinics, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The two antiviral pills authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include Pfizer’s Paxlovid, for people 12 and older, and Merck’s molnupiravir, for adults. Either drug has to be taken within 5 days after symptoms appear to be effective in preventing serious illness.

The need for speed is a major reason why the government chose to work with retail clinics that are more accessible than most primary care offices. However, the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) have publicly criticized the administration’s approach.

The pharmacists’ groups are concerned that the program is limited only to pharmacies with clinics on site, thus restricting the number of pharmacies qualified to participate. Fourteen pharmacy groups, including the NCPA and the APhA, have also sent a letter to the Biden administration urging it to remove barriers to pharmacies ordering the medications.

The groups also want permission as “clinically trained medication experts” to prescribe the drugs and ensure their safe use.

The AMA on March 4 took issue with the prescribing component, saying that “the pharmacy-based clinic component of the test-to-treat plan flouts patient safety and risks significant negative health outcomes.”

In the AMA’s view, prescribing Paxlovid without a patient’s physician being present poses a risk for adverse drug interactions, as neither the nurse practitioners in retail clinics nor the pharmacists who dispense the drug have full knowledge of a patient›s medical history.

The next day, the AMA released another statement, saying it was reassured by comments from administration officials “that patients who have access to a regular source of care should contact their physician shortly after testing positive for COVID-19 to assess their treatment options.”
 

“Traditional doctor-only approach”

Having patients call their doctors after testing positive for COVID in a pharmacy “strikes me as unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and it will delay treatment,” Robert Wachter, MD, professor and chair of the department of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “In this case, it seems like the AMA is taking a very traditional doctor-only approach. And the world has changed. It’s much more of a team sport than an individual sport, the way it was years ago.”

Dr. Wachter said he has the utmost respect for pharmacists’ ability to screen prescriptions for adverse drug interactions. “We’re required to do medication reconciliation when patients see us,” he says. “And in many hospitals, we delegate that to pharmacists. They’re at least as good at it if not better than physicians are.”

While it’s essential to know what other medications a patient is taking, he noted, pharmacies have computer records of all the prescriptions they’ve filled for patients. In addition, pharmacies have access to complete medication histories through Surescripts, the company that enables electronic prescribing transactions between prescribers and pharmacies.
 

Drug interactions “not trivial”

Preeti Malani, MD, the chief health officer and a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, told this news organization that the potential interactions between Paxlovid and some other medications are “not trivial.”

However, she said, “The really dangerous drugs are the ones for people who have had organ transplants and the like. Those aren’t individuals who are going to shop at a pharmacy.”

Besides the antirejection drugs, Dr. Wachter said, there can be serious interactions with cholesterol-lowering medications. If a person is taking Lipitor, for instance, “Someone would have to make the decision on whether it’s ok for me to stop it for a while, or to lower the dose. But I trust the pharmacist to do that as well as anybody.”

Except for these potential drug interactions with Paxlovid, the antiviral medications are “quite safe,” he said, adding that being able to treat people who test positive for COVID-19 right away is a big advantage of the test-to-treat program, considering how difficult it is for many people to get access to a doctor. That delay could mean that the antivirals are not prescribed and taken until they are no longer effective.

Both Dr. Wachter and Dr. Malani said that the widespread distribution of pharmacies and their extended hours are other big pluses, especially for people who can’t easily leave work or travel far to visit a physician.

Dr. Malani cautioned that there are still kinks to work out in the test-to-treat program. It will be a while before the retail clinics all have the antiviral drugs, and many pharmacies don’t have clinics on site.

Still, she said people can still go to their physicians to be tested, and presumably those doctors can also write antiviral prescriptions. But it’s not clear where the antivirals will be available in the near term.

“Right now, we’re playing catch-up,” Dr. Malani said. “But pharmacies are an important piece of the puzzle.”

Looking at the big picture, she said, “We know that neither vaccination nor natural infection provides long lasting immunity, and so there will be a role for antivirals in order to make this a manageable illness. And when you’re talking about millions of cases, as we were having a few months ago, the health system can’t field all those patients. So we do need a system where I can go to a pharmacy and get a test and treatment.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Biden administration’s new test-to-treat program is simple on the surface: if you feel like you may have COVID-19, go to a pharmacy, get tested, and, if positive, get treated with an antiviral medication on the spot.

But the program is not that simple to groups representing physicians and pharmacists.

One large physicians’ group is concerned that the program leaves doctors on the margins, and may put patients at risk if there are adverse effects from the medications. Pharmacists groups, on the other hand, say the program is too restrictive, according to an article by the research group Advisory Board.

Recently, the White House announced that more than 1,000 pharmacy clinics across the United States had registered to participate in the initiative, according to CNN. Ordering of the drugs is underway in many of these clinics, a White House official told the network.

Besides retail clinics in chain pharmacies, the antivirals will also be available in community health centers, long-term-care facilities, and Veterans Health Administration clinics, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The two antiviral pills authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include Pfizer’s Paxlovid, for people 12 and older, and Merck’s molnupiravir, for adults. Either drug has to be taken within 5 days after symptoms appear to be effective in preventing serious illness.

The need for speed is a major reason why the government chose to work with retail clinics that are more accessible than most primary care offices. However, the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) have publicly criticized the administration’s approach.

The pharmacists’ groups are concerned that the program is limited only to pharmacies with clinics on site, thus restricting the number of pharmacies qualified to participate. Fourteen pharmacy groups, including the NCPA and the APhA, have also sent a letter to the Biden administration urging it to remove barriers to pharmacies ordering the medications.

The groups also want permission as “clinically trained medication experts” to prescribe the drugs and ensure their safe use.

The AMA on March 4 took issue with the prescribing component, saying that “the pharmacy-based clinic component of the test-to-treat plan flouts patient safety and risks significant negative health outcomes.”

In the AMA’s view, prescribing Paxlovid without a patient’s physician being present poses a risk for adverse drug interactions, as neither the nurse practitioners in retail clinics nor the pharmacists who dispense the drug have full knowledge of a patient›s medical history.

The next day, the AMA released another statement, saying it was reassured by comments from administration officials “that patients who have access to a regular source of care should contact their physician shortly after testing positive for COVID-19 to assess their treatment options.”
 

“Traditional doctor-only approach”

Having patients call their doctors after testing positive for COVID in a pharmacy “strikes me as unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and it will delay treatment,” Robert Wachter, MD, professor and chair of the department of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “In this case, it seems like the AMA is taking a very traditional doctor-only approach. And the world has changed. It’s much more of a team sport than an individual sport, the way it was years ago.”

Dr. Wachter said he has the utmost respect for pharmacists’ ability to screen prescriptions for adverse drug interactions. “We’re required to do medication reconciliation when patients see us,” he says. “And in many hospitals, we delegate that to pharmacists. They’re at least as good at it if not better than physicians are.”

While it’s essential to know what other medications a patient is taking, he noted, pharmacies have computer records of all the prescriptions they’ve filled for patients. In addition, pharmacies have access to complete medication histories through Surescripts, the company that enables electronic prescribing transactions between prescribers and pharmacies.
 

Drug interactions “not trivial”

Preeti Malani, MD, the chief health officer and a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, told this news organization that the potential interactions between Paxlovid and some other medications are “not trivial.”

However, she said, “The really dangerous drugs are the ones for people who have had organ transplants and the like. Those aren’t individuals who are going to shop at a pharmacy.”

Besides the antirejection drugs, Dr. Wachter said, there can be serious interactions with cholesterol-lowering medications. If a person is taking Lipitor, for instance, “Someone would have to make the decision on whether it’s ok for me to stop it for a while, or to lower the dose. But I trust the pharmacist to do that as well as anybody.”

Except for these potential drug interactions with Paxlovid, the antiviral medications are “quite safe,” he said, adding that being able to treat people who test positive for COVID-19 right away is a big advantage of the test-to-treat program, considering how difficult it is for many people to get access to a doctor. That delay could mean that the antivirals are not prescribed and taken until they are no longer effective.

Both Dr. Wachter and Dr. Malani said that the widespread distribution of pharmacies and their extended hours are other big pluses, especially for people who can’t easily leave work or travel far to visit a physician.

Dr. Malani cautioned that there are still kinks to work out in the test-to-treat program. It will be a while before the retail clinics all have the antiviral drugs, and many pharmacies don’t have clinics on site.

Still, she said people can still go to their physicians to be tested, and presumably those doctors can also write antiviral prescriptions. But it’s not clear where the antivirals will be available in the near term.

“Right now, we’re playing catch-up,” Dr. Malani said. “But pharmacies are an important piece of the puzzle.”

Looking at the big picture, she said, “We know that neither vaccination nor natural infection provides long lasting immunity, and so there will be a role for antivirals in order to make this a manageable illness. And when you’re talking about millions of cases, as we were having a few months ago, the health system can’t field all those patients. So we do need a system where I can go to a pharmacy and get a test and treatment.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Biden administration’s new test-to-treat program is simple on the surface: if you feel like you may have COVID-19, go to a pharmacy, get tested, and, if positive, get treated with an antiviral medication on the spot.

But the program is not that simple to groups representing physicians and pharmacists.

One large physicians’ group is concerned that the program leaves doctors on the margins, and may put patients at risk if there are adverse effects from the medications. Pharmacists groups, on the other hand, say the program is too restrictive, according to an article by the research group Advisory Board.

Recently, the White House announced that more than 1,000 pharmacy clinics across the United States had registered to participate in the initiative, according to CNN. Ordering of the drugs is underway in many of these clinics, a White House official told the network.

Besides retail clinics in chain pharmacies, the antivirals will also be available in community health centers, long-term-care facilities, and Veterans Health Administration clinics, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The two antiviral pills authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include Pfizer’s Paxlovid, for people 12 and older, and Merck’s molnupiravir, for adults. Either drug has to be taken within 5 days after symptoms appear to be effective in preventing serious illness.

The need for speed is a major reason why the government chose to work with retail clinics that are more accessible than most primary care offices. However, the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) have publicly criticized the administration’s approach.

The pharmacists’ groups are concerned that the program is limited only to pharmacies with clinics on site, thus restricting the number of pharmacies qualified to participate. Fourteen pharmacy groups, including the NCPA and the APhA, have also sent a letter to the Biden administration urging it to remove barriers to pharmacies ordering the medications.

The groups also want permission as “clinically trained medication experts” to prescribe the drugs and ensure their safe use.

The AMA on March 4 took issue with the prescribing component, saying that “the pharmacy-based clinic component of the test-to-treat plan flouts patient safety and risks significant negative health outcomes.”

In the AMA’s view, prescribing Paxlovid without a patient’s physician being present poses a risk for adverse drug interactions, as neither the nurse practitioners in retail clinics nor the pharmacists who dispense the drug have full knowledge of a patient›s medical history.

The next day, the AMA released another statement, saying it was reassured by comments from administration officials “that patients who have access to a regular source of care should contact their physician shortly after testing positive for COVID-19 to assess their treatment options.”
 

“Traditional doctor-only approach”

Having patients call their doctors after testing positive for COVID in a pharmacy “strikes me as unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and it will delay treatment,” Robert Wachter, MD, professor and chair of the department of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “In this case, it seems like the AMA is taking a very traditional doctor-only approach. And the world has changed. It’s much more of a team sport than an individual sport, the way it was years ago.”

Dr. Wachter said he has the utmost respect for pharmacists’ ability to screen prescriptions for adverse drug interactions. “We’re required to do medication reconciliation when patients see us,” he says. “And in many hospitals, we delegate that to pharmacists. They’re at least as good at it if not better than physicians are.”

While it’s essential to know what other medications a patient is taking, he noted, pharmacies have computer records of all the prescriptions they’ve filled for patients. In addition, pharmacies have access to complete medication histories through Surescripts, the company that enables electronic prescribing transactions between prescribers and pharmacies.
 

Drug interactions “not trivial”

Preeti Malani, MD, the chief health officer and a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, told this news organization that the potential interactions between Paxlovid and some other medications are “not trivial.”

However, she said, “The really dangerous drugs are the ones for people who have had organ transplants and the like. Those aren’t individuals who are going to shop at a pharmacy.”

Besides the antirejection drugs, Dr. Wachter said, there can be serious interactions with cholesterol-lowering medications. If a person is taking Lipitor, for instance, “Someone would have to make the decision on whether it’s ok for me to stop it for a while, or to lower the dose. But I trust the pharmacist to do that as well as anybody.”

Except for these potential drug interactions with Paxlovid, the antiviral medications are “quite safe,” he said, adding that being able to treat people who test positive for COVID-19 right away is a big advantage of the test-to-treat program, considering how difficult it is for many people to get access to a doctor. That delay could mean that the antivirals are not prescribed and taken until they are no longer effective.

Both Dr. Wachter and Dr. Malani said that the widespread distribution of pharmacies and their extended hours are other big pluses, especially for people who can’t easily leave work or travel far to visit a physician.

Dr. Malani cautioned that there are still kinks to work out in the test-to-treat program. It will be a while before the retail clinics all have the antiviral drugs, and many pharmacies don’t have clinics on site.

Still, she said people can still go to their physicians to be tested, and presumably those doctors can also write antiviral prescriptions. But it’s not clear where the antivirals will be available in the near term.

“Right now, we’re playing catch-up,” Dr. Malani said. “But pharmacies are an important piece of the puzzle.”

Looking at the big picture, she said, “We know that neither vaccination nor natural infection provides long lasting immunity, and so there will be a role for antivirals in order to make this a manageable illness. And when you’re talking about millions of cases, as we were having a few months ago, the health system can’t field all those patients. So we do need a system where I can go to a pharmacy and get a test and treatment.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Should pharmaceutical companies continue to do business in Russia, running ongoing clinical trials, starting new ones, or continuing to sell their products there?

Some argue that medicine and science must not get enmeshed in politics, staying above the fray to protect their independence and credibility. Other defenders of business-as-usual say the pharmaceutical industry deals in health and aids the vulnerable. Humanitarianism requires continued interaction with Russia.

I think both arguments fail. Pharma should follow the lead of other Western companies and suspend their involvement with Putin’s Russia.

We are fighting a war with Russia. It is a war of economic strangulation, social isolation, and pushing Russia as hard as we can to become a pariah state so that internal pressure on Putin will cause him to rethink his cruel, unjustified invasion or the Russian people to replace him. This pressure must be harsh and it must happen quickly. Why?

Having failed to rapidly defeat the Ukrainian army in the war’s first weeks, Russian commanders are now resorting to the horrible barbarism they used in previous wars in Chechnya and Syria: flattening cities, attacking civilians, killing children with massive and indiscriminate firepower.

