Federal Practitioner

TOPLINE:

After the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in May 2021 lowered from 50 to 45 the recommended age to begin colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for average-risk adults, there was a threefold increase in screening rates among individuals aged 45-49, but disparities by socioeconomic status and locality occurred.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers compared absolute and relative changes in screening uptake among average-risk adults 45-49 years between a 20-month period before and a 20-month period after the USPSTF recommendation was issued (May 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019, and May 1, 2021, to December 31, 2022). Data was evaluated bimonthly.
• They analyzed claims data from more than 10.2 million people with private Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) coverage, with about three million eligible for screening during each bimonthly period, both pre- and post-recommendation.
• They used interrupted time-series analysis and autoregressive integrated moving average models to gauge changes in screening rates.

TAKEAWAY:

• Mean CRC screening uptake in average-risk adults 45-49 years increased from 0.50% in the pre-recommendation period to 1.51% post-recommendation, reflecting a significant absolute change of 1.01 percentage points but no significant relative change.
• Adults 45-49 years living in areas with the highest socioeconomic status (SES) had the largest absolute change in screening uptake compared with peers in the lowest SES areas (1.25 vs 0.75 percentage points). Relative changes were not significant.
• The absolute change in screening uptake was higher among individuals in metropolitan areas than individuals in nonmetropolitan areas (1.06 vs 0.73 percentage points). Again, relative changes were not significant.
• The screening uptake rate increased the fastest among those living in the highest SES and metropolitan areas (0.24 and 0.20 percentage points every 2 months, respectively).
• By December 2022 (the end of the post-recommendation period), CRC screening uptake among adults 45-49 years were on par with those seen in adults 50-75 years (2.37% vs 2.4%). Nonetheless, only 11.5% of average-risk adults aged 45-49 years received CRC screening during the post-recommendation period.

IN PRACTICE:

“The threefold increase in screening uptake among average-risk individuals aged 45-49 years reflects an accomplishment, yet evidence of widening disparities based on SDI [Social Deprivation Index] and locality indicate that population subgroups may not be benefiting equally from this change in CRC screening recommendation. Furthermore, given that only 11.5% of average-risk individuals aged 45-49 years during the post-recommendation period received CRC screening before the age of 50 years, targeted initiatives to improve screening in this age group are warranted to reach the national goal of screening 80% of the population in every community,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Sunny Siddique, MPH, with Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

Data on race and ethnicity were incomplete, which may have impacted the analysis of disparities. The study cohort may not be fully representative of the general US population because BCBS beneficiaries tend to be younger and more socioeconomically advantaged with employer-based insurance. Specific information on the type of coverage provided by each beneficiary’s insurance plan was not available.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

After the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in May 2021 lowered from 50 to 45 the recommended age to begin colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for average-risk adults, there was a threefold increase in screening rates among individuals aged 45-49, but disparities by socioeconomic status and locality occurred.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers compared absolute and relative changes in screening uptake among average-risk adults 45-49 years between a 20-month period before and a 20-month period after the USPSTF recommendation was issued (May 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019, and May 1, 2021, to December 31, 2022). Data was evaluated bimonthly.
• They analyzed claims data from more than 10.2 million people with private Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) coverage, with about three million eligible for screening during each bimonthly period, both pre- and post-recommendation.
• They used interrupted time-series analysis and autoregressive integrated moving average models to gauge changes in screening rates.

TAKEAWAY:

• Mean CRC screening uptake in average-risk adults 45-49 years increased from 0.50% in the pre-recommendation period to 1.51% post-recommendation, reflecting a significant absolute change of 1.01 percentage points but no significant relative change.
• Adults 45-49 years living in areas with the highest socioeconomic status (SES) had the largest absolute change in screening uptake compared with peers in the lowest SES areas (1.25 vs 0.75 percentage points). Relative changes were not significant.
• The absolute change in screening uptake was higher among individuals in metropolitan areas than individuals in nonmetropolitan areas (1.06 vs 0.73 percentage points). Again, relative changes were not significant.
• The screening uptake rate increased the fastest among those living in the highest SES and metropolitan areas (0.24 and 0.20 percentage points every 2 months, respectively).
• By December 2022 (the end of the post-recommendation period), CRC screening uptake among adults 45-49 years were on par with those seen in adults 50-75 years (2.37% vs 2.4%). Nonetheless, only 11.5% of average-risk adults aged 45-49 years received CRC screening during the post-recommendation period.

IN PRACTICE:

“The threefold increase in screening uptake among average-risk individuals aged 45-49 years reflects an accomplishment, yet evidence of widening disparities based on SDI [Social Deprivation Index] and locality indicate that population subgroups may not be benefiting equally from this change in CRC screening recommendation. Furthermore, given that only 11.5% of average-risk individuals aged 45-49 years during the post-recommendation period received CRC screening before the age of 50 years, targeted initiatives to improve screening in this age group are warranted to reach the national goal of screening 80% of the population in every community,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Sunny Siddique, MPH, with Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

Data on race and ethnicity were incomplete, which may have impacted the analysis of disparities. The study cohort may not be fully representative of the general US population because BCBS beneficiaries tend to be younger and more socioeconomically advantaged with employer-based insurance. Specific information on the type of coverage provided by each beneficiary’s insurance plan was not available.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

After the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in May 2021 lowered from 50 to 45 the recommended age to begin colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for average-risk adults, there was a threefold increase in screening rates among individuals aged 45-49, but disparities by socioeconomic status and locality occurred.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers compared absolute and relative changes in screening uptake among average-risk adults 45-49 years between a 20-month period before and a 20-month period after the USPSTF recommendation was issued (May 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019, and May 1, 2021, to December 31, 2022). Data was evaluated bimonthly.
• They analyzed claims data from more than 10.2 million people with private Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) coverage, with about three million eligible for screening during each bimonthly period, both pre- and post-recommendation.
• They used interrupted time-series analysis and autoregressive integrated moving average models to gauge changes in screening rates.

TAKEAWAY:

• Mean CRC screening uptake in average-risk adults 45-49 years increased from 0.50% in the pre-recommendation period to 1.51% post-recommendation, reflecting a significant absolute change of 1.01 percentage points but no significant relative change.
• Adults 45-49 years living in areas with the highest socioeconomic status (SES) had the largest absolute change in screening uptake compared with peers in the lowest SES areas (1.25 vs 0.75 percentage points). Relative changes were not significant.
• The absolute change in screening uptake was higher among individuals in metropolitan areas than individuals in nonmetropolitan areas (1.06 vs 0.73 percentage points). Again, relative changes were not significant.
• The screening uptake rate increased the fastest among those living in the highest SES and metropolitan areas (0.24 and 0.20 percentage points every 2 months, respectively).
• By December 2022 (the end of the post-recommendation period), CRC screening uptake among adults 45-49 years were on par with those seen in adults 50-75 years (2.37% vs 2.4%). Nonetheless, only 11.5% of average-risk adults aged 45-49 years received CRC screening during the post-recommendation period.

IN PRACTICE:

“The threefold increase in screening uptake among average-risk individuals aged 45-49 years reflects an accomplishment, yet evidence of widening disparities based on SDI [Social Deprivation Index] and locality indicate that population subgroups may not be benefiting equally from this change in CRC screening recommendation. Furthermore, given that only 11.5% of average-risk individuals aged 45-49 years during the post-recommendation period received CRC screening before the age of 50 years, targeted initiatives to improve screening in this age group are warranted to reach the national goal of screening 80% of the population in every community,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Sunny Siddique, MPH, with Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

Data on race and ethnicity were incomplete, which may have impacted the analysis of disparities. The study cohort may not be fully representative of the general US population because BCBS beneficiaries tend to be younger and more socioeconomically advantaged with employer-based insurance. Specific information on the type of coverage provided by each beneficiary’s insurance plan was not available.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This video transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Hi and welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today to discuss a novel, plant-based approach to stopping moderate to severe bleeding is Joe Landolina, CEO and cofounder of Cresilon. Welcome, Joe. 

Joe Landolina, MS: Thank you so much for taking the time. It’s great to be here.

Educational Background and Inception of Cresilon

Glatter: It’s a pleasure to have you join me, and I want to congratulate you on your recent 510(k) FDA clearance for your novel product to save lives and stop bleeding. To begin with, can you explain how the idea for launching your company came about? 

Landolina: The way that Cresilon came about was a little bit unorthodox, because I was 17 years old when I invented the technology behind the product that eventually became Traumagel®. 

My grandfather was an ex-pharmaceutical executive, who later in life started a vineyard. I grew up on a vineyard with a winery chemistry lab across the street from my house and a grandfather who learned lab safety in the 60s. So, that meant that the day I learned how to walk, I was tossed into a lab and I fell head over heels in love with lab research.

That started experimentation and my academic pursuits. That led to discovering a blend of two plant-based polymers derived from algae that stop bleeding on contact, effectively creating a mechanical barrier and allowing anything from a gunshot wound to anything quite a bit more minor to stop in a matter of seconds.

Glatter: Your background is in biomedical engineering. How is it that you started tinkering and doing all this type of work? 

Landolina: That’s correct. I did my undergrad in chemical engineering, and my graduate studies were in biomedical engineering. For me, that was supposed to be a pathway into medical school. I always wanted to be a surgeon myself, and I love the field of medicine. 

As a freshman in college at NYU Engineering, I had this idea. I entered it into NYU’s business plan competition, and we won at the engineering school. That gave us just enough capital to start developing and researching Traumagel more, and Cresilon was born out of that research.

 

Techniques for Stopping Hemorrhage

Glatter: In terms of stopping hemorrhage, which takes so many lives in the United States and globally — certainly, uncontrolled hemorrhage — what are the techniques that you see, prior to the arrival of your product, as being effective? Can you elucidate some of these techniques? 

