MDedge Endocrinology

The cardiovascular and cardiometabolic effects of therapy in women with breast cancer vary based on patient factors like weight and menopausal status, according to findings from the Pathways Heart Study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center

For example, certain chemotherapy drugs may confer higher risk in breast cancer survivors of normal weight, whereas they may lower stroke risk in those who are obese, according to Heather Greenlee, ND, PhD, a public health researcher and naturopathic physician with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

In postmenopausal women with breast cancer, aromatase inhibitors may increase cardiovascular risk, while tamoxifen appears to reduce the risk of incident dyslipidemia, she said.

The findings are from separate analyses of data from studies presented during a poster discussion session at the symposium.
 

Breast cancer treatment and cardiovascular effects: The role of weight

In one analysis, Dr. Greenlee and colleagues examined outcomes in 13,582 breast cancer survivors with a median age of 60 years and median follow-up of 7 years to assess whether cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk associated with specific breast cancer therapies varies by body mass index (BMI) category at diagnosis.

Many routinely used breast cancer therapies are cardiotoxic, and being overweight or obese are known risk factors for CVD, but few studies have assessed whether BMI modifies the effect of these treatment on cardiovascular risk, Dr. Greenlee explained.

After adjusting for baseline demographic and health-related factors, and other breast cancer treatment, they found that:

• Ischemic heart disease risk was higher among normal-weight women who received anthracyclines, compared with those who did not (hazard ratio, 4.2). No other risk associations were observed for other breast cancer therapies and BMI groups.
• Heart failure/cardiomyopathy risk was higher among women with normal weight who received anthracyclines, cyclophosphamides, or left-sided radiation, compared with those who did not (HRs, 5.24, 3.27, and 2.05, respectively), and among overweight women who received anthracyclines, compared with those who did not (HR, 2.18). No risk associations were observed for women who received trastuzumab, taxanes, endocrine therapy, or radiation on any side, and no risk associations were observed for women who were obese.
• Stroke risk was higher in normal-weight women who received taxanes, cyclophosphamides, or left-sided radiation versus those who did not (HRs, 2.14, 2.35, and 1.31, respectively), and stroke risk was lower in obese women who received anthracyclines, taxanes, or cyclophosphamide, compared with those who did not (HRs, 0.32, 0.41, and 0.29, respectively). No risk associations were observed for trastuzumab, endocrine therapy, or radiation on any side, and no risk associations were observed for women who were overweight.

The lack of associations noted between treatments and heart failure risk among obese patients could be caused by the “obesity paradox” observed in prior obese populations, the investigators noted, adding that additional analyses are planned to “examine whether different dosage and duration of breast cancer therapy exposures across the BMI groups contributed to these risk associations.”
 

Breast cancer treatment and cardiometabolic effects: The role of menopausal status

In a separate analysis, Dr. Greenlee and colleagues looked at the association between endocrine therapies and cardiometabolic risk based on menopausal status.

Endocrine therapy is associated with CVD in breast cancer survivors and may be associated with developing cardiometabolic risk factors like diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, they noted, explaining that tamoxifen has mixed estrogenic and antiestrogenic activity, while aromatase inhibitors deplete endogenous estrogen.

Since most studies have compared tamoxifen with aromatase inhibitor use, it has been a challenge challenging to discern the effects of each, Dr. Greenlee said.

She and her colleagues reviewed records for 14,942 breast cancer survivors who were diagnosed between 2005 and 2013. The patients had a mean age of 61 years at baseline, and 24.9% were premenopausal at the time of diagnosis. Of the premenopausal women, 27.3% used tamoxifen, 19.2% used aromatase inhibitors, and 53.5% did not use endocrine therapy, and of the postmenopausal women, 6.6% used tamoxifen, 47.7% used aromatase inhibitors, and 45.7% did not use endocrine therapy.

After adjusting for baseline demographics and health factors, the investigators found that:

• The use of tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors was not associated with a risk of developing diabetes, dyslipidemia, or hypertension in premenopausal women, or with a risk of developing diabetes or hypertension in postmenopausal women.
• The risk of dyslipidemia was higher in postmenopausal aromatase inhibitor users, and lower in postmenopausal tamoxifen users, compared with postmenopausal non-users of endocrine therapy (HRs, 1.15 and 0.75, respectively).

The lack of associations between endocrine therapy and CVD risk in premenopausal women may be from low power, Dr. Greenlee said, noting that analyses in larger sample sizes are needed.

She and her colleagues plan to conduct further analyses looking at treatment dosage and duration, and comparing steroidal versus nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors.

Future studies should examine the implications of these associations on long-term CVD and how best to manage lipid profiles in postmenopausal breast cancer survivors who have a history of endocrine therapy treatment, they concluded.

This research was funded by grants from the National Cancer Institute.

[email protected]

The cardiovascular and cardiometabolic effects of therapy in women with breast cancer vary based on patient factors like weight and menopausal status, according to findings from the Pathways Heart Study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center

For example, certain chemotherapy drugs may confer higher risk in breast cancer survivors of normal weight, whereas they may lower stroke risk in those who are obese, according to Heather Greenlee, ND, PhD, a public health researcher and naturopathic physician with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

In postmenopausal women with breast cancer, aromatase inhibitors may increase cardiovascular risk, while tamoxifen appears to reduce the risk of incident dyslipidemia, she said.

The findings are from separate analyses of data from studies presented during a poster discussion session at the symposium.
 

Breast cancer treatment and cardiovascular effects: The role of weight

In one analysis, Dr. Greenlee and colleagues examined outcomes in 13,582 breast cancer survivors with a median age of 60 years and median follow-up of 7 years to assess whether cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk associated with specific breast cancer therapies varies by body mass index (BMI) category at diagnosis.

Many routinely used breast cancer therapies are cardiotoxic, and being overweight or obese are known risk factors for CVD, but few studies have assessed whether BMI modifies the effect of these treatment on cardiovascular risk, Dr. Greenlee explained.

After adjusting for baseline demographic and health-related factors, and other breast cancer treatment, they found that:

• Ischemic heart disease risk was higher among normal-weight women who received anthracyclines, compared with those who did not (hazard ratio, 4.2). No other risk associations were observed for other breast cancer therapies and BMI groups.
• Heart failure/cardiomyopathy risk was higher among women with normal weight who received anthracyclines, cyclophosphamides, or left-sided radiation, compared with those who did not (HRs, 5.24, 3.27, and 2.05, respectively), and among overweight women who received anthracyclines, compared with those who did not (HR, 2.18). No risk associations were observed for women who received trastuzumab, taxanes, endocrine therapy, or radiation on any side, and no risk associations were observed for women who were obese.
• Stroke risk was higher in normal-weight women who received taxanes, cyclophosphamides, or left-sided radiation versus those who did not (HRs, 2.14, 2.35, and 1.31, respectively), and stroke risk was lower in obese women who received anthracyclines, taxanes, or cyclophosphamide, compared with those who did not (HRs, 0.32, 0.41, and 0.29, respectively). No risk associations were observed for trastuzumab, endocrine therapy, or radiation on any side, and no risk associations were observed for women who were overweight.

The lack of associations noted between treatments and heart failure risk among obese patients could be caused by the “obesity paradox” observed in prior obese populations, the investigators noted, adding that additional analyses are planned to “examine whether different dosage and duration of breast cancer therapy exposures across the BMI groups contributed to these risk associations.”
 

Breast cancer treatment and cardiometabolic effects: The role of menopausal status

In a separate analysis, Dr. Greenlee and colleagues looked at the association between endocrine therapies and cardiometabolic risk based on menopausal status.

Endocrine therapy is associated with CVD in breast cancer survivors and may be associated with developing cardiometabolic risk factors like diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, they noted, explaining that tamoxifen has mixed estrogenic and antiestrogenic activity, while aromatase inhibitors deplete endogenous estrogen.

Since most studies have compared tamoxifen with aromatase inhibitor use, it has been a challenge challenging to discern the effects of each, Dr. Greenlee said.

She and her colleagues reviewed records for 14,942 breast cancer survivors who were diagnosed between 2005 and 2013. The patients had a mean age of 61 years at baseline, and 24.9% were premenopausal at the time of diagnosis. Of the premenopausal women, 27.3% used tamoxifen, 19.2% used aromatase inhibitors, and 53.5% did not use endocrine therapy, and of the postmenopausal women, 6.6% used tamoxifen, 47.7% used aromatase inhibitors, and 45.7% did not use endocrine therapy.

After adjusting for baseline demographics and health factors, the investigators found that:

• The use of tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors was not associated with a risk of developing diabetes, dyslipidemia, or hypertension in premenopausal women, or with a risk of developing diabetes or hypertension in postmenopausal women.
• The risk of dyslipidemia was higher in postmenopausal aromatase inhibitor users, and lower in postmenopausal tamoxifen users, compared with postmenopausal non-users of endocrine therapy (HRs, 1.15 and 0.75, respectively).

The lack of associations between endocrine therapy and CVD risk in premenopausal women may be from low power, Dr. Greenlee said, noting that analyses in larger sample sizes are needed.

She and her colleagues plan to conduct further analyses looking at treatment dosage and duration, and comparing steroidal versus nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors.

Future studies should examine the implications of these associations on long-term CVD and how best to manage lipid profiles in postmenopausal breast cancer survivors who have a history of endocrine therapy treatment, they concluded.

This research was funded by grants from the National Cancer Institute.

[email protected]

The cardiovascular and cardiometabolic effects of therapy in women with breast cancer vary based on patient factors like weight and menopausal status, according to findings from the Pathways Heart Study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center

For example, certain chemotherapy drugs may confer higher risk in breast cancer survivors of normal weight, whereas they may lower stroke risk in those who are obese, according to Heather Greenlee, ND, PhD, a public health researcher and naturopathic physician with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

In postmenopausal women with breast cancer, aromatase inhibitors may increase cardiovascular risk, while tamoxifen appears to reduce the risk of incident dyslipidemia, she said.

The findings are from separate analyses of data from studies presented during a poster discussion session at the symposium.
 

Breast cancer treatment and cardiovascular effects: The role of weight

In one analysis, Dr. Greenlee and colleagues examined outcomes in 13,582 breast cancer survivors with a median age of 60 years and median follow-up of 7 years to assess whether cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk associated with specific breast cancer therapies varies by body mass index (BMI) category at diagnosis.

Many routinely used breast cancer therapies are cardiotoxic, and being overweight or obese are known risk factors for CVD, but few studies have assessed whether BMI modifies the effect of these treatment on cardiovascular risk, Dr. Greenlee explained.

After adjusting for baseline demographic and health-related factors, and other breast cancer treatment, they found that:

• Ischemic heart disease risk was higher among normal-weight women who received anthracyclines, compared with those who did not (hazard ratio, 4.2). No other risk associations were observed for other breast cancer therapies and BMI groups.
• Heart failure/cardiomyopathy risk was higher among women with normal weight who received anthracyclines, cyclophosphamides, or left-sided radiation, compared with those who did not (HRs, 5.24, 3.27, and 2.05, respectively), and among overweight women who received anthracyclines, compared with those who did not (HR, 2.18). No risk associations were observed for women who received trastuzumab, taxanes, endocrine therapy, or radiation on any side, and no risk associations were observed for women who were obese.
• Stroke risk was higher in normal-weight women who received taxanes, cyclophosphamides, or left-sided radiation versus those who did not (HRs, 2.14, 2.35, and 1.31, respectively), and stroke risk was lower in obese women who received anthracyclines, taxanes, or cyclophosphamide, compared with those who did not (HRs, 0.32, 0.41, and 0.29, respectively). No risk associations were observed for trastuzumab, endocrine therapy, or radiation on any side, and no risk associations were observed for women who were overweight.

The lack of associations noted between treatments and heart failure risk among obese patients could be caused by the “obesity paradox” observed in prior obese populations, the investigators noted, adding that additional analyses are planned to “examine whether different dosage and duration of breast cancer therapy exposures across the BMI groups contributed to these risk associations.”
 

Breast cancer treatment and cardiometabolic effects: The role of menopausal status

In a separate analysis, Dr. Greenlee and colleagues looked at the association between endocrine therapies and cardiometabolic risk based on menopausal status.

Endocrine therapy is associated with CVD in breast cancer survivors and may be associated with developing cardiometabolic risk factors like diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, they noted, explaining that tamoxifen has mixed estrogenic and antiestrogenic activity, while aromatase inhibitors deplete endogenous estrogen.

Since most studies have compared tamoxifen with aromatase inhibitor use, it has been a challenge challenging to discern the effects of each, Dr. Greenlee said.

She and her colleagues reviewed records for 14,942 breast cancer survivors who were diagnosed between 2005 and 2013. The patients had a mean age of 61 years at baseline, and 24.9% were premenopausal at the time of diagnosis. Of the premenopausal women, 27.3% used tamoxifen, 19.2% used aromatase inhibitors, and 53.5% did not use endocrine therapy, and of the postmenopausal women, 6.6% used tamoxifen, 47.7% used aromatase inhibitors, and 45.7% did not use endocrine therapy.

After adjusting for baseline demographics and health factors, the investigators found that:

• The use of tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors was not associated with a risk of developing diabetes, dyslipidemia, or hypertension in premenopausal women, or with a risk of developing diabetes or hypertension in postmenopausal women.
• The risk of dyslipidemia was higher in postmenopausal aromatase inhibitor users, and lower in postmenopausal tamoxifen users, compared with postmenopausal non-users of endocrine therapy (HRs, 1.15 and 0.75, respectively).

The lack of associations between endocrine therapy and CVD risk in premenopausal women may be from low power, Dr. Greenlee said, noting that analyses in larger sample sizes are needed.

She and her colleagues plan to conduct further analyses looking at treatment dosage and duration, and comparing steroidal versus nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors.

Future studies should examine the implications of these associations on long-term CVD and how best to manage lipid profiles in postmenopausal breast cancer survivors who have a history of endocrine therapy treatment, they concluded.

This research was funded by grants from the National Cancer Institute.

[email protected]

New draft guidance from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) is raising serious concerns among professionals caring for people with gender dysphoria, prompting claims that WPATH is an organization “captured by activists.”

LemonTreeImages/Thinkstock

Experts in adolescent and child psychology, as well as pediatric health, have expressed dismay that the WPATH Standards of Care (SOC) 8 appear to miss some of the most urgent issues in the field of transgender medicine and are considered to express a radical and unreserved leaning towards “gender-affirmation.”

The WPATH SOC 8 document is available for view and comment until Dec. 16 until 11.59 PM EST, after which time revisions will be made and the final version published. 

Despite repeated attempts by this news organization to seek clarification on certain aspects of the guidance from members of the WPATH SOC 8 committee, requests were declined “until the guidance is finalized.”

According to the WPATH website, the SOC 8 aims to provide “clinical guidance for health professionals to assist transgender and gender diverse people with safe and effective pathways” to manage their gender dysphoria and potentially transition.

Such pathways may relate to primary care, gynecologic and urologic care, reproductive options, voice and communication therapy, mental health services, and hormonal or surgical treatments, among others.

WPATH adds that it was felt necessary to revise the existing SOC 7 (published in 2012) because of recent “globally unprecedented increase and visibility of transgender and gender-diverse people seeking support and gender-affirming medical treatment.”

Gender-affirming medical treatment means different things at different ages. In the case of kids with gender dysphoria who have not yet entered puberty associated with their birth sex, this might include prescribing so-called “puberty blockers” to delay natural puberty – gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogs that are licensed for use in precocious puberty in children. Such agents have not been licensed for use in children with gender dysphoria, however, so any use for this purpose is off-label.

Following puberty blockade – or in cases where adolescents have already undergone natural puberty – the next step is to begin cross-sex hormones. So, for a female patient who wants to transition to male (FTM), that would be lifelong testosterone, and for a male who wants to be female (MTF), it involves lifelong estrogen. Again, use of such hormones in transgender individuals is entirely off-label.

Just last month, two of America’s leading experts on transgender medicine, both psychologists – including one who is transgender – told this news organization they were concerned that the quality of the evaluations of youth with gender dysphoria are being stifled by activists who are worried that open discussions will further stigmatize trans individuals.

They subsequently wrote an op-ed on the topic entitled, “The mental health establishment is failing trans kids,” which was finally published in the Washington Post on Nov. 24, after numerous other mainstream U.S. media outlets had rejected it.
 

New SOC 8 ‘is not evidence based,’ should not be new ‘gold standard’

One expert says the draft SOC 8 lacks balance and does not address certain issues, while paying undue attention to others that detract from real questions facing the field of transgender medicine, both in the United States and around the world.

Julia Mason, MD, is a pediatrician based in Gresham, Oregon, with a special interest in children and adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria. “The SOC 8 shows us that WPATH remains captured by activists,” she asserts. 

Dr. Mason questions the integrity of WPATH based on what she has read in the draft SOC 8.

“We need a serious organization to take a sober look at the evidence, and that is why we have established the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine [SEGM],” she noted. “This is what we do – we are looking at all of the evidence.”

Dr. Mason is a clinical advisor to SEGM, an organization set-up to evaluate current interventions and evidence on gender dysphoria.

The pediatrician has particular concerns regarding the child and adolescent chapters in the draft SOC 8. The adolescent chapter states: “Guidelines are meant to provide a gold standard based on the available evidence at this moment of time.”

Dr. Mason disputes this assertion. “This document should not be the new gold standard going forward, primarily because it is not evidence based.”

In an interview, Dr. Mason explained that WPATH say they used the “Delphi consensus process” to determine their recommendations, but “this process is designed for use with a panel of experts when evidence is lacking. I would say they didn’t have a panel of experts. They largely had a panel of activists, with a few experts.”

There is no mention, for example, of England’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) evidence reviews on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones from earlier this year. These reviews determined that no studies have compared cross-sex hormones or puberty blockers with a control group and all follow-up periods for cross-sex hormones were relatively short.

This disappoints Dr. Mason: “These are significant; they are important documents.”

And much of the evidence quoted comes from the well-known and often-quoted “Dutch-protocol” study of 2011, in which the children studied were much younger at the time of their gender dysphoria, compared with the many adolescents who make up the current surge in presentation at gender clinics worldwide, she adds.
 

Rapid-onset GD: adolescents presenting late with little history

Dr. Mason also stresses that the SOC 8 does not address the most urgent issues in transgender medicine today, mainly because it does not address rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD): “This is the dilemma of the 21st century; it’s new.”

ROGD – a term first coined in 2018 by researcher Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, now president of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research (ICGDR) – refers to the phenomena of adolescents expressing a desire to transition from their birth sex after little or no apparent previous indication.

However, the SOC 8 does make reference to aspects of adolescent development that might impact their decision-making processes around gender identity during teen years. The chapter on adolescents reads: “... adolescence is also often associated with increased risk-taking behaviors. Along with these notable changes ... individuation from parents ... [there is] often a heightened focus on peer relationships, which can be both positive and detrimental.” 

The guidance goes on to point out that “it is critical to understand how all of these aspects of development may impact the decision-making for a given young person within their specific cultural context.” 
 

Desistance and detransitioning not adequately addressed

Dr. Mason also says there is little mention “about detransitioning in this SOC [8], and ‘gender dysphoria’ and ‘trans’ are terms that are not defined.” 

Likewise, there is no mention of desistance, she highlights, which is when individuals naturally resolve their dysphoria around their birth sex as they grow older.

The most recent published data seen by this news organization relates to a study from March 2021 that showed nearly 88% of boys who struggled with gender identity in childhood (approximate mean age 8 years and follow-up at approximate mean age 20 years) desisted. It reads: “Of the 139 participants, 17 (12.2%) were classified as ‘persisters’ and the remaining 122 (87.8%) were classified as desisters.”

“Most children with gender dysphoria will desist and lose their concept of themselves as being the opposite gender,” Dr. Mason explains. “This is the safest path for a child – desistance.”

“Transition can turn a healthy young person into a lifelong medical patient and has significant health risks,” she emphasizes, stressing that transition has not been shown to decrease the probability of suicide, or attempts at suicide, despite myriad claims saying otherwise. 

“Before we were routinely transitioning kids at school, the vast majority of children grew out of their gender dysphoria. This history is not recognized at all in these SOC [8],” she maintains.