To mention one recent horror among many, Russian shelling destroyed a maternity hospital in Mariupol. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in bemoaning the Russians for their continuing series of war crimes called on the world to act.

“Mariupol. Direct Strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital,” he wrote in a Twitter post. “People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity! How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror?”

The Russian government’s response: “It is not the first time we have seen pathetic outcries concerning the so-called atrocities,” said Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, claiming the hospital was being used as a base by an “ultra-radical” Ukrainian battalion.

Health and its preservation are key parts of the aim of medicine and science. There is no way that medicine and science can ignore what war does to health, what attacks on hospitals do to the sick and those who serve them there, the psychological toll that intentional terrorism takes on civilians and their defenders, and what the destruction of infrastructure means for the long-term well-being of Ukrainians.

There can be no collusion with war criminals. There can be no denial of the inextricable link between medicine, science, and politics. Medicine and science are controlled by political forces; their use for good or evil is driven by political considerations, and each doctor, scientist, and scientific society must take a stand when politics corrodes the underlying aims of research and healing.

How far does noncooperation with Russia go? Very, very far. All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it.

Similarly, no sale of medicines or therapies ought to be occurring, be they life-saving or consumer products. Putin will see to it that such shipments go to the military or are sold on the black market for revenue, and there is nothing pharma companies can do to stop that.

The Russian people need to be pinched not only by the loss of cheeseburgers and boutique coffee but by products they use to maintain their well-being. War is cruel that way, but if you tolerate a government that is bombing and shelling a peaceful neighbor to oblivion, then pharma must ensure that efforts to make Putin and his kleptocratic goons feel the wrath of their fellow citizens.

Given the realities of nuclear Armageddon, the civilized world must fight obvious barbarity as best it can with sanctions, financial assaults, property seizures, and forgoing commerce, including important raw materials and health products. War, even in a fiscal form, is not without terrible costs; but achieving a rapid, just resolution against tyranny permits no exceptions for pharma or any other business if it is a war that must be fought.

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He has consulted with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.



A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Should pharmaceutical companies continue to do business in Russia, running ongoing clinical trials, starting new ones, or continuing to sell their products there?

Some argue that medicine and science must not get enmeshed in politics, staying above the fray to protect their independence and credibility. Other defenders of business-as-usual say the pharmaceutical industry deals in health and aids the vulnerable. Humanitarianism requires continued interaction with Russia.

I think both arguments fail. Pharma should follow the lead of other Western companies and suspend their involvement with Putin’s Russia.

We are fighting a war with Russia. It is a war of economic strangulation, social isolation, and pushing Russia as hard as we can to become a pariah state so that internal pressure on Putin will cause him to rethink his cruel, unjustified invasion or the Russian people to replace him. This pressure must be harsh and it must happen quickly. Why?

Having failed to rapidly defeat the Ukrainian army in the war’s first weeks, Russian commanders are now resorting to the horrible barbarism they used in previous wars in Chechnya and Syria: flattening cities, attacking civilians, killing children with massive and indiscriminate firepower.

To mention one recent horror among many, Russian shelling destroyed a maternity hospital in Mariupol. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in bemoaning the Russians for their continuing series of war crimes called on the world to act.

“Mariupol. Direct Strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital,” he wrote in a Twitter post. “People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity! How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror?”

The Russian government’s response: “It is not the first time we have seen pathetic outcries concerning the so-called atrocities,” said Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, claiming the hospital was being used as a base by an “ultra-radical” Ukrainian battalion.

Health and its preservation are key parts of the aim of medicine and science. There is no way that medicine and science can ignore what war does to health, what attacks on hospitals do to the sick and those who serve them there, the psychological toll that intentional terrorism takes on civilians and their defenders, and what the destruction of infrastructure means for the long-term well-being of Ukrainians.

There can be no collusion with war criminals. There can be no denial of the inextricable link between medicine, science, and politics. Medicine and science are controlled by political forces; their use for good or evil is driven by political considerations, and each doctor, scientist, and scientific society must take a stand when politics corrodes the underlying aims of research and healing.

How far does noncooperation with Russia go? Very, very far. All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it.

Similarly, no sale of medicines or therapies ought to be occurring, be they life-saving or consumer products. Putin will see to it that such shipments go to the military or are sold on the black market for revenue, and there is nothing pharma companies can do to stop that.

The Russian people need to be pinched not only by the loss of cheeseburgers and boutique coffee but by products they use to maintain their well-being. War is cruel that way, but if you tolerate a government that is bombing and shelling a peaceful neighbor to oblivion, then pharma must ensure that efforts to make Putin and his kleptocratic goons feel the wrath of their fellow citizens.

Given the realities of nuclear Armageddon, the civilized world must fight obvious barbarity as best it can with sanctions, financial assaults, property seizures, and forgoing commerce, including important raw materials and health products. War, even in a fiscal form, is not without terrible costs; but achieving a rapid, just resolution against tyranny permits no exceptions for pharma or any other business if it is a war that must be fought.

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He has consulted with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.



A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Should pharmaceutical companies continue to do business in Russia, running ongoing clinical trials, starting new ones, or continuing to sell their products there?

Some argue that medicine and science must not get enmeshed in politics, staying above the fray to protect their independence and credibility. Other defenders of business-as-usual say the pharmaceutical industry deals in health and aids the vulnerable. Humanitarianism requires continued interaction with Russia.

I think both arguments fail. Pharma should follow the lead of other Western companies and suspend their involvement with Putin’s Russia.

We are fighting a war with Russia. It is a war of economic strangulation, social isolation, and pushing Russia as hard as we can to become a pariah state so that internal pressure on Putin will cause him to rethink his cruel, unjustified invasion or the Russian people to replace him. This pressure must be harsh and it must happen quickly. Why?

Having failed to rapidly defeat the Ukrainian army in the war’s first weeks, Russian commanders are now resorting to the horrible barbarism they used in previous wars in Chechnya and Syria: flattening cities, attacking civilians, killing children with massive and indiscriminate firepower.

To mention one recent horror among many, Russian shelling destroyed a maternity hospital in Mariupol. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in bemoaning the Russians for their continuing series of war crimes called on the world to act.

“Mariupol. Direct Strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital,” he wrote in a Twitter post. “People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity! How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror?”

The Russian government’s response: “It is not the first time we have seen pathetic outcries concerning the so-called atrocities,” said Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, claiming the hospital was being used as a base by an “ultra-radical” Ukrainian battalion.

Health and its preservation are key parts of the aim of medicine and science. There is no way that medicine and science can ignore what war does to health, what attacks on hospitals do to the sick and those who serve them there, the psychological toll that intentional terrorism takes on civilians and their defenders, and what the destruction of infrastructure means for the long-term well-being of Ukrainians.

There can be no collusion with war criminals. There can be no denial of the inextricable link between medicine, science, and politics. Medicine and science are controlled by political forces; their use for good or evil is driven by political considerations, and each doctor, scientist, and scientific society must take a stand when politics corrodes the underlying aims of research and healing.

How far does noncooperation with Russia go? Very, very far. All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it.

Similarly, no sale of medicines or therapies ought to be occurring, be they life-saving or consumer products. Putin will see to it that such shipments go to the military or are sold on the black market for revenue, and there is nothing pharma companies can do to stop that.

The Russian people need to be pinched not only by the loss of cheeseburgers and boutique coffee but by products they use to maintain their well-being. War is cruel that way, but if you tolerate a government that is bombing and shelling a peaceful neighbor to oblivion, then pharma must ensure that efforts to make Putin and his kleptocratic goons feel the wrath of their fellow citizens.

Given the realities of nuclear Armageddon, the civilized world must fight obvious barbarity as best it can with sanctions, financial assaults, property seizures, and forgoing commerce, including important raw materials and health products. War, even in a fiscal form, is not without terrible costs; but achieving a rapid, just resolution against tyranny permits no exceptions for pharma or any other business if it is a war that must be fought.

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He has consulted with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.



A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Even as the war in Ukraine has prompted an exodus of international companies — from fast-food chains and oil producers to luxury retailers — from Russia, U.S. and global drug companies said they would continue manufacturing and selling their products there.

Airlines, automakers, banks, and technology giants — at least 320 companies by one count — are among the businesses curtailing operations or making high-profile exits from Russia as its invasion of Ukraine intensifies. McDonald’s, Starbucks, and Coca-Cola announced a pause in sales recently.

But drugmakers, medical device manufacturers, and health care companies, which are exempted from U.S. and European sanctions, said Russians need access to medicines and medical equipment and contend that international humanitarian law requires they keep supply chains open.

“As a health care company, we have an important purpose, which is why at this time we continue to serve people in all countries in which we operate who depend on us for essential products, some life-sustaining,” said Scott Stoffel, divisional vice president for Illinois-based Abbott Laboratories, which manufactures and sells medicines in Russia for oncology, women’s health, pancreatic insufficiency, and liver health.

Johnson & Johnson — which has corporate offices in Moscow, Novosibirsk, St. Petersburg, and Yekaterinburg — said in a statement, “We remain committed to providing essential health products to those in need in Ukraine, Russia, and the region, in compliance with current sanctions and while adapting to the rapidly changing situation on the ground.”

The reluctance of drugmakers to pause operations in Russia is being met with a growing chorus of criticism.

Pharmaceutical companies that say they must continue to manufacture drugs in Russia for humanitarian reasons are “being misguided at best, cynical in the medium case, and outright deplorably misleading and deceptive,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, DBA, a professor at the Yale School of Management who is tracking which companies have curtailed operations in Russia. He noted that banks and technology companies also provide essential services.

“Russians are put in a tragic position of unearned suffering. If we continue to make life palatable for them, then we are continuing to support the regime,” Dr. Sonnenfeld said. “These drug companies will be seen as complicit with the most vicious operation on the planet. Instead of protecting life, they are going to be seen as destroying life. The goal here is to show that Putin is not in control of all sectors of the economy.”

U.S. pharmaceutical and medical companies have operated in Russia for decades, and many ramped up operations after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, navigating the fraught relationship between the United States and Russia amid sanctions. In 2010, Vladimir Putin, then Russian prime minister, announced an ambitious national plan for the Russian pharmaceutical industry that would be a pillar in his efforts to reestablish his country as an influential superpower and wean the country off Western pharmaceutical imports. Under the plan, called “Pharma-2020” and “Pharma-2030,” the government required Western pharmaceutical companies eager to sell to Russia’s growing middle class to locate production inside the country.

Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Abbott are among the drugmakers that manufacture pharmaceutical drugs at facilities in St. Petersburg and elsewhere in the country and typically sell those drugs as branded generics or under Russian brands.

Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, said on CBS that the giant drugmaker is not going to make further investments in Russia, but that it will not cut ties with Russia, as multinational companies in other industries are doing.

Pharmaceutical manufacturing plants in Kaluga, a major manufacturing center for Volkswagen and Volvo southwest of Moscow, have been funded through a partnership between Rusnano, a state-owned venture that promotes the development of high-tech enterprises, and U.S. venture capital firms.

Russia also has sought to position itself as an attractive research market, offering an inexpensive and lax regulatory environment for clinical drug trials. Last year, Pfizer conducted in Russia clinical trials of Paxlovid, its experimental antiviral pill to treat covid-19. Before the invasion began in late February, 3,072 trials were underway in Russia and 503 were underway in Ukraine, according to BioWorld, a reporting hub focused on drug development that features data from Cortellis.

AstraZeneca is the top sponsor of clinical trials in Russia, with 49 trials, followed by a subsidiary of Merck, with 48 trials.

So far, drugmakers’ response to the Ukraine invasion has largely centered on public pledges to donate essential medicines and vaccines to Ukrainian patients and refugees. They’ve also made general comments about the need to keep open the supply of medicines flowing within Russia.

Abbott has pledged $2 million to support humanitarian efforts in Ukraine, and Pfizer, based in New York, said it has supplied $1 million in humanitarian grants. Swiss drug maker Novartis said it was expanding humanitarian efforts in Ukraine and working to “ensure the continued supply of our medicines in Ukraine.”

But no major pharmaceutical or medical device maker has announced plans to shutter manufacturing plants or halt sales inside Russia.

In an open letter, hundreds of leaders of mainly smaller biotechnology companies have called on industry members to cease business activities in Russia, including “investment in Russian companies and new investment within the borders of Russia,” and to halt trade and collaboration with Russian companies, except for supplying food and medicines. How many of the signatories have business operations in Russia was unclear.

Ulrich Neumann, director for market access at Janssen, a Johnson & Johnson company, was among those who signed the letter, but whether he was speaking for the company was unclear. In its own statement posted on social media, the company said it’s “committed to providing access to our essential medical products in the countries where we operate, in compliance with current international sanctions.”

GlaxoSmithKline, headquartered in the United Kingdom, said in a statement that it’s stopping all advertising in Russia and will not enter into contracts that “directly support the Russian administration or military.” But the company said that as a “supplier of needed medicines, vaccines and everyday health products, we have a responsibility to do all we can to make them available. For this reason, we will continue to supply our products to the people of Russia, while we can.”

Nell Minow, vice chair of ValueEdge Advisors, an investment consulting firm, noted that drug companies have been treated differently than other industries during previous global conflicts. For example, some corporate ethicists advised against pharmaceutical companies’ total divestment from South Africa’s apartheid regime to ensure essential medicines flowed to the country.

“There is a difference between a hamburger and a pill,” Mr. Minow said. Companies should strongly condemn Russia’s actions, she said, but unless the United States enters directly into a war with Russia, companies that make essential medicines and health care products should continue to operate. Before U.S. involvement in World War II, she added, there were “some American companies that did business with Germany until the last minute.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. KHN senior correspondent Arthur Allen contributed to this article.

Even as the war in Ukraine has prompted an exodus of international companies — from fast-food chains and oil producers to luxury retailers — from Russia, U.S. and global drug companies said they would continue manufacturing and selling their products there.

Airlines, automakers, banks, and technology giants — at least 320 companies by one count — are among the businesses curtailing operations or making high-profile exits from Russia as its invasion of Ukraine intensifies. McDonald’s, Starbucks, and Coca-Cola announced a pause in sales recently.

But drugmakers, medical device manufacturers, and health care companies, which are exempted from U.S. and European sanctions, said Russians need access to medicines and medical equipment and contend that international humanitarian law requires they keep supply chains open.

“As a health care company, we have an important purpose, which is why at this time we continue to serve people in all countries in which we operate who depend on us for essential products, some life-sustaining,” said Scott Stoffel, divisional vice president for Illinois-based Abbott Laboratories, which manufactures and sells medicines in Russia for oncology, women’s health, pancreatic insufficiency, and liver health.