Landolina: In emergency medicine, the primary mode of controlling hemorrhage is passive. It’s what, in Brooklyn, we like to call “pressure and a prayer”, where you have a material that’s either gauze or an impregnated gauze in most cases, where the mode of action is absorbing blood, with the adjunct of pressure by the first responder or by the clinician who’s providing aid.

The idea is to stop the flow of blood to concentrate blood factors at the surface of the gauze product, and to promote either platelet activation or the production of fibrin to create a clot. 

These types of technologies are widespread. There are many versions of this technology carried by EMS agencies, trauma bays, US military soldiers, and soldiers across NATO countries. But these types of technologies tend to be relatively inefficient, meaning that they’re very difficult to get into wounds because of the gauze or the powder form of the devices, and it’s very hard to get them in contact with the form of bleeding.

On top of that, if the patient is clotting compromised or immunocompromised in some way, the ability to create a durable clot that will not be ripped off when you remove the product at the next level of care is also of concern. And so, this type of technology or the type of treatment of massive hemorrhage hasn’t changed in decades.

 

Current Applications and Potential Use

Glatter: I envision this product will be carried by paramedics, used on the battlefield at some point after your FDA clearance, and recently it went through.

Do you see any possibility that this could be an AED equivalent to Stop the Bleed? In other words, could the average lay person be trained to use your product if kits are available? 

Landolina: To be very clear, Traumagel today is only approved or cleared under a “prescription-only” indication, which means that it will not initially be available OTC. However, that is our goal. Our goal is to make this product available and usable by someone with no medical training whatsoever. 

The form factor of being a gel in a syringe lends itself well to that, meaning that we try to make it as easy as point and shoot to control hemorrhage, where there’s not as much technique to be learned in the application of a product like Traumagel as there is in current hemorrhage control techniques. 

 

Mechanism of Action and Physiology

Glatter: Once you apply Traumagel, can you explain what happens to the product after it’s applied and the bleeding has stopped? Does it get reabsorbed by the body? What’s the process here? 

Landolina: Under Traumagel’s indication, because it’s used in traumatic injury, it must be removed within 24 hours.

One of the big benefits of Traumagel is that when the patient produces a blood clot underneath Traumagel, it doesn’t become incorporated within the gel itself. To contrast that with the use of gauze, gauze is porous. The clot ends up wrapped around the fibers of the gauze, so if you peel the gauze away, it’s very likely that clot is coming off with it. The surgeon or the clinician at the next level of care is going to have to deal with the re-bleed. 

You can remove Traumagel cleanly and entirely without disturbing the underlying clot. That’s a major benefit, not only to the patient but also to the next level of care, to the next clinician or physician that is required to remove the product.

Glatter: How is it possible to remove the substance without disturbing the clot? Can you explain in more detail? 

Landolina: That’s one of the hallmarks of these plant-based polymers and the way that we design Traumagel itself. Traumagel is completely nonporous, and it has no fibrous nature to it. What that means is when the patient produces a blood clot or fibrin next to or on top of Traumagel, that fibrin ends up not incorporated within the polymers of Traumagel itself. 

Over time, because Traumagel is a hydrogel, meaning that by weight it’s mostly water, you end up having less adhesion to the clot over time. When it’s time to remove Traumagel from the injury, it has lost almost all of its adhesive capabilities, meaning that when you peel it away, that clot is going to stick better to tissue than it will to the gel itself. 

Glatter: Can you explain a little bit about the matrix that’s formed, the physiology, and how the polymers work to form this matrix? 

Landolina: Sure. Traumagel is made of two polysaccharides that are plant derived. One polysaccharide is polyanionic, and the other is polycationic, meaning one has negative charges and the other has positive charges, which together create almost a Lego block effect, where when the material comes in contact with tissue, it adheres strongly and allows for itself to effectively create a mechanical barrier against bleeding.

Courtesy of Cresilon

Landolina: Even in the face of major arterial blood flow, Traumagel will stay where it needs to stay, and it’s not going to get washed away. This means that it is much more easily appliable to these types of surfaces and will allow the patient to produce their own endogenous fibrin clot at that location.

Like I mentioned before, when that fibrin clot is formed, because the gel itself has no pores or fibers, it doesn’t become incorporated within the fibrin clot. You can take the gel away, leaving that clot behind without the chance of a rebleed.

 

Testing With Major Bleeds

Glatter: In terms of bleeding itself, have you tested your product with major aortic bleeds or carotid bleeds in preclinical work?

Landolina: We have used the US military’s model for lethal hemorrhage, and the idea there is to create a model that is just that — lethal. These are the worst types of bleeds that you can possibly imagine, where the patients are clotting compromised, and where you have, in most cases, a very strong arterial component, so something like a femoral artery bleed.

We’ve also tested in carotid artery, aortic applications, as well as combinations of venous and arterial bleeds. The idea here is to show the use of the product in the absolute worst-case scenario so that when this translates into the clinic, the models that we’ve used for evaluation, hopefully, are worse than what actually rolls into the trauma bay.

Glatter: Excellent. What’s the mean time to stop an arterial vs a venous bleed? Are we talking a matter of seconds?

Landolina: In the case of a healthy patient, meaning a patient without clotting compromise, you’re in a matter of seconds. It’s less than 10 seconds. 

In the case where you have clotting compromise, a deep, complicated wound geometry, we recommend holding a pressure bandage on for 3 minutes just because it increases the chance of Traumagel coming into contact with the bleed, especially when you can’t visualize the bleed in the bleed source. Because of that pressure time, that becomes the mean. But again, it’s highly dependent on the type of bleed and the style of application.

 

Failure Rates and Effectiveness

Glatter: As a segue to that, what is the failure rate based on your studies and internal research using Traumagel? Have there been cases where bleeding has not been able to be stopped? 

Landolina: It depends on the study, but the failure rates are incredibly low with Traumagel, assuming that it’s correctly used. That’s one of the benefits to this product, where with proper technique, with overwrap with gauze, you nearly always get control of hemorrhage with a product like this. 

Glatter: Is manual pressure required in that sense? From what you described earlier, manual pressure would not be required. 

Landolina: It depends on the injury. What we recommend is that, if you have a very deep wound where you cannot visualize the source of bleed, you use pressure to seat Traumagel into the source of bleeding, meaning that you’re following Committee on Tactical Combat Casualty Care (Co-TCCC) regulations or requirements, where you’re over wrapping with gauze, and you’re providing a pressure wrapping to ensure that the Traumagel is in contact with the bleed while it’s doing what it’s doing. 

In most cases, it doesn’t hurt to apply pressure on top of Traumagel as well. In more surface level bleeds, you don’t need pressure at all. 

 

Applications Beyond Trauma

Glatter: Interesting. In terms of further applications (eg, nose bleeds or GYN bleeding, which are life-threatening), do you see this coming as an application for the future? 

Landolina: That’s where we’re working. Traumagel is the successor to an animal health product called Vetigel. The formulations of the gel behind Vetigel and Traumagel are identical. Vetigel has a full surgical indication, and that’s everything from epistaxis to neuro and spine procedures, into cardiovascular and soft tissue surgeries, orthopedic medicine, and so on.

Cresilon’s goal is to eventually expand the indication of our technology to include surgical indications and other indications where we can help any patient that’s bleeding. 

Glatter: That’s important, because we use prehospital whole blood, low titer, specifically, when patients have life-threatening hemorrhage. With your product, that would reduce the amount of blood products that would need to be administered. This could be a real game changer. 

Landolina: Definitely, that’s the goal we’re working on. 

Infection Risks and Biocompatibility

Glatter: In terms of any risk for infection, has that been studied as well? Does Traumagel in any way lead to increased rates of infection?

Landolina: Traumagel is biocompatible. It’s a sterile product. We’ve done the full suite of biocompatibility testing as required by FDA. On top of that, remember that Vetigel, which is the same formulation, is an implantable product. As a result, that has even extended biocompatibility testing beyond what would be necessary for an external product.

In Vetigel’s use case, which has been used now in over 60,000 patients, primarily companion animals, dogs and cats, we haven’t seen instances of infection. There’s no reason to believe that we would see that clinically with Traumagel.

 

Research Collaborations and Future Applications

Glatter: In terms of other research that your company’s embarked on preclinically, I understand there were some studies done at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. I was wondering if you could expand on these, specifically, in terms of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and hemorrhage related to that. For example, with shrapnel or even a gunshot wound. 

Landolina: The Walter Reed collaboration with Cresilon is something that I’m particularly excited about, because it marks Cresilon’s first project that’s outside the scope of just hemostasis. Walter Reed came to us with this proposal where there’s a big challenge in a subset of TBI called penetrating ballistic-like brain injury, where the brain has been penetrated by a bullet, shrapnel, or some other projectile, and there’s an injury that exposes the brain to the outside. 

Today, there is no standard of care to treat patients with those types of injuries. In many cases, mortality is caused through swelling of the brain, or collapse of the brain. What they came to us with was the potential of using our technology, not primarily as a hemostatic agent, but to be able to stabilize that patient enough to get to the next level of care to be treated by a neurosurgeon.

That study Walter Reed did was just a pilot that was done in small animals. In that pilot, they showed that over the period of treatment, there was no negative change in vital signs, no increase in edema or in swelling, or in any of the biomarkers that were being monitored at that time. 

At the very least, this is not full indication that this indication will work for Cresilon, but it shows that there’s promise. It’s something that we’re working on and hopefully we’ll be able to bring to market soon.

Glatter: Certainly, maintaining intracranial pressure and cerebral perfusion pressures are very critical. In the future, do you think this product would be able to be deployed endovascularly? Imagine this in terms of stopping bleeding from some source, whether it’s from a stroke or another intracranial source. 