Ken Zucker, PhD, CPsych, an author of the study of desistance in boys, says the terms desistence and persistence of gender dysphoria have caused some consternation in certain circles.

An editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior and professor in the department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, Dr. Zucker has published widely on the topic.

He told this news organization: “The terms persistence and desistance have become verboten among the WPATH cognoscenti. Perhaps the contributors to SOC 8 have come up with alternative descriptors.”  

“The term ‘desistance’ is particularly annoying to some of the gender-affirming clinicians, because they don’t believe that desistance is bona fide,” Dr. Zucker points out.

“The desistance resisters are like anti-vaxxers – nothing one can provide as evidence for the efficacy of vaccines is sufficient. There will always be a new objection.” 

Other mental health issues, in particular ADHD and autism

It is also widely acknowledged that there is a higher rate of neurodevelopmental and psychiatric diagnoses in individuals with gender dysphoria. For example, one 2020 study found that transgender people were three to six times as likely to be autistic as cisgender people (those whose gender is aligned with their birth sex). 

Statement one in the chapter on adolescents in draft WPATH SOC 8 does give a nod to this, pointing out that health professionals working with gender diverse adolescents “should receive training and develop expertise in autism spectrum disorders and other neurodiversity conditions.”

It also notes that in some cases “a more extended assessment process may be useful, such as for youth with more complex presentations (e.g., complicated mental health histories, co-occurring autism spectrum characteristics in particular) and an absence of experienced childhood gender incongruence.”

However, Dr. Mason stresses that underlying mental health issues are central to addressing how to manage a significant number of these patients.

“If a young person has ADHD or autism, they are not ready to make decisions about the rest of their life at age 18. Even a neurotypical young person is still developing their frontal cortex in their early 20s, and it takes longer for those with ADHD or on the autism spectrum.”

She firmly believes that the guidance does not give sufficient consideration to comorbidities in people over the age of 18.

According to their [SOC 8] guidelines, “once someone is 18 they are ready for anything,” says Dr. Mason.  

Offering some explanation for the increased prevalence of ADHD and autism in those with gender dysphoria, Dr. Mason notes that children can have “hyperfocus” and those with autism will fixate on a particular area of interest. “If a child is unhappy in their life, and this can be more likely if someone is neuro-atypical, then it is likely that the individual might go online and find this one solution [for example, a transgender identity] that seems to fix everything.” 

Perceptions of femininity and masculinity can also be extra challenging for a child with autism, Dr. Mason says. “It is relatively easy for an autistic girl to feel like she should be a boy because the rules of femininity are composed of nonverbal, subtle behaviors that can be difficult to pick up on,” she points out. “An autistic child who isn’t particularly good at nonverbal communication might not pick up on these and thus feel they are not very ‘female.’” 

“There’s a whole lot of grass-is-greener-type thinking. Girls think boys have an easier life, and boys think girls have an easier life. I know some detransitioners who have spoken eloquently about realizing their mistake on this,” she adds.

Other parts of the SOC 8 that Dr. Mason disagrees with include the recommendation in the adolescent chapter that 14-year-olds are mature enough to start cross-sex hormones, that is, giving testosterone to a female who wants to transition to male or estrogen to a male who wishes to transition to female. “I think that’s far too young,” she asserts.

And she points out that the document states 17-year-olds are ready for genital reassignment surgery. Again, she believes this is far too young.

“Also, the SOC 8 document does not clarify who is appropriate for surgery. Whenever surgery is discussed, it becomes very vague,” she said. 

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

New draft guidance from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) is raising serious concerns among professionals caring for people with gender dysphoria, prompting claims that WPATH is an organization “captured by activists.”

LemonTreeImages/Thinkstock

Experts in adolescent and child psychology, as well as pediatric health, have expressed dismay that the WPATH Standards of Care (SOC) 8 appear to miss some of the most urgent issues in the field of transgender medicine and are considered to express a radical and unreserved leaning towards “gender-affirmation.”

The WPATH SOC 8 document is available for view and comment until Dec. 16 until 11.59 PM EST, after which time revisions will be made and the final version published. 

Despite repeated attempts by this news organization to seek clarification on certain aspects of the guidance from members of the WPATH SOC 8 committee, requests were declined “until the guidance is finalized.”

According to the WPATH website, the SOC 8 aims to provide “clinical guidance for health professionals to assist transgender and gender diverse people with safe and effective pathways” to manage their gender dysphoria and potentially transition.

Such pathways may relate to primary care, gynecologic and urologic care, reproductive options, voice and communication therapy, mental health services, and hormonal or surgical treatments, among others.

WPATH adds that it was felt necessary to revise the existing SOC 7 (published in 2012) because of recent “globally unprecedented increase and visibility of transgender and gender-diverse people seeking support and gender-affirming medical treatment.”

Gender-affirming medical treatment means different things at different ages. In the case of kids with gender dysphoria who have not yet entered puberty associated with their birth sex, this might include prescribing so-called “puberty blockers” to delay natural puberty – gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogs that are licensed for use in precocious puberty in children. Such agents have not been licensed for use in children with gender dysphoria, however, so any use for this purpose is off-label.

Following puberty blockade – or in cases where adolescents have already undergone natural puberty – the next step is to begin cross-sex hormones. So, for a female patient who wants to transition to male (FTM), that would be lifelong testosterone, and for a male who wants to be female (MTF), it involves lifelong estrogen. Again, use of such hormones in transgender individuals is entirely off-label.

Just last month, two of America’s leading experts on transgender medicine, both psychologists – including one who is transgender – told this news organization they were concerned that the quality of the evaluations of youth with gender dysphoria are being stifled by activists who are worried that open discussions will further stigmatize trans individuals.

They subsequently wrote an op-ed on the topic entitled, “The mental health establishment is failing trans kids,” which was finally published in the Washington Post on Nov. 24, after numerous other mainstream U.S. media outlets had rejected it.
 

New SOC 8 ‘is not evidence based,’ should not be new ‘gold standard’

One expert says the draft SOC 8 lacks balance and does not address certain issues, while paying undue attention to others that detract from real questions facing the field of transgender medicine, both in the United States and around the world.

Julia Mason, MD, is a pediatrician based in Gresham, Oregon, with a special interest in children and adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria. “The SOC 8 shows us that WPATH remains captured by activists,” she asserts. 

Dr. Mason questions the integrity of WPATH based on what she has read in the draft SOC 8.

“We need a serious organization to take a sober look at the evidence, and that is why we have established the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine [SEGM],” she noted. “This is what we do – we are looking at all of the evidence.”

Dr. Mason is a clinical advisor to SEGM, an organization set-up to evaluate current interventions and evidence on gender dysphoria.

The pediatrician has particular concerns regarding the child and adolescent chapters in the draft SOC 8. The adolescent chapter states: “Guidelines are meant to provide a gold standard based on the available evidence at this moment of time.”

Dr. Mason disputes this assertion. “This document should not be the new gold standard going forward, primarily because it is not evidence based.”

In an interview, Dr. Mason explained that WPATH say they used the “Delphi consensus process” to determine their recommendations, but “this process is designed for use with a panel of experts when evidence is lacking. I would say they didn’t have a panel of experts. They largely had a panel of activists, with a few experts.”

There is no mention, for example, of England’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) evidence reviews on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones from earlier this year. These reviews determined that no studies have compared cross-sex hormones or puberty blockers with a control group and all follow-up periods for cross-sex hormones were relatively short.

This disappoints Dr. Mason: “These are significant; they are important documents.”

And much of the evidence quoted comes from the well-known and often-quoted “Dutch-protocol” study of 2011, in which the children studied were much younger at the time of their gender dysphoria, compared with the many adolescents who make up the current surge in presentation at gender clinics worldwide, she adds.
 

Rapid-onset GD: adolescents presenting late with little history

Dr. Mason also stresses that the SOC 8 does not address the most urgent issues in transgender medicine today, mainly because it does not address rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD): “This is the dilemma of the 21st century; it’s new.”

ROGD – a term first coined in 2018 by researcher Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, now president of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research (ICGDR) – refers to the phenomena of adolescents expressing a desire to transition from their birth sex after little or no apparent previous indication.

However, the SOC 8 does make reference to aspects of adolescent development that might impact their decision-making processes around gender identity during teen years. The chapter on adolescents reads: “... adolescence is also often associated with increased risk-taking behaviors. Along with these notable changes ... individuation from parents ... [there is] often a heightened focus on peer relationships, which can be both positive and detrimental.” 

The guidance goes on to point out that “it is critical to understand how all of these aspects of development may impact the decision-making for a given young person within their specific cultural context.” 
 

Desistance and detransitioning not adequately addressed

Dr. Mason also says there is little mention “about detransitioning in this SOC [8], and ‘gender dysphoria’ and ‘trans’ are terms that are not defined.” 

Likewise, there is no mention of desistance, she highlights, which is when individuals naturally resolve their dysphoria around their birth sex as they grow older.

The most recent published data seen by this news organization relates to a study from March 2021 that showed nearly 88% of boys who struggled with gender identity in childhood (approximate mean age 8 years and follow-up at approximate mean age 20 years) desisted. It reads: “Of the 139 participants, 17 (12.2%) were classified as ‘persisters’ and the remaining 122 (87.8%) were classified as desisters.”

“Most children with gender dysphoria will desist and lose their concept of themselves as being the opposite gender,” Dr. Mason explains. “This is the safest path for a child – desistance.”

“Transition can turn a healthy young person into a lifelong medical patient and has significant health risks,” she emphasizes, stressing that transition has not been shown to decrease the probability of suicide, or attempts at suicide, despite myriad claims saying otherwise. 

“Before we were routinely transitioning kids at school, the vast majority of children grew out of their gender dysphoria. This history is not recognized at all in these SOC [8],” she maintains.

Ken Zucker, PhD, CPsych, an author of the study of desistance in boys, says the terms desistence and persistence of gender dysphoria have caused some consternation in certain circles.

An editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior and professor in the department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, Dr. Zucker has published widely on the topic.

He told this news organization: “The terms persistence and desistance have become verboten among the WPATH cognoscenti. Perhaps the contributors to SOC 8 have come up with alternative descriptors.”  

“The term ‘desistance’ is particularly annoying to some of the gender-affirming clinicians, because they don’t believe that desistance is bona fide,” Dr. Zucker points out.

“The desistance resisters are like anti-vaxxers – nothing one can provide as evidence for the efficacy of vaccines is sufficient. There will always be a new objection.” 

Other mental health issues, in particular ADHD and autism

It is also widely acknowledged that there is a higher rate of neurodevelopmental and psychiatric diagnoses in individuals with gender dysphoria. For example, one 2020 study found that transgender people were three to six times as likely to be autistic as cisgender people (those whose gender is aligned with their birth sex). 

Statement one in the chapter on adolescents in draft WPATH SOC 8 does give a nod to this, pointing out that health professionals working with gender diverse adolescents “should receive training and develop expertise in autism spectrum disorders and other neurodiversity conditions.”

It also notes that in some cases “a more extended assessment process may be useful, such as for youth with more complex presentations (e.g., complicated mental health histories, co-occurring autism spectrum characteristics in particular) and an absence of experienced childhood gender incongruence.”

However, Dr. Mason stresses that underlying mental health issues are central to addressing how to manage a significant number of these patients.

“If a young person has ADHD or autism, they are not ready to make decisions about the rest of their life at age 18. Even a neurotypical young person is still developing their frontal cortex in their early 20s, and it takes longer for those with ADHD or on the autism spectrum.”

She firmly believes that the guidance does not give sufficient consideration to comorbidities in people over the age of 18.

According to their [SOC 8] guidelines, “once someone is 18 they are ready for anything,” says Dr. Mason.  

Offering some explanation for the increased prevalence of ADHD and autism in those with gender dysphoria, Dr. Mason notes that children can have “hyperfocus” and those with autism will fixate on a particular area of interest. “If a child is unhappy in their life, and this can be more likely if someone is neuro-atypical, then it is likely that the individual might go online and find this one solution [for example, a transgender identity] that seems to fix everything.” 

Perceptions of femininity and masculinity can also be extra challenging for a child with autism, Dr. Mason says. “It is relatively easy for an autistic girl to feel like she should be a boy because the rules of femininity are composed of nonverbal, subtle behaviors that can be difficult to pick up on,” she points out. “An autistic child who isn’t particularly good at nonverbal communication might not pick up on these and thus feel they are not very ‘female.’” 

“There’s a whole lot of grass-is-greener-type thinking. Girls think boys have an easier life, and boys think girls have an easier life. I know some detransitioners who have spoken eloquently about realizing their mistake on this,” she adds.

Other parts of the SOC 8 that Dr. Mason disagrees with include the recommendation in the adolescent chapter that 14-year-olds are mature enough to start cross-sex hormones, that is, giving testosterone to a female who wants to transition to male or estrogen to a male who wishes to transition to female. “I think that’s far too young,” she asserts.

And she points out that the document states 17-year-olds are ready for genital reassignment surgery. Again, she believes this is far too young.

“Also, the SOC 8 document does not clarify who is appropriate for surgery. Whenever surgery is discussed, it becomes very vague,” she said. 

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

New draft guidance from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) is raising serious concerns among professionals caring for people with gender dysphoria, prompting claims that WPATH is an organization “captured by activists.”

LemonTreeImages/Thinkstock

Experts in adolescent and child psychology, as well as pediatric health, have expressed dismay that the WPATH Standards of Care (SOC) 8 appear to miss some of the most urgent issues in the field of transgender medicine and are considered to express a radical and unreserved leaning towards “gender-affirmation.”

The WPATH SOC 8 document is available for view and comment until Dec. 16 until 11.59 PM EST, after which time revisions will be made and the final version published. 

Despite repeated attempts by this news organization to seek clarification on certain aspects of the guidance from members of the WPATH SOC 8 committee, requests were declined “until the guidance is finalized.”

According to the WPATH website, the SOC 8 aims to provide “clinical guidance for health professionals to assist transgender and gender diverse people with safe and effective pathways” to manage their gender dysphoria and potentially transition.

Such pathways may relate to primary care, gynecologic and urologic care, reproductive options, voice and communication therapy, mental health services, and hormonal or surgical treatments, among others.

WPATH adds that it was felt necessary to revise the existing SOC 7 (published in 2012) because of recent “globally unprecedented increase and visibility of transgender and gender-diverse people seeking support and gender-affirming medical treatment.”

Gender-affirming medical treatment means different things at different ages. In the case of kids with gender dysphoria who have not yet entered puberty associated with their birth sex, this might include prescribing so-called “puberty blockers” to delay natural puberty – gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogs that are licensed for use in precocious puberty in children. Such agents have not been licensed for use in children with gender dysphoria, however, so any use for this purpose is off-label.

Following puberty blockade – or in cases where adolescents have already undergone natural puberty – the next step is to begin cross-sex hormones. So, for a female patient who wants to transition to male (FTM), that would be lifelong testosterone, and for a male who wants to be female (MTF), it involves lifelong estrogen. Again, use of such hormones in transgender individuals is entirely off-label.

Just last month, two of America’s leading experts on transgender medicine, both psychologists – including one who is transgender – told this news organization they were concerned that the quality of the evaluations of youth with gender dysphoria are being stifled by activists who are worried that open discussions will further stigmatize trans individuals.

They subsequently wrote an op-ed on the topic entitled, “The mental health establishment is failing trans kids,” which was finally published in the Washington Post on Nov. 24, after numerous other mainstream U.S. media outlets had rejected it.
 

New SOC 8 ‘is not evidence based,’ should not be new ‘gold standard’

One expert says the draft SOC 8 lacks balance and does not address certain issues, while paying undue attention to others that detract from real questions facing the field of transgender medicine, both in the United States and around the world.

Julia Mason, MD, is a pediatrician based in Gresham, Oregon, with a special interest in children and adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria. “The SOC 8 shows us that WPATH remains captured by activists,” she asserts. 

Dr. Mason questions the integrity of WPATH based on what she has read in the draft SOC 8.

“We need a serious organization to take a sober look at the evidence, and that is why we have established the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine [SEGM],” she noted. “This is what we do – we are looking at all of the evidence.”

Dr. Mason is a clinical advisor to SEGM, an organization set-up to evaluate current interventions and evidence on gender dysphoria.

The pediatrician has particular concerns regarding the child and adolescent chapters in the draft SOC 8. The adolescent chapter states: “Guidelines are meant to provide a gold standard based on the available evidence at this moment of time.”

Dr. Mason disputes this assertion. “This document should not be the new gold standard going forward, primarily because it is not evidence based.”

In an interview, Dr. Mason explained that WPATH say they used the “Delphi consensus process” to determine their recommendations, but “this process is designed for use with a panel of experts when evidence is lacking. I would say they didn’t have a panel of experts. They largely had a panel of activists, with a few experts.”

There is no mention, for example, of England’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) evidence reviews on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones from earlier this year. These reviews determined that no studies have compared cross-sex hormones or puberty blockers with a control group and all follow-up periods for cross-sex hormones were relatively short.

This disappoints Dr. Mason: “These are significant; they are important documents.”

And much of the evidence quoted comes from the well-known and often-quoted “Dutch-protocol” study of 2011, in which the children studied were much younger at the time of their gender dysphoria, compared with the many adolescents who make up the current surge in presentation at gender clinics worldwide, she adds.
 

Rapid-onset GD: adolescents presenting late with little history

Dr. Mason also stresses that the SOC 8 does not address the most urgent issues in transgender medicine today, mainly because it does not address rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD): “This is the dilemma of the 21st century; it’s new.”

ROGD – a term first coined in 2018 by researcher Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, now president of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research (ICGDR) – refers to the phenomena of adolescents expressing a desire to transition from their birth sex after little or no apparent previous indication.

However, the SOC 8 does make reference to aspects of adolescent development that might impact their decision-making processes around gender identity during teen years. The chapter on adolescents reads: “... adolescence is also often associated with increased risk-taking behaviors. Along with these notable changes ... individuation from parents ... [there is] often a heightened focus on peer relationships, which can be both positive and detrimental.” 

The guidance goes on to point out that “it is critical to understand how all of these aspects of development may impact the decision-making for a given young person within their specific cultural context.” 
 

Desistance and detransitioning not adequately addressed

Dr. Mason also says there is little mention “about detransitioning in this SOC [8], and ‘gender dysphoria’ and ‘trans’ are terms that are not defined.” 

Likewise, there is no mention of desistance, she highlights, which is when individuals naturally resolve their dysphoria around their birth sex as they grow older.

The most recent published data seen by this news organization relates to a study from March 2021 that showed nearly 88% of boys who struggled with gender identity in childhood (approximate mean age 8 years and follow-up at approximate mean age 20 years) desisted. It reads: “Of the 139 participants, 17 (12.2%) were classified as ‘persisters’ and the remaining 122 (87.8%) were classified as desisters.”

“Most children with gender dysphoria will desist and lose their concept of themselves as being the opposite gender,” Dr. Mason explains. “This is the safest path for a child – desistance.”

“Transition can turn a healthy young person into a lifelong medical patient and has significant health risks,” she emphasizes, stressing that transition has not been shown to decrease the probability of suicide, or attempts at suicide, despite myriad claims saying otherwise. 

“Before we were routinely transitioning kids at school, the vast majority of children grew out of their gender dysphoria. This history is not recognized at all in these SOC [8],” she maintains.

Ken Zucker, PhD, CPsych, an author of the study of desistance in boys, says the terms desistence and persistence of gender dysphoria have caused some consternation in certain circles.

An editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior and professor in the department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, Dr. Zucker has published widely on the topic.

He told this news organization: “The terms persistence and desistance have become verboten among the WPATH cognoscenti. Perhaps the contributors to SOC 8 have come up with alternative descriptors.”  

“The term ‘desistance’ is particularly annoying to some of the gender-affirming clinicians, because they don’t believe that desistance is bona fide,” Dr. Zucker points out.

“The desistance resisters are like anti-vaxxers – nothing one can provide as evidence for the efficacy of vaccines is sufficient. There will always be a new objection.” 

Other mental health issues, in particular ADHD and autism

It is also widely acknowledged that there is a higher rate of neurodevelopmental and psychiatric diagnoses in individuals with gender dysphoria. For example, one 2020 study found that transgender people were three to six times as likely to be autistic as cisgender people (those whose gender is aligned with their birth sex). 