Johnson & Johnson — which has corporate offices in Moscow, Novosibirsk, St. Petersburg, and Yekaterinburg — said in a statement, “We remain committed to providing essential health products to those in need in Ukraine, Russia, and the region, in compliance with current sanctions and while adapting to the rapidly changing situation on the ground.”

The reluctance of drugmakers to pause operations in Russia is being met with a growing chorus of criticism.

Pharmaceutical companies that say they must continue to manufacture drugs in Russia for humanitarian reasons are “being misguided at best, cynical in the medium case, and outright deplorably misleading and deceptive,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, DBA, a professor at the Yale School of Management who is tracking which companies have curtailed operations in Russia. He noted that banks and technology companies also provide essential services.

“Russians are put in a tragic position of unearned suffering. If we continue to make life palatable for them, then we are continuing to support the regime,” Dr. Sonnenfeld said. “These drug companies will be seen as complicit with the most vicious operation on the planet. Instead of protecting life, they are going to be seen as destroying life. The goal here is to show that Putin is not in control of all sectors of the economy.”

U.S. pharmaceutical and medical companies have operated in Russia for decades, and many ramped up operations after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, navigating the fraught relationship between the United States and Russia amid sanctions. In 2010, Vladimir Putin, then Russian prime minister, announced an ambitious national plan for the Russian pharmaceutical industry that would be a pillar in his efforts to reestablish his country as an influential superpower and wean the country off Western pharmaceutical imports. Under the plan, called “Pharma-2020” and “Pharma-2030,” the government required Western pharmaceutical companies eager to sell to Russia’s growing middle class to locate production inside the country.

Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Abbott are among the drugmakers that manufacture pharmaceutical drugs at facilities in St. Petersburg and elsewhere in the country and typically sell those drugs as branded generics or under Russian brands.

Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, said on CBS that the giant drugmaker is not going to make further investments in Russia, but that it will not cut ties with Russia, as multinational companies in other industries are doing.

Pharmaceutical manufacturing plants in Kaluga, a major manufacturing center for Volkswagen and Volvo southwest of Moscow, have been funded through a partnership between Rusnano, a state-owned venture that promotes the development of high-tech enterprises, and U.S. venture capital firms.

Russia also has sought to position itself as an attractive research market, offering an inexpensive and lax regulatory environment for clinical drug trials. Last year, Pfizer conducted in Russia clinical trials of Paxlovid, its experimental antiviral pill to treat covid-19. Before the invasion began in late February, 3,072 trials were underway in Russia and 503 were underway in Ukraine, according to BioWorld, a reporting hub focused on drug development that features data from Cortellis.

AstraZeneca is the top sponsor of clinical trials in Russia, with 49 trials, followed by a subsidiary of Merck, with 48 trials.

So far, drugmakers’ response to the Ukraine invasion has largely centered on public pledges to donate essential medicines and vaccines to Ukrainian patients and refugees. They’ve also made general comments about the need to keep open the supply of medicines flowing within Russia.

Abbott has pledged $2 million to support humanitarian efforts in Ukraine, and Pfizer, based in New York, said it has supplied $1 million in humanitarian grants. Swiss drug maker Novartis said it was expanding humanitarian efforts in Ukraine and working to “ensure the continued supply of our medicines in Ukraine.”

But no major pharmaceutical or medical device maker has announced plans to shutter manufacturing plants or halt sales inside Russia.

In an open letter, hundreds of leaders of mainly smaller biotechnology companies have called on industry members to cease business activities in Russia, including “investment in Russian companies and new investment within the borders of Russia,” and to halt trade and collaboration with Russian companies, except for supplying food and medicines. How many of the signatories have business operations in Russia was unclear.

Ulrich Neumann, director for market access at Janssen, a Johnson & Johnson company, was among those who signed the letter, but whether he was speaking for the company was unclear. In its own statement posted on social media, the company said it’s “committed to providing access to our essential medical products in the countries where we operate, in compliance with current international sanctions.”

GlaxoSmithKline, headquartered in the United Kingdom, said in a statement that it’s stopping all advertising in Russia and will not enter into contracts that “directly support the Russian administration or military.” But the company said that as a “supplier of needed medicines, vaccines and everyday health products, we have a responsibility to do all we can to make them available. For this reason, we will continue to supply our products to the people of Russia, while we can.”

Nell Minow, vice chair of ValueEdge Advisors, an investment consulting firm, noted that drug companies have been treated differently than other industries during previous global conflicts. For example, some corporate ethicists advised against pharmaceutical companies’ total divestment from South Africa’s apartheid regime to ensure essential medicines flowed to the country.

“There is a difference between a hamburger and a pill,” Mr. Minow said. Companies should strongly condemn Russia’s actions, she said, but unless the United States enters directly into a war with Russia, companies that make essential medicines and health care products should continue to operate. Before U.S. involvement in World War II, she added, there were “some American companies that did business with Germany until the last minute.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. KHN senior correspondent Arthur Allen contributed to this article.

Even as the war in Ukraine has prompted an exodus of international companies — from fast-food chains and oil producers to luxury retailers — from Russia, U.S. and global drug companies said they would continue manufacturing and selling their products there.

Airlines, automakers, banks, and technology giants — at least 320 companies by one count — are among the businesses curtailing operations or making high-profile exits from Russia as its invasion of Ukraine intensifies. McDonald’s, Starbucks, and Coca-Cola announced a pause in sales recently.

But drugmakers, medical device manufacturers, and health care companies, which are exempted from U.S. and European sanctions, said Russians need access to medicines and medical equipment and contend that international humanitarian law requires they keep supply chains open.

“As a health care company, we have an important purpose, which is why at this time we continue to serve people in all countries in which we operate who depend on us for essential products, some life-sustaining,” said Scott Stoffel, divisional vice president for Illinois-based Abbott Laboratories, which manufactures and sells medicines in Russia for oncology, women’s health, pancreatic insufficiency, and liver health.

Johnson & Johnson — which has corporate offices in Moscow, Novosibirsk, St. Petersburg, and Yekaterinburg — said in a statement, “We remain committed to providing essential health products to those in need in Ukraine, Russia, and the region, in compliance with current sanctions and while adapting to the rapidly changing situation on the ground.”

The reluctance of drugmakers to pause operations in Russia is being met with a growing chorus of criticism.

Pharmaceutical companies that say they must continue to manufacture drugs in Russia for humanitarian reasons are “being misguided at best, cynical in the medium case, and outright deplorably misleading and deceptive,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, DBA, a professor at the Yale School of Management who is tracking which companies have curtailed operations in Russia. He noted that banks and technology companies also provide essential services.

“Russians are put in a tragic position of unearned suffering. If we continue to make life palatable for them, then we are continuing to support the regime,” Dr. Sonnenfeld said. “These drug companies will be seen as complicit with the most vicious operation on the planet. Instead of protecting life, they are going to be seen as destroying life. The goal here is to show that Putin is not in control of all sectors of the economy.”

U.S. pharmaceutical and medical companies have operated in Russia for decades, and many ramped up operations after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, navigating the fraught relationship between the United States and Russia amid sanctions. In 2010, Vladimir Putin, then Russian prime minister, announced an ambitious national plan for the Russian pharmaceutical industry that would be a pillar in his efforts to reestablish his country as an influential superpower and wean the country off Western pharmaceutical imports. Under the plan, called “Pharma-2020” and “Pharma-2030,” the government required Western pharmaceutical companies eager to sell to Russia’s growing middle class to locate production inside the country.

Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Abbott are among the drugmakers that manufacture pharmaceutical drugs at facilities in St. Petersburg and elsewhere in the country and typically sell those drugs as branded generics or under Russian brands.

Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, said on CBS that the giant drugmaker is not going to make further investments in Russia, but that it will not cut ties with Russia, as multinational companies in other industries are doing.

Pharmaceutical manufacturing plants in Kaluga, a major manufacturing center for Volkswagen and Volvo southwest of Moscow, have been funded through a partnership between Rusnano, a state-owned venture that promotes the development of high-tech enterprises, and U.S. venture capital firms.

Russia also has sought to position itself as an attractive research market, offering an inexpensive and lax regulatory environment for clinical drug trials. Last year, Pfizer conducted in Russia clinical trials of Paxlovid, its experimental antiviral pill to treat covid-19. Before the invasion began in late February, 3,072 trials were underway in Russia and 503 were underway in Ukraine, according to BioWorld, a reporting hub focused on drug development that features data from Cortellis.

AstraZeneca is the top sponsor of clinical trials in Russia, with 49 trials, followed by a subsidiary of Merck, with 48 trials.

So far, drugmakers’ response to the Ukraine invasion has largely centered on public pledges to donate essential medicines and vaccines to Ukrainian patients and refugees. They’ve also made general comments about the need to keep open the supply of medicines flowing within Russia.

Abbott has pledged $2 million to support humanitarian efforts in Ukraine, and Pfizer, based in New York, said it has supplied $1 million in humanitarian grants. Swiss drug maker Novartis said it was expanding humanitarian efforts in Ukraine and working to “ensure the continued supply of our medicines in Ukraine.”

But no major pharmaceutical or medical device maker has announced plans to shutter manufacturing plants or halt sales inside Russia.

In an open letter, hundreds of leaders of mainly smaller biotechnology companies have called on industry members to cease business activities in Russia, including “investment in Russian companies and new investment within the borders of Russia,” and to halt trade and collaboration with Russian companies, except for supplying food and medicines. How many of the signatories have business operations in Russia was unclear.

Ulrich Neumann, director for market access at Janssen, a Johnson & Johnson company, was among those who signed the letter, but whether he was speaking for the company was unclear. In its own statement posted on social media, the company said it’s “committed to providing access to our essential medical products in the countries where we operate, in compliance with current international sanctions.”

GlaxoSmithKline, headquartered in the United Kingdom, said in a statement that it’s stopping all advertising in Russia and will not enter into contracts that “directly support the Russian administration or military.” But the company said that as a “supplier of needed medicines, vaccines and everyday health products, we have a responsibility to do all we can to make them available. For this reason, we will continue to supply our products to the people of Russia, while we can.”

Nell Minow, vice chair of ValueEdge Advisors, an investment consulting firm, noted that drug companies have been treated differently than other industries during previous global conflicts. For example, some corporate ethicists advised against pharmaceutical companies’ total divestment from South Africa’s apartheid regime to ensure essential medicines flowed to the country.

“There is a difference between a hamburger and a pill,” Mr. Minow said. Companies should strongly condemn Russia’s actions, she said, but unless the United States enters directly into a war with Russia, companies that make essential medicines and health care products should continue to operate. Before U.S. involvement in World War II, she added, there were “some American companies that did business with Germany until the last minute.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. KHN senior correspondent Arthur Allen contributed to this article.

Diabetes care and access to insulin and other medications in Ukraine have been “severely disrupted” since Russia’s invasion, with shortages resulting more from distribution problems than supply itself, according to multiple sources.

In 2021, there were about 2.3 million people with diabetes in Ukraine, roughly 7% of the total population. Of those, about 120,000 have type 1 diabetes and depend on insulin to live, while a similar number have insulin-treated type 2 diabetes.

Donations of insulin, other medications, and supplies have been pouring in since late February from sources including the Ukrainian diaspora, nongovernmental organizations, other European governments, universities, and product manufacturers. “The main problem now is logistic,” Boris Mankovsky, MD, president of the Ukrainian Diabetology Association, said in an interview.

Insulin manufacturer Novo Nordisk’s warehouse continues to operate, although deliveries have been curtailed because of shortages in delivery staff. The company is working to get medications to patients either through pharmacies or humanitarian organizations and has funded refugee support efforts, they said in a March 8 statement.

But even if the supplies reach the pharmacies, they may not reach patients for a variety of logistical reasons, noted Dr. Mankovsky, who is head of the department of diabetology at the P.L. Shupyk National Medical Academy for Postgraduate Education in Kyiv. “So, there are a lot of problems. I don’t know exactly where the main bottleneck is, but there are shortages, definitely.”

Insulin supplies have also been distributed very unequally by region and type, with various shipments containing long-acting, short-acting, analog, or human insulins. “We’re very grateful for all of it. But it’s not centrally coordinated, which of course is understandable, but it means that a lot of donations go to one place and no supply goes to another,” Dr. Mankovsky said.

Most of the donated supplies have been going to western Ukraine, where the capital Kyiv is located. “But the main problem now is the eastern part of Ukraine. It’s difficult and dangerous to deliver any supplies there, especially [with] the terrible situation in Mariupol. Eastern Ukraine now suffers the most, at least at this minute,” he said.  
 

Diabetes specialists continue to work, at least for now  

Ivan Smirnov, MD, PhD, head of the endocrinology department at Kharkiv Regional Hospital, in the northeastern part of the country, said in an email to this news organization: “I continue to stay in Kharkiv, in spite of the situation. A lot of people are killed, many people are wounded. My hospital is full of wounded civilians ... a lot of buildings are destroyed partly and some completely.”

Dr. Smirnov said that he and his colleagues “find the way to overcome the fear ... in constant work. Part of the work is online consulting assistance for routine patients. ... But the main time now is dedicated to providing the diabetes patients with insulin. This is a heavy job to do indeed.”

Dr. Mankovsky, who practices adult diabetology and endocrinology in Kyiv, continues to manage patients, but mostly remotely. “Practice is severely disrupted. I’m willing to see patients but it’s extremely difficult and dangerous for them and probably not possible to travel to see me. So that’s why all our communications now is distant, through phone or internet. ... We can communicate and I’m able to provide some recommendations for changes in treatment or some corrections in insulin therapy.”

Despite the Russians closing in on Kyiv, Dr. Mankovsky said, “I’ve decided to stay as long as possible. Then, nobody knows of course but I think I have to. ... We hear explosions every day. ... I’m in the center of the city and the streets are empty. It’s heartbreaking.”
 

Supplies are reaching refugees

Dr. Mankovsky said: “Now we have huge movement of refugees. Among them are a lot of people with diabetes who moved out of their place and nobody knows where they are. It’s really a huge disruption.”

According to the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization JDRF, many men with diabetes aged 18-60 are remaining in Ukraine to fight, despite the increased risk with the disease. But an estimated 15,000 children with type 1 diabetes and their families are attempting to escape the conflict by moving to the western regions of the country or over the borders.

“Those who make it to Hungary, Moldova, Poland, or Romania are being received with wonderful generosity. We have heard stories ranging from governments making it possible to pick up insulin free without a script to individuals emptying their cupboards of insulin for those whose need is urgent,” JDRF said in a statement on March 2.  