Landolina: That’s been an area of interest for us. We have no evidence to prove that indication works at this point, but there’s also nothing to say that it wouldn’t be possible for our technology. At this point, we’ve only looked at a cursory level at those indications. 

Glatter: Does the use of Traumagel obviate the need for a more definitive repair (eg, with sutures) or something that’s more permanent?

Landolina: I always say that Traumagel — and Vetigel, for that matter — is not a replacement for good surgical technique. The surgeon always needs to make his or her best judgment when reviewing the patient. That doesn’t mean that there won’t need to be sutures or vascular repair in most of these cases, especially in major trauma.

Final Takeaways

Glatter: Do you have some bullet points or pearls you could give our audience as a takeaway? 

Landolina: When Cresilon looks at Traumagel — and for us, Traumagel is the next generation of hemostatic agent, especially in trauma care and in emergency medicine — it allows for a far-simplified application of the product and much faster control of hemorrhage with better patient outcomes.

As we roll this out through EMS agencies, trauma hospitals, military agencies, and eventually to the general public through a future indication, it’s something we’re very excited about. Personally, I started this business 14 years ago, and so it’s great to see our mission of saving lives transitioning to saving human lives.

Glatter: I look forward to seeing this product in the emergency department, but also in other settings, such as in the operating room where we can really help patients who are dying from hemorrhage, certainly on the battlefield, and the lay public. If someone were to come upon a patient who’s bleeding out, this could be certainly a game changer and a lifesaver. 

I want to thank you for your time. This is a really important product that’s transformed the lives of so many animals, but also people in the future.

Dr. Glatter is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Mr. Landolina is the CEO and co-founder of Cresilon, a biotechnology company specializing in plant-based solutions for emergency bleeding control.

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

This video transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Hi and welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today to discuss a novel, plant-based approach to stopping moderate to severe bleeding is Joe Landolina, CEO and cofounder of Cresilon. Welcome, Joe. 

Joe Landolina, MS: Thank you so much for taking the time. It’s great to be here.

Educational Background and Inception of Cresilon

Glatter: It’s a pleasure to have you join me, and I want to congratulate you on your recent 510(k) FDA clearance for your novel product to save lives and stop bleeding. To begin with, can you explain how the idea for launching your company came about? 

Landolina: The way that Cresilon came about was a little bit unorthodox, because I was 17 years old when I invented the technology behind the product that eventually became Traumagel®. 

My grandfather was an ex-pharmaceutical executive, who later in life started a vineyard. I grew up on a vineyard with a winery chemistry lab across the street from my house and a grandfather who learned lab safety in the 60s. So, that meant that the day I learned how to walk, I was tossed into a lab and I fell head over heels in love with lab research.

That started experimentation and my academic pursuits. That led to discovering a blend of two plant-based polymers derived from algae that stop bleeding on contact, effectively creating a mechanical barrier and allowing anything from a gunshot wound to anything quite a bit more minor to stop in a matter of seconds.

Glatter: Your background is in biomedical engineering. How is it that you started tinkering and doing all this type of work? 

Landolina: That’s correct. I did my undergrad in chemical engineering, and my graduate studies were in biomedical engineering. For me, that was supposed to be a pathway into medical school. I always wanted to be a surgeon myself, and I love the field of medicine. 

As a freshman in college at NYU Engineering, I had this idea. I entered it into NYU’s business plan competition, and we won at the engineering school. That gave us just enough capital to start developing and researching Traumagel more, and Cresilon was born out of that research.

 

Techniques for Stopping Hemorrhage

Glatter: In terms of stopping hemorrhage, which takes so many lives in the United States and globally — certainly, uncontrolled hemorrhage — what are the techniques that you see, prior to the arrival of your product, as being effective? Can you elucidate some of these techniques? 

Landolina: In emergency medicine, the primary mode of controlling hemorrhage is passive. It’s what, in Brooklyn, we like to call “pressure and a prayer”, where you have a material that’s either gauze or an impregnated gauze in most cases, where the mode of action is absorbing blood, with the adjunct of pressure by the first responder or by the clinician who’s providing aid.

The idea is to stop the flow of blood to concentrate blood factors at the surface of the gauze product, and to promote either platelet activation or the production of fibrin to create a clot. 

These types of technologies are widespread. There are many versions of this technology carried by EMS agencies, trauma bays, US military soldiers, and soldiers across NATO countries. But these types of technologies tend to be relatively inefficient, meaning that they’re very difficult to get into wounds because of the gauze or the powder form of the devices, and it’s very hard to get them in contact with the form of bleeding.

On top of that, if the patient is clotting compromised or immunocompromised in some way, the ability to create a durable clot that will not be ripped off when you remove the product at the next level of care is also of concern. And so, this type of technology or the type of treatment of massive hemorrhage hasn’t changed in decades.

 

Current Applications and Potential Use

Glatter: I envision this product will be carried by paramedics, used on the battlefield at some point after your FDA clearance, and recently it went through.

Do you see any possibility that this could be an AED equivalent to Stop the Bleed? In other words, could the average lay person be trained to use your product if kits are available? 

Landolina: To be very clear, Traumagel today is only approved or cleared under a “prescription-only” indication, which means that it will not initially be available OTC. However, that is our goal. Our goal is to make this product available and usable by someone with no medical training whatsoever. 

The form factor of being a gel in a syringe lends itself well to that, meaning that we try to make it as easy as point and shoot to control hemorrhage, where there’s not as much technique to be learned in the application of a product like Traumagel as there is in current hemorrhage control techniques. 

 

Mechanism of Action and Physiology

Glatter: Once you apply Traumagel, can you explain what happens to the product after it’s applied and the bleeding has stopped? Does it get reabsorbed by the body? What’s the process here? 

Landolina: Under Traumagel’s indication, because it’s used in traumatic injury, it must be removed within 24 hours.

One of the big benefits of Traumagel is that when the patient produces a blood clot underneath Traumagel, it doesn’t become incorporated within the gel itself. To contrast that with the use of gauze, gauze is porous. The clot ends up wrapped around the fibers of the gauze, so if you peel the gauze away, it’s very likely that clot is coming off with it. The surgeon or the clinician at the next level of care is going to have to deal with the re-bleed. 

You can remove Traumagel cleanly and entirely without disturbing the underlying clot. That’s a major benefit, not only to the patient but also to the next level of care, to the next clinician or physician that is required to remove the product.

Glatter: How is it possible to remove the substance without disturbing the clot? Can you explain in more detail? 

Landolina: That’s one of the hallmarks of these plant-based polymers and the way that we design Traumagel itself. Traumagel is completely nonporous, and it has no fibrous nature to it. What that means is when the patient produces a blood clot or fibrin next to or on top of Traumagel, that fibrin ends up not incorporated within the polymers of Traumagel itself. 

Over time, because Traumagel is a hydrogel, meaning that by weight it’s mostly water, you end up having less adhesion to the clot over time. When it’s time to remove Traumagel from the injury, it has lost almost all of its adhesive capabilities, meaning that when you peel it away, that clot is going to stick better to tissue than it will to the gel itself. 

Glatter: Can you explain a little bit about the matrix that’s formed, the physiology, and how the polymers work to form this matrix? 

Landolina: Sure. Traumagel is made of two polysaccharides that are plant derived. One polysaccharide is polyanionic, and the other is polycationic, meaning one has negative charges and the other has positive charges, which together create almost a Lego block effect, where when the material comes in contact with tissue, it adheres strongly and allows for itself to effectively create a mechanical barrier against bleeding.

Courtesy of Cresilon

Landolina: Even in the face of major arterial blood flow, Traumagel will stay where it needs to stay, and it’s not going to get washed away. This means that it is much more easily appliable to these types of surfaces and will allow the patient to produce their own endogenous fibrin clot at that location.

Like I mentioned before, when that fibrin clot is formed, because the gel itself has no pores or fibers, it doesn’t become incorporated within the fibrin clot. You can take the gel away, leaving that clot behind without the chance of a rebleed.

 

Testing With Major Bleeds

Glatter: In terms of bleeding itself, have you tested your product with major aortic bleeds or carotid bleeds in preclinical work?

Landolina: We have used the US military’s model for lethal hemorrhage, and the idea there is to create a model that is just that — lethal. These are the worst types of bleeds that you can possibly imagine, where the patients are clotting compromised, and where you have, in most cases, a very strong arterial component, so something like a femoral artery bleed.

We’ve also tested in carotid artery, aortic applications, as well as combinations of venous and arterial bleeds. The idea here is to show the use of the product in the absolute worst-case scenario so that when this translates into the clinic, the models that we’ve used for evaluation, hopefully, are worse than what actually rolls into the trauma bay.

Glatter: Excellent. What’s the mean time to stop an arterial vs a venous bleed? Are we talking a matter of seconds?

Landolina: In the case of a healthy patient, meaning a patient without clotting compromise, you’re in a matter of seconds. It’s less than 10 seconds. 

In the case where you have clotting compromise, a deep, complicated wound geometry, we recommend holding a pressure bandage on for 3 minutes just because it increases the chance of Traumagel coming into contact with the bleed, especially when you can’t visualize the bleed in the bleed source. Because of that pressure time, that becomes the mean. But again, it’s highly dependent on the type of bleed and the style of application.

 

Failure Rates and Effectiveness

Glatter: As a segue to that, what is the failure rate based on your studies and internal research using Traumagel? Have there been cases where bleeding has not been able to be stopped? 

Landolina: It depends on the study, but the failure rates are incredibly low with Traumagel, assuming that it’s correctly used. That’s one of the benefits to this product, where with proper technique, with overwrap with gauze, you nearly always get control of hemorrhage with a product like this. 