Statement one in the chapter on adolescents in draft WPATH SOC 8 does give a nod to this, pointing out that health professionals working with gender diverse adolescents “should receive training and develop expertise in autism spectrum disorders and other neurodiversity conditions.”

It also notes that in some cases “a more extended assessment process may be useful, such as for youth with more complex presentations (e.g., complicated mental health histories, co-occurring autism spectrum characteristics in particular) and an absence of experienced childhood gender incongruence.”

However, Dr. Mason stresses that underlying mental health issues are central to addressing how to manage a significant number of these patients.

“If a young person has ADHD or autism, they are not ready to make decisions about the rest of their life at age 18. Even a neurotypical young person is still developing their frontal cortex in their early 20s, and it takes longer for those with ADHD or on the autism spectrum.”

She firmly believes that the guidance does not give sufficient consideration to comorbidities in people over the age of 18.

According to their [SOC 8] guidelines, “once someone is 18 they are ready for anything,” says Dr. Mason.  

Offering some explanation for the increased prevalence of ADHD and autism in those with gender dysphoria, Dr. Mason notes that children can have “hyperfocus” and those with autism will fixate on a particular area of interest. “If a child is unhappy in their life, and this can be more likely if someone is neuro-atypical, then it is likely that the individual might go online and find this one solution [for example, a transgender identity] that seems to fix everything.” 

Perceptions of femininity and masculinity can also be extra challenging for a child with autism, Dr. Mason says. “It is relatively easy for an autistic girl to feel like she should be a boy because the rules of femininity are composed of nonverbal, subtle behaviors that can be difficult to pick up on,” she points out. “An autistic child who isn’t particularly good at nonverbal communication might not pick up on these and thus feel they are not very ‘female.’” 

“There’s a whole lot of grass-is-greener-type thinking. Girls think boys have an easier life, and boys think girls have an easier life. I know some detransitioners who have spoken eloquently about realizing their mistake on this,” she adds.

Other parts of the SOC 8 that Dr. Mason disagrees with include the recommendation in the adolescent chapter that 14-year-olds are mature enough to start cross-sex hormones, that is, giving testosterone to a female who wants to transition to male or estrogen to a male who wishes to transition to female. “I think that’s far too young,” she asserts.

And she points out that the document states 17-year-olds are ready for genital reassignment surgery. Again, she believes this is far too young.

“Also, the SOC 8 document does not clarify who is appropriate for surgery. Whenever surgery is discussed, it becomes very vague,” she said. 

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

A panel of experts that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the use of vaccines said the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should be the preferred shots for adults in the United States because the Johnson & Johnson shot carries the risk of a rare but potentially fatal side effect that causes blood clots and bleeding in the brain.

In an emergency meeting on December 16, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, voted unanimously (15-0) to state a preference for the mRNA vaccines over the Johnson & Johnson shot. The vote came after the panel heard a safety update on cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, or TTS, a condition that causes large clots that deplete the blood of platelets, resulting in uncontrolled bleeding.

The move brings the United States in line with other wealthy countries. In May, Denmark dropped the Johnson & Johnson shot from its vaccination program because of this risk. Australia and Greece have limited the use of a similar vaccine, made by AstraZeneca, in younger people because of the TTS risk. Both vaccines use the envelope of a different kind of virus, called an adenovirus, to sneak the vaccine instructions into cells. On Dec. 16, health officials said they had determined that TTS was likely due to a class effect, meaning it happens with all adenovirus vector vaccines.

The risk of dying from TTS after a Johnson & Johnson shot is extremely rare. There is an estimated 1 death for every 2 million doses of the vaccine given in the general population. That risk is higher for women ages 30 to 49, rising to about 2 deaths for every 1 million doses given in this age group. There’s no question that the Johnson & Johnson shot has saved many more lives than it has taken, experts said

Still, the committee previously paused the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in April after the first cases of TTS came to light. That pause was lifted just 10 days later, after a new warning was added to the vaccine’s label to raise awareness of the risk.

In updating the safety information on Johnson & Johnson, the panel noted that the warning label had not sufficiently lowered the risk of death from TTS. Doctors seem to be aware of the condition because none of the patients who had developed TTS had been treated with the blood thinner heparin, which can make the syndrome worse. But patients continued to die even after the label was added, the panel noted, because TTS can progress so quickly that doctors simply don’t have time to treat it.

For that reason, and because there are other, safer vaccines available, the panel decided to make what’s called a preferential statement, saying the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines should be preferred over Johnson & Johnson.

The statement leaves the J&J vaccine on the market and available to patients who are at risk of a severe allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccines. It also means that people can still choose the J&J vaccine if they still want it after being informed about the risks.

About 17 million first doses and 900,000 second doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine have been given in the United States. Through the end of August, 54 cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) have occurred after the J&J shots in the United States. Nearly half of those were in women ages 30 to 49. There have been nine deaths from TTS after Johnson & Johnson shots.

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

A panel of experts that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the use of vaccines said the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should be the preferred shots for adults in the United States because the Johnson & Johnson shot carries the risk of a rare but potentially fatal side effect that causes blood clots and bleeding in the brain.

In an emergency meeting on December 16, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, voted unanimously (15-0) to state a preference for the mRNA vaccines over the Johnson & Johnson shot. The vote came after the panel heard a safety update on cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, or TTS, a condition that causes large clots that deplete the blood of platelets, resulting in uncontrolled bleeding.

The move brings the United States in line with other wealthy countries. In May, Denmark dropped the Johnson & Johnson shot from its vaccination program because of this risk. Australia and Greece have limited the use of a similar vaccine, made by AstraZeneca, in younger people because of the TTS risk. Both vaccines use the envelope of a different kind of virus, called an adenovirus, to sneak the vaccine instructions into cells. On Dec. 16, health officials said they had determined that TTS was likely due to a class effect, meaning it happens with all adenovirus vector vaccines.

The risk of dying from TTS after a Johnson & Johnson shot is extremely rare. There is an estimated 1 death for every 2 million doses of the vaccine given in the general population. That risk is higher for women ages 30 to 49, rising to about 2 deaths for every 1 million doses given in this age group. There’s no question that the Johnson & Johnson shot has saved many more lives than it has taken, experts said

Still, the committee previously paused the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in April after the first cases of TTS came to light. That pause was lifted just 10 days later, after a new warning was added to the vaccine’s label to raise awareness of the risk.

In updating the safety information on Johnson & Johnson, the panel noted that the warning label had not sufficiently lowered the risk of death from TTS. Doctors seem to be aware of the condition because none of the patients who had developed TTS had been treated with the blood thinner heparin, which can make the syndrome worse. But patients continued to die even after the label was added, the panel noted, because TTS can progress so quickly that doctors simply don’t have time to treat it.

For that reason, and because there are other, safer vaccines available, the panel decided to make what’s called a preferential statement, saying the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines should be preferred over Johnson & Johnson.

The statement leaves the J&J vaccine on the market and available to patients who are at risk of a severe allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccines. It also means that people can still choose the J&J vaccine if they still want it after being informed about the risks.

About 17 million first doses and 900,000 second doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine have been given in the United States. Through the end of August, 54 cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) have occurred after the J&J shots in the United States. Nearly half of those were in women ages 30 to 49. There have been nine deaths from TTS after Johnson & Johnson shots.

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

A panel of experts that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the use of vaccines said the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should be the preferred shots for adults in the United States because the Johnson & Johnson shot carries the risk of a rare but potentially fatal side effect that causes blood clots and bleeding in the brain.

In an emergency meeting on December 16, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, voted unanimously (15-0) to state a preference for the mRNA vaccines over the Johnson & Johnson shot. The vote came after the panel heard a safety update on cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, or TTS, a condition that causes large clots that deplete the blood of platelets, resulting in uncontrolled bleeding.

The move brings the United States in line with other wealthy countries. In May, Denmark dropped the Johnson & Johnson shot from its vaccination program because of this risk. Australia and Greece have limited the use of a similar vaccine, made by AstraZeneca, in younger people because of the TTS risk. Both vaccines use the envelope of a different kind of virus, called an adenovirus, to sneak the vaccine instructions into cells. On Dec. 16, health officials said they had determined that TTS was likely due to a class effect, meaning it happens with all adenovirus vector vaccines.

The risk of dying from TTS after a Johnson & Johnson shot is extremely rare. There is an estimated 1 death for every 2 million doses of the vaccine given in the general population. That risk is higher for women ages 30 to 49, rising to about 2 deaths for every 1 million doses given in this age group. There’s no question that the Johnson & Johnson shot has saved many more lives than it has taken, experts said

Still, the committee previously paused the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in April after the first cases of TTS came to light. That pause was lifted just 10 days later, after a new warning was added to the vaccine’s label to raise awareness of the risk.

In updating the safety information on Johnson & Johnson, the panel noted that the warning label had not sufficiently lowered the risk of death from TTS. Doctors seem to be aware of the condition because none of the patients who had developed TTS had been treated with the blood thinner heparin, which can make the syndrome worse. But patients continued to die even after the label was added, the panel noted, because TTS can progress so quickly that doctors simply don’t have time to treat it.

For that reason, and because there are other, safer vaccines available, the panel decided to make what’s called a preferential statement, saying the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines should be preferred over Johnson & Johnson.

The statement leaves the J&J vaccine on the market and available to patients who are at risk of a severe allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccines. It also means that people can still choose the J&J vaccine if they still want it after being informed about the risks.

About 17 million first doses and 900,000 second doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine have been given in the United States. Through the end of August, 54 cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) have occurred after the J&J shots in the United States. Nearly half of those were in women ages 30 to 49. There have been nine deaths from TTS after Johnson & Johnson shots.

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

Robert M. Califf, MD, plans to take a close look at federal policies on opioid prescriptions in his expected second turn as the top U.S. regulator of medical products, as well as keep closer tabs on the performance of drugs cleared with accelerated approvals.

Catherine Hackett/Frontline Medical News

Dr. Califf on Tuesday fielded questions at a Senate hearing about his nomination by President Joe Biden to serve as administrator of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a role in which he served in the Obama administration. He also spoke about the need to bolster the nation’s ability to maintain an adequate supply of key medical products, including drugs.

Members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which is handling Dr. Califf’s nomination, were largely cordial and supportive during the hearing. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the committee chair, and the panel’s top Republican, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, addressed Dr. Califf during the hearing as if he would soon serve again as the FDA’s leader. Both were among the senators who voted 89-4 to confirm Dr. Califf in a February 2016 vote.

Dr. Califf “was previously confirmed to lead FDA in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and I look forward to working with him again to ensure FDA continues to protect families across the country, uphold the gold standard of safety and effectiveness, and put science and data first,” Sen. Murray said.

Less enthusiastic about Dr. Califf was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who was among the seven senators who did not vote on Dr. Califf’s nomination in 2016.

Sen. Sanders objected in 2016 to Dr. Califf’s ties to the pharmaceutical industry, and he did so again Tuesday. A noted leader in conducting clinical trials, Dr. Califf has worked with many drugmakers. But at the hearing, Dr. Califf said he concurs with Sen. Sanders on an idea strongly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry.

In response to Sen. Sanders’ question, Dr. Califf said he already is “on record as being in favor of Medicare negotiating with the industry on prices.”

The FDA would not take direct part in negotiations, as this work would be handled by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Democrats want to give Medicare some negotiating authority through their sweeping Build Back Better Act.

People in the United States are dismayed over both the cost of prescription drugs and the widespread distribution of prescription painkillers that helped fuel the current opioid epidemic, Sen. Sanders told Dr. Califf. Many people will be concerned about an FDA commissioner who has benefited from close ties to the industry, Sen. Sanders said.

“How are they going to believe that you’re going to be an independent and strong voice against this enormously powerful, special interest?” Sen. Sanders asked.

“I’m totally with you on the concept that the price of pharmaceuticals is way too high in this country,” Dr. Califf said in reply.

Dr. Califf was paid $2.7 million in salary and bonus by Verily Life Sciences, the biomedical research organization operated by Alphabet, parent company of Google, according to his federal financial disclosure. He also reported holding board positions with pharmaceutical companies AmyriAD and Centessa Pharmaceuticals.

Bloomberg Government reported that Dr. Califf has ties to about 16 other research organizations and biotech companies. Bloomberg Government also said that, in his earlier FDA service, Dr. Califf kept a whiteboard in his office that listed all the activities and projects that required his recusal, citing as a source Howard Sklamberg, who was a deputy commissioner under Dr. Califf.

“He was very, very, very careful,” Mr. Sklamberg, who’s now an attorney at Arnold & Porter LLP, told Bloomberg Government.
 

‘Work to do’ on opioids

Senators looped back repeatedly to the topic of opioids during Dr. Califf’s hearing, reflecting deep concerns about the FDA’s efforts to warn of the risks of prescription painkillers.

There were an estimated 100,306 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the 12 months ending in April, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dr. Califf said he plans to focus on what information the FDA conveys to the public about the risks of prescription painkillers, including a look at what the labels for these products say.

“I am committed to do a comprehensive review of the status of opioids, early in my tenure,” Dr. Califf said.

Dr. Califf indicated that physicians are still too quick to provide excess doses of these medicines, despite years of efforts to restrain their use. He said he knows relatives who were given 30-day prescriptions for opioids after minor surgery.

“So I know we have work to do,” Dr. Califf said.

Concerns about the FDA’s previous work in managing opioids has led to protests from a few Democratic senators about the prospect of President Biden nominating the acting FDA commissioner, Janet Woodcock, MD, for the permanent post.

At the hearing, Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) raised the case of the FDA’s approval of the powerful Zohydro painkiller. The agency approved that drug despite an 11-2 vote against it by the FDA’s Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee.

Sen. Luján asked Dr. Califf what he would do if an FDA advisory committee voted “overwhelmingly” against recommending approval of a medicine, as happened in the Zohydro case.

While not mentioned by Sen. Luján in this exchange during the hearing with Dr. Califf, the FDA staff’s rejection of recommendations of advisory committees has been a growing concern among researchers.

The agency last year approved aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen), a drug for Alzheimer’s disease, dismissing the advice of its Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee. That decision triggered the resignation of several members of the panel. The FDA staff also earlier rejected the conclusion the majority of members of the same advisory committee offered in 2016 on eteplirsen (Exondys 51, Sarepta), a drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Dr. Califf told Sen. Luján he had done recent research into how often the FDA staff does not concur with the recommendations of an advisory committee. He said the FDA takes a different course of action in about 25% of cases. In about three-quarters of those cases, the FDA staff opts for a “more stringent” approach regarding allowing the public access to the drug, as opposed to a more generous one as seen in the Zohydro, Aduhelm, and Exondys 51 cases.

Still, Dr. Califf said that when there’s an 11-2 advisory committee vote against recommendation of a product, “the leaders at FDA really need to take a close look” at what’s happening.

Question on accelerated approvals

The FDA’s approval of aducanumab drew attention to a debate already underway about conditional clearances known as accelerated approvals.

The FDA has used this path since the 1990s to speed access to drugs for serious conditions. The trade-off for early access is that the agency sometimes makes the wrong call based on initial findings, and clears a medicine later found not to benefit patients as expected.

The FDA’s cancer division is in the midst of public efforts to address cases where drugmakers have not been able to deliver studies that support accelerated approvals of their oncology drugs. In addition, the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services announced in August that it is reviewing the FDA’s handling of the accelerated approval process.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Sen. Burr grilled Dr. Califf about how he would respond to calls to change how the FDA handles the accelerated-approval process.

“Can you commit to me and to patients who may rely on cutting-edge treatments that you will not support efforts to narrow this pathway or raise the bar for drugs to be approved under those pathways?” Burr asked Califf.

Dr. Califf responded by saying he was “a fan of accelerated approval – for the right conditions.”

Earlier, in his opening statement, Dr. Califf had said his mother benefited directly from the accelerated approval of new drugs for multiple myeloma. Dr. Califf told Sen. Burr that he had spent “countless hours with patient groups” and understands the need to speed the approval of medicines for serious diseases.

But the FDA also has to make sure it holds up its end of the bargain struck with accelerated approvals. This involves checking on how these medicines work once they are marketed.

“We’re accepting that there’s more uncertainty,” Dr. Califf said. “That means we’ve got to have a better system to evaluate these products as they’re used on the market. And I think there are ways that we can do that now. Technology is making this possible in ways that it just was not possible before.”
 

Worries about the medical supply chain

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) asked Dr. Califf about the vulnerability of the U.S. medical system to disruptions of the supply chain. She raised concerns about China’s dominance in antibiotic manufacturing as an example. She asked if Congress could do more to encourage domestic manufacturing of medical supplies, such as by offering tax incentives.

Dr. Califf told Sen. Collins he shared her concern about the U.S. manufacturing of ingredients used in both branded and generic drugs. He said he recently has served on a committee of the National Academy of Medicine that is examining supply chain issues.

This committee will soon release a report with specific recommendations, Dr. Califf said.

“We don’t have enough competitive entities in what’s become sort of a commodity business” of drug manufacturing, Dr. Califf said. “So we need a number of steps to make the system more resilient.”

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

Robert M. Califf, MD, plans to take a close look at federal policies on opioid prescriptions in his expected second turn as the top U.S. regulator of medical products, as well as keep closer tabs on the performance of drugs cleared with accelerated approvals.

Catherine Hackett/Frontline Medical News

Dr. Califf on Tuesday fielded questions at a Senate hearing about his nomination by President Joe Biden to serve as administrator of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a role in which he served in the Obama administration. He also spoke about the need to bolster the nation’s ability to maintain an adequate supply of key medical products, including drugs.

Members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which is handling Dr. Califf’s nomination, were largely cordial and supportive during the hearing. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the committee chair, and the panel’s top Republican, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, addressed Dr. Califf during the hearing as if he would soon serve again as the FDA’s leader. Both were among the senators who voted 89-4 to confirm Dr. Califf in a February 2016 vote.

Dr. Califf “was previously confirmed to lead FDA in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and I look forward to working with him again to ensure FDA continues to protect families across the country, uphold the gold standard of safety and effectiveness, and put science and data first,” Sen. Murray said.

Less enthusiastic about Dr. Califf was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who was among the seven senators who did not vote on Dr. Califf’s nomination in 2016.

Sen. Sanders objected in 2016 to Dr. Califf’s ties to the pharmaceutical industry, and he did so again Tuesday. A noted leader in conducting clinical trials, Dr. Califf has worked with many drugmakers. But at the hearing, Dr. Califf said he concurs with Sen. Sanders on an idea strongly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry.

In response to Sen. Sanders’ question, Dr. Califf said he already is “on record as being in favor of Medicare negotiating with the industry on prices.”

The FDA would not take direct part in negotiations, as this work would be handled by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Democrats want to give Medicare some negotiating authority through their sweeping Build Back Better Act.

People in the United States are dismayed over both the cost of prescription drugs and the widespread distribution of prescription painkillers that helped fuel the current opioid epidemic, Sen. Sanders told Dr. Califf. Many people will be concerned about an FDA commissioner who has benefited from close ties to the industry, Sen. Sanders said.

“How are they going to believe that you’re going to be an independent and strong voice against this enormously powerful, special interest?” Sen. Sanders asked.

“I’m totally with you on the concept that the price of pharmaceuticals is way too high in this country,” Dr. Califf said in reply.

Dr. Califf was paid $2.7 million in salary and bonus by Verily Life Sciences, the biomedical research organization operated by Alphabet, parent company of Google, according to his federal financial disclosure. He also reported holding board positions with pharmaceutical companies AmyriAD and Centessa Pharmaceuticals.

Bloomberg Government reported that Dr. Califf has ties to about 16 other research organizations and biotech companies. Bloomberg Government also said that, in his earlier FDA service, Dr. Califf kept a whiteboard in his office that listed all the activities and projects that required his recusal, citing as a source Howard Sklamberg, who was a deputy commissioner under Dr. Califf.

“He was very, very, very careful,” Mr. Sklamberg, who’s now an attorney at Arnold & Porter LLP, told Bloomberg Government.
 

‘Work to do’ on opioids

Senators looped back repeatedly to the topic of opioids during Dr. Califf’s hearing, reflecting deep concerns about the FDA’s efforts to warn of the risks of prescription painkillers.