For its part, Novo Nordisk has donated 55 million Danish kroner (about 7.3 million Euros, or $8.2 million U.S. dollars) to support international relief organizations in assisting refugees.

Ivan Tkac, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Safárik University in Kosice, Slovakia, is assisting refugees, including those with diabetes. Slovakia is predominantly a transit country for refugees from Ukraine, he said in an interview. 

“However, in solidarity with Ukraine, we are providing emergency medical care for both Ukrainians and refugees from third countries leaving Ukraine,” he said, noting that those individuals are primarily foreign students who had been studying there.

“Asylum seekers receive full medical insurance paid by the government of the Slovak Republic. As part of this care, the refugees are provided with the necessary amount of insulin and other antidiabetic drugs, as well as medical devices needed for the treatment of diabetes. The European Commission has pledged to supply Slovakia with the necessary quantities of medicines for the treatment of diabetes in the coming weeks as part of its assistance to the countries bordering Ukraine. In addition, some humanitarian organizations are organizing supplies of insulin and other medicines for soldiers fighting in the Ukrainian army,” Dr. Tkac said.
 

How you can help

A number of organizations are providing assistance specifically to people with diabetes, as well as broader medical assistance to people remaining in Ukraine and to refugees.

A collaboration between the Ministry of Health of Ukraine, the humanitarian agency Direct Relief, and the International Diabetes Federation is working to determine where supplies are short, to secure donations within Europe, and to open up “green corridors” within Ukraine to deliver them quickly to where they’re needed. They have asked those who wish to help to donate to Direct Relief and direct donations to the “Ukraine crisis.”

Another effort organized by IDF Europe is Connect Solidarity, a program that “aims to facilitate support from IDF Europe member associations across Europe wishing to help other national diabetes associations in Ukraine’s neighboring countries, provide advice, medicines, and supplies to Ukrainian refugees.”

IDF President Andrew Boulton, MD, told this news organization that he has been in almost daily contact with senior colleagues working in diabetes in Ukraine, and that he is working with the organization’s affiliated charity Life for a Child in addition to the other charitable agencies. “We will continue to do our utmost best to help those with diabetes living in Ukraine. However, this is, of course, very challenging, and we hope that we are doing the best we can in such a difficult situation. We all hope and pray that this situation is soon resolved.”

The European Association for the Study of Diabetes is taking a somewhat different approach, by encouraging its members to “support people with ill health, including diabetes, with donations through established [nongovernmental organizations] that have the capacity to help on site, such as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or International Committee of the Red Cross.”

Dr. Mankovsky told this news organization that he is very grateful for all the support from around the world: “Just thanks. I’ve got so much support, so many phone calls, so many letters ... not just me, all of us. People wise and friendship wise we feel support. It’s really important, emotionally and with insulin supply and other medications. Without that, it would be much more difficult.”
 

Pandemic-prompted changes enable wartime diabetes care

Dramatic changes in diabetes care delivery in Ukraine necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic have proved indispensable during the Russian invasion.

In a piece published May 29, 2020, in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, Dr. Mankovsky described how the pandemic hit just as Ukraine’s health system was pivoting from government controlled to insurance based.

Prior to the pandemic, patients with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes were regularly admitted to hospital for routine checkups, insulin dose management, and other treatments, a “remnant of the Soviet-era medical practice, which emphasized heavily on hospital admissions,” Dr. Mankovsky said in an interview.

This was the case, he wrote in the article, “despite the common understanding that such a system was a waste of resources ... this policy was changing much slower than we wanted.”

But the COVID-19 pandemic changed that practice “abruptly and dramatically,” so that all hospitalizations for patients with diabetes were stopped unless there was a real metabolic emergency.

Subsequently, Dr. Mankovsky wrote, “almost every health professional recognizes the particular importance of the new ways of communications with patients and with other colleagues.”

Indeed, in his email to this news organization, Dr. Smirnov mentioned that the routine diabetes management work he is still able to do remotely despite the extreme disruption in his region “is easy because of long-term COVID-period experience.”

Also because of the pandemic, insulin prescriptions were switched from traditional paper to electronic transfer, so that patients could easily pick them up at the pharmacy. “This new ... system proved to be not just very convenient for all parties involved, but in the current situation, it allowed us to prevent so many medically unnecessary visits to the clinics, which otherwise would have presented the real threat to the patients’ health and risk to get them infected,” Dr. Mankovsky wrote in 2020.

Now with the new danger, he said, “the inability to see patients is probably the least of our problems.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Diabetes care and access to insulin and other medications in Ukraine have been “severely disrupted” since Russia’s invasion, with shortages resulting more from distribution problems than supply itself, according to multiple sources.

In 2021, there were about 2.3 million people with diabetes in Ukraine, roughly 7% of the total population. Of those, about 120,000 have type 1 diabetes and depend on insulin to live, while a similar number have insulin-treated type 2 diabetes.

Donations of insulin, other medications, and supplies have been pouring in since late February from sources including the Ukrainian diaspora, nongovernmental organizations, other European governments, universities, and product manufacturers. “The main problem now is logistic,” Boris Mankovsky, MD, president of the Ukrainian Diabetology Association, said in an interview.

Insulin manufacturer Novo Nordisk’s warehouse continues to operate, although deliveries have been curtailed because of shortages in delivery staff. The company is working to get medications to patients either through pharmacies or humanitarian organizations and has funded refugee support efforts, they said in a March 8 statement.

But even if the supplies reach the pharmacies, they may not reach patients for a variety of logistical reasons, noted Dr. Mankovsky, who is head of the department of diabetology at the P.L. Shupyk National Medical Academy for Postgraduate Education in Kyiv. “So, there are a lot of problems. I don’t know exactly where the main bottleneck is, but there are shortages, definitely.”

Insulin supplies have also been distributed very unequally by region and type, with various shipments containing long-acting, short-acting, analog, or human insulins. “We’re very grateful for all of it. But it’s not centrally coordinated, which of course is understandable, but it means that a lot of donations go to one place and no supply goes to another,” Dr. Mankovsky said.

Most of the donated supplies have been going to western Ukraine, where the capital Kyiv is located. “But the main problem now is the eastern part of Ukraine. It’s difficult and dangerous to deliver any supplies there, especially [with] the terrible situation in Mariupol. Eastern Ukraine now suffers the most, at least at this minute,” he said.  
 

Diabetes specialists continue to work, at least for now  

Ivan Smirnov, MD, PhD, head of the endocrinology department at Kharkiv Regional Hospital, in the northeastern part of the country, said in an email to this news organization: “I continue to stay in Kharkiv, in spite of the situation. A lot of people are killed, many people are wounded. My hospital is full of wounded civilians ... a lot of buildings are destroyed partly and some completely.”

Dr. Smirnov said that he and his colleagues “find the way to overcome the fear ... in constant work. Part of the work is online consulting assistance for routine patients. ... But the main time now is dedicated to providing the diabetes patients with insulin. This is a heavy job to do indeed.”

Dr. Mankovsky, who practices adult diabetology and endocrinology in Kyiv, continues to manage patients, but mostly remotely. “Practice is severely disrupted. I’m willing to see patients but it’s extremely difficult and dangerous for them and probably not possible to travel to see me. So that’s why all our communications now is distant, through phone or internet. ... We can communicate and I’m able to provide some recommendations for changes in treatment or some corrections in insulin therapy.”

Despite the Russians closing in on Kyiv, Dr. Mankovsky said, “I’ve decided to stay as long as possible. Then, nobody knows of course but I think I have to. ... We hear explosions every day. ... I’m in the center of the city and the streets are empty. It’s heartbreaking.”
 

Supplies are reaching refugees

Dr. Mankovsky said: “Now we have huge movement of refugees. Among them are a lot of people with diabetes who moved out of their place and nobody knows where they are. It’s really a huge disruption.”

According to the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization JDRF, many men with diabetes aged 18-60 are remaining in Ukraine to fight, despite the increased risk with the disease. But an estimated 15,000 children with type 1 diabetes and their families are attempting to escape the conflict by moving to the western regions of the country or over the borders.

“Those who make it to Hungary, Moldova, Poland, or Romania are being received with wonderful generosity. We have heard stories ranging from governments making it possible to pick up insulin free without a script to individuals emptying their cupboards of insulin for those whose need is urgent,” JDRF said in a statement on March 2.  

For its part, Novo Nordisk has donated 55 million Danish kroner (about 7.3 million Euros, or $8.2 million U.S. dollars) to support international relief organizations in assisting refugees.

Ivan Tkac, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Safárik University in Kosice, Slovakia, is assisting refugees, including those with diabetes. Slovakia is predominantly a transit country for refugees from Ukraine, he said in an interview. 

“However, in solidarity with Ukraine, we are providing emergency medical care for both Ukrainians and refugees from third countries leaving Ukraine,” he said, noting that those individuals are primarily foreign students who had been studying there.

“Asylum seekers receive full medical insurance paid by the government of the Slovak Republic. As part of this care, the refugees are provided with the necessary amount of insulin and other antidiabetic drugs, as well as medical devices needed for the treatment of diabetes. The European Commission has pledged to supply Slovakia with the necessary quantities of medicines for the treatment of diabetes in the coming weeks as part of its assistance to the countries bordering Ukraine. In addition, some humanitarian organizations are organizing supplies of insulin and other medicines for soldiers fighting in the Ukrainian army,” Dr. Tkac said.
 

How you can help

A number of organizations are providing assistance specifically to people with diabetes, as well as broader medical assistance to people remaining in Ukraine and to refugees.

A collaboration between the Ministry of Health of Ukraine, the humanitarian agency Direct Relief, and the International Diabetes Federation is working to determine where supplies are short, to secure donations within Europe, and to open up “green corridors” within Ukraine to deliver them quickly to where they’re needed. They have asked those who wish to help to donate to Direct Relief and direct donations to the “Ukraine crisis.”

Another effort organized by IDF Europe is Connect Solidarity, a program that “aims to facilitate support from IDF Europe member associations across Europe wishing to help other national diabetes associations in Ukraine’s neighboring countries, provide advice, medicines, and supplies to Ukrainian refugees.”

IDF President Andrew Boulton, MD, told this news organization that he has been in almost daily contact with senior colleagues working in diabetes in Ukraine, and that he is working with the organization’s affiliated charity Life for a Child in addition to the other charitable agencies. “We will continue to do our utmost best to help those with diabetes living in Ukraine. However, this is, of course, very challenging, and we hope that we are doing the best we can in such a difficult situation. We all hope and pray that this situation is soon resolved.”

The European Association for the Study of Diabetes is taking a somewhat different approach, by encouraging its members to “support people with ill health, including diabetes, with donations through established [nongovernmental organizations] that have the capacity to help on site, such as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or International Committee of the Red Cross.”

Dr. Mankovsky told this news organization that he is very grateful for all the support from around the world: “Just thanks. I’ve got so much support, so many phone calls, so many letters ... not just me, all of us. People wise and friendship wise we feel support. It’s really important, emotionally and with insulin supply and other medications. Without that, it would be much more difficult.”
 

Pandemic-prompted changes enable wartime diabetes care

Dramatic changes in diabetes care delivery in Ukraine necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic have proved indispensable during the Russian invasion.

In a piece published May 29, 2020, in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, Dr. Mankovsky described how the pandemic hit just as Ukraine’s health system was pivoting from government controlled to insurance based.

Prior to the pandemic, patients with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes were regularly admitted to hospital for routine checkups, insulin dose management, and other treatments, a “remnant of the Soviet-era medical practice, which emphasized heavily on hospital admissions,” Dr. Mankovsky said in an interview.

This was the case, he wrote in the article, “despite the common understanding that such a system was a waste of resources ... this policy was changing much slower than we wanted.”

But the COVID-19 pandemic changed that practice “abruptly and dramatically,” so that all hospitalizations for patients with diabetes were stopped unless there was a real metabolic emergency.

Subsequently, Dr. Mankovsky wrote, “almost every health professional recognizes the particular importance of the new ways of communications with patients and with other colleagues.”

Indeed, in his email to this news organization, Dr. Smirnov mentioned that the routine diabetes management work he is still able to do remotely despite the extreme disruption in his region “is easy because of long-term COVID-period experience.”

Also because of the pandemic, insulin prescriptions were switched from traditional paper to electronic transfer, so that patients could easily pick them up at the pharmacy. “This new ... system proved to be not just very convenient for all parties involved, but in the current situation, it allowed us to prevent so many medically unnecessary visits to the clinics, which otherwise would have presented the real threat to the patients’ health and risk to get them infected,” Dr. Mankovsky wrote in 2020.

Now with the new danger, he said, “the inability to see patients is probably the least of our problems.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Diabetes care and access to insulin and other medications in Ukraine have been “severely disrupted” since Russia’s invasion, with shortages resulting more from distribution problems than supply itself, according to multiple sources.

In 2021, there were about 2.3 million people with diabetes in Ukraine, roughly 7% of the total population. Of those, about 120,000 have type 1 diabetes and depend on insulin to live, while a similar number have insulin-treated type 2 diabetes.

Donations of insulin, other medications, and supplies have been pouring in since late February from sources including the Ukrainian diaspora, nongovernmental organizations, other European governments, universities, and product manufacturers. “The main problem now is logistic,” Boris Mankovsky, MD, president of the Ukrainian Diabetology Association, said in an interview.

Insulin manufacturer Novo Nordisk’s warehouse continues to operate, although deliveries have been curtailed because of shortages in delivery staff. The company is working to get medications to patients either through pharmacies or humanitarian organizations and has funded refugee support efforts, they said in a March 8 statement.

But even if the supplies reach the pharmacies, they may not reach patients for a variety of logistical reasons, noted Dr. Mankovsky, who is head of the department of diabetology at the P.L. Shupyk National Medical Academy for Postgraduate Education in Kyiv. “So, there are a lot of problems. I don’t know exactly where the main bottleneck is, but there are shortages, definitely.”

Insulin supplies have also been distributed very unequally by region and type, with various shipments containing long-acting, short-acting, analog, or human insulins. “We’re very grateful for all of it. But it’s not centrally coordinated, which of course is understandable, but it means that a lot of donations go to one place and no supply goes to another,” Dr. Mankovsky said.

Most of the donated supplies have been going to western Ukraine, where the capital Kyiv is located. “But the main problem now is the eastern part of Ukraine. It’s difficult and dangerous to deliver any supplies there, especially [with] the terrible situation in Mariupol. Eastern Ukraine now suffers the most, at least at this minute,” he said.  
 