Glatter: Is manual pressure required in that sense? From what you described earlier, manual pressure would not be required. 

Landolina: It depends on the injury. What we recommend is that, if you have a very deep wound where you cannot visualize the source of bleed, you use pressure to seat Traumagel into the source of bleeding, meaning that you’re following Committee on Tactical Combat Casualty Care (Co-TCCC) regulations or requirements, where you’re over wrapping with gauze, and you’re providing a pressure wrapping to ensure that the Traumagel is in contact with the bleed while it’s doing what it’s doing. 

In most cases, it doesn’t hurt to apply pressure on top of Traumagel as well. In more surface level bleeds, you don’t need pressure at all. 

 

Applications Beyond Trauma

Glatter: Interesting. In terms of further applications (eg, nose bleeds or GYN bleeding, which are life-threatening), do you see this coming as an application for the future? 

Landolina: That’s where we’re working. Traumagel is the successor to an animal health product called Vetigel. The formulations of the gel behind Vetigel and Traumagel are identical. Vetigel has a full surgical indication, and that’s everything from epistaxis to neuro and spine procedures, into cardiovascular and soft tissue surgeries, orthopedic medicine, and so on.

Cresilon’s goal is to eventually expand the indication of our technology to include surgical indications and other indications where we can help any patient that’s bleeding. 

Glatter: That’s important, because we use prehospital whole blood, low titer, specifically, when patients have life-threatening hemorrhage. With your product, that would reduce the amount of blood products that would need to be administered. This could be a real game changer. 

Landolina: Definitely, that’s the goal we’re working on. 

Infection Risks and Biocompatibility

Glatter: In terms of any risk for infection, has that been studied as well? Does Traumagel in any way lead to increased rates of infection?

Landolina: Traumagel is biocompatible. It’s a sterile product. We’ve done the full suite of biocompatibility testing as required by FDA. On top of that, remember that Vetigel, which is the same formulation, is an implantable product. As a result, that has even extended biocompatibility testing beyond what would be necessary for an external product.

In Vetigel’s use case, which has been used now in over 60,000 patients, primarily companion animals, dogs and cats, we haven’t seen instances of infection. There’s no reason to believe that we would see that clinically with Traumagel.

 

Research Collaborations and Future Applications

Glatter: In terms of other research that your company’s embarked on preclinically, I understand there were some studies done at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. I was wondering if you could expand on these, specifically, in terms of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and hemorrhage related to that. For example, with shrapnel or even a gunshot wound. 

Landolina: The Walter Reed collaboration with Cresilon is something that I’m particularly excited about, because it marks Cresilon’s first project that’s outside the scope of just hemostasis. Walter Reed came to us with this proposal where there’s a big challenge in a subset of TBI called penetrating ballistic-like brain injury, where the brain has been penetrated by a bullet, shrapnel, or some other projectile, and there’s an injury that exposes the brain to the outside. 

Today, there is no standard of care to treat patients with those types of injuries. In many cases, mortality is caused through swelling of the brain, or collapse of the brain. What they came to us with was the potential of using our technology, not primarily as a hemostatic agent, but to be able to stabilize that patient enough to get to the next level of care to be treated by a neurosurgeon.

That study Walter Reed did was just a pilot that was done in small animals. In that pilot, they showed that over the period of treatment, there was no negative change in vital signs, no increase in edema or in swelling, or in any of the biomarkers that were being monitored at that time. 

At the very least, this is not full indication that this indication will work for Cresilon, but it shows that there’s promise. It’s something that we’re working on and hopefully we’ll be able to bring to market soon.

Glatter: Certainly, maintaining intracranial pressure and cerebral perfusion pressures are very critical. In the future, do you think this product would be able to be deployed endovascularly? Imagine this in terms of stopping bleeding from some source, whether it’s from a stroke or another intracranial source. 

Landolina: That’s been an area of interest for us. We have no evidence to prove that indication works at this point, but there’s also nothing to say that it wouldn’t be possible for our technology. At this point, we’ve only looked at a cursory level at those indications. 

Glatter: Does the use of Traumagel obviate the need for a more definitive repair (eg, with sutures) or something that’s more permanent?

Landolina: I always say that Traumagel — and Vetigel, for that matter — is not a replacement for good surgical technique. The surgeon always needs to make his or her best judgment when reviewing the patient. That doesn’t mean that there won’t need to be sutures or vascular repair in most of these cases, especially in major trauma.

Final Takeaways

Glatter: Do you have some bullet points or pearls you could give our audience as a takeaway? 

Landolina: When Cresilon looks at Traumagel — and for us, Traumagel is the next generation of hemostatic agent, especially in trauma care and in emergency medicine — it allows for a far-simplified application of the product and much faster control of hemorrhage with better patient outcomes.

As we roll this out through EMS agencies, trauma hospitals, military agencies, and eventually to the general public through a future indication, it’s something we’re very excited about. Personally, I started this business 14 years ago, and so it’s great to see our mission of saving lives transitioning to saving human lives.

Glatter: I look forward to seeing this product in the emergency department, but also in other settings, such as in the operating room where we can really help patients who are dying from hemorrhage, certainly on the battlefield, and the lay public. If someone were to come upon a patient who’s bleeding out, this could be certainly a game changer and a lifesaver. 

I want to thank you for your time. This is a really important product that’s transformed the lives of so many animals, but also people in the future.

Dr. Glatter is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Mr. Landolina is the CEO and co-founder of Cresilon, a biotechnology company specializing in plant-based solutions for emergency bleeding control.

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

This video transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Hi and welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today to discuss a novel, plant-based approach to stopping moderate to severe bleeding is Joe Landolina, CEO and cofounder of Cresilon. Welcome, Joe. 

Joe Landolina, MS: Thank you so much for taking the time. It’s great to be here.

Educational Background and Inception of Cresilon

Glatter: It’s a pleasure to have you join me, and I want to congratulate you on your recent 510(k) FDA clearance for your novel product to save lives and stop bleeding. To begin with, can you explain how the idea for launching your company came about? 

Landolina: The way that Cresilon came about was a little bit unorthodox, because I was 17 years old when I invented the technology behind the product that eventually became Traumagel®. 

My grandfather was an ex-pharmaceutical executive, who later in life started a vineyard. I grew up on a vineyard with a winery chemistry lab across the street from my house and a grandfather who learned lab safety in the 60s. So, that meant that the day I learned how to walk, I was tossed into a lab and I fell head over heels in love with lab research.

That started experimentation and my academic pursuits. That led to discovering a blend of two plant-based polymers derived from algae that stop bleeding on contact, effectively creating a mechanical barrier and allowing anything from a gunshot wound to anything quite a bit more minor to stop in a matter of seconds.

Glatter: Your background is in biomedical engineering. How is it that you started tinkering and doing all this type of work? 

Landolina: That’s correct. I did my undergrad in chemical engineering, and my graduate studies were in biomedical engineering. For me, that was supposed to be a pathway into medical school. I always wanted to be a surgeon myself, and I love the field of medicine. 

As a freshman in college at NYU Engineering, I had this idea. I entered it into NYU’s business plan competition, and we won at the engineering school. That gave us just enough capital to start developing and researching Traumagel more, and Cresilon was born out of that research.

 

Techniques for Stopping Hemorrhage

Glatter: In terms of stopping hemorrhage, which takes so many lives in the United States and globally — certainly, uncontrolled hemorrhage — what are the techniques that you see, prior to the arrival of your product, as being effective? Can you elucidate some of these techniques? 

Landolina: In emergency medicine, the primary mode of controlling hemorrhage is passive. It’s what, in Brooklyn, we like to call “pressure and a prayer”, where you have a material that’s either gauze or an impregnated gauze in most cases, where the mode of action is absorbing blood, with the adjunct of pressure by the first responder or by the clinician who’s providing aid.

The idea is to stop the flow of blood to concentrate blood factors at the surface of the gauze product, and to promote either platelet activation or the production of fibrin to create a clot. 

These types of technologies are widespread. There are many versions of this technology carried by EMS agencies, trauma bays, US military soldiers, and soldiers across NATO countries. But these types of technologies tend to be relatively inefficient, meaning that they’re very difficult to get into wounds because of the gauze or the powder form of the devices, and it’s very hard to get them in contact with the form of bleeding.

On top of that, if the patient is clotting compromised or immunocompromised in some way, the ability to create a durable clot that will not be ripped off when you remove the product at the next level of care is also of concern. And so, this type of technology or the type of treatment of massive hemorrhage hasn’t changed in decades.

 

Current Applications and Potential Use

Glatter: I envision this product will be carried by paramedics, used on the battlefield at some point after your FDA clearance, and recently it went through.

Do you see any possibility that this could be an AED equivalent to Stop the Bleed? In other words, could the average lay person be trained to use your product if kits are available? 

Landolina: To be very clear, Traumagel today is only approved or cleared under a “prescription-only” indication, which means that it will not initially be available OTC. However, that is our goal. Our goal is to make this product available and usable by someone with no medical training whatsoever. 

The form factor of being a gel in a syringe lends itself well to that, meaning that we try to make it as easy as point and shoot to control hemorrhage, where there’s not as much technique to be learned in the application of a product like Traumagel as there is in current hemorrhage control techniques. 

 

Mechanism of Action and Physiology

Glatter: Once you apply Traumagel, can you explain what happens to the product after it’s applied and the bleeding has stopped? Does it get reabsorbed by the body? What’s the process here? 

Landolina: Under Traumagel’s indication, because it’s used in traumatic injury, it must be removed within 24 hours.

One of the big benefits of Traumagel is that when the patient produces a blood clot underneath Traumagel, it doesn’t become incorporated within the gel itself. To contrast that with the use of gauze, gauze is porous. The clot ends up wrapped around the fibers of the gauze, so if you peel the gauze away, it’s very likely that clot is coming off with it. The surgeon or the clinician at the next level of care is going to have to deal with the re-bleed. 