There were an estimated 100,306 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the 12 months ending in April, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dr. Califf said he plans to focus on what information the FDA conveys to the public about the risks of prescription painkillers, including a look at what the labels for these products say.

“I am committed to do a comprehensive review of the status of opioids, early in my tenure,” Dr. Califf said.

Dr. Califf indicated that physicians are still too quick to provide excess doses of these medicines, despite years of efforts to restrain their use. He said he knows relatives who were given 30-day prescriptions for opioids after minor surgery.

“So I know we have work to do,” Dr. Califf said.

Concerns about the FDA’s previous work in managing opioids has led to protests from a few Democratic senators about the prospect of President Biden nominating the acting FDA commissioner, Janet Woodcock, MD, for the permanent post.

At the hearing, Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) raised the case of the FDA’s approval of the powerful Zohydro painkiller. The agency approved that drug despite an 11-2 vote against it by the FDA’s Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee.

Sen. Luján asked Dr. Califf what he would do if an FDA advisory committee voted “overwhelmingly” against recommending approval of a medicine, as happened in the Zohydro case.

While not mentioned by Sen. Luján in this exchange during the hearing with Dr. Califf, the FDA staff’s rejection of recommendations of advisory committees has been a growing concern among researchers.

The agency last year approved aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen), a drug for Alzheimer’s disease, dismissing the advice of its Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee. That decision triggered the resignation of several members of the panel. The FDA staff also earlier rejected the conclusion the majority of members of the same advisory committee offered in 2016 on eteplirsen (Exondys 51, Sarepta), a drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Dr. Califf told Sen. Luján he had done recent research into how often the FDA staff does not concur with the recommendations of an advisory committee. He said the FDA takes a different course of action in about 25% of cases. In about three-quarters of those cases, the FDA staff opts for a “more stringent” approach regarding allowing the public access to the drug, as opposed to a more generous one as seen in the Zohydro, Aduhelm, and Exondys 51 cases.

Still, Dr. Califf said that when there’s an 11-2 advisory committee vote against recommendation of a product, “the leaders at FDA really need to take a close look” at what’s happening.

Question on accelerated approvals

The FDA’s approval of aducanumab drew attention to a debate already underway about conditional clearances known as accelerated approvals.

The FDA has used this path since the 1990s to speed access to drugs for serious conditions. The trade-off for early access is that the agency sometimes makes the wrong call based on initial findings, and clears a medicine later found not to benefit patients as expected.

The FDA’s cancer division is in the midst of public efforts to address cases where drugmakers have not been able to deliver studies that support accelerated approvals of their oncology drugs. In addition, the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services announced in August that it is reviewing the FDA’s handling of the accelerated approval process.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Sen. Burr grilled Dr. Califf about how he would respond to calls to change how the FDA handles the accelerated-approval process.

“Can you commit to me and to patients who may rely on cutting-edge treatments that you will not support efforts to narrow this pathway or raise the bar for drugs to be approved under those pathways?” Burr asked Califf.

Dr. Califf responded by saying he was “a fan of accelerated approval – for the right conditions.”

Earlier, in his opening statement, Dr. Califf had said his mother benefited directly from the accelerated approval of new drugs for multiple myeloma. Dr. Califf told Sen. Burr that he had spent “countless hours with patient groups” and understands the need to speed the approval of medicines for serious diseases.

But the FDA also has to make sure it holds up its end of the bargain struck with accelerated approvals. This involves checking on how these medicines work once they are marketed.

“We’re accepting that there’s more uncertainty,” Dr. Califf said. “That means we’ve got to have a better system to evaluate these products as they’re used on the market. And I think there are ways that we can do that now. Technology is making this possible in ways that it just was not possible before.”
 

Worries about the medical supply chain

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) asked Dr. Califf about the vulnerability of the U.S. medical system to disruptions of the supply chain. She raised concerns about China’s dominance in antibiotic manufacturing as an example. She asked if Congress could do more to encourage domestic manufacturing of medical supplies, such as by offering tax incentives.

Dr. Califf told Sen. Collins he shared her concern about the U.S. manufacturing of ingredients used in both branded and generic drugs. He said he recently has served on a committee of the National Academy of Medicine that is examining supply chain issues.

This committee will soon release a report with specific recommendations, Dr. Califf said.

“We don’t have enough competitive entities in what’s become sort of a commodity business” of drug manufacturing, Dr. Califf said. “So we need a number of steps to make the system more resilient.”

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

Robert M. Califf, MD, plans to take a close look at federal policies on opioid prescriptions in his expected second turn as the top U.S. regulator of medical products, as well as keep closer tabs on the performance of drugs cleared with accelerated approvals.

Catherine Hackett/Frontline Medical News

Dr. Califf on Tuesday fielded questions at a Senate hearing about his nomination by President Joe Biden to serve as administrator of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a role in which he served in the Obama administration. He also spoke about the need to bolster the nation’s ability to maintain an adequate supply of key medical products, including drugs.

Members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which is handling Dr. Califf’s nomination, were largely cordial and supportive during the hearing. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the committee chair, and the panel’s top Republican, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, addressed Dr. Califf during the hearing as if he would soon serve again as the FDA’s leader. Both were among the senators who voted 89-4 to confirm Dr. Califf in a February 2016 vote.

Dr. Califf “was previously confirmed to lead FDA in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and I look forward to working with him again to ensure FDA continues to protect families across the country, uphold the gold standard of safety and effectiveness, and put science and data first,” Sen. Murray said.

Less enthusiastic about Dr. Califf was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who was among the seven senators who did not vote on Dr. Califf’s nomination in 2016.

Sen. Sanders objected in 2016 to Dr. Califf’s ties to the pharmaceutical industry, and he did so again Tuesday. A noted leader in conducting clinical trials, Dr. Califf has worked with many drugmakers. But at the hearing, Dr. Califf said he concurs with Sen. Sanders on an idea strongly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry.

In response to Sen. Sanders’ question, Dr. Califf said he already is “on record as being in favor of Medicare negotiating with the industry on prices.”

The FDA would not take direct part in negotiations, as this work would be handled by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Democrats want to give Medicare some negotiating authority through their sweeping Build Back Better Act.

People in the United States are dismayed over both the cost of prescription drugs and the widespread distribution of prescription painkillers that helped fuel the current opioid epidemic, Sen. Sanders told Dr. Califf. Many people will be concerned about an FDA commissioner who has benefited from close ties to the industry, Sen. Sanders said.

“How are they going to believe that you’re going to be an independent and strong voice against this enormously powerful, special interest?” Sen. Sanders asked.

“I’m totally with you on the concept that the price of pharmaceuticals is way too high in this country,” Dr. Califf said in reply.

Dr. Califf was paid $2.7 million in salary and bonus by Verily Life Sciences, the biomedical research organization operated by Alphabet, parent company of Google, according to his federal financial disclosure. He also reported holding board positions with pharmaceutical companies AmyriAD and Centessa Pharmaceuticals.

Bloomberg Government reported that Dr. Califf has ties to about 16 other research organizations and biotech companies. Bloomberg Government also said that, in his earlier FDA service, Dr. Califf kept a whiteboard in his office that listed all the activities and projects that required his recusal, citing as a source Howard Sklamberg, who was a deputy commissioner under Dr. Califf.

“He was very, very, very careful,” Mr. Sklamberg, who’s now an attorney at Arnold & Porter LLP, told Bloomberg Government.
 

‘Work to do’ on opioids

Senators looped back repeatedly to the topic of opioids during Dr. Califf’s hearing, reflecting deep concerns about the FDA’s efforts to warn of the risks of prescription painkillers.

There were an estimated 100,306 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the 12 months ending in April, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dr. Califf said he plans to focus on what information the FDA conveys to the public about the risks of prescription painkillers, including a look at what the labels for these products say.

“I am committed to do a comprehensive review of the status of opioids, early in my tenure,” Dr. Califf said.

Dr. Califf indicated that physicians are still too quick to provide excess doses of these medicines, despite years of efforts to restrain their use. He said he knows relatives who were given 30-day prescriptions for opioids after minor surgery.

“So I know we have work to do,” Dr. Califf said.

Concerns about the FDA’s previous work in managing opioids has led to protests from a few Democratic senators about the prospect of President Biden nominating the acting FDA commissioner, Janet Woodcock, MD, for the permanent post.

At the hearing, Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) raised the case of the FDA’s approval of the powerful Zohydro painkiller. The agency approved that drug despite an 11-2 vote against it by the FDA’s Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee.

Sen. Luján asked Dr. Califf what he would do if an FDA advisory committee voted “overwhelmingly” against recommending approval of a medicine, as happened in the Zohydro case.

While not mentioned by Sen. Luján in this exchange during the hearing with Dr. Califf, the FDA staff’s rejection of recommendations of advisory committees has been a growing concern among researchers.

The agency last year approved aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen), a drug for Alzheimer’s disease, dismissing the advice of its Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee. That decision triggered the resignation of several members of the panel. The FDA staff also earlier rejected the conclusion the majority of members of the same advisory committee offered in 2016 on eteplirsen (Exondys 51, Sarepta), a drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Dr. Califf told Sen. Luján he had done recent research into how often the FDA staff does not concur with the recommendations of an advisory committee. He said the FDA takes a different course of action in about 25% of cases. In about three-quarters of those cases, the FDA staff opts for a “more stringent” approach regarding allowing the public access to the drug, as opposed to a more generous one as seen in the Zohydro, Aduhelm, and Exondys 51 cases.

Still, Dr. Califf said that when there’s an 11-2 advisory committee vote against recommendation of a product, “the leaders at FDA really need to take a close look” at what’s happening.

Question on accelerated approvals

The FDA’s approval of aducanumab drew attention to a debate already underway about conditional clearances known as accelerated approvals.

The FDA has used this path since the 1990s to speed access to drugs for serious conditions. The trade-off for early access is that the agency sometimes makes the wrong call based on initial findings, and clears a medicine later found not to benefit patients as expected.

The FDA’s cancer division is in the midst of public efforts to address cases where drugmakers have not been able to deliver studies that support accelerated approvals of their oncology drugs. In addition, the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services announced in August that it is reviewing the FDA’s handling of the accelerated approval process.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Sen. Burr grilled Dr. Califf about how he would respond to calls to change how the FDA handles the accelerated-approval process.

“Can you commit to me and to patients who may rely on cutting-edge treatments that you will not support efforts to narrow this pathway or raise the bar for drugs to be approved under those pathways?” Burr asked Califf.

Dr. Califf responded by saying he was “a fan of accelerated approval – for the right conditions.”

Earlier, in his opening statement, Dr. Califf had said his mother benefited directly from the accelerated approval of new drugs for multiple myeloma. Dr. Califf told Sen. Burr that he had spent “countless hours with patient groups” and understands the need to speed the approval of medicines for serious diseases.

But the FDA also has to make sure it holds up its end of the bargain struck with accelerated approvals. This involves checking on how these medicines work once they are marketed.

“We’re accepting that there’s more uncertainty,” Dr. Califf said. “That means we’ve got to have a better system to evaluate these products as they’re used on the market. And I think there are ways that we can do that now. Technology is making this possible in ways that it just was not possible before.”
 

Worries about the medical supply chain

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) asked Dr. Califf about the vulnerability of the U.S. medical system to disruptions of the supply chain. She raised concerns about China’s dominance in antibiotic manufacturing as an example. She asked if Congress could do more to encourage domestic manufacturing of medical supplies, such as by offering tax incentives.

Dr. Califf told Sen. Collins he shared her concern about the U.S. manufacturing of ingredients used in both branded and generic drugs. He said he recently has served on a committee of the National Academy of Medicine that is examining supply chain issues.

This committee will soon release a report with specific recommendations, Dr. Califf said.

“We don’t have enough competitive entities in what’s become sort of a commodity business” of drug manufacturing, Dr. Califf said. “So we need a number of steps to make the system more resilient.”

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

In a shocking, yet low-key, announcement, the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Forxiga, AstraZeneca) has been withdrawn from the market in all EU countries for the indication of type 1 diabetes.

Courtesy AstraZeneca

This includes withdrawal in the U.K., which was part of the EU when dapagliflozin was approved for type 1 diabetes in 2019, but following Brexit, is no longer.

AstraZeneca said the decision is not motivated by safety concerns but points nevertheless to an increased risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) associated with SGLT2 inhibitors in those with type 1 diabetes, which it said might cause “confusion” among physicians using the drug to treat numerous other indications for which this agent is now approved.

DKA is a potentially dangerous side effect resulting from acid build-up in the blood and is normally accompanied by very high glucose levels. DKA is flagged as a potential side effect in type 2 diabetes but is more common in those with type 1 diabetes. It can also occur as “euglycemic” DKA, which is ketosis but with relatively normal glucose levels (and therefore harder for patients to detect). Euglycemic DKA is thought to be more of a risk in those with type 1 diabetes than in those with type 2 diabetes.

One charity believes concerns around safety are the underlying factor for the withdrawal of dapagliflozin for type 1 diabetes in Europe, suggesting that AstraZeneca might not want to risk income from more lucrative indications – such as type 2 diabetes with much larger patient populations – because of potential concerns from doctors, who may be deterred from prescribing the drug due to concerns about DKA.

JDRF International, a leading global type 1 diabetes charity, called on AstraZeneca in a statement “to explain to people affected by type 1 diabetes why the drug has been withdrawn.”

It added that dapagliflozin is the “only other drug besides insulin” to be licensed in Europe for the treatment of type 1 diabetes and represents a “major advancement since the discovery of insulin 100 years ago.”

Karen Addington, U.K. Chief Executive of JDRF, said it is “appalling” that the drug has been withdrawn, as “many people with type 1 are finding it an effective and useful tool to help manage their glucose levels.”
 

SGLT2 inhibitors never approved for type 1 diabetes in U.S.

Dapagliflozin and other drugs from the SGLT2 inhibitor class had already been approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes for a number of years when dapagliflozin was approved in early 2019 for the treatment of adults with type 1 diabetes meeting certain criteria by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which at that time included the U.K. in its remit, based on data from the DEPICT series of phase 3 trials.

SGLT2 inhibitors have also recently shown benefit in other indications, such as heart failure and chronic kidney disease – even in the absence of diabetes – leaving some to label them a new class of wonder drugs.

Following the 2019 EU approval for type 1 diabetes, dapagliflozin was subsequently recommended for this use on the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales and was accompanied by guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), which has now had to be withdrawn.

Of note, dapagliflozin was never approved for use in type 1 diabetes in the United States (where it is known as Farxiga), with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration turning it down in July 2019.

An advisory panel for the FDA also later turned down another SGLT2 inhibitor for type 1 diabetes, empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim) in Nov. 2019, as reported by this news organization.
 

Discontinuation ‘not due to safety concerns,’ says AZ

The announcement to discontinue dapagliflozin for the indication of type 1 diabetes in certain adults just two and a half years after its approval in the EU comes as a big surprise, especially as it was made with little fanfare just last month.

In the U.K., AstraZeneca sent a letter to health care professionals on Nov. 2 stating that, from Oct. 25, dapagliflozin 5 mg was “no longer authorized” for the treatment of type 1 diabetes and “should no longer be used” in this patient population.

However, it underlined that other indications for dapagliflozin 5 mg and 10 mg were “not affected by this licensing change,” and it remains available for adults with type 2 diabetes, as well as for the management of symptomatic chronic heart feature with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD).

In the letter, sent by Tom Keith-Roach, country president of AstraZeneca UK, the company asserts that the removal of the type 1 diabetes indication from dapagliflozin is “not due to any safety concern” with the drug “in any indication, including type 1 diabetes.”

It nevertheless goes on to highlight that DKA is a known common side effect of dapagliflozin in type 1 diabetes and, following the announcement, “additional risk minimization measures ... will no longer be available.”

In a separate statement, AstraZeneca said that the decision to remove the indication was made “voluntarily” and had been “agreed” with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in Great Britain and the equivalent body in Northern Ireland.

“It follows discussions regarding product information changes needed post-approval for dapagliflozin 5 mg specific to type 1 diabetes,” the company said, “which might cause confusion” among physicians treating patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic heart feature with reduced ejection fraction, or CKD.

AstraZeneca told this news organization that similar communications about the withdrawal were issued to health care agencies and health care professionals in all countries of the EU.
 

‘Appalling, devastating, disappointing’ for patients

The announcement has been met with disappointment in some quarters and outrage in others, and questions have been raised as to the explanation given by AstraZeneca for the drug’s withdrawal.

“Although only a small number of people with type 1 diabetes have been using dapagliflozin, we know that those who have been using it will have been benefitting from tighter control of their condition,” Simon O’Neill, director of health intelligence and professional liaison at Diabetes UK, told this news organization.

“It’s disappointing that these people will now need to go back to the drawing board and will have to work with their clinical team to find other ways of better managing their condition.”

Mr. O’Neill said it was “disappointing that AstraZeneca and the MHRA were unable to find a workable solution to allow people living with type 1 diabetes to continue using the drug safely without leading to confusion for clinicians or people living with type 2 diabetes, who also use it.”

Sanjoy Dutta, JDRF International vice president of research, added that the news is “devastating.”

“The impending negative impact of removing a drug like dapagliflozin from any market can be detrimental in the potential for other national medical ruling boards to have confidence in approving it for their citizens,” he added.

“We stand with our type 1 diabetes communities across the globe in demanding an explanation to clarify this removal.”
 

Why not an educational campaign about DKA risk?

In an interview, Hilary Nathan, policy & communications director at JDRF International, explained that the charity has its theories as to why dapagliflozin has been withdrawn for type 1 diabetes.

What AstraZeneca is saying, “and what we don’t agree with them on,” is that the “black triangle” warning that has to be put onto the drug due to the increased risk of DKA in type 1 diabetes is “misunderstood by health care practitioners” outside of that specialty and that “by having that black triangle, it will inhibit take-up in those other markets.”

In other words, “there will be less desire to prescribe it,” ventured Ms. Nathan.

She continued: “For us, we feel that if a medicine is deemed safe and efficacious, it should not be withdrawn because of other patient constituencies.”

“We asked: ‘Why can’t you do an educational awareness campaign about the black triangle?’ And the might of AstraZeneca said it would be too big a task.”

Ms. Nathan was also surprised at how the drug could be withdrawn without any warning or real explanation.

“How is it possible that, when a drug is approved there are multiple stakeholders that are involved in putting forward views and experiences – both from the clinical and patient advocacy communities, as well as obviously the pharmaceutical community – yet [a drug] can be withdrawn by a ... company that may well have conflicts of interest around commercial take-up.”

She added: “I feel that there are potentially motives around the withdrawal that AstraZeneca are still not being clear about.”

Perhaps a further clue as to the real motives behind the withdrawal can be found in an announcement, just last week, by the British MHRA.

“The decision by the marketing authorization holder to voluntarily withdraw the indication in type 1 diabetes followed commercial considerations due to a specific European-wide regulatory requirement for this authorization,” it said.

“The decision was not driven by any new safety concerns, such as the already known increased risk of DKA in type 1 diabetes compared with type 2 diabetes.”

Separately, a new in-depth investigation into when Johnson & Johnson, which markets another SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana), first knew that its agent was associated with DKA has revealed multiple discrepancies in staff accounts. Some claim the company knew as early as 2010 that canagliflozin – first approved for type 2 diabetes in the United States in 2013 – could increase the risk of DKA. It was not until May 2015 that the FDA first issued a warning about the potential risk of DKA associated with use of SGLT2 inhibitors, with the EMA following suit a month later. In Dec. 2015, the FDA updated the labels for all SGLT2 inhibitors approved in the United States at that time – canagliflozin, empagliflozin, and dapagliflozin – to include the risks for ketoacidosis (and urinary tract infections).

Forxiga (dapagliflozin) is manufactured by AstraZeneca. No relevant financial relationships declared.

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

In a shocking, yet low-key, announcement, the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Forxiga, AstraZeneca) has been withdrawn from the market in all EU countries for the indication of type 1 diabetes.

Courtesy AstraZeneca

This includes withdrawal in the U.K., which was part of the EU when dapagliflozin was approved for type 1 diabetes in 2019, but following Brexit, is no longer.

AstraZeneca said the decision is not motivated by safety concerns but points nevertheless to an increased risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) associated with SGLT2 inhibitors in those with type 1 diabetes, which it said might cause “confusion” among physicians using the drug to treat numerous other indications for which this agent is now approved.