Diabetes specialists continue to work, at least for now  

Ivan Smirnov, MD, PhD, head of the endocrinology department at Kharkiv Regional Hospital, in the northeastern part of the country, said in an email to this news organization: “I continue to stay in Kharkiv, in spite of the situation. A lot of people are killed, many people are wounded. My hospital is full of wounded civilians ... a lot of buildings are destroyed partly and some completely.”

Dr. Smirnov said that he and his colleagues “find the way to overcome the fear ... in constant work. Part of the work is online consulting assistance for routine patients. ... But the main time now is dedicated to providing the diabetes patients with insulin. This is a heavy job to do indeed.”

Dr. Mankovsky, who practices adult diabetology and endocrinology in Kyiv, continues to manage patients, but mostly remotely. “Practice is severely disrupted. I’m willing to see patients but it’s extremely difficult and dangerous for them and probably not possible to travel to see me. So that’s why all our communications now is distant, through phone or internet. ... We can communicate and I’m able to provide some recommendations for changes in treatment or some corrections in insulin therapy.”

Despite the Russians closing in on Kyiv, Dr. Mankovsky said, “I’ve decided to stay as long as possible. Then, nobody knows of course but I think I have to. ... We hear explosions every day. ... I’m in the center of the city and the streets are empty. It’s heartbreaking.”
 

Supplies are reaching refugees

Dr. Mankovsky said: “Now we have huge movement of refugees. Among them are a lot of people with diabetes who moved out of their place and nobody knows where they are. It’s really a huge disruption.”

According to the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization JDRF, many men with diabetes aged 18-60 are remaining in Ukraine to fight, despite the increased risk with the disease. But an estimated 15,000 children with type 1 diabetes and their families are attempting to escape the conflict by moving to the western regions of the country or over the borders.

“Those who make it to Hungary, Moldova, Poland, or Romania are being received with wonderful generosity. We have heard stories ranging from governments making it possible to pick up insulin free without a script to individuals emptying their cupboards of insulin for those whose need is urgent,” JDRF said in a statement on March 2.  

For its part, Novo Nordisk has donated 55 million Danish kroner (about 7.3 million Euros, or $8.2 million U.S. dollars) to support international relief organizations in assisting refugees.

Ivan Tkac, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Safárik University in Kosice, Slovakia, is assisting refugees, including those with diabetes. Slovakia is predominantly a transit country for refugees from Ukraine, he said in an interview. 

“However, in solidarity with Ukraine, we are providing emergency medical care for both Ukrainians and refugees from third countries leaving Ukraine,” he said, noting that those individuals are primarily foreign students who had been studying there.

“Asylum seekers receive full medical insurance paid by the government of the Slovak Republic. As part of this care, the refugees are provided with the necessary amount of insulin and other antidiabetic drugs, as well as medical devices needed for the treatment of diabetes. The European Commission has pledged to supply Slovakia with the necessary quantities of medicines for the treatment of diabetes in the coming weeks as part of its assistance to the countries bordering Ukraine. In addition, some humanitarian organizations are organizing supplies of insulin and other medicines for soldiers fighting in the Ukrainian army,” Dr. Tkac said.
 

How you can help

A number of organizations are providing assistance specifically to people with diabetes, as well as broader medical assistance to people remaining in Ukraine and to refugees.

A collaboration between the Ministry of Health of Ukraine, the humanitarian agency Direct Relief, and the International Diabetes Federation is working to determine where supplies are short, to secure donations within Europe, and to open up “green corridors” within Ukraine to deliver them quickly to where they’re needed. They have asked those who wish to help to donate to Direct Relief and direct donations to the “Ukraine crisis.”

Another effort organized by IDF Europe is Connect Solidarity, a program that “aims to facilitate support from IDF Europe member associations across Europe wishing to help other national diabetes associations in Ukraine’s neighboring countries, provide advice, medicines, and supplies to Ukrainian refugees.”

IDF President Andrew Boulton, MD, told this news organization that he has been in almost daily contact with senior colleagues working in diabetes in Ukraine, and that he is working with the organization’s affiliated charity Life for a Child in addition to the other charitable agencies. “We will continue to do our utmost best to help those with diabetes living in Ukraine. However, this is, of course, very challenging, and we hope that we are doing the best we can in such a difficult situation. We all hope and pray that this situation is soon resolved.”

The European Association for the Study of Diabetes is taking a somewhat different approach, by encouraging its members to “support people with ill health, including diabetes, with donations through established [nongovernmental organizations] that have the capacity to help on site, such as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or International Committee of the Red Cross.”

Dr. Mankovsky told this news organization that he is very grateful for all the support from around the world: “Just thanks. I’ve got so much support, so many phone calls, so many letters ... not just me, all of us. People wise and friendship wise we feel support. It’s really important, emotionally and with insulin supply and other medications. Without that, it would be much more difficult.”
 

Pandemic-prompted changes enable wartime diabetes care

Dramatic changes in diabetes care delivery in Ukraine necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic have proved indispensable during the Russian invasion.

In a piece published May 29, 2020, in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, Dr. Mankovsky described how the pandemic hit just as Ukraine’s health system was pivoting from government controlled to insurance based.

Prior to the pandemic, patients with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes were regularly admitted to hospital for routine checkups, insulin dose management, and other treatments, a “remnant of the Soviet-era medical practice, which emphasized heavily on hospital admissions,” Dr. Mankovsky said in an interview.

This was the case, he wrote in the article, “despite the common understanding that such a system was a waste of resources ... this policy was changing much slower than we wanted.”

But the COVID-19 pandemic changed that practice “abruptly and dramatically,” so that all hospitalizations for patients with diabetes were stopped unless there was a real metabolic emergency.

Subsequently, Dr. Mankovsky wrote, “almost every health professional recognizes the particular importance of the new ways of communications with patients and with other colleagues.”

Indeed, in his email to this news organization, Dr. Smirnov mentioned that the routine diabetes management work he is still able to do remotely despite the extreme disruption in his region “is easy because of long-term COVID-period experience.”

Also because of the pandemic, insulin prescriptions were switched from traditional paper to electronic transfer, so that patients could easily pick them up at the pharmacy. “This new ... system proved to be not just very convenient for all parties involved, but in the current situation, it allowed us to prevent so many medically unnecessary visits to the clinics, which otherwise would have presented the real threat to the patients’ health and risk to get them infected,” Dr. Mankovsky wrote in 2020.

Now with the new danger, he said, “the inability to see patients is probably the least of our problems.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As public attention continues to focus on making insulin affordable, a new online guide is available to help clinicians approach discussions with patients about diabetes medication affordability and access.

The resource, “Having Healthcare Cost Conversations to Improve Patient Outcomes: A Practical Guide,” was jointly developed by the Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists and Beyond Type 1, the nonprofit patient advocacy organization.

Indeed, the guide appeared as President Biden discussed his proposal to cap insulin costs at $35 per insulin vial during the State of the Union address, during which he introduced a young boy with type 1 diabetes in the guest box, as reported by this news organization. On March 3, Civica, a nonprofit coalition of health systems and philanthropies, announced it plans to manufacture generic insulin at a deeply discounted price, as reported by this news organization.

“Just to see diabetes front and center at the State of the Union followed by these announcements is certainly reflective of our own advocacy effort to make sure that people have affordable options for insulin, diabetes medications, services,” Kate Thomas, ADCES chief advocacy and external affairs officer, said in an interview. She added that ADCES has also pushed for legislation in Congress that would expand access to diabetes self-management training under the Medicare program.

The guide includes advice about overcoming barriers to discussing treatment costs with patients, suggested questions to ask patients about specific costs, and determinants of health and conversational approaches. Links are provided to resources for obtaining affordable insulin, other diabetes medications, and continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pump equipment.

“We know that, especially during primary care visits, there is limited time along with numbers of issues to talk about, so I think our challenge is how do we prioritize these conversations with something that can lead to action, not just saying you should do this but how do you actually do it,” Ms. Thomas said.

The introduction summarizes results from a 2021 Beyond Type 1 survey confirming prior findings reported by this news organization that cost is a frequent barrier for many individuals living with diabetes. “Especially right now where we are in terms of the impact of the pandemic and with peoples’ job statuses changing, I think it’s worthwhile to raise this in patient encounters,” Ms. Thomas said.
 

Overcoming conversational barriers

The first of three tables in the guide provides a list of “barriers to having a cost conversation” in the first column and “suggested solutions” in the second. For example, for the barrier, “You have insufficient time and/or knowledge about cost,” the suggestion is, “request and share available faculty and resources, including benefits coordinators, social workers, and community-based organizations. Work with the pharmacists and other members of the diabetes care team to identify resources that lower cost of medications.”

And for another barrier, “patients are often embarrassed or ashamed to initiate discussions of affordability,” the suggested solution is: “Normalize the issue of cost of care barriers for patients.”

A second table offers specific questions to ask patients about costs of medications and care, determinants of health, and financial barriers. These include: “What are some challenges you’ve had to accessing your medications or taking them as prescribed? What are some out-of-pocket health care costs you need help with? What challenges do you have accessing healthy food for you and your family?”

A link to a screening tool for social determinants of health is also included.

Language suggestions include talking about “cost of care” rather than “money,” asking patients if they’ve understood everything correctly by repeating back what they’ve said, and asking for confirmation and discussing follow-up.

Overall, the tool is designed to be a “broad conversation starter,” and not just about medications, Ms. Thomas said. “This is for all audiences and it’s meant to be something that the provider can tailor depending on who they’re speaking to. ... It’s about medications, but also the entire cost of care, including services and devices, transportation to appointments, access to food. ... Diabetes care isn’t just taking medication. It’s so many more factors.”

Ms. Thomas reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As public attention continues to focus on making insulin affordable, a new online guide is available to help clinicians approach discussions with patients about diabetes medication affordability and access.

The resource, “Having Healthcare Cost Conversations to Improve Patient Outcomes: A Practical Guide,” was jointly developed by the Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists and Beyond Type 1, the nonprofit patient advocacy organization.

Indeed, the guide appeared as President Biden discussed his proposal to cap insulin costs at $35 per insulin vial during the State of the Union address, during which he introduced a young boy with type 1 diabetes in the guest box, as reported by this news organization. On March 3, Civica, a nonprofit coalition of health systems and philanthropies, announced it plans to manufacture generic insulin at a deeply discounted price, as reported by this news organization.

“Just to see diabetes front and center at the State of the Union followed by these announcements is certainly reflective of our own advocacy effort to make sure that people have affordable options for insulin, diabetes medications, services,” Kate Thomas, ADCES chief advocacy and external affairs officer, said in an interview. She added that ADCES has also pushed for legislation in Congress that would expand access to diabetes self-management training under the Medicare program.

The guide includes advice about overcoming barriers to discussing treatment costs with patients, suggested questions to ask patients about specific costs, and determinants of health and conversational approaches. Links are provided to resources for obtaining affordable insulin, other diabetes medications, and continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pump equipment.

“We know that, especially during primary care visits, there is limited time along with numbers of issues to talk about, so I think our challenge is how do we prioritize these conversations with something that can lead to action, not just saying you should do this but how do you actually do it,” Ms. Thomas said.

The introduction summarizes results from a 2021 Beyond Type 1 survey confirming prior findings reported by this news organization that cost is a frequent barrier for many individuals living with diabetes. “Especially right now where we are in terms of the impact of the pandemic and with peoples’ job statuses changing, I think it’s worthwhile to raise this in patient encounters,” Ms. Thomas said.
 

Overcoming conversational barriers

The first of three tables in the guide provides a list of “barriers to having a cost conversation” in the first column and “suggested solutions” in the second. For example, for the barrier, “You have insufficient time and/or knowledge about cost,” the suggestion is, “request and share available faculty and resources, including benefits coordinators, social workers, and community-based organizations. Work with the pharmacists and other members of the diabetes care team to identify resources that lower cost of medications.”

And for another barrier, “patients are often embarrassed or ashamed to initiate discussions of affordability,” the suggested solution is: “Normalize the issue of cost of care barriers for patients.”

A second table offers specific questions to ask patients about costs of medications and care, determinants of health, and financial barriers. These include: “What are some challenges you’ve had to accessing your medications or taking them as prescribed? What are some out-of-pocket health care costs you need help with? What challenges do you have accessing healthy food for you and your family?”

A link to a screening tool for social determinants of health is also included.

Language suggestions include talking about “cost of care” rather than “money,” asking patients if they’ve understood everything correctly by repeating back what they’ve said, and asking for confirmation and discussing follow-up.

Overall, the tool is designed to be a “broad conversation starter,” and not just about medications, Ms. Thomas said. “This is for all audiences and it’s meant to be something that the provider can tailor depending on who they’re speaking to. ... It’s about medications, but also the entire cost of care, including services and devices, transportation to appointments, access to food. ... Diabetes care isn’t just taking medication. It’s so many more factors.”

Ms. Thomas reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As public attention continues to focus on making insulin affordable, a new online guide is available to help clinicians approach discussions with patients about diabetes medication affordability and access.

The resource, “Having Healthcare Cost Conversations to Improve Patient Outcomes: A Practical Guide,” was jointly developed by the Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists and Beyond Type 1, the nonprofit patient advocacy organization.

Indeed, the guide appeared as President Biden discussed his proposal to cap insulin costs at $35 per insulin vial during the State of the Union address, during which he introduced a young boy with type 1 diabetes in the guest box, as reported by this news organization. On March 3, Civica, a nonprofit coalition of health systems and philanthropies, announced it plans to manufacture generic insulin at a deeply discounted price, as reported by this news organization.

“Just to see diabetes front and center at the State of the Union followed by these announcements is certainly reflective of our own advocacy effort to make sure that people have affordable options for insulin, diabetes medications, services,” Kate Thomas, ADCES chief advocacy and external affairs officer, said in an interview. She added that ADCES has also pushed for legislation in Congress that would expand access to diabetes self-management training under the Medicare program.

The guide includes advice about overcoming barriers to discussing treatment costs with patients, suggested questions to ask patients about specific costs, and determinants of health and conversational approaches. Links are provided to resources for obtaining affordable insulin, other diabetes medications, and continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pump equipment.

“We know that, especially during primary care visits, there is limited time along with numbers of issues to talk about, so I think our challenge is how do we prioritize these conversations with something that can lead to action, not just saying you should do this but how do you actually do it,” Ms. Thomas said.

The introduction summarizes results from a 2021 Beyond Type 1 survey confirming prior findings reported by this news organization that cost is a frequent barrier for many individuals living with diabetes. “Especially right now where we are in terms of the impact of the pandemic and with peoples’ job statuses changing, I think it’s worthwhile to raise this in patient encounters,” Ms. Thomas said.
 