You can remove Traumagel cleanly and entirely without disturbing the underlying clot. That’s a major benefit, not only to the patient but also to the next level of care, to the next clinician or physician that is required to remove the product.

Glatter: How is it possible to remove the substance without disturbing the clot? Can you explain in more detail? 

Landolina: That’s one of the hallmarks of these plant-based polymers and the way that we design Traumagel itself. Traumagel is completely nonporous, and it has no fibrous nature to it. What that means is when the patient produces a blood clot or fibrin next to or on top of Traumagel, that fibrin ends up not incorporated within the polymers of Traumagel itself. 

Over time, because Traumagel is a hydrogel, meaning that by weight it’s mostly water, you end up having less adhesion to the clot over time. When it’s time to remove Traumagel from the injury, it has lost almost all of its adhesive capabilities, meaning that when you peel it away, that clot is going to stick better to tissue than it will to the gel itself. 

Glatter: Can you explain a little bit about the matrix that’s formed, the physiology, and how the polymers work to form this matrix? 

Landolina: Sure. Traumagel is made of two polysaccharides that are plant derived. One polysaccharide is polyanionic, and the other is polycationic, meaning one has negative charges and the other has positive charges, which together create almost a Lego block effect, where when the material comes in contact with tissue, it adheres strongly and allows for itself to effectively create a mechanical barrier against bleeding.

Courtesy of Cresilon

Landolina: Even in the face of major arterial blood flow, Traumagel will stay where it needs to stay, and it’s not going to get washed away. This means that it is much more easily appliable to these types of surfaces and will allow the patient to produce their own endogenous fibrin clot at that location.

Like I mentioned before, when that fibrin clot is formed, because the gel itself has no pores or fibers, it doesn’t become incorporated within the fibrin clot. You can take the gel away, leaving that clot behind without the chance of a rebleed.

 

Testing With Major Bleeds

Glatter: In terms of bleeding itself, have you tested your product with major aortic bleeds or carotid bleeds in preclinical work?

Landolina: We have used the US military’s model for lethal hemorrhage, and the idea there is to create a model that is just that — lethal. These are the worst types of bleeds that you can possibly imagine, where the patients are clotting compromised, and where you have, in most cases, a very strong arterial component, so something like a femoral artery bleed.

We’ve also tested in carotid artery, aortic applications, as well as combinations of venous and arterial bleeds. The idea here is to show the use of the product in the absolute worst-case scenario so that when this translates into the clinic, the models that we’ve used for evaluation, hopefully, are worse than what actually rolls into the trauma bay.

Glatter: Excellent. What’s the mean time to stop an arterial vs a venous bleed? Are we talking a matter of seconds?

Landolina: In the case of a healthy patient, meaning a patient without clotting compromise, you’re in a matter of seconds. It’s less than 10 seconds. 

In the case where you have clotting compromise, a deep, complicated wound geometry, we recommend holding a pressure bandage on for 3 minutes just because it increases the chance of Traumagel coming into contact with the bleed, especially when you can’t visualize the bleed in the bleed source. Because of that pressure time, that becomes the mean. But again, it’s highly dependent on the type of bleed and the style of application.

 

Failure Rates and Effectiveness

Glatter: As a segue to that, what is the failure rate based on your studies and internal research using Traumagel? Have there been cases where bleeding has not been able to be stopped? 

Landolina: It depends on the study, but the failure rates are incredibly low with Traumagel, assuming that it’s correctly used. That’s one of the benefits to this product, where with proper technique, with overwrap with gauze, you nearly always get control of hemorrhage with a product like this. 

Glatter: Is manual pressure required in that sense? From what you described earlier, manual pressure would not be required. 

Landolina: It depends on the injury. What we recommend is that, if you have a very deep wound where you cannot visualize the source of bleed, you use pressure to seat Traumagel into the source of bleeding, meaning that you’re following Committee on Tactical Combat Casualty Care (Co-TCCC) regulations or requirements, where you’re over wrapping with gauze, and you’re providing a pressure wrapping to ensure that the Traumagel is in contact with the bleed while it’s doing what it’s doing. 

In most cases, it doesn’t hurt to apply pressure on top of Traumagel as well. In more surface level bleeds, you don’t need pressure at all. 

 

Applications Beyond Trauma

Glatter: Interesting. In terms of further applications (eg, nose bleeds or GYN bleeding, which are life-threatening), do you see this coming as an application for the future? 

Landolina: That’s where we’re working. Traumagel is the successor to an animal health product called Vetigel. The formulations of the gel behind Vetigel and Traumagel are identical. Vetigel has a full surgical indication, and that’s everything from epistaxis to neuro and spine procedures, into cardiovascular and soft tissue surgeries, orthopedic medicine, and so on.

Cresilon’s goal is to eventually expand the indication of our technology to include surgical indications and other indications where we can help any patient that’s bleeding. 

Glatter: That’s important, because we use prehospital whole blood, low titer, specifically, when patients have life-threatening hemorrhage. With your product, that would reduce the amount of blood products that would need to be administered. This could be a real game changer. 

Landolina: Definitely, that’s the goal we’re working on. 

Infection Risks and Biocompatibility

Glatter: In terms of any risk for infection, has that been studied as well? Does Traumagel in any way lead to increased rates of infection?

Landolina: Traumagel is biocompatible. It’s a sterile product. We’ve done the full suite of biocompatibility testing as required by FDA. On top of that, remember that Vetigel, which is the same formulation, is an implantable product. As a result, that has even extended biocompatibility testing beyond what would be necessary for an external product.

In Vetigel’s use case, which has been used now in over 60,000 patients, primarily companion animals, dogs and cats, we haven’t seen instances of infection. There’s no reason to believe that we would see that clinically with Traumagel.

 

Research Collaborations and Future Applications

Glatter: In terms of other research that your company’s embarked on preclinically, I understand there were some studies done at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. I was wondering if you could expand on these, specifically, in terms of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and hemorrhage related to that. For example, with shrapnel or even a gunshot wound. 

Landolina: The Walter Reed collaboration with Cresilon is something that I’m particularly excited about, because it marks Cresilon’s first project that’s outside the scope of just hemostasis. Walter Reed came to us with this proposal where there’s a big challenge in a subset of TBI called penetrating ballistic-like brain injury, where the brain has been penetrated by a bullet, shrapnel, or some other projectile, and there’s an injury that exposes the brain to the outside. 

Today, there is no standard of care to treat patients with those types of injuries. In many cases, mortality is caused through swelling of the brain, or collapse of the brain. What they came to us with was the potential of using our technology, not primarily as a hemostatic agent, but to be able to stabilize that patient enough to get to the next level of care to be treated by a neurosurgeon.

That study Walter Reed did was just a pilot that was done in small animals. In that pilot, they showed that over the period of treatment, there was no negative change in vital signs, no increase in edema or in swelling, or in any of the biomarkers that were being monitored at that time. 

At the very least, this is not full indication that this indication will work for Cresilon, but it shows that there’s promise. It’s something that we’re working on and hopefully we’ll be able to bring to market soon.

Glatter: Certainly, maintaining intracranial pressure and cerebral perfusion pressures are very critical. In the future, do you think this product would be able to be deployed endovascularly? Imagine this in terms of stopping bleeding from some source, whether it’s from a stroke or another intracranial source. 

Landolina: That’s been an area of interest for us. We have no evidence to prove that indication works at this point, but there’s also nothing to say that it wouldn’t be possible for our technology. At this point, we’ve only looked at a cursory level at those indications. 

Glatter: Does the use of Traumagel obviate the need for a more definitive repair (eg, with sutures) or something that’s more permanent?

Landolina: I always say that Traumagel — and Vetigel, for that matter — is not a replacement for good surgical technique. The surgeon always needs to make his or her best judgment when reviewing the patient. That doesn’t mean that there won’t need to be sutures or vascular repair in most of these cases, especially in major trauma.

Final Takeaways

Glatter: Do you have some bullet points or pearls you could give our audience as a takeaway? 

Landolina: When Cresilon looks at Traumagel — and for us, Traumagel is the next generation of hemostatic agent, especially in trauma care and in emergency medicine — it allows for a far-simplified application of the product and much faster control of hemorrhage with better patient outcomes.

As we roll this out through EMS agencies, trauma hospitals, military agencies, and eventually to the general public through a future indication, it’s something we’re very excited about. Personally, I started this business 14 years ago, and so it’s great to see our mission of saving lives transitioning to saving human lives.

Glatter: I look forward to seeing this product in the emergency department, but also in other settings, such as in the operating room where we can really help patients who are dying from hemorrhage, certainly on the battlefield, and the lay public. If someone were to come upon a patient who’s bleeding out, this could be certainly a game changer and a lifesaver. 

I want to thank you for your time. This is a really important product that’s transformed the lives of so many animals, but also people in the future.

Dr. Glatter is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Mr. Landolina is the CEO and co-founder of Cresilon, a biotechnology company specializing in plant-based solutions for emergency bleeding control.