DKA is a potentially dangerous side effect resulting from acid build-up in the blood and is normally accompanied by very high glucose levels. DKA is flagged as a potential side effect in type 2 diabetes but is more common in those with type 1 diabetes. It can also occur as “euglycemic” DKA, which is ketosis but with relatively normal glucose levels (and therefore harder for patients to detect). Euglycemic DKA is thought to be more of a risk in those with type 1 diabetes than in those with type 2 diabetes.

One charity believes concerns around safety are the underlying factor for the withdrawal of dapagliflozin for type 1 diabetes in Europe, suggesting that AstraZeneca might not want to risk income from more lucrative indications – such as type 2 diabetes with much larger patient populations – because of potential concerns from doctors, who may be deterred from prescribing the drug due to concerns about DKA.

JDRF International, a leading global type 1 diabetes charity, called on AstraZeneca in a statement “to explain to people affected by type 1 diabetes why the drug has been withdrawn.”

It added that dapagliflozin is the “only other drug besides insulin” to be licensed in Europe for the treatment of type 1 diabetes and represents a “major advancement since the discovery of insulin 100 years ago.”

Karen Addington, U.K. Chief Executive of JDRF, said it is “appalling” that the drug has been withdrawn, as “many people with type 1 are finding it an effective and useful tool to help manage their glucose levels.”
 

SGLT2 inhibitors never approved for type 1 diabetes in U.S.

Dapagliflozin and other drugs from the SGLT2 inhibitor class had already been approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes for a number of years when dapagliflozin was approved in early 2019 for the treatment of adults with type 1 diabetes meeting certain criteria by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which at that time included the U.K. in its remit, based on data from the DEPICT series of phase 3 trials.

SGLT2 inhibitors have also recently shown benefit in other indications, such as heart failure and chronic kidney disease – even in the absence of diabetes – leaving some to label them a new class of wonder drugs.

Following the 2019 EU approval for type 1 diabetes, dapagliflozin was subsequently recommended for this use on the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales and was accompanied by guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), which has now had to be withdrawn.

Of note, dapagliflozin was never approved for use in type 1 diabetes in the United States (where it is known as Farxiga), with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration turning it down in July 2019.

An advisory panel for the FDA also later turned down another SGLT2 inhibitor for type 1 diabetes, empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim) in Nov. 2019, as reported by this news organization.
 

Discontinuation ‘not due to safety concerns,’ says AZ

The announcement to discontinue dapagliflozin for the indication of type 1 diabetes in certain adults just two and a half years after its approval in the EU comes as a big surprise, especially as it was made with little fanfare just last month.

In the U.K., AstraZeneca sent a letter to health care professionals on Nov. 2 stating that, from Oct. 25, dapagliflozin 5 mg was “no longer authorized” for the treatment of type 1 diabetes and “should no longer be used” in this patient population.

However, it underlined that other indications for dapagliflozin 5 mg and 10 mg were “not affected by this licensing change,” and it remains available for adults with type 2 diabetes, as well as for the management of symptomatic chronic heart feature with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD).

In the letter, sent by Tom Keith-Roach, country president of AstraZeneca UK, the company asserts that the removal of the type 1 diabetes indication from dapagliflozin is “not due to any safety concern” with the drug “in any indication, including type 1 diabetes.”

It nevertheless goes on to highlight that DKA is a known common side effect of dapagliflozin in type 1 diabetes and, following the announcement, “additional risk minimization measures ... will no longer be available.”

In a separate statement, AstraZeneca said that the decision to remove the indication was made “voluntarily” and had been “agreed” with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in Great Britain and the equivalent body in Northern Ireland.

“It follows discussions regarding product information changes needed post-approval for dapagliflozin 5 mg specific to type 1 diabetes,” the company said, “which might cause confusion” among physicians treating patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic heart feature with reduced ejection fraction, or CKD.

AstraZeneca told this news organization that similar communications about the withdrawal were issued to health care agencies and health care professionals in all countries of the EU.
 

‘Appalling, devastating, disappointing’ for patients

The announcement has been met with disappointment in some quarters and outrage in others, and questions have been raised as to the explanation given by AstraZeneca for the drug’s withdrawal.

“Although only a small number of people with type 1 diabetes have been using dapagliflozin, we know that those who have been using it will have been benefitting from tighter control of their condition,” Simon O’Neill, director of health intelligence and professional liaison at Diabetes UK, told this news organization.

“It’s disappointing that these people will now need to go back to the drawing board and will have to work with their clinical team to find other ways of better managing their condition.”

Mr. O’Neill said it was “disappointing that AstraZeneca and the MHRA were unable to find a workable solution to allow people living with type 1 diabetes to continue using the drug safely without leading to confusion for clinicians or people living with type 2 diabetes, who also use it.”

Sanjoy Dutta, JDRF International vice president of research, added that the news is “devastating.”

“The impending negative impact of removing a drug like dapagliflozin from any market can be detrimental in the potential for other national medical ruling boards to have confidence in approving it for their citizens,” he added.

“We stand with our type 1 diabetes communities across the globe in demanding an explanation to clarify this removal.”
 

Why not an educational campaign about DKA risk?

In an interview, Hilary Nathan, policy & communications director at JDRF International, explained that the charity has its theories as to why dapagliflozin has been withdrawn for type 1 diabetes.

What AstraZeneca is saying, “and what we don’t agree with them on,” is that the “black triangle” warning that has to be put onto the drug due to the increased risk of DKA in type 1 diabetes is “misunderstood by health care practitioners” outside of that specialty and that “by having that black triangle, it will inhibit take-up in those other markets.”

In other words, “there will be less desire to prescribe it,” ventured Ms. Nathan.

She continued: “For us, we feel that if a medicine is deemed safe and efficacious, it should not be withdrawn because of other patient constituencies.”

“We asked: ‘Why can’t you do an educational awareness campaign about the black triangle?’ And the might of AstraZeneca said it would be too big a task.”

Ms. Nathan was also surprised at how the drug could be withdrawn without any warning or real explanation.

“How is it possible that, when a drug is approved there are multiple stakeholders that are involved in putting forward views and experiences – both from the clinical and patient advocacy communities, as well as obviously the pharmaceutical community – yet [a drug] can be withdrawn by a ... company that may well have conflicts of interest around commercial take-up.”

She added: “I feel that there are potentially motives around the withdrawal that AstraZeneca are still not being clear about.”

Perhaps a further clue as to the real motives behind the withdrawal can be found in an announcement, just last week, by the British MHRA.

“The decision by the marketing authorization holder to voluntarily withdraw the indication in type 1 diabetes followed commercial considerations due to a specific European-wide regulatory requirement for this authorization,” it said.

“The decision was not driven by any new safety concerns, such as the already known increased risk of DKA in type 1 diabetes compared with type 2 diabetes.”

Separately, a new in-depth investigation into when Johnson & Johnson, which markets another SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana), first knew that its agent was associated with DKA has revealed multiple discrepancies in staff accounts. Some claim the company knew as early as 2010 that canagliflozin – first approved for type 2 diabetes in the United States in 2013 – could increase the risk of DKA. It was not until May 2015 that the FDA first issued a warning about the potential risk of DKA associated with use of SGLT2 inhibitors, with the EMA following suit a month later. In Dec. 2015, the FDA updated the labels for all SGLT2 inhibitors approved in the United States at that time – canagliflozin, empagliflozin, and dapagliflozin – to include the risks for ketoacidosis (and urinary tract infections).

Forxiga (dapagliflozin) is manufactured by AstraZeneca. No relevant financial relationships declared.

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

In a shocking, yet low-key, announcement, the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Forxiga, AstraZeneca) has been withdrawn from the market in all EU countries for the indication of type 1 diabetes.

Courtesy AstraZeneca

This includes withdrawal in the U.K., which was part of the EU when dapagliflozin was approved for type 1 diabetes in 2019, but following Brexit, is no longer.

AstraZeneca said the decision is not motivated by safety concerns but points nevertheless to an increased risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) associated with SGLT2 inhibitors in those with type 1 diabetes, which it said might cause “confusion” among physicians using the drug to treat numerous other indications for which this agent is now approved.

DKA is a potentially dangerous side effect resulting from acid build-up in the blood and is normally accompanied by very high glucose levels. DKA is flagged as a potential side effect in type 2 diabetes but is more common in those with type 1 diabetes. It can also occur as “euglycemic” DKA, which is ketosis but with relatively normal glucose levels (and therefore harder for patients to detect). Euglycemic DKA is thought to be more of a risk in those with type 1 diabetes than in those with type 2 diabetes.

One charity believes concerns around safety are the underlying factor for the withdrawal of dapagliflozin for type 1 diabetes in Europe, suggesting that AstraZeneca might not want to risk income from more lucrative indications – such as type 2 diabetes with much larger patient populations – because of potential concerns from doctors, who may be deterred from prescribing the drug due to concerns about DKA.

JDRF International, a leading global type 1 diabetes charity, called on AstraZeneca in a statement “to explain to people affected by type 1 diabetes why the drug has been withdrawn.”

It added that dapagliflozin is the “only other drug besides insulin” to be licensed in Europe for the treatment of type 1 diabetes and represents a “major advancement since the discovery of insulin 100 years ago.”

Karen Addington, U.K. Chief Executive of JDRF, said it is “appalling” that the drug has been withdrawn, as “many people with type 1 are finding it an effective and useful tool to help manage their glucose levels.”
 

SGLT2 inhibitors never approved for type 1 diabetes in U.S.

Dapagliflozin and other drugs from the SGLT2 inhibitor class had already been approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes for a number of years when dapagliflozin was approved in early 2019 for the treatment of adults with type 1 diabetes meeting certain criteria by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which at that time included the U.K. in its remit, based on data from the DEPICT series of phase 3 trials.

SGLT2 inhibitors have also recently shown benefit in other indications, such as heart failure and chronic kidney disease – even in the absence of diabetes – leaving some to label them a new class of wonder drugs.

Following the 2019 EU approval for type 1 diabetes, dapagliflozin was subsequently recommended for this use on the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales and was accompanied by guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), which has now had to be withdrawn.

Of note, dapagliflozin was never approved for use in type 1 diabetes in the United States (where it is known as Farxiga), with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration turning it down in July 2019.

An advisory panel for the FDA also later turned down another SGLT2 inhibitor for type 1 diabetes, empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim) in Nov. 2019, as reported by this news organization.
 

Discontinuation ‘not due to safety concerns,’ says AZ

The announcement to discontinue dapagliflozin for the indication of type 1 diabetes in certain adults just two and a half years after its approval in the EU comes as a big surprise, especially as it was made with little fanfare just last month.

In the U.K., AstraZeneca sent a letter to health care professionals on Nov. 2 stating that, from Oct. 25, dapagliflozin 5 mg was “no longer authorized” for the treatment of type 1 diabetes and “should no longer be used” in this patient population.

However, it underlined that other indications for dapagliflozin 5 mg and 10 mg were “not affected by this licensing change,” and it remains available for adults with type 2 diabetes, as well as for the management of symptomatic chronic heart feature with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD).

In the letter, sent by Tom Keith-Roach, country president of AstraZeneca UK, the company asserts that the removal of the type 1 diabetes indication from dapagliflozin is “not due to any safety concern” with the drug “in any indication, including type 1 diabetes.”

It nevertheless goes on to highlight that DKA is a known common side effect of dapagliflozin in type 1 diabetes and, following the announcement, “additional risk minimization measures ... will no longer be available.”

In a separate statement, AstraZeneca said that the decision to remove the indication was made “voluntarily” and had been “agreed” with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in Great Britain and the equivalent body in Northern Ireland.

“It follows discussions regarding product information changes needed post-approval for dapagliflozin 5 mg specific to type 1 diabetes,” the company said, “which might cause confusion” among physicians treating patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic heart feature with reduced ejection fraction, or CKD.

AstraZeneca told this news organization that similar communications about the withdrawal were issued to health care agencies and health care professionals in all countries of the EU.
 

‘Appalling, devastating, disappointing’ for patients

The announcement has been met with disappointment in some quarters and outrage in others, and questions have been raised as to the explanation given by AstraZeneca for the drug’s withdrawal.

“Although only a small number of people with type 1 diabetes have been using dapagliflozin, we know that those who have been using it will have been benefitting from tighter control of their condition,” Simon O’Neill, director of health intelligence and professional liaison at Diabetes UK, told this news organization.

“It’s disappointing that these people will now need to go back to the drawing board and will have to work with their clinical team to find other ways of better managing their condition.”

Mr. O’Neill said it was “disappointing that AstraZeneca and the MHRA were unable to find a workable solution to allow people living with type 1 diabetes to continue using the drug safely without leading to confusion for clinicians or people living with type 2 diabetes, who also use it.”

Sanjoy Dutta, JDRF International vice president of research, added that the news is “devastating.”

“The impending negative impact of removing a drug like dapagliflozin from any market can be detrimental in the potential for other national medical ruling boards to have confidence in approving it for their citizens,” he added.

“We stand with our type 1 diabetes communities across the globe in demanding an explanation to clarify this removal.”
 

Why not an educational campaign about DKA risk?

In an interview, Hilary Nathan, policy & communications director at JDRF International, explained that the charity has its theories as to why dapagliflozin has been withdrawn for type 1 diabetes.

What AstraZeneca is saying, “and what we don’t agree with them on,” is that the “black triangle” warning that has to be put onto the drug due to the increased risk of DKA in type 1 diabetes is “misunderstood by health care practitioners” outside of that specialty and that “by having that black triangle, it will inhibit take-up in those other markets.”

In other words, “there will be less desire to prescribe it,” ventured Ms. Nathan.

She continued: “For us, we feel that if a medicine is deemed safe and efficacious, it should not be withdrawn because of other patient constituencies.”

“We asked: ‘Why can’t you do an educational awareness campaign about the black triangle?’ And the might of AstraZeneca said it would be too big a task.”

Ms. Nathan was also surprised at how the drug could be withdrawn without any warning or real explanation.

“How is it possible that, when a drug is approved there are multiple stakeholders that are involved in putting forward views and experiences – both from the clinical and patient advocacy communities, as well as obviously the pharmaceutical community – yet [a drug] can be withdrawn by a ... company that may well have conflicts of interest around commercial take-up.”

She added: “I feel that there are potentially motives around the withdrawal that AstraZeneca are still not being clear about.”

Perhaps a further clue as to the real motives behind the withdrawal can be found in an announcement, just last week, by the British MHRA.

“The decision by the marketing authorization holder to voluntarily withdraw the indication in type 1 diabetes followed commercial considerations due to a specific European-wide regulatory requirement for this authorization,” it said.

“The decision was not driven by any new safety concerns, such as the already known increased risk of DKA in type 1 diabetes compared with type 2 diabetes.”

Separately, a new in-depth investigation into when Johnson & Johnson, which markets another SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana), first knew that its agent was associated with DKA has revealed multiple discrepancies in staff accounts. Some claim the company knew as early as 2010 that canagliflozin – first approved for type 2 diabetes in the United States in 2013 – could increase the risk of DKA. It was not until May 2015 that the FDA first issued a warning about the potential risk of DKA associated with use of SGLT2 inhibitors, with the EMA following suit a month later. In Dec. 2015, the FDA updated the labels for all SGLT2 inhibitors approved in the United States at that time – canagliflozin, empagliflozin, and dapagliflozin – to include the risks for ketoacidosis (and urinary tract infections).

Forxiga (dapagliflozin) is manufactured by AstraZeneca. No relevant financial relationships declared.

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

Medicare could have saved more than $16.7 billion on three kinds of insulin products from 2011 to 2017 if it had secured the same discounts other federal health programs get through negotiations, House Democrats argue in a new report.

iStock/ThinkStock

On Dec. 10, Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform released a final majority staff report, which they say is the culmination of an almost 3-year investigation into pharmaceutical pricing and business practices. The report draws from 1.5 million pages of internal company documents, the committee says.

Documents from insulin makers Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi indicate these firms “raised their prices in lockstep in order to maintain ‘pricing parity’,” with senior executives encouraging the practice, the committee staff writes in the report.

“In a discussion among Novo Nordisk employees about an Eli Lilly price increase for a different diabetes product on Dec. 24, 2015, a Novo Nordisk pricing analyst remarked, ‘[M]aybe Sanofi will wait until tomorrow morning to announce their price increase ... that’s all I want for Christmas,’” the report states.

House Democrats are seeking to use the report findings to aid their Senate colleagues’ attempt to pass the sweeping Build Back Better bill, which includes many provisions addressing drug costs.

It’s still unclear when the Senate will act on the measure. The House passed the Build Back Better bill, 220-213, in November. It includes a provision that would allow Medicare to negotiate the prices of certain drugs covered by Part D pharmacy plans.

That would mark a reversal of the stance taken when Congress created the pharmacy benefit in a 2003 law, which left negotiations to insurers that cover Part D plans.

Republicans have long argued insurers get the best deals on drugs for people on Medicare. Democrats say this approach sacrifices much of Medicare’s bargaining clout, scattering it among plans.

“This fight has been going on since the Medicare Part D legislation which gave away the store” to drugmakers, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) at a Dec. 10 press conference about the House Oversight report. “And they got used to having the store to themselves.”

The Endocrine Society is urging the Senate to protect the insulin affordability provisions included in the Build Back Better Act and move quickly to pass this crucial legislation.

“We implore all Senators to ensure these provisions are not scaled back. The Build Back Better Act represents the best opportunity to address the price of insulin. Millions of Americans cannot wait any longer for a solution,” it said in a statement issued Dec. 14.
 

Better deals for military, medicaid programs

Medicare is unusual among federal programs in that it doesn’t directly leverage its clout to lower drug costs.

Total Part D expenditures were approximately $105 billion last year, according to Medicare’s board of trustees. This spending is divided among the many insurers that run Part D plans, which then make a myriad of decisions about formularies and other factors that affect pricing. 

For drugs administered by clinicians, and thus covered by Medicare Part B, the program pays a premium of the reported average sales price. Part B drug spending was $39 billion in 2019, an increase of about 11.6% from the previous year, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

In contrast, federal law calls for steep reductions in drug prices for people on Medicaid.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Defense Department (DoD)’s Tricare program use several bargaining strategies to lower prices. To control costs, VA and DoD often use formularies of preferred drugs, steer patients to lower-cost drugs, and buy drugs in large volumes, “all of which increase their leverage with drug manufacturers,” the staff of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) wrote in a Feb. 2021 report.

The CBO report examines how those different federal agencies’ approaches played out in terms of prices, net of applicable rebates, and discounts of 176 top-selling brand-name drugs in Medicare Part D.

The average price for this group of drugs was $118 in Medicaid. And for VA and DoD, the average prices were $190 and $184, respectively, for drugs dispensed at the agencies’ medical facilities or by mail.

But for Medicare Part D, the average price was $343, CBO said in the report, which was one of the sources consulted by House Oversight staff when developing their report released on Dec. 10.
 

Insulin still of interest, 100 years after its discovery

The House Oversight report runs to almost 270 pages. It addresses several issues with drug prices, including strategies pharmaceutical companies have used to thwart generic competition. On Monday, the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans separately released its own report looking at patents and delays to the introduction of generic drugs.

Yet, much of the debate on drug prices has focused on one of the oldest widely produced prescription drugs, insulin.

Even with the allowance of generic competition for the essential medicine, branded versions of insulin have been some of the costliest products for Medicare in recent years. Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi dominate the insulin market.

Medicare Part D spent about $2.5 billion in 2019 on Sanofi’s Lantus Solostar insulin, or about $2,585 per person in the program using it. The program also paid about $1.1 billion for another form of Lantus, or about $2,746 per patient.

Medicare Part D also spent about $1.84 billion in 2019 on Novo Nordisk’s NovoLog FlexPen, or about $3,063 per person.

Medicare Part D’s drug spending dashboard also lists eight versions of Lilly’s Humalog, with combined 2019 spending of more than $2 billion. The cost per patient in Medicare Part D ranges from $5,619 to $1,462.

“Over the past 20 years, they have repeatedly and dramatically raised the list prices of their rapid-acting and long-acting insulins and reaped billions of dollars in revenues,” write the House Oversight staff in their report.