Overcoming conversational barriers

The first of three tables in the guide provides a list of “barriers to having a cost conversation” in the first column and “suggested solutions” in the second. For example, for the barrier, “You have insufficient time and/or knowledge about cost,” the suggestion is, “request and share available faculty and resources, including benefits coordinators, social workers, and community-based organizations. Work with the pharmacists and other members of the diabetes care team to identify resources that lower cost of medications.”

And for another barrier, “patients are often embarrassed or ashamed to initiate discussions of affordability,” the suggested solution is: “Normalize the issue of cost of care barriers for patients.”

A second table offers specific questions to ask patients about costs of medications and care, determinants of health, and financial barriers. These include: “What are some challenges you’ve had to accessing your medications or taking them as prescribed? What are some out-of-pocket health care costs you need help with? What challenges do you have accessing healthy food for you and your family?”

A link to a screening tool for social determinants of health is also included.

Language suggestions include talking about “cost of care” rather than “money,” asking patients if they’ve understood everything correctly by repeating back what they’ve said, and asking for confirmation and discussing follow-up.

Overall, the tool is designed to be a “broad conversation starter,” and not just about medications, Ms. Thomas said. “This is for all audiences and it’s meant to be something that the provider can tailor depending on who they’re speaking to. ... It’s about medications, but also the entire cost of care, including services and devices, transportation to appointments, access to food. ... Diabetes care isn’t just taking medication. It’s so many more factors.”

Ms. Thomas reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) undergoing thyroidectomy show no improvements in outcomes with the use of postoperative radioiodine ablation compared to those who do not receive this therapy, suggesting these patients can be spared the previously common treatment.

The study’s take-home message for clinicians should be to “stop systematic radioiodine ablation administration in low-risk thyroid cancer patients,” lead author Sophie Leboulleux, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

The results were first reported at ENDO 2021 and have now been published in the New England Journal of Medicine by Dr. Leboulleux, of the department of nuclear medicine and endocrine oncology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Institute, Villejuif, France, and colleagues.

While American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines already indicate that radioiodine ablation is not routinely recommended after thyroidectomy for patients with low-risk thyroid cancer, the guidance is only a “weak recommendation,” supported by “low-quality evidence.”  

However, the new findings should give that level of evidence a much-needed boost, said one expert. “I think the main contribution of this paper is to change the evidence level to ‘high quality,’ therefore making the recommendation ‘strong,’ rather than ‘weak,’ ” David S. Cooper, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Cooper, professor of medicine and radiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote an editorial that accompanies Dr. Leboulleux’s study.

The ability to safely spare patients the radioiodine ablation step after thyroidectomy has important benefits in terms of cost and convenience, Dr. Cooper stressed.
 

ESTIMABL2 trial

The new findings are from the prospective, randomized, phase 3 Essai Stimulation Ablation 2 (ESTIMABL2) trial, in which 730 patients at 35 centers in France with low-risk DTC scheduled to undergo thyroidectomy were enrolled between May 2013 and March 2017.

Patients were randomized to receive either postoperative radioiodine ablation (1.1 GBq) after injections of recombinant human thyrotropin (n = 363) or no postoperative radioiodine (n = 367).

Patients were a mean age of 52 years and 83% were women. About 96% had papillary tumors, and pathological tumor node (pTN) stages were mostly pT1b thyroid with a nodal status of N0 or Nx (81.1%). It is these patients in particular in whom retrospective studies of the use of radioiodine ablation have yielded inconsistent results, Dr. Leboulleux and colleagues noted. Hence, their decision to look at this prospectively.

Outcomes were based on the groups’ rates of events, defined as the presence of abnormal foci of radioiodine uptake on whole-body scanning that required treatment (in the radioiodine group only), abnormal findings on neck ultrasonography, or increased levels of thyroglobulin or thyroglobulin antibodies.

After a 3-year follow-up, the rates of having no events in both groups were very high – and nearly identical – at 95.6% among those receiving no radioiodine ablation and 95.9% in the radioiodine group, for a between-group difference of –0.3 percentage points, which met the criteria for noninferiority for the no-radioiodine group.

Likewise, the events that did occur were nearly equally split between the no-radioiodine group (16 events, 4.4%) and the radioiodine group (15 events, 4.1%).

Among patients who had events, subsequent treatments, including surgery, radioiodine administration, or both, were necessary for four patients in the no-radioiodine group and 10 in the radioiodine group, and additional treatments were not necessary for the other patients who experienced events.

There were no differences between those who did and did not experience events in terms of molecular alterations, and 50 of the tumors had BRAF mutations, with no significant differences between groups.

Of the adverse events that occurred in 30 patients, none were determined to be related to treatment, and there were no thyroid-related deaths.

The recurrence rates align with the rates observed overall with low-risk thyroid cancer, the authors noted. 

“We observed that less than 5% of the patients in the two groups had events that included abnormal findings on whole-body scanning or neck ultrasonography or elevated levels of thyroglobulin or thyroglobulin antibodies during the first 3 years of follow-up,” they reported.

“This rate is concordant with the definition of low-risk thyroid cancer, and our trial showed that the risk of events was not higher in the absence of postoperative administration of radioiodine.”
 

Patients spared costs, work losses

Dr. Cooper elaborated on the advantages, for patients, of avoiding radioiodine ablation.

For one thing, the recombinant human TSH that is necessary to prepare for radioiodine therapy is very expensive, ranging from $2,000 to $3,000, with patients often having a copay, he explained.

“Patients usually have to take time off work, which is also an expense to society and to them if they don’t get paid for days that they don’t work,” Dr. Cooper added.

A possible study limitation is the question of whether 3 years is an ample follow-up period to detect events. However, Dr. Cooper said he considers the period to be sufficient.

“As the authors point out, most recurrences of thyroid cancer are detected within the first 3-5 years of initial treatment, so ... the 3-year window is still clinically relevant,” he said.

Regarding the study’s inclusion of centers only in France, Dr. Cooper added, “I do not think that this is a study limitation. There is nothing specific about the French population that would lead me to conclude that the results were not generalizable to all populations with low-risk papillary thyroid cancer.”
 

Some continue radioiodine use, but lobectomies add to decline

Despite the mounting evidence of the lack of benefit of radioiodine ablation in low-risk patients, some centers, particularly in Europe, continue the practice, which was standard in the treatment of DTC until relatively recently.

“[While] U.S. guidelines changed in 2015 in favor of no radioiodine in low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer patients, this study should help to change European guidelines,” Dr. Leboulleux said. “The results will help to change practice both in the U.S. and in Europe.”

In addition to awareness of guidelines and new evidence, another reason for the decline in radioiodine ablation for low-risk DTC is the increasing use of thyroid lobectomy, which does not involve the use of radioiodine ablation, rather than total thyroidectomy, Dr. Cooper noted.

“The [new] NEJM paper will hopefully decrease the inappropriate use of radioiodine in low-risk patients even further,” he concluded.

The study received support from the French Ministry of Health through a grant from the National Cancer Institute. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) undergoing thyroidectomy show no improvements in outcomes with the use of postoperative radioiodine ablation compared to those who do not receive this therapy, suggesting these patients can be spared the previously common treatment.

The study’s take-home message for clinicians should be to “stop systematic radioiodine ablation administration in low-risk thyroid cancer patients,” lead author Sophie Leboulleux, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

The results were first reported at ENDO 2021 and have now been published in the New England Journal of Medicine by Dr. Leboulleux, of the department of nuclear medicine and endocrine oncology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Institute, Villejuif, France, and colleagues.

While American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines already indicate that radioiodine ablation is not routinely recommended after thyroidectomy for patients with low-risk thyroid cancer, the guidance is only a “weak recommendation,” supported by “low-quality evidence.”  

However, the new findings should give that level of evidence a much-needed boost, said one expert. “I think the main contribution of this paper is to change the evidence level to ‘high quality,’ therefore making the recommendation ‘strong,’ rather than ‘weak,’ ” David S. Cooper, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Cooper, professor of medicine and radiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote an editorial that accompanies Dr. Leboulleux’s study.

The ability to safely spare patients the radioiodine ablation step after thyroidectomy has important benefits in terms of cost and convenience, Dr. Cooper stressed.
 

ESTIMABL2 trial

The new findings are from the prospective, randomized, phase 3 Essai Stimulation Ablation 2 (ESTIMABL2) trial, in which 730 patients at 35 centers in France with low-risk DTC scheduled to undergo thyroidectomy were enrolled between May 2013 and March 2017.

Patients were randomized to receive either postoperative radioiodine ablation (1.1 GBq) after injections of recombinant human thyrotropin (n = 363) or no postoperative radioiodine (n = 367).

Patients were a mean age of 52 years and 83% were women. About 96% had papillary tumors, and pathological tumor node (pTN) stages were mostly pT1b thyroid with a nodal status of N0 or Nx (81.1%). It is these patients in particular in whom retrospective studies of the use of radioiodine ablation have yielded inconsistent results, Dr. Leboulleux and colleagues noted. Hence, their decision to look at this prospectively.

Outcomes were based on the groups’ rates of events, defined as the presence of abnormal foci of radioiodine uptake on whole-body scanning that required treatment (in the radioiodine group only), abnormal findings on neck ultrasonography, or increased levels of thyroglobulin or thyroglobulin antibodies.

After a 3-year follow-up, the rates of having no events in both groups were very high – and nearly identical – at 95.6% among those receiving no radioiodine ablation and 95.9% in the radioiodine group, for a between-group difference of –0.3 percentage points, which met the criteria for noninferiority for the no-radioiodine group.

Likewise, the events that did occur were nearly equally split between the no-radioiodine group (16 events, 4.4%) and the radioiodine group (15 events, 4.1%).

Among patients who had events, subsequent treatments, including surgery, radioiodine administration, or both, were necessary for four patients in the no-radioiodine group and 10 in the radioiodine group, and additional treatments were not necessary for the other patients who experienced events.

There were no differences between those who did and did not experience events in terms of molecular alterations, and 50 of the tumors had BRAF mutations, with no significant differences between groups.

Of the adverse events that occurred in 30 patients, none were determined to be related to treatment, and there were no thyroid-related deaths.

The recurrence rates align with the rates observed overall with low-risk thyroid cancer, the authors noted. 

“We observed that less than 5% of the patients in the two groups had events that included abnormal findings on whole-body scanning or neck ultrasonography or elevated levels of thyroglobulin or thyroglobulin antibodies during the first 3 years of follow-up,” they reported.

“This rate is concordant with the definition of low-risk thyroid cancer, and our trial showed that the risk of events was not higher in the absence of postoperative administration of radioiodine.”
 

Patients spared costs, work losses

Dr. Cooper elaborated on the advantages, for patients, of avoiding radioiodine ablation.

For one thing, the recombinant human TSH that is necessary to prepare for radioiodine therapy is very expensive, ranging from $2,000 to $3,000, with patients often having a copay, he explained.

“Patients usually have to take time off work, which is also an expense to society and to them if they don’t get paid for days that they don’t work,” Dr. Cooper added.

A possible study limitation is the question of whether 3 years is an ample follow-up period to detect events. However, Dr. Cooper said he considers the period to be sufficient.

“As the authors point out, most recurrences of thyroid cancer are detected within the first 3-5 years of initial treatment, so ... the 3-year window is still clinically relevant,” he said.

Regarding the study’s inclusion of centers only in France, Dr. Cooper added, “I do not think that this is a study limitation. There is nothing specific about the French population that would lead me to conclude that the results were not generalizable to all populations with low-risk papillary thyroid cancer.”
 

Some continue radioiodine use, but lobectomies add to decline

Despite the mounting evidence of the lack of benefit of radioiodine ablation in low-risk patients, some centers, particularly in Europe, continue the practice, which was standard in the treatment of DTC until relatively recently.

“[While] U.S. guidelines changed in 2015 in favor of no radioiodine in low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer patients, this study should help to change European guidelines,” Dr. Leboulleux said. “The results will help to change practice both in the U.S. and in Europe.”

In addition to awareness of guidelines and new evidence, another reason for the decline in radioiodine ablation for low-risk DTC is the increasing use of thyroid lobectomy, which does not involve the use of radioiodine ablation, rather than total thyroidectomy, Dr. Cooper noted.

“The [new] NEJM paper will hopefully decrease the inappropriate use of radioiodine in low-risk patients even further,” he concluded.

The study received support from the French Ministry of Health through a grant from the National Cancer Institute. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) undergoing thyroidectomy show no improvements in outcomes with the use of postoperative radioiodine ablation compared to those who do not receive this therapy, suggesting these patients can be spared the previously common treatment.

The study’s take-home message for clinicians should be to “stop systematic radioiodine ablation administration in low-risk thyroid cancer patients,” lead author Sophie Leboulleux, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

The results were first reported at ENDO 2021 and have now been published in the New England Journal of Medicine by Dr. Leboulleux, of the department of nuclear medicine and endocrine oncology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Institute, Villejuif, France, and colleagues.

While American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines already indicate that radioiodine ablation is not routinely recommended after thyroidectomy for patients with low-risk thyroid cancer, the guidance is only a “weak recommendation,” supported by “low-quality evidence.”  

However, the new findings should give that level of evidence a much-needed boost, said one expert. “I think the main contribution of this paper is to change the evidence level to ‘high quality,’ therefore making the recommendation ‘strong,’ rather than ‘weak,’ ” David S. Cooper, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Cooper, professor of medicine and radiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote an editorial that accompanies Dr. Leboulleux’s study.

The ability to safely spare patients the radioiodine ablation step after thyroidectomy has important benefits in terms of cost and convenience, Dr. Cooper stressed.
 

ESTIMABL2 trial

The new findings are from the prospective, randomized, phase 3 Essai Stimulation Ablation 2 (ESTIMABL2) trial, in which 730 patients at 35 centers in France with low-risk DTC scheduled to undergo thyroidectomy were enrolled between May 2013 and March 2017.

Patients were randomized to receive either postoperative radioiodine ablation (1.1 GBq) after injections of recombinant human thyrotropin (n = 363) or no postoperative radioiodine (n = 367).

Patients were a mean age of 52 years and 83% were women. About 96% had papillary tumors, and pathological tumor node (pTN) stages were mostly pT1b thyroid with a nodal status of N0 or Nx (81.1%). It is these patients in particular in whom retrospective studies of the use of radioiodine ablation have yielded inconsistent results, Dr. Leboulleux and colleagues noted. Hence, their decision to look at this prospectively.

Outcomes were based on the groups’ rates of events, defined as the presence of abnormal foci of radioiodine uptake on whole-body scanning that required treatment (in the radioiodine group only), abnormal findings on neck ultrasonography, or increased levels of thyroglobulin or thyroglobulin antibodies.