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

TOPLINE:

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies for chronic back and/or leg pain is superior to conventional medical management (CMM) for reduced pain intensity and functional disability, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 13 randomized clinical trials that compared conventional and novel SCS therapies with CMM.
• More than 1500 adults with chronic back and/or leg pain and no past history of receiving SCS therapies were included.
• Novel therapies included high frequency, burst, differential target multiplexed, and closed-loop SCS; conventional therapies included tonic SCS wave forms.
• Study outcomes included pain intensity in the back and in the leg, proportion of patients achieving at least 50% pain reduction in the back and in the leg, quality of life as measured by the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index, and functional disability on the Oswestry Disability Index.
• The analysis included data from multiple follow-up points at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, with 6-month data being those from the longest mutually reported timepoint across all outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both conventional and novel SCS therapies demonstrated superior efficacy vs CMM in pain reduction, but the novel SCS therapies were more likely to provide ≥ 50% reduction in back pain (odds ratio, 8.76; 95% credible interval [CrI], 3.84-22.31).
• Both SCS therapies showed a significant reduction in pain intensity, with novel SCS providing the greatest mean difference (MD) for back pain (–2.34; 95% CrI, –2.96 to –1.73) and lower leg pain (MD, –4.01; 95% CrI, –5.31 to –2.75).
• Quality of life improved with both types of SCS therapies, with novel SCS therapies yielding the highest MD (0.17; 95% CrI, 0.13-0.21) in EQ-5D index score.
• Conventional SCS showed greater improvement in functionality vs CMM, yielding the lowest MD (–7.10; 95% CrI, –10.91 to –3.36) in Oswestry Disability Index score.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found that SCS was associated with improved pain and QOL [quality of life] and reduced disability, compared with CMM, after 6 months of follow-up. These findings highlight the potential of SCS therapies as an effective and valuable option in chronic pain management,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Frank J.P.M. Huygen, PhD, MD, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The lack of randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up data restricted the inclusion of extended outcome assessments. Most included studies showed a high risk for bias. Safety estimates could not be evaluated as adverse events were only reported as procedure-related outcomes, which are not applicable for CMM. Additionally, the network meta-analytical approach, which combined evidence from studies with varying patient eligibility criteria, may have introduced bias because of between-study heterogeneity.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Medtronic. Huygen reported receiving personal fees from Abbott, Saluda, and Grunenthal outside the submitted work. The four other authors reported receiving funding from Medtronic.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies for chronic back and/or leg pain is superior to conventional medical management (CMM) for reduced pain intensity and functional disability, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 13 randomized clinical trials that compared conventional and novel SCS therapies with CMM.
• More than 1500 adults with chronic back and/or leg pain and no past history of receiving SCS therapies were included.
• Novel therapies included high frequency, burst, differential target multiplexed, and closed-loop SCS; conventional therapies included tonic SCS wave forms.
• Study outcomes included pain intensity in the back and in the leg, proportion of patients achieving at least 50% pain reduction in the back and in the leg, quality of life as measured by the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index, and functional disability on the Oswestry Disability Index.
• The analysis included data from multiple follow-up points at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, with 6-month data being those from the longest mutually reported timepoint across all outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both conventional and novel SCS therapies demonstrated superior efficacy vs CMM in pain reduction, but the novel SCS therapies were more likely to provide ≥ 50% reduction in back pain (odds ratio, 8.76; 95% credible interval [CrI], 3.84-22.31).
• Both SCS therapies showed a significant reduction in pain intensity, with novel SCS providing the greatest mean difference (MD) for back pain (–2.34; 95% CrI, –2.96 to –1.73) and lower leg pain (MD, –4.01; 95% CrI, –5.31 to –2.75).
• Quality of life improved with both types of SCS therapies, with novel SCS therapies yielding the highest MD (0.17; 95% CrI, 0.13-0.21) in EQ-5D index score.
• Conventional SCS showed greater improvement in functionality vs CMM, yielding the lowest MD (–7.10; 95% CrI, –10.91 to –3.36) in Oswestry Disability Index score.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found that SCS was associated with improved pain and QOL [quality of life] and reduced disability, compared with CMM, after 6 months of follow-up. These findings highlight the potential of SCS therapies as an effective and valuable option in chronic pain management,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Frank J.P.M. Huygen, PhD, MD, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The lack of randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up data restricted the inclusion of extended outcome assessments. Most included studies showed a high risk for bias. Safety estimates could not be evaluated as adverse events were only reported as procedure-related outcomes, which are not applicable for CMM. Additionally, the network meta-analytical approach, which combined evidence from studies with varying patient eligibility criteria, may have introduced bias because of between-study heterogeneity.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Medtronic. Huygen reported receiving personal fees from Abbott, Saluda, and Grunenthal outside the submitted work. The four other authors reported receiving funding from Medtronic.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies for chronic back and/or leg pain is superior to conventional medical management (CMM) for reduced pain intensity and functional disability, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 13 randomized clinical trials that compared conventional and novel SCS therapies with CMM.
• More than 1500 adults with chronic back and/or leg pain and no past history of receiving SCS therapies were included.
• Novel therapies included high frequency, burst, differential target multiplexed, and closed-loop SCS; conventional therapies included tonic SCS wave forms.
• Study outcomes included pain intensity in the back and in the leg, proportion of patients achieving at least 50% pain reduction in the back and in the leg, quality of life as measured by the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index, and functional disability on the Oswestry Disability Index.
• The analysis included data from multiple follow-up points at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, with 6-month data being those from the longest mutually reported timepoint across all outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both conventional and novel SCS therapies demonstrated superior efficacy vs CMM in pain reduction, but the novel SCS therapies were more likely to provide ≥ 50% reduction in back pain (odds ratio, 8.76; 95% credible interval [CrI], 3.84-22.31).
• Both SCS therapies showed a significant reduction in pain intensity, with novel SCS providing the greatest mean difference (MD) for back pain (–2.34; 95% CrI, –2.96 to –1.73) and lower leg pain (MD, –4.01; 95% CrI, –5.31 to –2.75).
• Quality of life improved with both types of SCS therapies, with novel SCS therapies yielding the highest MD (0.17; 95% CrI, 0.13-0.21) in EQ-5D index score.
• Conventional SCS showed greater improvement in functionality vs CMM, yielding the lowest MD (–7.10; 95% CrI, –10.91 to –3.36) in Oswestry Disability Index score.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found that SCS was associated with improved pain and QOL [quality of life] and reduced disability, compared with CMM, after 6 months of follow-up. These findings highlight the potential of SCS therapies as an effective and valuable option in chronic pain management,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Frank J.P.M. Huygen, PhD, MD, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The lack of randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up data restricted the inclusion of extended outcome assessments. Most included studies showed a high risk for bias. Safety estimates could not be evaluated as adverse events were only reported as procedure-related outcomes, which are not applicable for CMM. Additionally, the network meta-analytical approach, which combined evidence from studies with varying patient eligibility criteria, may have introduced bias because of between-study heterogeneity.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Medtronic. Huygen reported receiving personal fees from Abbott, Saluda, and Grunenthal outside the submitted work. The four other authors reported receiving funding from Medtronic.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Death rates for patients aged < 50 years with early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) are higher in native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander individuals and non-Hispanic Black individuals than in non-Hispanic White individuals (adjusted hazard ratios [aHR] of 1.34 and 1.18, respectively). The largest racial and ethnic disparities in survival were linked to neighborhood socioeconomic status.

METHODOLOGY:

• US rates of EOCRC are increasing, with differences across racial and ethnic groups, but few studies have provided detailed risk estimates in the categories of Asian American and of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, as well as the contribution of sociodemographic factors to these differences.
• A population-based cohort study analyzed California Cancer Registry data for 22,834 individuals aged 18-49 years diagnosed with EOCRC between January 2000 and December 2019.
• Researchers examined the association between mortality risk and racial and ethnic groups, including Asian American (15.5%, separated into seven subcategories), Hispanic (30.2%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (0.6%), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (0.5%), non-Hispanic Black (7.3%), and non-Hispanic White (45.9%) individuals, with a median follow-up of 4.2 years.
• Statistical models measured baseline associations adjusting for clinical features and then tested for the contribution of socioeconomic factors together and separately, with adjustments for insurance status, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and more.

TAKEAWAY:

• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander individuals demonstrated the highest EOCRC mortality risk compared with non-Hispanic White individuals (socioeconomic status–adjusted HR [SES aHR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76).
• Non-Hispanic Black individuals showed a higher EOCRC mortality risk than non-Hispanic White individuals (SES aHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29).
• Hispanic individuals’ higher EOCRC mortality (base aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.22) disappeared after adjusting for neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04).
• Southeast Asian individuals’ increased mortality risk (base aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.34) was no longer significant after adjusting for insurance status (SES aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.96-1.26).

IN PRACTICE:

“As clinicians and researchers, we should ask ourselves how to act on these findings,” wrote the authors of an invited commentary. “The effort cannot stop with data analysis alone, it must extend to actionable steps,” such as tailored efforts to deliver culturally competent care and patient navigation services to those with greatest need and at highest risk, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Joshua Demb, PhD, University of California, San Diego. The study was published online on November 22 in JAMA Network Open (2024. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.46820) with the invited commentary led by Clare E. Jacobson, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a relatively short follow-up time and small sample sizes in some racial and ethnic groups, potentially leading to imprecise aHR estimates. The generalizability of findings beyond California requires further investigation, and the ability to examine potential associations between neighborhood socioeconomic status and other factors was also constrained by small sample sizes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. One study author reported receiving consulting fees from Guardant Health, InterVenn Biosciences, Geneoscopy, and Universal DX; research support from Freenome; and stock options from CellMax outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported by other authors of the study or the commentary.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Death rates for patients aged < 50 years with early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) are higher in native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander individuals and non-Hispanic Black individuals than in non-Hispanic White individuals (adjusted hazard ratios [aHR] of 1.34 and 1.18, respectively). The largest racial and ethnic disparities in survival were linked to neighborhood socioeconomic status.