Republicans on the House Oversight and Reform Committee disagree with their Democratic colleagues on many points in the debate on drug prices, but they also looked at insulin as a cause for concern. 

GOP members of the committee released a separate report on Dec. 10. They call for greater clarity into the role middlemen in the drug-supply chain – known as pharmaceutical benefit managers – may play in the rising costs of medicines. The GOP report notes that there are bills pending in the House that would seek to steer any discounts offered on insulin within the supply chain toward consumers (Insulin Price Reduction Act H.R. 4906, Insulin Cost Reduction Act H.R. 5623).

Democratic staff in the committee’s report seek to draw attention to how manufacturers priced their insulin products, including the comment by the Novo Nordisk employee about wishing for a price hike for a competitor’s product.

In a statement provided to this news organization, Novo Nordisk said the committee’s report reflects “a limited picture of the efforts put forth by our company and other companies to manage formulary access.”

“This glimpse into the complexity of pricing, formularies, and the health care system demonstrates why Novo Nordisk continues to advocate for comprehensive solutions,” Denmark’s Novo Nordisk said in the statement.

$35 a month for insulin?

Paris-based Sanofi said it makes insulin-pricing decisions independently from competitors. Sanofi said the net price of its insulins has declined by 53% since 2012, arguing the high prices charged to patients reflect decisions made elsewhere in the supply chain.

“Over the same period, the net price for commercial and Medicare Part D plans of Lantus has fallen 44.9%, while average out-of-pocket costs for patients with commercial insurance and Medicare Part D has risen approximately 82%,” Sanofi said.

“For all the focus on the growth of list prices, today, the average net price of Lantus is below 2006 levels. That is why we support policy reforms to require health plans to share negotiated savings with patients by requiring patient cost-sharing be tied to the net prices.”

Indianapolis-based Lilly offered a similar response in a statement to this news organization.

“Lilly, like other companies, monitors competitor list-price changes that are available through publicly available services,” the company said. “However, any changes we make to our list prices are independent decisions, and to the extent they consider competitors they are informed only through publicly available data.”

Despite rising insurance deductibles, the average monthly out-of-pocket cost for Lilly insulin has dropped 27% to $28.05 over the past 4 years, the company said in an interview. Lilly also noted that there are “several affordability options now available” allowing people to purchase their monthly prescription of its insulin for $35, “whether they are uninsured or use commercial insurance, Medicaid, or a participating Medicare Part D plan.”

In 2020, Lilly had announced that people with commercial insurance and those without insurance would be able to get monthly prescriptions of Lilly insulin for $35. 

The Build Back Better Act would require insurers, including Medicare Part D plans and private group or individual health plans, to charge patient cost-sharing of no more than $35 per month for insulin products, said the staff of the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) in a review of the bill.

“Private group or individual plans would not be required to cover all insulin products, just one of each dosage form (vial, pen) and insulin type (rapid-acting, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting), for no more than $35,” the KFF staff state in the report.

People enrolled in Medicare can already choose to enroll in a Part D plan participating in a federal test program that can secure certain insulin products for them at a monthly copayment of $35. In 2022, a total of 2,159 Part D plans will participate in this model, a 32% increase in participating plans since 2021, KFF said.

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

Medicare could have saved more than $16.7 billion on three kinds of insulin products from 2011 to 2017 if it had secured the same discounts other federal health programs get through negotiations, House Democrats argue in a new report.

iStock/ThinkStock

On Dec. 10, Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform released a final majority staff report, which they say is the culmination of an almost 3-year investigation into pharmaceutical pricing and business practices. The report draws from 1.5 million pages of internal company documents, the committee says.

Documents from insulin makers Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi indicate these firms “raised their prices in lockstep in order to maintain ‘pricing parity’,” with senior executives encouraging the practice, the committee staff writes in the report.

“In a discussion among Novo Nordisk employees about an Eli Lilly price increase for a different diabetes product on Dec. 24, 2015, a Novo Nordisk pricing analyst remarked, ‘[M]aybe Sanofi will wait until tomorrow morning to announce their price increase ... that’s all I want for Christmas,’” the report states.

House Democrats are seeking to use the report findings to aid their Senate colleagues’ attempt to pass the sweeping Build Back Better bill, which includes many provisions addressing drug costs.

It’s still unclear when the Senate will act on the measure. The House passed the Build Back Better bill, 220-213, in November. It includes a provision that would allow Medicare to negotiate the prices of certain drugs covered by Part D pharmacy plans.

That would mark a reversal of the stance taken when Congress created the pharmacy benefit in a 2003 law, which left negotiations to insurers that cover Part D plans.

Republicans have long argued insurers get the best deals on drugs for people on Medicare. Democrats say this approach sacrifices much of Medicare’s bargaining clout, scattering it among plans.

“This fight has been going on since the Medicare Part D legislation which gave away the store” to drugmakers, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) at a Dec. 10 press conference about the House Oversight report. “And they got used to having the store to themselves.”

The Endocrine Society is urging the Senate to protect the insulin affordability provisions included in the Build Back Better Act and move quickly to pass this crucial legislation.

“We implore all Senators to ensure these provisions are not scaled back. The Build Back Better Act represents the best opportunity to address the price of insulin. Millions of Americans cannot wait any longer for a solution,” it said in a statement issued Dec. 14.
 

Better deals for military, medicaid programs

Medicare is unusual among federal programs in that it doesn’t directly leverage its clout to lower drug costs.

Total Part D expenditures were approximately $105 billion last year, according to Medicare’s board of trustees. This spending is divided among the many insurers that run Part D plans, which then make a myriad of decisions about formularies and other factors that affect pricing. 

For drugs administered by clinicians, and thus covered by Medicare Part B, the program pays a premium of the reported average sales price. Part B drug spending was $39 billion in 2019, an increase of about 11.6% from the previous year, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

In contrast, federal law calls for steep reductions in drug prices for people on Medicaid.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Defense Department (DoD)’s Tricare program use several bargaining strategies to lower prices. To control costs, VA and DoD often use formularies of preferred drugs, steer patients to lower-cost drugs, and buy drugs in large volumes, “all of which increase their leverage with drug manufacturers,” the staff of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) wrote in a Feb. 2021 report.

The CBO report examines how those different federal agencies’ approaches played out in terms of prices, net of applicable rebates, and discounts of 176 top-selling brand-name drugs in Medicare Part D.

The average price for this group of drugs was $118 in Medicaid. And for VA and DoD, the average prices were $190 and $184, respectively, for drugs dispensed at the agencies’ medical facilities or by mail.

But for Medicare Part D, the average price was $343, CBO said in the report, which was one of the sources consulted by House Oversight staff when developing their report released on Dec. 10.
 

Insulin still of interest, 100 years after its discovery

The House Oversight report runs to almost 270 pages. It addresses several issues with drug prices, including strategies pharmaceutical companies have used to thwart generic competition. On Monday, the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans separately released its own report looking at patents and delays to the introduction of generic drugs.

Yet, much of the debate on drug prices has focused on one of the oldest widely produced prescription drugs, insulin.

Even with the allowance of generic competition for the essential medicine, branded versions of insulin have been some of the costliest products for Medicare in recent years. Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi dominate the insulin market.

Medicare Part D spent about $2.5 billion in 2019 on Sanofi’s Lantus Solostar insulin, or about $2,585 per person in the program using it. The program also paid about $1.1 billion for another form of Lantus, or about $2,746 per patient.

Medicare Part D also spent about $1.84 billion in 2019 on Novo Nordisk’s NovoLog FlexPen, or about $3,063 per person.

Medicare Part D’s drug spending dashboard also lists eight versions of Lilly’s Humalog, with combined 2019 spending of more than $2 billion. The cost per patient in Medicare Part D ranges from $5,619 to $1,462.

“Over the past 20 years, they have repeatedly and dramatically raised the list prices of their rapid-acting and long-acting insulins and reaped billions of dollars in revenues,” write the House Oversight staff in their report.

Republicans on the House Oversight and Reform Committee disagree with their Democratic colleagues on many points in the debate on drug prices, but they also looked at insulin as a cause for concern. 

GOP members of the committee released a separate report on Dec. 10. They call for greater clarity into the role middlemen in the drug-supply chain – known as pharmaceutical benefit managers – may play in the rising costs of medicines. The GOP report notes that there are bills pending in the House that would seek to steer any discounts offered on insulin within the supply chain toward consumers (Insulin Price Reduction Act H.R. 4906, Insulin Cost Reduction Act H.R. 5623).

Democratic staff in the committee’s report seek to draw attention to how manufacturers priced their insulin products, including the comment by the Novo Nordisk employee about wishing for a price hike for a competitor’s product.

In a statement provided to this news organization, Novo Nordisk said the committee’s report reflects “a limited picture of the efforts put forth by our company and other companies to manage formulary access.”

“This glimpse into the complexity of pricing, formularies, and the health care system demonstrates why Novo Nordisk continues to advocate for comprehensive solutions,” Denmark’s Novo Nordisk said in the statement.

$35 a month for insulin?

Paris-based Sanofi said it makes insulin-pricing decisions independently from competitors. Sanofi said the net price of its insulins has declined by 53% since 2012, arguing the high prices charged to patients reflect decisions made elsewhere in the supply chain.

“Over the same period, the net price for commercial and Medicare Part D plans of Lantus has fallen 44.9%, while average out-of-pocket costs for patients with commercial insurance and Medicare Part D has risen approximately 82%,” Sanofi said.

“For all the focus on the growth of list prices, today, the average net price of Lantus is below 2006 levels. That is why we support policy reforms to require health plans to share negotiated savings with patients by requiring patient cost-sharing be tied to the net prices.”

Indianapolis-based Lilly offered a similar response in a statement to this news organization.

“Lilly, like other companies, monitors competitor list-price changes that are available through publicly available services,” the company said. “However, any changes we make to our list prices are independent decisions, and to the extent they consider competitors they are informed only through publicly available data.”

Despite rising insurance deductibles, the average monthly out-of-pocket cost for Lilly insulin has dropped 27% to $28.05 over the past 4 years, the company said in an interview. Lilly also noted that there are “several affordability options now available” allowing people to purchase their monthly prescription of its insulin for $35, “whether they are uninsured or use commercial insurance, Medicaid, or a participating Medicare Part D plan.”

In 2020, Lilly had announced that people with commercial insurance and those without insurance would be able to get monthly prescriptions of Lilly insulin for $35. 

The Build Back Better Act would require insurers, including Medicare Part D plans and private group or individual health plans, to charge patient cost-sharing of no more than $35 per month for insulin products, said the staff of the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) in a review of the bill.

“Private group or individual plans would not be required to cover all insulin products, just one of each dosage form (vial, pen) and insulin type (rapid-acting, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting), for no more than $35,” the KFF staff state in the report.

People enrolled in Medicare can already choose to enroll in a Part D plan participating in a federal test program that can secure certain insulin products for them at a monthly copayment of $35. In 2022, a total of 2,159 Part D plans will participate in this model, a 32% increase in participating plans since 2021, KFF said.

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

Medicare could have saved more than $16.7 billion on three kinds of insulin products from 2011 to 2017 if it had secured the same discounts other federal health programs get through negotiations, House Democrats argue in a new report.

iStock/ThinkStock

On Dec. 10, Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform released a final majority staff report, which they say is the culmination of an almost 3-year investigation into pharmaceutical pricing and business practices. The report draws from 1.5 million pages of internal company documents, the committee says.

Documents from insulin makers Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi indicate these firms “raised their prices in lockstep in order to maintain ‘pricing parity’,” with senior executives encouraging the practice, the committee staff writes in the report.

“In a discussion among Novo Nordisk employees about an Eli Lilly price increase for a different diabetes product on Dec. 24, 2015, a Novo Nordisk pricing analyst remarked, ‘[M]aybe Sanofi will wait until tomorrow morning to announce their price increase ... that’s all I want for Christmas,’” the report states.

House Democrats are seeking to use the report findings to aid their Senate colleagues’ attempt to pass the sweeping Build Back Better bill, which includes many provisions addressing drug costs.

It’s still unclear when the Senate will act on the measure. The House passed the Build Back Better bill, 220-213, in November. It includes a provision that would allow Medicare to negotiate the prices of certain drugs covered by Part D pharmacy plans.

That would mark a reversal of the stance taken when Congress created the pharmacy benefit in a 2003 law, which left negotiations to insurers that cover Part D plans.

Republicans have long argued insurers get the best deals on drugs for people on Medicare. Democrats say this approach sacrifices much of Medicare’s bargaining clout, scattering it among plans.

“This fight has been going on since the Medicare Part D legislation which gave away the store” to drugmakers, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) at a Dec. 10 press conference about the House Oversight report. “And they got used to having the store to themselves.”

The Endocrine Society is urging the Senate to protect the insulin affordability provisions included in the Build Back Better Act and move quickly to pass this crucial legislation.

“We implore all Senators to ensure these provisions are not scaled back. The Build Back Better Act represents the best opportunity to address the price of insulin. Millions of Americans cannot wait any longer for a solution,” it said in a statement issued Dec. 14.
 

Better deals for military, medicaid programs

Medicare is unusual among federal programs in that it doesn’t directly leverage its clout to lower drug costs.

Total Part D expenditures were approximately $105 billion last year, according to Medicare’s board of trustees. This spending is divided among the many insurers that run Part D plans, which then make a myriad of decisions about formularies and other factors that affect pricing. 

For drugs administered by clinicians, and thus covered by Medicare Part B, the program pays a premium of the reported average sales price. Part B drug spending was $39 billion in 2019, an increase of about 11.6% from the previous year, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

In contrast, federal law calls for steep reductions in drug prices for people on Medicaid.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Defense Department (DoD)’s Tricare program use several bargaining strategies to lower prices. To control costs, VA and DoD often use formularies of preferred drugs, steer patients to lower-cost drugs, and buy drugs in large volumes, “all of which increase their leverage with drug manufacturers,” the staff of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) wrote in a Feb. 2021 report.

The CBO report examines how those different federal agencies’ approaches played out in terms of prices, net of applicable rebates, and discounts of 176 top-selling brand-name drugs in Medicare Part D.

The average price for this group of drugs was $118 in Medicaid. And for VA and DoD, the average prices were $190 and $184, respectively, for drugs dispensed at the agencies’ medical facilities or by mail.

But for Medicare Part D, the average price was $343, CBO said in the report, which was one of the sources consulted by House Oversight staff when developing their report released on Dec. 10.
 

Insulin still of interest, 100 years after its discovery

The House Oversight report runs to almost 270 pages. It addresses several issues with drug prices, including strategies pharmaceutical companies have used to thwart generic competition. On Monday, the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans separately released its own report looking at patents and delays to the introduction of generic drugs.

Yet, much of the debate on drug prices has focused on one of the oldest widely produced prescription drugs, insulin.

Even with the allowance of generic competition for the essential medicine, branded versions of insulin have been some of the costliest products for Medicare in recent years. Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi dominate the insulin market.

Medicare Part D spent about $2.5 billion in 2019 on Sanofi’s Lantus Solostar insulin, or about $2,585 per person in the program using it. The program also paid about $1.1 billion for another form of Lantus, or about $2,746 per patient.

Medicare Part D also spent about $1.84 billion in 2019 on Novo Nordisk’s NovoLog FlexPen, or about $3,063 per person.

Medicare Part D’s drug spending dashboard also lists eight versions of Lilly’s Humalog, with combined 2019 spending of more than $2 billion. The cost per patient in Medicare Part D ranges from $5,619 to $1,462.

“Over the past 20 years, they have repeatedly and dramatically raised the list prices of their rapid-acting and long-acting insulins and reaped billions of dollars in revenues,” write the House Oversight staff in their report.

Republicans on the House Oversight and Reform Committee disagree with their Democratic colleagues on many points in the debate on drug prices, but they also looked at insulin as a cause for concern. 

GOP members of the committee released a separate report on Dec. 10. They call for greater clarity into the role middlemen in the drug-supply chain – known as pharmaceutical benefit managers – may play in the rising costs of medicines. The GOP report notes that there are bills pending in the House that would seek to steer any discounts offered on insulin within the supply chain toward consumers (Insulin Price Reduction Act H.R. 4906, Insulin Cost Reduction Act H.R. 5623).

Democratic staff in the committee’s report seek to draw attention to how manufacturers priced their insulin products, including the comment by the Novo Nordisk employee about wishing for a price hike for a competitor’s product.

In a statement provided to this news organization, Novo Nordisk said the committee’s report reflects “a limited picture of the efforts put forth by our company and other companies to manage formulary access.”

“This glimpse into the complexity of pricing, formularies, and the health care system demonstrates why Novo Nordisk continues to advocate for comprehensive solutions,” Denmark’s Novo Nordisk said in the statement.

$35 a month for insulin?

Paris-based Sanofi said it makes insulin-pricing decisions independently from competitors. Sanofi said the net price of its insulins has declined by 53% since 2012, arguing the high prices charged to patients reflect decisions made elsewhere in the supply chain.

“Over the same period, the net price for commercial and Medicare Part D plans of Lantus has fallen 44.9%, while average out-of-pocket costs for patients with commercial insurance and Medicare Part D has risen approximately 82%,” Sanofi said.

“For all the focus on the growth of list prices, today, the average net price of Lantus is below 2006 levels. That is why we support policy reforms to require health plans to share negotiated savings with patients by requiring patient cost-sharing be tied to the net prices.”

Indianapolis-based Lilly offered a similar response in a statement to this news organization.

“Lilly, like other companies, monitors competitor list-price changes that are available through publicly available services,” the company said. “However, any changes we make to our list prices are independent decisions, and to the extent they consider competitors they are informed only through publicly available data.”

Despite rising insurance deductibles, the average monthly out-of-pocket cost for Lilly insulin has dropped 27% to $28.05 over the past 4 years, the company said in an interview. Lilly also noted that there are “several affordability options now available” allowing people to purchase their monthly prescription of its insulin for $35, “whether they are uninsured or use commercial insurance, Medicaid, or a participating Medicare Part D plan.”

In 2020, Lilly had announced that people with commercial insurance and those without insurance would be able to get monthly prescriptions of Lilly insulin for $35. 

The Build Back Better Act would require insurers, including Medicare Part D plans and private group or individual health plans, to charge patient cost-sharing of no more than $35 per month for insulin products, said the staff of the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) in a review of the bill.

“Private group or individual plans would not be required to cover all insulin products, just one of each dosage form (vial, pen) and insulin type (rapid-acting, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting), for no more than $35,” the KFF staff state in the report.

People enrolled in Medicare can already choose to enroll in a Part D plan participating in a federal test program that can secure certain insulin products for them at a monthly copayment of $35. In 2022, a total of 2,159 Part D plans will participate in this model, a 32% increase in participating plans since 2021, KFF said.

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

Squeezing a little lemonade out of COVID-19

We like to think of ourselves as optimists here at LOTME. A glass is half full, the sky is partly sunny, and our motto is “Always look on the bright side of insanity.” Then again, our motto before that was “LOTME: Where science meets stupid,” so what do we know?

Aleutie/iStock/Getty Images

Anyway, it’s that upbeat, can-do attitude that allows us to say something positive – two somethings, actually – about the insanity that is COVID-19.

Our journey to the bright side begins, oddly enough, in the courtroom. Seems that our old friend, the face mask, is something of a lie-detector aid for juries. The authors of a recent literature review of studies on deception “found that facial expressions and other forms of nonverbal behaviour are an unreliable indicator of deceit,” according to a statement from the University of Portsmouth, where the analysis was conducted.

The one study that directly examined the role of face coverings in court proceedings showed that, “by taking away the distraction of nonverbal behaviours, observers had to rely on speech content, which turned out to be better for detecting lies,” the university said.

The second stage of our positivity trek brings us to the National Trends in Disability Employment monthly update, where we see a fourth consecutive month of gains for people with disabilities despite the larger trend of declines among those without disabilities.

Here are some numbers from the Kessler Foundation and the University of New Hampshire’s Institute on Disability to tell the story: From October to November, the employment-to-population ratio increased 4.2% for working-age people with disabilities, compared with 0.4% for people without disabilities. At the same time, the labor force participation rate rose 2.4% for working-age people with disabilities and just 0.1% for working-age people without disabilities.