After a 3-year follow-up, the rates of having no events in both groups were very high – and nearly identical – at 95.6% among those receiving no radioiodine ablation and 95.9% in the radioiodine group, for a between-group difference of –0.3 percentage points, which met the criteria for noninferiority for the no-radioiodine group.

Likewise, the events that did occur were nearly equally split between the no-radioiodine group (16 events, 4.4%) and the radioiodine group (15 events, 4.1%).

Among patients who had events, subsequent treatments, including surgery, radioiodine administration, or both, were necessary for four patients in the no-radioiodine group and 10 in the radioiodine group, and additional treatments were not necessary for the other patients who experienced events.

There were no differences between those who did and did not experience events in terms of molecular alterations, and 50 of the tumors had BRAF mutations, with no significant differences between groups.

Of the adverse events that occurred in 30 patients, none were determined to be related to treatment, and there were no thyroid-related deaths.

The recurrence rates align with the rates observed overall with low-risk thyroid cancer, the authors noted. 

“We observed that less than 5% of the patients in the two groups had events that included abnormal findings on whole-body scanning or neck ultrasonography or elevated levels of thyroglobulin or thyroglobulin antibodies during the first 3 years of follow-up,” they reported.

“This rate is concordant with the definition of low-risk thyroid cancer, and our trial showed that the risk of events was not higher in the absence of postoperative administration of radioiodine.”
 

Patients spared costs, work losses

Dr. Cooper elaborated on the advantages, for patients, of avoiding radioiodine ablation.

For one thing, the recombinant human TSH that is necessary to prepare for radioiodine therapy is very expensive, ranging from $2,000 to $3,000, with patients often having a copay, he explained.

“Patients usually have to take time off work, which is also an expense to society and to them if they don’t get paid for days that they don’t work,” Dr. Cooper added.

A possible study limitation is the question of whether 3 years is an ample follow-up period to detect events. However, Dr. Cooper said he considers the period to be sufficient.

“As the authors point out, most recurrences of thyroid cancer are detected within the first 3-5 years of initial treatment, so ... the 3-year window is still clinically relevant,” he said.

Regarding the study’s inclusion of centers only in France, Dr. Cooper added, “I do not think that this is a study limitation. There is nothing specific about the French population that would lead me to conclude that the results were not generalizable to all populations with low-risk papillary thyroid cancer.”
 

Some continue radioiodine use, but lobectomies add to decline

Despite the mounting evidence of the lack of benefit of radioiodine ablation in low-risk patients, some centers, particularly in Europe, continue the practice, which was standard in the treatment of DTC until relatively recently.

“[While] U.S. guidelines changed in 2015 in favor of no radioiodine in low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer patients, this study should help to change European guidelines,” Dr. Leboulleux said. “The results will help to change practice both in the U.S. and in Europe.”

In addition to awareness of guidelines and new evidence, another reason for the decline in radioiodine ablation for low-risk DTC is the increasing use of thyroid lobectomy, which does not involve the use of radioiodine ablation, rather than total thyroidectomy, Dr. Cooper noted.

“The [new] NEJM paper will hopefully decrease the inappropriate use of radioiodine in low-risk patients even further,” he concluded.

The study received support from the French Ministry of Health through a grant from the National Cancer Institute. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Drink a day could age your brain

There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.

According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.

Courtesy Debora Cartagena, USCDCP

Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!

The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.

Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?

Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
 

A big dose of meta-cine

The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.

Piqsels

That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.

Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.

Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
 

Please don’t eat the winner

Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.

Frank_P_AJJ74/Pixabay

Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?

Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?

Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.

Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?

In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”

Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!

Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
 

Turning back the egg timer

The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.

If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.

The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.

“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”

We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!

Drink a day could age your brain

There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.

According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.

Courtesy Debora Cartagena, USCDCP

Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!

The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.

Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?

Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
 

A big dose of meta-cine

The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.

Piqsels

That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.

Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.

Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
 

Please don’t eat the winner

Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.

Frank_P_AJJ74/Pixabay

Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?

Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?

Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.

Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?

In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”

Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!

Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
 

Turning back the egg timer

The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.

If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.

The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.

“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”

We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!

Drink a day could age your brain

There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.

According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.

Courtesy Debora Cartagena, USCDCP

Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!

The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.

Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?

Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
 

A big dose of meta-cine

The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.

Piqsels

That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.

Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.

Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
 

Please don’t eat the winner

Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.

Frank_P_AJJ74/Pixabay

Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?

Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?

Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.

Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?

In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”

Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!

Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
 

Turning back the egg timer

The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.

If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.

The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.

“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”

We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!

From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) —the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.

The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.) In addition to H. pylori infection, this edition adds the flame-retardant chemical antimony trioxide, and 6 haloacetic acids found as water disinfection byproducts.

In 1971, then-President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the United States) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.

Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.

Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.

Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.

“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) —the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.

The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.) In addition to H. pylori infection, this edition adds the flame-retardant chemical antimony trioxide, and 6 haloacetic acids found as water disinfection byproducts.

In 1971, then-President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the United States) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.

Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.

Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.

Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.

“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) —the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.

The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.) In addition to H. pylori infection, this edition adds the flame-retardant chemical antimony trioxide, and 6 haloacetic acids found as water disinfection byproducts.

In 1971, then-President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the United States) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.

Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.

Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.

Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.

“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government’s efforts to thwart information blocking are underway. As such, physicians would do well to be standing at the ready when the information-blocking regulations, designed to ensure that patients can access their electronic health information (EHI), shift into full gear.

Recently, the Office of the National Coordinator revealed that the Department of Health & Humans Services has received 299 reports of information blocking since inviting anyone who suspected that health care providers, IT developers, or health information networks/exchanges might have interfered with access, exchange, or use of EHI through the Report Information Blocking Portal on April 5, 2021.

The vast majority of these claims – 211 – were filed against providers, while 46 alleged incidents of information blocking were by health IT developers, and two claims point to health information networks/ exchanges. The other 25 claims did not appear to present a claim of information blocking.

Of the 274 possible claims of information blocking recently released by ONC, 176 were made by patients.

The ONC has sent all possible claims to the HHS’s Office of the Inspector General. The claims have not yet been investigated and substantiated.
 

Do the stats tell the story?

The numbers in the recent ONC report do not shed much light on how much impact the regulations are having on information sharing. Health care providers, including physicians, might not yet be complying with the rules because monetary penalties are not in place.

Indeed, HHS has yet to spell out exactly what the disincentives on providers will be, though the 21st Century Cures Act stipulates that regulators could fine up to $1 million per information-blocking incident.

“Some providers might be saying, ‘I’m not going to be penalized at this point … so I can take a little bit longer to think about how I come into compliance.’ That could be just one factor of a host of many that are affecting compliance. We also are still in the middle of a public health emergency. So it’s hard to say at this point” exactly how the regulations will affect information blocking, Lauren Riplinger, vice president of policy and public affairs at the American Health Information Management Association, Chicago, said in an interview.
 

A long time coming

The government first zeroed in on ensuring that patients have access to their information in 2016 when President Obama signed the Cures Act into law. The legislation directed ONC to implement a standardized process for the public to report claims of possible information blocking.

The initiative appears to be picking up steam. The ONC is expected to release monthly reports on the cumulative number of information-blocking claims. The announcement of associated penalties is expected sometime in the future.

Industry leaders are advising health care providers to brush up on compliance. Physicians can look to professional groups such as the American Medical Association, the Medical Group Management Association, and other specialty associations for guidance. In addition, the ONC is educating providers on the rule.

“The ONC has provided a lot of great content for the past couple months, not only in terms of putting out FAQs to help clarify some of the gray areas in the rule, but they also have produced a series of provider-specific webinars where they walk through a potential scenario and address the extent to the rules apply,” Ms. Riplinger said.
 

With education, more is better

These efforts, however, could be expanded, according to MGMA.

“There is a general awareness of the rules, but we encourage ONC to continue educating the provider community: More FAQs and educational webinars would be helpful,” Claire Ernst, director of government affairs for MGMA, said in an interview. “A June 2021 MGMA poll found that 51% of medical groups said they needed more government guidance on complying with the new information-blocking rules.”

Although ONC already has provided some “scenario-based” education, more of this type of guidance could prove valuable.

“This rule is that it is very circumstance based. … and so it’s those more nuanced cases that I think are more challenging for providers to know whether or not they are engaging in information blocking,” Ms. Riplinger noted.

For example, a physician might choose to not upload lab test results to a patient portal and prefer to wait to discuss the results directly with the patient, which could potentially be construed as information blocking under the regulations.

The MGMA is requesting that ONC take a second look at these situations – and possibly adjust the regulations.

“MGMA has heard concerns about the impact of providing immediate results to patients before medical groups have the time to thoroughly review test results and discuss them compassionately with their patients,” Ms. Ernst said. “To address this, ONC could expand the current definition of harm to account for other unintended consequences, such as emotional distress, or provide more flexibility in terms of the time frame.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government’s efforts to thwart information blocking are underway. As such, physicians would do well to be standing at the ready when the information-blocking regulations, designed to ensure that patients can access their electronic health information (EHI), shift into full gear.

Recently, the Office of the National Coordinator revealed that the Department of Health & Humans Services has received 299 reports of information blocking since inviting anyone who suspected that health care providers, IT developers, or health information networks/exchanges might have interfered with access, exchange, or use of EHI through the Report Information Blocking Portal on April 5, 2021.

The vast majority of these claims – 211 – were filed against providers, while 46 alleged incidents of information blocking were by health IT developers, and two claims point to health information networks/ exchanges. The other 25 claims did not appear to present a claim of information blocking.

Of the 274 possible claims of information blocking recently released by ONC, 176 were made by patients.

The ONC has sent all possible claims to the HHS’s Office of the Inspector General. The claims have not yet been investigated and substantiated.
 

Do the stats tell the story?

The numbers in the recent ONC report do not shed much light on how much impact the regulations are having on information sharing. Health care providers, including physicians, might not yet be complying with the rules because monetary penalties are not in place.

Indeed, HHS has yet to spell out exactly what the disincentives on providers will be, though the 21st Century Cures Act stipulates that regulators could fine up to $1 million per information-blocking incident.

“Some providers might be saying, ‘I’m not going to be penalized at this point … so I can take a little bit longer to think about how I come into compliance.’ That could be just one factor of a host of many that are affecting compliance. We also are still in the middle of a public health emergency. So it’s hard to say at this point” exactly how the regulations will affect information blocking, Lauren Riplinger, vice president of policy and public affairs at the American Health Information Management Association, Chicago, said in an interview.
 

A long time coming

The government first zeroed in on ensuring that patients have access to their information in 2016 when President Obama signed the Cures Act into law. The legislation directed ONC to implement a standardized process for the public to report claims of possible information blocking.

The initiative appears to be picking up steam. The ONC is expected to release monthly reports on the cumulative number of information-blocking claims. The announcement of associated penalties is expected sometime in the future.

Industry leaders are advising health care providers to brush up on compliance. Physicians can look to professional groups such as the American Medical Association, the Medical Group Management Association, and other specialty associations for guidance. In addition, the ONC is educating providers on the rule.

“The ONC has provided a lot of great content for the past couple months, not only in terms of putting out FAQs to help clarify some of the gray areas in the rule, but they also have produced a series of provider-specific webinars where they walk through a potential scenario and address the extent to the rules apply,” Ms. Riplinger said.
 

With education, more is better

These efforts, however, could be expanded, according to MGMA.

“There is a general awareness of the rules, but we encourage ONC to continue educating the provider community: More FAQs and educational webinars would be helpful,” Claire Ernst, director of government affairs for MGMA, said in an interview. “A June 2021 MGMA poll found that 51% of medical groups said they needed more government guidance on complying with the new information-blocking rules.”

Although ONC already has provided some “scenario-based” education, more of this type of guidance could prove valuable.

“This rule is that it is very circumstance based. … and so it’s those more nuanced cases that I think are more challenging for providers to know whether or not they are engaging in information blocking,” Ms. Riplinger noted.

For example, a physician might choose to not upload lab test results to a patient portal and prefer to wait to discuss the results directly with the patient, which could potentially be construed as information blocking under the regulations.

The MGMA is requesting that ONC take a second look at these situations – and possibly adjust the regulations.

“MGMA has heard concerns about the impact of providing immediate results to patients before medical groups have the time to thoroughly review test results and discuss them compassionately with their patients,” Ms. Ernst said. “To address this, ONC could expand the current definition of harm to account for other unintended consequences, such as emotional distress, or provide more flexibility in terms of the time frame.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government’s efforts to thwart information blocking are underway. As such, physicians would do well to be standing at the ready when the information-blocking regulations, designed to ensure that patients can access their electronic health information (EHI), shift into full gear.

Recently, the Office of the National Coordinator revealed that the Department of Health & Humans Services has received 299 reports of information blocking since inviting anyone who suspected that health care providers, IT developers, or health information networks/exchanges might have interfered with access, exchange, or use of EHI through the Report Information Blocking Portal on April 5, 2021.

The vast majority of these claims – 211 – were filed against providers, while 46 alleged incidents of information blocking were by health IT developers, and two claims point to health information networks/ exchanges. The other 25 claims did not appear to present a claim of information blocking.

Of the 274 possible claims of information blocking recently released by ONC, 176 were made by patients.

The ONC has sent all possible claims to the HHS’s Office of the Inspector General. The claims have not yet been investigated and substantiated.
 

Do the stats tell the story?

The numbers in the recent ONC report do not shed much light on how much impact the regulations are having on information sharing. Health care providers, including physicians, might not yet be complying with the rules because monetary penalties are not in place.

Indeed, HHS has yet to spell out exactly what the disincentives on providers will be, though the 21st Century Cures Act stipulates that regulators could fine up to $1 million per information-blocking incident.

“Some providers might be saying, ‘I’m not going to be penalized at this point … so I can take a little bit longer to think about how I come into compliance.’ That could be just one factor of a host of many that are affecting compliance. We also are still in the middle of a public health emergency. So it’s hard to say at this point” exactly how the regulations will affect information blocking, Lauren Riplinger, vice president of policy and public affairs at the American Health Information Management Association, Chicago, said in an interview.
 

A long time coming

The government first zeroed in on ensuring that patients have access to their information in 2016 when President Obama signed the Cures Act into law. The legislation directed ONC to implement a standardized process for the public to report claims of possible information blocking.

The initiative appears to be picking up steam. The ONC is expected to release monthly reports on the cumulative number of information-blocking claims. The announcement of associated penalties is expected sometime in the future.

Industry leaders are advising health care providers to brush up on compliance. Physicians can look to professional groups such as the American Medical Association, the Medical Group Management Association, and other specialty associations for guidance. In addition, the ONC is educating providers on the rule.