METHODOLOGY:

• US rates of EOCRC are increasing, with differences across racial and ethnic groups, but few studies have provided detailed risk estimates in the categories of Asian American and of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, as well as the contribution of sociodemographic factors to these differences.
• A population-based cohort study analyzed California Cancer Registry data for 22,834 individuals aged 18-49 years diagnosed with EOCRC between January 2000 and December 2019.
• Researchers examined the association between mortality risk and racial and ethnic groups, including Asian American (15.5%, separated into seven subcategories), Hispanic (30.2%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (0.6%), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (0.5%), non-Hispanic Black (7.3%), and non-Hispanic White (45.9%) individuals, with a median follow-up of 4.2 years.
• Statistical models measured baseline associations adjusting for clinical features and then tested for the contribution of socioeconomic factors together and separately, with adjustments for insurance status, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and more.

TAKEAWAY:

• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander individuals demonstrated the highest EOCRC mortality risk compared with non-Hispanic White individuals (socioeconomic status–adjusted HR [SES aHR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76).
• Non-Hispanic Black individuals showed a higher EOCRC mortality risk than non-Hispanic White individuals (SES aHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29).
• Hispanic individuals’ higher EOCRC mortality (base aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.22) disappeared after adjusting for neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04).
• Southeast Asian individuals’ increased mortality risk (base aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.34) was no longer significant after adjusting for insurance status (SES aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.96-1.26).

IN PRACTICE:

“As clinicians and researchers, we should ask ourselves how to act on these findings,” wrote the authors of an invited commentary. “The effort cannot stop with data analysis alone, it must extend to actionable steps,” such as tailored efforts to deliver culturally competent care and patient navigation services to those with greatest need and at highest risk, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Joshua Demb, PhD, University of California, San Diego. The study was published online on November 22 in JAMA Network Open (2024. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.46820) with the invited commentary led by Clare E. Jacobson, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a relatively short follow-up time and small sample sizes in some racial and ethnic groups, potentially leading to imprecise aHR estimates. The generalizability of findings beyond California requires further investigation, and the ability to examine potential associations between neighborhood socioeconomic status and other factors was also constrained by small sample sizes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. One study author reported receiving consulting fees from Guardant Health, InterVenn Biosciences, Geneoscopy, and Universal DX; research support from Freenome; and stock options from CellMax outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported by other authors of the study or the commentary.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Death rates for patients aged < 50 years with early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) are higher in native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander individuals and non-Hispanic Black individuals than in non-Hispanic White individuals (adjusted hazard ratios [aHR] of 1.34 and 1.18, respectively). The largest racial and ethnic disparities in survival were linked to neighborhood socioeconomic status.

METHODOLOGY:

• US rates of EOCRC are increasing, with differences across racial and ethnic groups, but few studies have provided detailed risk estimates in the categories of Asian American and of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, as well as the contribution of sociodemographic factors to these differences.
• A population-based cohort study analyzed California Cancer Registry data for 22,834 individuals aged 18-49 years diagnosed with EOCRC between January 2000 and December 2019.
• Researchers examined the association between mortality risk and racial and ethnic groups, including Asian American (15.5%, separated into seven subcategories), Hispanic (30.2%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (0.6%), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (0.5%), non-Hispanic Black (7.3%), and non-Hispanic White (45.9%) individuals, with a median follow-up of 4.2 years.
• Statistical models measured baseline associations adjusting for clinical features and then tested for the contribution of socioeconomic factors together and separately, with adjustments for insurance status, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and more.

TAKEAWAY:

• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander individuals demonstrated the highest EOCRC mortality risk compared with non-Hispanic White individuals (socioeconomic status–adjusted HR [SES aHR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76).
• Non-Hispanic Black individuals showed a higher EOCRC mortality risk than non-Hispanic White individuals (SES aHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29).
• Hispanic individuals’ higher EOCRC mortality (base aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.22) disappeared after adjusting for neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04).
• Southeast Asian individuals’ increased mortality risk (base aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.34) was no longer significant after adjusting for insurance status (SES aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.96-1.26).

IN PRACTICE:

“As clinicians and researchers, we should ask ourselves how to act on these findings,” wrote the authors of an invited commentary. “The effort cannot stop with data analysis alone, it must extend to actionable steps,” such as tailored efforts to deliver culturally competent care and patient navigation services to those with greatest need and at highest risk, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Joshua Demb, PhD, University of California, San Diego. The study was published online on November 22 in JAMA Network Open (2024. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.46820) with the invited commentary led by Clare E. Jacobson, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a relatively short follow-up time and small sample sizes in some racial and ethnic groups, potentially leading to imprecise aHR estimates. The generalizability of findings beyond California requires further investigation, and the ability to examine potential associations between neighborhood socioeconomic status and other factors was also constrained by small sample sizes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. One study author reported receiving consulting fees from Guardant Health, InterVenn Biosciences, Geneoscopy, and Universal DX; research support from Freenome; and stock options from CellMax outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported by other authors of the study or the commentary.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This news organization recently spoke with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Lisa Grohskopf, MD, MPH, Influenza Division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, about what providers need to know regarding recommendations for influenza vaccination in the United States.

Text has been edited for length. 

 

Are there any updates to this season’s influenza vaccine or vaccine recommendations?

Yes, we have updates to both the vaccine and the vaccine recommendations this year. Typically we have some changes each year, and this year there are two main changes in the recommendations. One relates to the composition of the vaccine for this season, and the other is a new recommendation for adult solid organ transplant recipients. 

We typically have changes in the vaccine composition each season. For most seasons, one or more parts of the vaccine will change, but this year is a little different in that all of the vaccines available in the US for the 2024-2025 season are going to be three-virus, or trivalent, vaccines. They are going to be formulated to protect against three viruses: an influenza A(H1N1) virus, an influenza A(H3N2) virus, and an influenza B/Victoria lineage virus. 

The reason for this change is that since the 2013-2014 season through the 2023-2024 season, we had quadrivalent vaccines that were available in the US that contained four viruses. Those vaccines contained a second influenza B virus from the Yamagata lineage (B viruses come from two main lineages).

The reason for the change to trivalent vaccines this season is that influenza B/Yamagata viruses have not been detected in global surveillance since March 2020, and so their inclusion is no longer warranted. So this season, all of the vaccines available in the US are going to be trivalent.

In addition to that change, we have an update in the influenza A(H3N2) component of the vaccine compared with last season.

The second change concerning adult solid organ transplant recipients is that Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) now recommends that solid organ transplant recipients aged 18-64 years can receive as acceptable options either the high-dose inactivated vaccine or the adjuvanted inactivated vaccine without a preference over other age appropriate, inactivated, or recombinant vaccines.

Those vaccines are both formulated with features intended to make them more immunogenic — ie, promote a stronger immune response — and there are data for immunogenicity that suggest they could be more immunogenic in that population.

 

Who needs an influenza vaccine this season?

That recommendation is the same as it’s been for a number of years, which is that everybody aged 6 months or older is recommended to get a flu vaccine, with some rare exceptions, mainly concerning contraindications to vaccination. 

Contraindications are detailed in the ACIP flu statement each year, and they’re relatively uncommon conditions overall, so most people are recommended, if they’re in that age group 6 months and up, to get an annual flu vaccine.

Are there groups for whom influenza vaccination is especially important?

Yes. While influenza vaccination is recommended for everybody in that age group 6 months and up — and in truth, we can never really predict who’s going to get severely ill — some people are more likely to be at risk of having serious illness or hospitalization. Those people include adults aged 65 years or older; young children; people with certain chronic health conditions such as heart disease, lung disease, and diabetes; and people from some racial and ethnic groups.

 

Are there any specific influenza vaccination recommendations for these groups or others? 

Not for most people. In general, we have a number of different influenza vaccines each season; this year we have a total of nine brands. In general, there’s no preferential recommendation for one vaccine or type of vaccine for specific groups of people, with one exception: For people aged 65 years or older, there’s a preferential recommendation for three specific vaccines — the high-dose inactivated vaccine, Fluzone High-Dose; the recombinant vaccine, Flublok; and the adjuvanted inactivated vaccine, FLUAD. 

Among those three, there’s no preference for any one of them over the other two; they’re all preferred vaccines for this age group, if available. If none of those three vaccines are available at the time that somebody aged 65 or older is there to get vaccinated, people in this age group should get any other age-appropriate influenza vaccine that is available.

 

When should people get vaccinated if they haven’t already?

CDC and ACIP recommend vaccination for most people, ideally by the end of October. But for those who missed the end of October, it is absolutely not too late. Providers should continue to encourage vaccination and people should get their vaccines as long as flu viruses are circulating. 

The timing of the onset and the peak and the end of the flu season vary a bit from year to year. We often start to see generally activity begin to increase in the US in the fall, which is the reason for the end of October recommendation; however, flu activity doesn’t tend to peak in the US until after October. We’re talking December, January, or later, so getting vaccinated after October can still provide important protection during the peak of the season.

There does seem to be a tendency for people to think, OK, I haven’t gotten the vaccine yet, and there probably isn’t a lot of reason to do it now. But really, it’s definitely not too late, and that’s something we like to encourage people to think about, particularly as we move into December and January — it’s not too late if you missed October. 

Influenza vaccination is also available in so many places. You don’t necessarily have to go to a healthcare provider’s office; there are many retail chains which offer influenza vaccines.

 

Is influenza spreading right now? Are activity levels increasing?

Overall influenza activity currently is low nationally, although there’s starting to be some slight increases in the pediatric age groups and, of course, we do anticipate that it will increase in the coming weeks and months.

When we get vaccinated, the protection isn’t instantaneous. The immune system needs a bit of time to react to the vaccine and to develop antibodies. That can take about 2 weeks. Even with that, now is still absolutely not too late to get a vaccine. Neither is December, for that matter. As long as the flu viruses are circulating where you are, it is still worth getting vaccinated.

 

What was influenza vaccination coverage like last season?