Both indicators surpassed their historic highs, Andrew Houtenville, PhD, director of the Institute on Disability, said in the update. “These gains suggest that the restructuring resulting from the pandemic may be benefiting people with disabilities. Ironically, it may have taken a pandemic to shake the labor market loose for people with disabilities.”

And that is how a world-class optimist turns one gigantic lemon into lemonade.
 

Cut the cheese for better sleep

So, we’ve already talked about the TikTok lettuce tea hack that’s supposed to help us sleep better. Well, there’s another food that could have the opposite effect.

seamartini/iStock/Getty Images

According to an article from the BBC, cheese has something of a reputation. Ever since the 1960s, when a researcher noted that one patient’s nightmares stopped after he quit eating an ounce or two of cheddar each night, there’s been speculation that cheese gives you weird dreams. Another study in 2005 suggested certain types of cheese cause certain types of dreams. Blue cheese for vivid dreams and cheddar cheese for celebrity cameos.

But is there any truth to it at all?

Regardless of what we eat, going to bed hungry could cause vivid dreams, according to research by Tore Nielsen, director of the University of Montreal’s dream and nightmare lab. The 2015 study showed that high lactose could have an effect on dreams.

In that study, 17% of participants said their dreams were influenced by what they ate, but the kicker was that dairy products were the foods most reported as causing the weird dreams, the BBC noted.

“It’s likely an indirect effect in that lactose produces symptoms like gas, bloating and diarrhoea and influences dreams, as dreams draw on somatic sources like this. And if you have certain kinds of intolerances, you still may be likely to eat those foods sometimes,” Mr. Nielsen told the BBC.

There’s also the theory that it’s all in the timing of consumption. Are you the type of person to sneak a slice of cheese from the fridge late at night? (Nods.) Same.

“One reason cheese and nightmares come about is that eating later before bed is more likely to disrupt sleep, and cheese can be hard to digest,” said Charlotte Gupta, a research fellow at Central Queensland University in Australia and a coauthor of a 2020 review on how diet affects our sleep.

So as tempting as it is, maybe skip sprinkling Parmesan cheese shreds into your mouth at the open fridge before bed.
 

Teeing up against Parkinson’s

For the nearly 1 million people in the United States with Parkinson’s disease, tai chi is one of the best ways to alleviate the symptoms. The average Parkinson’s patient, however, is going to be on the older side and more likely to view the martial art as some sort of communist plot. And would you participate in a communist plot? We don’t think so.

PxHere

One group of researchers saw that patients weren’t keeping up with their therapy and decided to try a different activity, something that older people would be more likely to stick with. Something a bit more stereotypical. No, not shuffleboard. They tried golf.

“Golf is popular – the most popular sport for people over the age of 55 – which might encourage people to try it and stick with it,” study author Anne-Marie A. Wills, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in a Study Finds report.

In a small study, the investigators had a group of patients with Parkinson’s regularly go to a driving range for 10 weeks to hit golf balls (all expenses paid too, and that’s a big deal for golf), while another group continued with their tai chi.

At the end of the study, the 8 patients who went to the driving range had significantly better results in a Parkinson’s mobility test than those of the 12 patients in the tai chi group. In addition, the golf-group participants said they were more likely to continue with their therapy than were those who did tai chi.

Despite the small size of the study, the research team said the results certainly warrant further research. After all, the best sort of therapy is the kind that actually gets done. And golf just gets in your head. The eternal quest to add distance, to straighten out that annoying slice, to stop thinning half your chips, to make those annoying 4-footers. ... Maybe that’s just us.

Squeezing a little lemonade out of COVID-19

We like to think of ourselves as optimists here at LOTME. A glass is half full, the sky is partly sunny, and our motto is “Always look on the bright side of insanity.” Then again, our motto before that was “LOTME: Where science meets stupid,” so what do we know?

Aleutie/iStock/Getty Images

Anyway, it’s that upbeat, can-do attitude that allows us to say something positive – two somethings, actually – about the insanity that is COVID-19.

Our journey to the bright side begins, oddly enough, in the courtroom. Seems that our old friend, the face mask, is something of a lie-detector aid for juries. The authors of a recent literature review of studies on deception “found that facial expressions and other forms of nonverbal behaviour are an unreliable indicator of deceit,” according to a statement from the University of Portsmouth, where the analysis was conducted.

The one study that directly examined the role of face coverings in court proceedings showed that, “by taking away the distraction of nonverbal behaviours, observers had to rely on speech content, which turned out to be better for detecting lies,” the university said.

The second stage of our positivity trek brings us to the National Trends in Disability Employment monthly update, where we see a fourth consecutive month of gains for people with disabilities despite the larger trend of declines among those without disabilities.

Here are some numbers from the Kessler Foundation and the University of New Hampshire’s Institute on Disability to tell the story: From October to November, the employment-to-population ratio increased 4.2% for working-age people with disabilities, compared with 0.4% for people without disabilities. At the same time, the labor force participation rate rose 2.4% for working-age people with disabilities and just 0.1% for working-age people without disabilities.

Both indicators surpassed their historic highs, Andrew Houtenville, PhD, director of the Institute on Disability, said in the update. “These gains suggest that the restructuring resulting from the pandemic may be benefiting people with disabilities. Ironically, it may have taken a pandemic to shake the labor market loose for people with disabilities.”

And that is how a world-class optimist turns one gigantic lemon into lemonade.
 

Cut the cheese for better sleep

So, we’ve already talked about the TikTok lettuce tea hack that’s supposed to help us sleep better. Well, there’s another food that could have the opposite effect.

seamartini/iStock/Getty Images

According to an article from the BBC, cheese has something of a reputation. Ever since the 1960s, when a researcher noted that one patient’s nightmares stopped after he quit eating an ounce or two of cheddar each night, there’s been speculation that cheese gives you weird dreams. Another study in 2005 suggested certain types of cheese cause certain types of dreams. Blue cheese for vivid dreams and cheddar cheese for celebrity cameos.

But is there any truth to it at all?

Regardless of what we eat, going to bed hungry could cause vivid dreams, according to research by Tore Nielsen, director of the University of Montreal’s dream and nightmare lab. The 2015 study showed that high lactose could have an effect on dreams.

In that study, 17% of participants said their dreams were influenced by what they ate, but the kicker was that dairy products were the foods most reported as causing the weird dreams, the BBC noted.

“It’s likely an indirect effect in that lactose produces symptoms like gas, bloating and diarrhoea and influences dreams, as dreams draw on somatic sources like this. And if you have certain kinds of intolerances, you still may be likely to eat those foods sometimes,” Mr. Nielsen told the BBC.

There’s also the theory that it’s all in the timing of consumption. Are you the type of person to sneak a slice of cheese from the fridge late at night? (Nods.) Same.

“One reason cheese and nightmares come about is that eating later before bed is more likely to disrupt sleep, and cheese can be hard to digest,” said Charlotte Gupta, a research fellow at Central Queensland University in Australia and a coauthor of a 2020 review on how diet affects our sleep.

So as tempting as it is, maybe skip sprinkling Parmesan cheese shreds into your mouth at the open fridge before bed.
 

Teeing up against Parkinson’s

For the nearly 1 million people in the United States with Parkinson’s disease, tai chi is one of the best ways to alleviate the symptoms. The average Parkinson’s patient, however, is going to be on the older side and more likely to view the martial art as some sort of communist plot. And would you participate in a communist plot? We don’t think so.

PxHere

One group of researchers saw that patients weren’t keeping up with their therapy and decided to try a different activity, something that older people would be more likely to stick with. Something a bit more stereotypical. No, not shuffleboard. They tried golf.

“Golf is popular – the most popular sport for people over the age of 55 – which might encourage people to try it and stick with it,” study author Anne-Marie A. Wills, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in a Study Finds report.

In a small study, the investigators had a group of patients with Parkinson’s regularly go to a driving range for 10 weeks to hit golf balls (all expenses paid too, and that’s a big deal for golf), while another group continued with their tai chi.

At the end of the study, the 8 patients who went to the driving range had significantly better results in a Parkinson’s mobility test than those of the 12 patients in the tai chi group. In addition, the golf-group participants said they were more likely to continue with their therapy than were those who did tai chi.

Despite the small size of the study, the research team said the results certainly warrant further research. After all, the best sort of therapy is the kind that actually gets done. And golf just gets in your head. The eternal quest to add distance, to straighten out that annoying slice, to stop thinning half your chips, to make those annoying 4-footers. ... Maybe that’s just us.

Squeezing a little lemonade out of COVID-19

We like to think of ourselves as optimists here at LOTME. A glass is half full, the sky is partly sunny, and our motto is “Always look on the bright side of insanity.” Then again, our motto before that was “LOTME: Where science meets stupid,” so what do we know?

Aleutie/iStock/Getty Images

Anyway, it’s that upbeat, can-do attitude that allows us to say something positive – two somethings, actually – about the insanity that is COVID-19.

Our journey to the bright side begins, oddly enough, in the courtroom. Seems that our old friend, the face mask, is something of a lie-detector aid for juries. The authors of a recent literature review of studies on deception “found that facial expressions and other forms of nonverbal behaviour are an unreliable indicator of deceit,” according to a statement from the University of Portsmouth, where the analysis was conducted.

The one study that directly examined the role of face coverings in court proceedings showed that, “by taking away the distraction of nonverbal behaviours, observers had to rely on speech content, which turned out to be better for detecting lies,” the university said.

The second stage of our positivity trek brings us to the National Trends in Disability Employment monthly update, where we see a fourth consecutive month of gains for people with disabilities despite the larger trend of declines among those without disabilities.

Here are some numbers from the Kessler Foundation and the University of New Hampshire’s Institute on Disability to tell the story: From October to November, the employment-to-population ratio increased 4.2% for working-age people with disabilities, compared with 0.4% for people without disabilities. At the same time, the labor force participation rate rose 2.4% for working-age people with disabilities and just 0.1% for working-age people without disabilities.

Both indicators surpassed their historic highs, Andrew Houtenville, PhD, director of the Institute on Disability, said in the update. “These gains suggest that the restructuring resulting from the pandemic may be benefiting people with disabilities. Ironically, it may have taken a pandemic to shake the labor market loose for people with disabilities.”

And that is how a world-class optimist turns one gigantic lemon into lemonade.
 

Cut the cheese for better sleep

So, we’ve already talked about the TikTok lettuce tea hack that’s supposed to help us sleep better. Well, there’s another food that could have the opposite effect.

seamartini/iStock/Getty Images

According to an article from the BBC, cheese has something of a reputation. Ever since the 1960s, when a researcher noted that one patient’s nightmares stopped after he quit eating an ounce or two of cheddar each night, there’s been speculation that cheese gives you weird dreams. Another study in 2005 suggested certain types of cheese cause certain types of dreams. Blue cheese for vivid dreams and cheddar cheese for celebrity cameos.

But is there any truth to it at all?

Regardless of what we eat, going to bed hungry could cause vivid dreams, according to research by Tore Nielsen, director of the University of Montreal’s dream and nightmare lab. The 2015 study showed that high lactose could have an effect on dreams.

In that study, 17% of participants said their dreams were influenced by what they ate, but the kicker was that dairy products were the foods most reported as causing the weird dreams, the BBC noted.

“It’s likely an indirect effect in that lactose produces symptoms like gas, bloating and diarrhoea and influences dreams, as dreams draw on somatic sources like this. And if you have certain kinds of intolerances, you still may be likely to eat those foods sometimes,” Mr. Nielsen told the BBC.

There’s also the theory that it’s all in the timing of consumption. Are you the type of person to sneak a slice of cheese from the fridge late at night? (Nods.) Same.

“One reason cheese and nightmares come about is that eating later before bed is more likely to disrupt sleep, and cheese can be hard to digest,” said Charlotte Gupta, a research fellow at Central Queensland University in Australia and a coauthor of a 2020 review on how diet affects our sleep.

So as tempting as it is, maybe skip sprinkling Parmesan cheese shreds into your mouth at the open fridge before bed.
 

Teeing up against Parkinson’s

For the nearly 1 million people in the United States with Parkinson’s disease, tai chi is one of the best ways to alleviate the symptoms. The average Parkinson’s patient, however, is going to be on the older side and more likely to view the martial art as some sort of communist plot. And would you participate in a communist plot? We don’t think so.

PxHere

One group of researchers saw that patients weren’t keeping up with their therapy and decided to try a different activity, something that older people would be more likely to stick with. Something a bit more stereotypical. No, not shuffleboard. They tried golf.

“Golf is popular – the most popular sport for people over the age of 55 – which might encourage people to try it and stick with it,” study author Anne-Marie A. Wills, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in a Study Finds report.

In a small study, the investigators had a group of patients with Parkinson’s regularly go to a driving range for 10 weeks to hit golf balls (all expenses paid too, and that’s a big deal for golf), while another group continued with their tai chi.

At the end of the study, the 8 patients who went to the driving range had significantly better results in a Parkinson’s mobility test than those of the 12 patients in the tai chi group. In addition, the golf-group participants said they were more likely to continue with their therapy than were those who did tai chi.

Despite the small size of the study, the research team said the results certainly warrant further research. After all, the best sort of therapy is the kind that actually gets done. And golf just gets in your head. The eternal quest to add distance, to straighten out that annoying slice, to stop thinning half your chips, to make those annoying 4-footers. ... Maybe that’s just us.

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with Parkinson’s disease (PD) development, as well as more severe symptoms and more rapid disease progression, new research suggests.

In a systematic review, patients with type 2 diabetes were 34% more likely to develop PD than those without comorbid DM. In addition, patients with both conditions had significantly worse scores on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) and worse cognitive performance.

Together, the results suggest that “DM may be a facilitating factor of neurodegeneration,” wrote the investigators, led by Gennaro Pagano, MD, PhD, expert medical director at Roche Pharma Research and Early Development, in Basel, Switzerland.

The findings were published in a recent issue of the Journal of Parkinson’s Disease.
 

Unanswered questions

Researchers have long proposed a potential relationship between diabetes and PD. However, case-control studies have yielded conflicting results about this relationship – and previous systematic reviews have failed to clarify the question.

In the current systematic review and meta-analysis, investigators identified relevant studies in databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus.

Eligible studies reported prevalence of DM in patients with PD, reported incidence of PD in those with and those without DM, and analyzed Parkinson’s phenotype and progression in those with and those without DM.

The researchers identified 3,829 articles in their initial search, evaluated 90 articles in detail, and included 43 studies in their analysis. Study quality was judged to be moderate or good, and the investigators did not find significant publication bias.

Twenty-one studies that encompassed 11,396 patients were examined to determine prevalence of DM in PD. This prevalence was calculated to be 10.02%, which is similar to the global prevalence of 9.3% reported in 2019.

The researchers also analyzed 12 cohort studies that included 17,797,221 patients to calculate risk for PD in patients with comorbid diabetes. The pooled summary odds ratio for incident PD among patients with type 2 diabetes was 1.34.

The evaluation of the effect of diabetes on PD severity was based on 10 studies that included 603 patients with both diseases. Because data on motor symptoms were not available for all studies, the researchers considered Hoehn and Yahr stage, UPDRS score, and cognitive impairment.

Patients with both conditions had a worse Hoehn and Yahr stage (standardized mean difference, 0.36; P < .001), and higher UPDRS score (SMD, 0.60; P < .001). In 7 of the 10 studies, diabetes was associated with worse cognitive performance in patients with PD.
 

Mechanisms uncertain

The mechanisms of the effect of diabetes on risk for and severity of PD are uncertain, but the researchers have developed hypotheses.

“Overlapping mechanisms between insulin resistance, mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, and alpha-synuclein expression could influence the development of the neurodegeneration process,” they wrote.

Because the current analysis demonstrated a trend toward more pronounced cognitive decline in patients with the comorbidities, clinicians should pay particular attention to the progression of motor and cognitive symptoms in patients with these diseases, the investigators noted.

“Additional studies are needed in order to better define the clinical phenotype of PD-DM patients and explore the role of antidiabetic drugs on PD progression,” they wrote.

They add that future studies also are needed to evaluate whether antidiabetic drugs might reduce risk for PD in these patients.

The investigators noted several limitations of their research. In many of the studies they examined, for example, diagnostic criteria of type 2 diabetes and PD were based only on medical records or self-reported health questionnaires. The diagnoses were rarely confirmed.

In addition, not all studies clearly stated that their populations presented with type 2 diabetes. Finally, patients with diabetes may be at increased risk for cardiovascular death, which could affect follow-up related to the development of PD, the investigators noted.

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

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with Parkinson’s disease (PD) development, as well as more severe symptoms and more rapid disease progression, new research suggests.

In a systematic review, patients with type 2 diabetes were 34% more likely to develop PD than those without comorbid DM. In addition, patients with both conditions had significantly worse scores on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) and worse cognitive performance.

Together, the results suggest that “DM may be a facilitating factor of neurodegeneration,” wrote the investigators, led by Gennaro Pagano, MD, PhD, expert medical director at Roche Pharma Research and Early Development, in Basel, Switzerland.

The findings were published in a recent issue of the Journal of Parkinson’s Disease.
 

Unanswered questions

Researchers have long proposed a potential relationship between diabetes and PD. However, case-control studies have yielded conflicting results about this relationship – and previous systematic reviews have failed to clarify the question.

In the current systematic review and meta-analysis, investigators identified relevant studies in databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus.

Eligible studies reported prevalence of DM in patients with PD, reported incidence of PD in those with and those without DM, and analyzed Parkinson’s phenotype and progression in those with and those without DM.

The researchers identified 3,829 articles in their initial search, evaluated 90 articles in detail, and included 43 studies in their analysis. Study quality was judged to be moderate or good, and the investigators did not find significant publication bias.

Twenty-one studies that encompassed 11,396 patients were examined to determine prevalence of DM in PD. This prevalence was calculated to be 10.02%, which is similar to the global prevalence of 9.3% reported in 2019.

The researchers also analyzed 12 cohort studies that included 17,797,221 patients to calculate risk for PD in patients with comorbid diabetes. The pooled summary odds ratio for incident PD among patients with type 2 diabetes was 1.34.

The evaluation of the effect of diabetes on PD severity was based on 10 studies that included 603 patients with both diseases. Because data on motor symptoms were not available for all studies, the researchers considered Hoehn and Yahr stage, UPDRS score, and cognitive impairment.

Patients with both conditions had a worse Hoehn and Yahr stage (standardized mean difference, 0.36; P < .001), and higher UPDRS score (SMD, 0.60; P < .001). In 7 of the 10 studies, diabetes was associated with worse cognitive performance in patients with PD.
 

Mechanisms uncertain

The mechanisms of the effect of diabetes on risk for and severity of PD are uncertain, but the researchers have developed hypotheses.

“Overlapping mechanisms between insulin resistance, mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, and alpha-synuclein expression could influence the development of the neurodegeneration process,” they wrote.

Because the current analysis demonstrated a trend toward more pronounced cognitive decline in patients with the comorbidities, clinicians should pay particular attention to the progression of motor and cognitive symptoms in patients with these diseases, the investigators noted.

“Additional studies are needed in order to better define the clinical phenotype of PD-DM patients and explore the role of antidiabetic drugs on PD progression,” they wrote.

They add that future studies also are needed to evaluate whether antidiabetic drugs might reduce risk for PD in these patients.

The investigators noted several limitations of their research. In many of the studies they examined, for example, diagnostic criteria of type 2 diabetes and PD were based only on medical records or self-reported health questionnaires. The diagnoses were rarely confirmed.

In addition, not all studies clearly stated that their populations presented with type 2 diabetes. Finally, patients with diabetes may be at increased risk for cardiovascular death, which could affect follow-up related to the development of PD, the investigators noted.

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

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with Parkinson’s disease (PD) development, as well as more severe symptoms and more rapid disease progression, new research suggests.

In a systematic review, patients with type 2 diabetes were 34% more likely to develop PD than those without comorbid DM. In addition, patients with both conditions had significantly worse scores on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) and worse cognitive performance.

Together, the results suggest that “DM may be a facilitating factor of neurodegeneration,” wrote the investigators, led by Gennaro Pagano, MD, PhD, expert medical director at Roche Pharma Research and Early Development, in Basel, Switzerland.

The findings were published in a recent issue of the Journal of Parkinson’s Disease.
 