“The ONC has provided a lot of great content for the past couple months, not only in terms of putting out FAQs to help clarify some of the gray areas in the rule, but they also have produced a series of provider-specific webinars where they walk through a potential scenario and address the extent to the rules apply,” Ms. Riplinger said.
 

With education, more is better

These efforts, however, could be expanded, according to MGMA.

“There is a general awareness of the rules, but we encourage ONC to continue educating the provider community: More FAQs and educational webinars would be helpful,” Claire Ernst, director of government affairs for MGMA, said in an interview. “A June 2021 MGMA poll found that 51% of medical groups said they needed more government guidance on complying with the new information-blocking rules.”

Although ONC already has provided some “scenario-based” education, more of this type of guidance could prove valuable.

“This rule is that it is very circumstance based. … and so it’s those more nuanced cases that I think are more challenging for providers to know whether or not they are engaging in information blocking,” Ms. Riplinger noted.

For example, a physician might choose to not upload lab test results to a patient portal and prefer to wait to discuss the results directly with the patient, which could potentially be construed as information blocking under the regulations.

The MGMA is requesting that ONC take a second look at these situations – and possibly adjust the regulations.

“MGMA has heard concerns about the impact of providing immediate results to patients before medical groups have the time to thoroughly review test results and discuss them compassionately with their patients,” Ms. Ernst said. “To address this, ONC could expand the current definition of harm to account for other unintended consequences, such as emotional distress, or provide more flexibility in terms of the time frame.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Six key bacterial species of the gut microbiome have been identified as predictors of the development of type 2 diabetes, according to results from a 15-year follow-up study of more than 5,000 people in Finland.

“We are not aware of previous long-term prospective studies of the associations between type 2 diabetes and the gut microbiome similar to the current study,” stated the authors of the study, published online Jan. 31, 2022, in Diabetes Care.

Though requiring further validation, the results “build on and extend previous mainly cross-sectional evidence and further support links between dietary habits, metabolic diseases, and type 2 diabetes that are modulated by the gut microbiome,” the authors wrote.

The findings are from a prospective study of data on fecal samples from 5,572 people in Finland in 2002 in the FINRISK 2002 population cohort. In 2017, the samples were sent for sequencing as follow-up.

Of note, the study excluded people with prevalent diabetes at baseline, including those being treated with antidiabetic drugs such as metformin.
 

Four species, two clusters associated with type 2 diabetes development

Over a median follow-up of 15.8 years, 432 (7.8%) participants went on to have a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, and the presence of four species and two clusters at baseline were significantly associated with the development of type 2 diabetes.

The four species include Clostridium citroniae (hazard ratio, 1.21; unadjusted P = .02), C. bolteae (HR, 1.20; unadjusted P = .01), Tyzzerella nexilis (HR, 1.17; unadjusted P = .03), and Ruminococcus gnavus (HR, 1.17; P = .04).

And the two positively associated clusters mostly consisted of the same species (both HR, 1.18).

Importantly, the associations were nearly the same among participants in eastern and western Finland, which are known for having unique genetic as well as lifestyle differences that impact morbidity and mortality.

“Three of these taxa could be clustered together by proportional abundance in both geographic areas, and combined abundance of the four taxa was also predictive of incident type 2 diabetes,” the authors wrote.

They noted that the identified species have been previously associated with type 2 diabetes and appear to be linked in some ways to the quality of diet and with other metabolic diseases, such as fatty liver disease.

C. citroniae, for instance, has been associated with trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), a compound likely linked to the intake of red meat, and the authors noted that a direct association between red meat intake and type 2 diabetes risk has been known for more than 15 years.

TMAO has also been associated with adipose tissue inflammation and impeded hepatic insulin signaling, which are all involved in increased insulin resistance, high blood glucose levels, and type 2 diabetes, the authors explained.

R. gnavus has been previously associated with obesity in humans and animals. And the bacterial species is also “potentially related to glucose metabolism regulation and linked to increases in inflammatory cytokines, both of which are related to type 2 diabetes pathophysiology,” the authors reported.
 

Stepping stone toward improved prediction

Coauthor Teemu J. Niiranen, MD, PhD, of the division of medicine, Turku (Finland) University Hospital, noted that, while prior studies have linked type 2 diabetes with distinctive characteristics of gut microbiome composition, most studies have not included prospective data, and long-term studies have been lacking.

Furthermore, many of the studies could have been confounded by the use of antidiabetic drugs that could influence gut microbiome composition, including metformin, which was excluded in the current study.

“We avoid several of the biases related to cross-sectional studies, such as the confounding effects of diabetes medications,” Dr. Niiranen said in an interview.

“We also know the temporal sequence of the exposure and the outcome, and that the changes in the gut microbiome preceded the development of diabetes,” he said. “All in all, a cohort study like this provides a much greater level of evidence than cross-sectional studies.”

Dr. Niiranen noted, however, that “although we demonstrate that certain gut microbiome changes are associated with greater risk of future diabetes, we are still quite far from clinical use.”

In addition to needing to replicate the results in other ethnic groups and locations, “we would need to find optimal clinical cutoffs for clinical decision-making and demonstrate the amount increase in predictive ability, compared with conventional diabetes risk factors,” he said.

The study nevertheless “serves as a stepping stone toward the goal of improved prediction and the development of effective treatments for type 2 diabetes through modification of the gut microbiome,” the authors wrote.

Other research has shed light on gut bacteria that appear to be linked to the prevention rather than the development of diabetes, identifying species that help produce butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid that may in fact provide protection against type 2 diabetes.

And additional research does suggest potential clinical implications. Efforts to improve insulin sensitivity via the gut through fecal microbial transplantation are also making headway, with an oral capsule formulation showing benefit among patients with severe obesity.

The research was funded in part by grants from the Finnish Cultural Foundation, the Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, the Emil Aaltonen Foundation, the Finnish Medical Foundation, the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, and the Academy of Finland.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Six key bacterial species of the gut microbiome have been identified as predictors of the development of type 2 diabetes, according to results from a 15-year follow-up study of more than 5,000 people in Finland.

“We are not aware of previous long-term prospective studies of the associations between type 2 diabetes and the gut microbiome similar to the current study,” stated the authors of the study, published online Jan. 31, 2022, in Diabetes Care.

Though requiring further validation, the results “build on and extend previous mainly cross-sectional evidence and further support links between dietary habits, metabolic diseases, and type 2 diabetes that are modulated by the gut microbiome,” the authors wrote.

The findings are from a prospective study of data on fecal samples from 5,572 people in Finland in 2002 in the FINRISK 2002 population cohort. In 2017, the samples were sent for sequencing as follow-up.

Of note, the study excluded people with prevalent diabetes at baseline, including those being treated with antidiabetic drugs such as metformin.
 

Four species, two clusters associated with type 2 diabetes development

Over a median follow-up of 15.8 years, 432 (7.8%) participants went on to have a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, and the presence of four species and two clusters at baseline were significantly associated with the development of type 2 diabetes.

The four species include Clostridium citroniae (hazard ratio, 1.21; unadjusted P = .02), C. bolteae (HR, 1.20; unadjusted P = .01), Tyzzerella nexilis (HR, 1.17; unadjusted P = .03), and Ruminococcus gnavus (HR, 1.17; P = .04).

And the two positively associated clusters mostly consisted of the same species (both HR, 1.18).

Importantly, the associations were nearly the same among participants in eastern and western Finland, which are known for having unique genetic as well as lifestyle differences that impact morbidity and mortality.

“Three of these taxa could be clustered together by proportional abundance in both geographic areas, and combined abundance of the four taxa was also predictive of incident type 2 diabetes,” the authors wrote.

They noted that the identified species have been previously associated with type 2 diabetes and appear to be linked in some ways to the quality of diet and with other metabolic diseases, such as fatty liver disease.

C. citroniae, for instance, has been associated with trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), a compound likely linked to the intake of red meat, and the authors noted that a direct association between red meat intake and type 2 diabetes risk has been known for more than 15 years.

TMAO has also been associated with adipose tissue inflammation and impeded hepatic insulin signaling, which are all involved in increased insulin resistance, high blood glucose levels, and type 2 diabetes, the authors explained.

R. gnavus has been previously associated with obesity in humans and animals. And the bacterial species is also “potentially related to glucose metabolism regulation and linked to increases in inflammatory cytokines, both of which are related to type 2 diabetes pathophysiology,” the authors reported.
 

Stepping stone toward improved prediction

Coauthor Teemu J. Niiranen, MD, PhD, of the division of medicine, Turku (Finland) University Hospital, noted that, while prior studies have linked type 2 diabetes with distinctive characteristics of gut microbiome composition, most studies have not included prospective data, and long-term studies have been lacking.

Furthermore, many of the studies could have been confounded by the use of antidiabetic drugs that could influence gut microbiome composition, including metformin, which was excluded in the current study.

“We avoid several of the biases related to cross-sectional studies, such as the confounding effects of diabetes medications,” Dr. Niiranen said in an interview.

“We also know the temporal sequence of the exposure and the outcome, and that the changes in the gut microbiome preceded the development of diabetes,” he said. “All in all, a cohort study like this provides a much greater level of evidence than cross-sectional studies.”

Dr. Niiranen noted, however, that “although we demonstrate that certain gut microbiome changes are associated with greater risk of future diabetes, we are still quite far from clinical use.”

In addition to needing to replicate the results in other ethnic groups and locations, “we would need to find optimal clinical cutoffs for clinical decision-making and demonstrate the amount increase in predictive ability, compared with conventional diabetes risk factors,” he said.

The study nevertheless “serves as a stepping stone toward the goal of improved prediction and the development of effective treatments for type 2 diabetes through modification of the gut microbiome,” the authors wrote.

Other research has shed light on gut bacteria that appear to be linked to the prevention rather than the development of diabetes, identifying species that help produce butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid that may in fact provide protection against type 2 diabetes.

And additional research does suggest potential clinical implications. Efforts to improve insulin sensitivity via the gut through fecal microbial transplantation are also making headway, with an oral capsule formulation showing benefit among patients with severe obesity.

The research was funded in part by grants from the Finnish Cultural Foundation, the Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, the Emil Aaltonen Foundation, the Finnish Medical Foundation, the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, and the Academy of Finland.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Six key bacterial species of the gut microbiome have been identified as predictors of the development of type 2 diabetes, according to results from a 15-year follow-up study of more than 5,000 people in Finland.

“We are not aware of previous long-term prospective studies of the associations between type 2 diabetes and the gut microbiome similar to the current study,” stated the authors of the study, published online Jan. 31, 2022, in Diabetes Care.

Though requiring further validation, the results “build on and extend previous mainly cross-sectional evidence and further support links between dietary habits, metabolic diseases, and type 2 diabetes that are modulated by the gut microbiome,” the authors wrote.

The findings are from a prospective study of data on fecal samples from 5,572 people in Finland in 2002 in the FINRISK 2002 population cohort. In 2017, the samples were sent for sequencing as follow-up.

Of note, the study excluded people with prevalent diabetes at baseline, including those being treated with antidiabetic drugs such as metformin.
 

Four species, two clusters associated with type 2 diabetes development

Over a median follow-up of 15.8 years, 432 (7.8%) participants went on to have a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, and the presence of four species and two clusters at baseline were significantly associated with the development of type 2 diabetes.

The four species include Clostridium citroniae (hazard ratio, 1.21; unadjusted P = .02), C. bolteae (HR, 1.20; unadjusted P = .01), Tyzzerella nexilis (HR, 1.17; unadjusted P = .03), and Ruminococcus gnavus (HR, 1.17; P = .04).

And the two positively associated clusters mostly consisted of the same species (both HR, 1.18).

Importantly, the associations were nearly the same among participants in eastern and western Finland, which are known for having unique genetic as well as lifestyle differences that impact morbidity and mortality.

“Three of these taxa could be clustered together by proportional abundance in both geographic areas, and combined abundance of the four taxa was also predictive of incident type 2 diabetes,” the authors wrote.

They noted that the identified species have been previously associated with type 2 diabetes and appear to be linked in some ways to the quality of diet and with other metabolic diseases, such as fatty liver disease.

C. citroniae, for instance, has been associated with trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), a compound likely linked to the intake of red meat, and the authors noted that a direct association between red meat intake and type 2 diabetes risk has been known for more than 15 years.

TMAO has also been associated with adipose tissue inflammation and impeded hepatic insulin signaling, which are all involved in increased insulin resistance, high blood glucose levels, and type 2 diabetes, the authors explained.

R. gnavus has been previously associated with obesity in humans and animals. And the bacterial species is also “potentially related to glucose metabolism regulation and linked to increases in inflammatory cytokines, both of which are related to type 2 diabetes pathophysiology,” the authors reported.
 

Stepping stone toward improved prediction

Coauthor Teemu J. Niiranen, MD, PhD, of the division of medicine, Turku (Finland) University Hospital, noted that, while prior studies have linked type 2 diabetes with distinctive characteristics of gut microbiome composition, most studies have not included prospective data, and long-term studies have been lacking.

Furthermore, many of the studies could have been confounded by the use of antidiabetic drugs that could influence gut microbiome composition, including metformin, which was excluded in the current study.

“We avoid several of the biases related to cross-sectional studies, such as the confounding effects of diabetes medications,” Dr. Niiranen said in an interview.

“We also know the temporal sequence of the exposure and the outcome, and that the changes in the gut microbiome preceded the development of diabetes,” he said. “All in all, a cohort study like this provides a much greater level of evidence than cross-sectional studies.”

Dr. Niiranen noted, however, that “although we demonstrate that certain gut microbiome changes are associated with greater risk of future diabetes, we are still quite far from clinical use.”

In addition to needing to replicate the results in other ethnic groups and locations, “we would need to find optimal clinical cutoffs for clinical decision-making and demonstrate the amount increase in predictive ability, compared with conventional diabetes risk factors,” he said.

The study nevertheless “serves as a stepping stone toward the goal of improved prediction and the development of effective treatments for type 2 diabetes through modification of the gut microbiome,” the authors wrote.

Other research has shed light on gut bacteria that appear to be linked to the prevention rather than the development of diabetes, identifying species that help produce butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid that may in fact provide protection against type 2 diabetes.

And additional research does suggest potential clinical implications. Efforts to improve insulin sensitivity via the gut through fecal microbial transplantation are also making headway, with an oral capsule formulation showing benefit among patients with severe obesity.

The research was funded in part by grants from the Finnish Cultural Foundation, the Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, the Emil Aaltonen Foundation, the Finnish Medical Foundation, the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, and the Academy of Finland.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.