Unanswered questions

Researchers have long proposed a potential relationship between diabetes and PD. However, case-control studies have yielded conflicting results about this relationship – and previous systematic reviews have failed to clarify the question.

In the current systematic review and meta-analysis, investigators identified relevant studies in databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus.

Eligible studies reported prevalence of DM in patients with PD, reported incidence of PD in those with and those without DM, and analyzed Parkinson’s phenotype and progression in those with and those without DM.

The researchers identified 3,829 articles in their initial search, evaluated 90 articles in detail, and included 43 studies in their analysis. Study quality was judged to be moderate or good, and the investigators did not find significant publication bias.

Twenty-one studies that encompassed 11,396 patients were examined to determine prevalence of DM in PD. This prevalence was calculated to be 10.02%, which is similar to the global prevalence of 9.3% reported in 2019.

The researchers also analyzed 12 cohort studies that included 17,797,221 patients to calculate risk for PD in patients with comorbid diabetes. The pooled summary odds ratio for incident PD among patients with type 2 diabetes was 1.34.

The evaluation of the effect of diabetes on PD severity was based on 10 studies that included 603 patients with both diseases. Because data on motor symptoms were not available for all studies, the researchers considered Hoehn and Yahr stage, UPDRS score, and cognitive impairment.

Patients with both conditions had a worse Hoehn and Yahr stage (standardized mean difference, 0.36; P < .001), and higher UPDRS score (SMD, 0.60; P < .001). In 7 of the 10 studies, diabetes was associated with worse cognitive performance in patients with PD.
 

Mechanisms uncertain

The mechanisms of the effect of diabetes on risk for and severity of PD are uncertain, but the researchers have developed hypotheses.

“Overlapping mechanisms between insulin resistance, mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, and alpha-synuclein expression could influence the development of the neurodegeneration process,” they wrote.

Because the current analysis demonstrated a trend toward more pronounced cognitive decline in patients with the comorbidities, clinicians should pay particular attention to the progression of motor and cognitive symptoms in patients with these diseases, the investigators noted.

“Additional studies are needed in order to better define the clinical phenotype of PD-DM patients and explore the role of antidiabetic drugs on PD progression,” they wrote.

They add that future studies also are needed to evaluate whether antidiabetic drugs might reduce risk for PD in these patients.

The investigators noted several limitations of their research. In many of the studies they examined, for example, diagnostic criteria of type 2 diabetes and PD were based only on medical records or self-reported health questionnaires. The diagnoses were rarely confirmed.

In addition, not all studies clearly stated that their populations presented with type 2 diabetes. Finally, patients with diabetes may be at increased risk for cardiovascular death, which could affect follow-up related to the development of PD, the investigators noted.

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

The majority of people with HIV and type 2 diabetes do not receive the recommended routine screenings necessary to prevent chronic complications associated with that comorbidity, research shows.

“Despite known risk in this patient population, most patients were not up to date with routine preventative screenings,” report Maya Hardman, PharmD, and colleagues with Southwest CARE Center, in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in research presented at the United States Conference on HIV/AIDS (USCHA) 2021 Annual Meeting.

“Routine preventative screenings can help identify chronic complications of diabetes early, if performed at the recommended intervals,” they write.

People with HIV are known to be at an increased risk of diabetes and the long-term complications of the disease, making the need for routine screening to prevent such complications all the more pressing due to their higher-risk health status.

Among the key routine diabetes care quality measures recommended by the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) for people with HIV are testing for A1c once every 3 months, foot and eye exams every 12 months, urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) screenings every 12 months, and two controlled blood pressure readings every 12 months.

To investigate the rates of adherence to the HEDIS screening recommendations and identify predictors of poor compliance among people with HIV, Dr. Hardman and her colleagues evaluated data on 121 adult patients at the Southwest CARE Center who had been diagnosed with diabetes and HIV and were treated between 2019 and 2020.

The patients had a mean age of 57.5, and 9% were female. Their mean duration of being HIV positive was 19.8 years, and they had an intermediate Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) risk score of 17.08%.

Despite their known diagnoses of having diabetes, as many as 93.4% were found not to be up to date on their routine preventive screenings.

Of the 121 patients, only 30 had received the recommended A1c screenings, 37 had the recommended UACR screenings, and just 18 had received the recommended foot exam screenings.

Only blood pressure screenings, reported in 90 of the 121 patients, were up to date in the majority of patients in the group.

In looking at factors associated with compliance with A1c screening, only age (OR, 0.95; P = .04) was a significant predictor.

The authors pointed out that routine screenings for diabetes complications are relatively easy to implement.

“Screening for these chronic complications is minimally invasive and can be provided by individuals trained in diabetes management during routine clinic appointments.”

The team’s ongoing research is evaluating the potential benefits of clinical pharmacy services in assisting with the screenings for patients with HIV.

Research underscoring the increased risk and poorer treatment outcomes of diabetes in people with HIV include a study comparing 337 people with HIV in 2005 with a cohort of 338 participants in 2015.

The study showed the prevalence of type 2 diabetes had increased to 15.1% in 2015 from 6.8% 10 years earlier, for a relative risk of 2.4 compared with the general population.

“The alarmingly high prevalence of type 2 diabetes in HIV requires improved screening, targeted to older patients and those with a longer duration of exposure to antiretrovirals,” the authors wrote.

“Effective diabetes prevention and management strategies are needed urgently to reduce this risk; such interventions should target both conventional risk factors, such as abdominal obesity and HIV-specific risk factors such as weight gain following initiation of antiretrovirals.”

Of note, the 2015 cohort was significantly older and had higher BMI and higher hypertension than the 2005 cohort.

First author Alastair Duncan, PhD, principal dietitian at Guy’s & St. Thomas’ Hospital and lecturer, King’s College London, noted that since that 2015 study was published, concerns particularly with weight gain in the HIV population have only increased.

“Weight gain appears to be more of an issue [now],” he told this news organization in an interview.

“As in the general population, people living with HIV experienced significant weight gain during COVID-related lockdowns. Added to the high number of people living with HIV being treated with integrase inhibitors, weight gain remains a challenge.”

Meanwhile, “there are not enough studies comparing people living with HIV with the general population,” Dr. Duncan added. “We need to conduct studies where participants are matched.”

Sudipa Sarkar, MD, who co-authored a report on the issue of diabetes and HIV this year but was not involved in the study presented at USCHA, noted that the setting of care could play an important role in the quality of screening for diabetes that people with HIV receive.

“It may depend on factors such as whether a patient is being followed regularly by an HIV care provider and the larger health care system that the patient is in,” Dr. Sarkar, an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, told this news organization.

“For example, one might find differences between a patient being seen in a managed care group versus not.”

The issue of how the strikingly high rates of inadequate screening in the current study compare with routine screening in the general diabetes population “is a good question and warrants more research,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Sarkar have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The majority of people with HIV and type 2 diabetes do not receive the recommended routine screenings necessary to prevent chronic complications associated with that comorbidity, research shows.

“Despite known risk in this patient population, most patients were not up to date with routine preventative screenings,” report Maya Hardman, PharmD, and colleagues with Southwest CARE Center, in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in research presented at the United States Conference on HIV/AIDS (USCHA) 2021 Annual Meeting.

“Routine preventative screenings can help identify chronic complications of diabetes early, if performed at the recommended intervals,” they write.

People with HIV are known to be at an increased risk of diabetes and the long-term complications of the disease, making the need for routine screening to prevent such complications all the more pressing due to their higher-risk health status.

Among the key routine diabetes care quality measures recommended by the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) for people with HIV are testing for A1c once every 3 months, foot and eye exams every 12 months, urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) screenings every 12 months, and two controlled blood pressure readings every 12 months.

To investigate the rates of adherence to the HEDIS screening recommendations and identify predictors of poor compliance among people with HIV, Dr. Hardman and her colleagues evaluated data on 121 adult patients at the Southwest CARE Center who had been diagnosed with diabetes and HIV and were treated between 2019 and 2020.

The patients had a mean age of 57.5, and 9% were female. Their mean duration of being HIV positive was 19.8 years, and they had an intermediate Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) risk score of 17.08%.

Despite their known diagnoses of having diabetes, as many as 93.4% were found not to be up to date on their routine preventive screenings.

Of the 121 patients, only 30 had received the recommended A1c screenings, 37 had the recommended UACR screenings, and just 18 had received the recommended foot exam screenings.

Only blood pressure screenings, reported in 90 of the 121 patients, were up to date in the majority of patients in the group.

In looking at factors associated with compliance with A1c screening, only age (OR, 0.95; P = .04) was a significant predictor.

The authors pointed out that routine screenings for diabetes complications are relatively easy to implement.

“Screening for these chronic complications is minimally invasive and can be provided by individuals trained in diabetes management during routine clinic appointments.”

The team’s ongoing research is evaluating the potential benefits of clinical pharmacy services in assisting with the screenings for patients with HIV.

Research underscoring the increased risk and poorer treatment outcomes of diabetes in people with HIV include a study comparing 337 people with HIV in 2005 with a cohort of 338 participants in 2015.

The study showed the prevalence of type 2 diabetes had increased to 15.1% in 2015 from 6.8% 10 years earlier, for a relative risk of 2.4 compared with the general population.

“The alarmingly high prevalence of type 2 diabetes in HIV requires improved screening, targeted to older patients and those with a longer duration of exposure to antiretrovirals,” the authors wrote.

“Effective diabetes prevention and management strategies are needed urgently to reduce this risk; such interventions should target both conventional risk factors, such as abdominal obesity and HIV-specific risk factors such as weight gain following initiation of antiretrovirals.”

Of note, the 2015 cohort was significantly older and had higher BMI and higher hypertension than the 2005 cohort.

First author Alastair Duncan, PhD, principal dietitian at Guy’s & St. Thomas’ Hospital and lecturer, King’s College London, noted that since that 2015 study was published, concerns particularly with weight gain in the HIV population have only increased.

“Weight gain appears to be more of an issue [now],” he told this news organization in an interview.

“As in the general population, people living with HIV experienced significant weight gain during COVID-related lockdowns. Added to the high number of people living with HIV being treated with integrase inhibitors, weight gain remains a challenge.”

Meanwhile, “there are not enough studies comparing people living with HIV with the general population,” Dr. Duncan added. “We need to conduct studies where participants are matched.”

Sudipa Sarkar, MD, who co-authored a report on the issue of diabetes and HIV this year but was not involved in the study presented at USCHA, noted that the setting of care could play an important role in the quality of screening for diabetes that people with HIV receive.

“It may depend on factors such as whether a patient is being followed regularly by an HIV care provider and the larger health care system that the patient is in,” Dr. Sarkar, an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, told this news organization.

“For example, one might find differences between a patient being seen in a managed care group versus not.”

The issue of how the strikingly high rates of inadequate screening in the current study compare with routine screening in the general diabetes population “is a good question and warrants more research,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Sarkar have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The majority of people with HIV and type 2 diabetes do not receive the recommended routine screenings necessary to prevent chronic complications associated with that comorbidity, research shows.

“Despite known risk in this patient population, most patients were not up to date with routine preventative screenings,” report Maya Hardman, PharmD, and colleagues with Southwest CARE Center, in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in research presented at the United States Conference on HIV/AIDS (USCHA) 2021 Annual Meeting.

“Routine preventative screenings can help identify chronic complications of diabetes early, if performed at the recommended intervals,” they write.

People with HIV are known to be at an increased risk of diabetes and the long-term complications of the disease, making the need for routine screening to prevent such complications all the more pressing due to their higher-risk health status.

Among the key routine diabetes care quality measures recommended by the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) for people with HIV are testing for A1c once every 3 months, foot and eye exams every 12 months, urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) screenings every 12 months, and two controlled blood pressure readings every 12 months.

To investigate the rates of adherence to the HEDIS screening recommendations and identify predictors of poor compliance among people with HIV, Dr. Hardman and her colleagues evaluated data on 121 adult patients at the Southwest CARE Center who had been diagnosed with diabetes and HIV and were treated between 2019 and 2020.

The patients had a mean age of 57.5, and 9% were female. Their mean duration of being HIV positive was 19.8 years, and they had an intermediate Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) risk score of 17.08%.

Despite their known diagnoses of having diabetes, as many as 93.4% were found not to be up to date on their routine preventive screenings.

Of the 121 patients, only 30 had received the recommended A1c screenings, 37 had the recommended UACR screenings, and just 18 had received the recommended foot exam screenings.

Only blood pressure screenings, reported in 90 of the 121 patients, were up to date in the majority of patients in the group.

In looking at factors associated with compliance with A1c screening, only age (OR, 0.95; P = .04) was a significant predictor.

The authors pointed out that routine screenings for diabetes complications are relatively easy to implement.

“Screening for these chronic complications is minimally invasive and can be provided by individuals trained in diabetes management during routine clinic appointments.”

The team’s ongoing research is evaluating the potential benefits of clinical pharmacy services in assisting with the screenings for patients with HIV.

Research underscoring the increased risk and poorer treatment outcomes of diabetes in people with HIV include a study comparing 337 people with HIV in 2005 with a cohort of 338 participants in 2015.

The study showed the prevalence of type 2 diabetes had increased to 15.1% in 2015 from 6.8% 10 years earlier, for a relative risk of 2.4 compared with the general population.

“The alarmingly high prevalence of type 2 diabetes in HIV requires improved screening, targeted to older patients and those with a longer duration of exposure to antiretrovirals,” the authors wrote.

“Effective diabetes prevention and management strategies are needed urgently to reduce this risk; such interventions should target both conventional risk factors, such as abdominal obesity and HIV-specific risk factors such as weight gain following initiation of antiretrovirals.”

Of note, the 2015 cohort was significantly older and had higher BMI and higher hypertension than the 2005 cohort.

First author Alastair Duncan, PhD, principal dietitian at Guy’s & St. Thomas’ Hospital and lecturer, King’s College London, noted that since that 2015 study was published, concerns particularly with weight gain in the HIV population have only increased.

“Weight gain appears to be more of an issue [now],” he told this news organization in an interview.

“As in the general population, people living with HIV experienced significant weight gain during COVID-related lockdowns. Added to the high number of people living with HIV being treated with integrase inhibitors, weight gain remains a challenge.”

Meanwhile, “there are not enough studies comparing people living with HIV with the general population,” Dr. Duncan added. “We need to conduct studies where participants are matched.”

Sudipa Sarkar, MD, who co-authored a report on the issue of diabetes and HIV this year but was not involved in the study presented at USCHA, noted that the setting of care could play an important role in the quality of screening for diabetes that people with HIV receive.

“It may depend on factors such as whether a patient is being followed regularly by an HIV care provider and the larger health care system that the patient is in,” Dr. Sarkar, an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, told this news organization.

“For example, one might find differences between a patient being seen in a managed care group versus not.”

The issue of how the strikingly high rates of inadequate screening in the current study compare with routine screening in the general diabetes population “is a good question and warrants more research,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Sarkar have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

About a third of Americans say they’ve skipped medical care that they needed in the past 3 months because of concerns about the cost, according to a new survey from Gallup and West Health.

That’s the highest reported number since the pandemic began and a tripling from March to October.

Even 20% of the country’s highest-income households – earning more than $120,000 per year – said they’ve also skipped care. That’s an increase of about seven times for higher-income families since March.

“Americans tend to think there is a group of lower-income people, and they have worse health care than the rest of us, and the rest of us, we’re okay,” Tim Lash, chief strategy officer for West Health, a nonprofit focused on lowering health care costs, told CBS News.

“What we are seeing now in this survey is this group of people who are identifying themselves as struggling with health care costs is growing,” he said.

As part of the 2021 Healthcare in America Report, researchers surveyed more than 6,000 people in September and October about their concerns and experiences with affording health care and treatment. About half of respondents said health care in America has gotten worse because of the pandemic, and more than half said they’re more worried about medical costs than before.

What’s more, many Americans put off routine doctor visits at the beginning of the pandemic, and now that they’re beginning to schedule appointments again, they’re facing major costs, the survey found. Some expenses have increased in the past year, including prescription medications.

The rising costs have led many people to skip care or treatment, which can have major consequences. About 1 in 20 adults said they know a friend or family member who died during the past year because they couldn’t afford medical care, the survey found. And about 20% of adults said they or someone in their household had a health issue that grew worse after postponing care because of price.

About 23% of survey respondents said that paying for health care represents a major financial burden, which increases to a third of respondents who earn less than $48,000 per year. Out-of-pocket costs such as deductibles and insurance premiums have increased, which have taken up larger portions of people’s budgets.

“We often overlook the side effect of costs, and it’s quite toxic – there is a financial toxicity that exists in health care,” Mr. Lash said. “We know when you skip treatment, that can have an impact on mortality.”

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

About a third of Americans say they’ve skipped medical care that they needed in the past 3 months because of concerns about the cost, according to a new survey from Gallup and West Health.

That’s the highest reported number since the pandemic began and a tripling from March to October.

Even 20% of the country’s highest-income households – earning more than $120,000 per year – said they’ve also skipped care. That’s an increase of about seven times for higher-income families since March.

“Americans tend to think there is a group of lower-income people, and they have worse health care than the rest of us, and the rest of us, we’re okay,” Tim Lash, chief strategy officer for West Health, a nonprofit focused on lowering health care costs, told CBS News.

“What we are seeing now in this survey is this group of people who are identifying themselves as struggling with health care costs is growing,” he said.

As part of the 2021 Healthcare in America Report, researchers surveyed more than 6,000 people in September and October about their concerns and experiences with affording health care and treatment. About half of respondents said health care in America has gotten worse because of the pandemic, and more than half said they’re more worried about medical costs than before.

What’s more, many Americans put off routine doctor visits at the beginning of the pandemic, and now that they’re beginning to schedule appointments again, they’re facing major costs, the survey found. Some expenses have increased in the past year, including prescription medications.

The rising costs have led many people to skip care or treatment, which can have major consequences. About 1 in 20 adults said they know a friend or family member who died during the past year because they couldn’t afford medical care, the survey found. And about 20% of adults said they or someone in their household had a health issue that grew worse after postponing care because of price.

About 23% of survey respondents said that paying for health care represents a major financial burden, which increases to a third of respondents who earn less than $48,000 per year. Out-of-pocket costs such as deductibles and insurance premiums have increased, which have taken up larger portions of people’s budgets.

“We often overlook the side effect of costs, and it’s quite toxic – there is a financial toxicity that exists in health care,” Mr. Lash said. “We know when you skip treatment, that can have an impact on mortality.”

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

About a third of Americans say they’ve skipped medical care that they needed in the past 3 months because of concerns about the cost, according to a new survey from Gallup and West Health.

That’s the highest reported number since the pandemic began and a tripling from March to October.

Even 20% of the country’s highest-income households – earning more than $120,000 per year – said they’ve also skipped care. That’s an increase of about seven times for higher-income families since March.

“Americans tend to think there is a group of lower-income people, and they have worse health care than the rest of us, and the rest of us, we’re okay,” Tim Lash, chief strategy officer for West Health, a nonprofit focused on lowering health care costs, told CBS News.

“What we are seeing now in this survey is this group of people who are identifying themselves as struggling with health care costs is growing,” he said.

As part of the 2021 Healthcare in America Report, researchers surveyed more than 6,000 people in September and October about their concerns and experiences with affording health care and treatment. About half of respondents said health care in America has gotten worse because of the pandemic, and more than half said they’re more worried about medical costs than before.

What’s more, many Americans put off routine doctor visits at the beginning of the pandemic, and now that they’re beginning to schedule appointments again, they’re facing major costs, the survey found. Some expenses have increased in the past year, including prescription medications.

The rising costs have led many people to skip care or treatment, which can have major consequences. About 1 in 20 adults said they know a friend or family member who died during the past year because they couldn’t afford medical care, the survey found. And about 20% of adults said they or someone in their household had a health issue that grew worse after postponing care because of price.

About 23% of survey respondents said that paying for health care represents a major financial burden, which increases to a third of respondents who earn less than $48,000 per year. Out-of-pocket costs such as deductibles and insurance premiums have increased, which have taken up larger portions of people’s budgets.

“We often overlook the side effect of costs, and it’s quite toxic – there is a financial toxicity that exists in health care,” Mr. Lash said. “We know when you skip treatment, that can have an impact on mortality.”

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