It’s a little bit early to tell for the current season, but one of the things that we do know is that since the COVID-19 pandemic, coverage has dropped compared with before the COVID-19 pandemic. Before COVID-19, influenza vaccination coverage had been slowly increasing in most groups, but it has decreased since then, and those downturns in coverage haven’t recovered to prepandemic levels. For example, during 2023-2024, about half of children and adults received a flu vaccine. 

What can providers do to encourage influenza vaccination in their patients?

We know that a healthcare provider’s strong recommendation for flu vaccination is a really major factor in whether or not patients get a flu vaccine, and is more effective in increasing acceptance of vaccination than just about any other factor. 

There’s a method from CDC called SHARE, which is a helpful way to help make a strong recommendation and provide information to help patients make an informed decision about whether or not they want to be vaccinated.

To implement SHARE, it’s an acronym with five parts. S is for Share the reasons why the flu vaccine is right for that patient. H is for Highlight positive experiences with flu vaccination, either personal or in practice. A is for Address patient concerns and questions about the flu vaccine, including things such as side effects, safety, and effectiveness. R is Remind patients that vaccination protects them and their loved ones from serious illness and related complications. E is Explain the potential complications and consequences of getting influenza, including serious health effects, time lost from family, work, and school, and potential financial costs.

Additional resources are accessible on CDC’s influenza resources page, including brochures, posters, and fact sheets that can help providers in encouraging and reminding people to get vaccinated.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This news organization recently spoke with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Lisa Grohskopf, MD, MPH, Influenza Division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, about what providers need to know regarding recommendations for influenza vaccination in the United States.

Text has been edited for length. 

 

Are there any updates to this season’s influenza vaccine or vaccine recommendations?

Yes, we have updates to both the vaccine and the vaccine recommendations this year. Typically we have some changes each year, and this year there are two main changes in the recommendations. One relates to the composition of the vaccine for this season, and the other is a new recommendation for adult solid organ transplant recipients. 

We typically have changes in the vaccine composition each season. For most seasons, one or more parts of the vaccine will change, but this year is a little different in that all of the vaccines available in the US for the 2024-2025 season are going to be three-virus, or trivalent, vaccines. They are going to be formulated to protect against three viruses: an influenza A(H1N1) virus, an influenza A(H3N2) virus, and an influenza B/Victoria lineage virus. 

The reason for this change is that since the 2013-2014 season through the 2023-2024 season, we had quadrivalent vaccines that were available in the US that contained four viruses. Those vaccines contained a second influenza B virus from the Yamagata lineage (B viruses come from two main lineages).

The reason for the change to trivalent vaccines this season is that influenza B/Yamagata viruses have not been detected in global surveillance since March 2020, and so their inclusion is no longer warranted. So this season, all of the vaccines available in the US are going to be trivalent.

In addition to that change, we have an update in the influenza A(H3N2) component of the vaccine compared with last season.

The second change concerning adult solid organ transplant recipients is that Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) now recommends that solid organ transplant recipients aged 18-64 years can receive as acceptable options either the high-dose inactivated vaccine or the adjuvanted inactivated vaccine without a preference over other age appropriate, inactivated, or recombinant vaccines.

Those vaccines are both formulated with features intended to make them more immunogenic — ie, promote a stronger immune response — and there are data for immunogenicity that suggest they could be more immunogenic in that population.

 

Who needs an influenza vaccine this season?

That recommendation is the same as it’s been for a number of years, which is that everybody aged 6 months or older is recommended to get a flu vaccine, with some rare exceptions, mainly concerning contraindications to vaccination. 

Contraindications are detailed in the ACIP flu statement each year, and they’re relatively uncommon conditions overall, so most people are recommended, if they’re in that age group 6 months and up, to get an annual flu vaccine.

Are there groups for whom influenza vaccination is especially important?

Yes. While influenza vaccination is recommended for everybody in that age group 6 months and up — and in truth, we can never really predict who’s going to get severely ill — some people are more likely to be at risk of having serious illness or hospitalization. Those people include adults aged 65 years or older; young children; people with certain chronic health conditions such as heart disease, lung disease, and diabetes; and people from some racial and ethnic groups.

 

Are there any specific influenza vaccination recommendations for these groups or others? 

Not for most people. In general, we have a number of different influenza vaccines each season; this year we have a total of nine brands. In general, there’s no preferential recommendation for one vaccine or type of vaccine for specific groups of people, with one exception: For people aged 65 years or older, there’s a preferential recommendation for three specific vaccines — the high-dose inactivated vaccine, Fluzone High-Dose; the recombinant vaccine, Flublok; and the adjuvanted inactivated vaccine, FLUAD. 

Among those three, there’s no preference for any one of them over the other two; they’re all preferred vaccines for this age group, if available. If none of those three vaccines are available at the time that somebody aged 65 or older is there to get vaccinated, people in this age group should get any other age-appropriate influenza vaccine that is available.

 

When should people get vaccinated if they haven’t already?

CDC and ACIP recommend vaccination for most people, ideally by the end of October. But for those who missed the end of October, it is absolutely not too late. Providers should continue to encourage vaccination and people should get their vaccines as long as flu viruses are circulating. 

The timing of the onset and the peak and the end of the flu season vary a bit from year to year. We often start to see generally activity begin to increase in the US in the fall, which is the reason for the end of October recommendation; however, flu activity doesn’t tend to peak in the US until after October. We’re talking December, January, or later, so getting vaccinated after October can still provide important protection during the peak of the season.

There does seem to be a tendency for people to think, OK, I haven’t gotten the vaccine yet, and there probably isn’t a lot of reason to do it now. But really, it’s definitely not too late, and that’s something we like to encourage people to think about, particularly as we move into December and January — it’s not too late if you missed October. 

Influenza vaccination is also available in so many places. You don’t necessarily have to go to a healthcare provider’s office; there are many retail chains which offer influenza vaccines.

 

Is influenza spreading right now? Are activity levels increasing?

Overall influenza activity currently is low nationally, although there’s starting to be some slight increases in the pediatric age groups and, of course, we do anticipate that it will increase in the coming weeks and months.

When we get vaccinated, the protection isn’t instantaneous. The immune system needs a bit of time to react to the vaccine and to develop antibodies. That can take about 2 weeks. Even with that, now is still absolutely not too late to get a vaccine. Neither is December, for that matter. As long as the flu viruses are circulating where you are, it is still worth getting vaccinated.

 

What was influenza vaccination coverage like last season?

It’s a little bit early to tell for the current season, but one of the things that we do know is that since the COVID-19 pandemic, coverage has dropped compared with before the COVID-19 pandemic. Before COVID-19, influenza vaccination coverage had been slowly increasing in most groups, but it has decreased since then, and those downturns in coverage haven’t recovered to prepandemic levels. For example, during 2023-2024, about half of children and adults received a flu vaccine. 

What can providers do to encourage influenza vaccination in their patients?

We know that a healthcare provider’s strong recommendation for flu vaccination is a really major factor in whether or not patients get a flu vaccine, and is more effective in increasing acceptance of vaccination than just about any other factor. 

There’s a method from CDC called SHARE, which is a helpful way to help make a strong recommendation and provide information to help patients make an informed decision about whether or not they want to be vaccinated.

To implement SHARE, it’s an acronym with five parts. S is for Share the reasons why the flu vaccine is right for that patient. H is for Highlight positive experiences with flu vaccination, either personal or in practice. A is for Address patient concerns and questions about the flu vaccine, including things such as side effects, safety, and effectiveness. R is Remind patients that vaccination protects them and their loved ones from serious illness and related complications. E is Explain the potential complications and consequences of getting influenza, including serious health effects, time lost from family, work, and school, and potential financial costs.

Additional resources are accessible on CDC’s influenza resources page, including brochures, posters, and fact sheets that can help providers in encouraging and reminding people to get vaccinated.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This news organization recently spoke with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Lisa Grohskopf, MD, MPH, Influenza Division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, about what providers need to know regarding recommendations for influenza vaccination in the United States.

Text has been edited for length. 

 

Are there any updates to this season’s influenza vaccine or vaccine recommendations?

Yes, we have updates to both the vaccine and the vaccine recommendations this year. Typically we have some changes each year, and this year there are two main changes in the recommendations. One relates to the composition of the vaccine for this season, and the other is a new recommendation for adult solid organ transplant recipients. 

We typically have changes in the vaccine composition each season. For most seasons, one or more parts of the vaccine will change, but this year is a little different in that all of the vaccines available in the US for the 2024-2025 season are going to be three-virus, or trivalent, vaccines. They are going to be formulated to protect against three viruses: an influenza A(H1N1) virus, an influenza A(H3N2) virus, and an influenza B/Victoria lineage virus. 

The reason for this change is that since the 2013-2014 season through the 2023-2024 season, we had quadrivalent vaccines that were available in the US that contained four viruses. Those vaccines contained a second influenza B virus from the Yamagata lineage (B viruses come from two main lineages).

The reason for the change to trivalent vaccines this season is that influenza B/Yamagata viruses have not been detected in global surveillance since March 2020, and so their inclusion is no longer warranted. So this season, all of the vaccines available in the US are going to be trivalent.

In addition to that change, we have an update in the influenza A(H3N2) component of the vaccine compared with last season.

The second change concerning adult solid organ transplant recipients is that Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) now recommends that solid organ transplant recipients aged 18-64 years can receive as acceptable options either the high-dose inactivated vaccine or the adjuvanted inactivated vaccine without a preference over other age appropriate, inactivated, or recombinant vaccines.

Those vaccines are both formulated with features intended to make them more immunogenic — ie, promote a stronger immune response — and there are data for immunogenicity that suggest they could be more immunogenic in that population.

 

Who needs an influenza vaccine this season?

That recommendation is the same as it’s been for a number of years, which is that everybody aged 6 months or older is recommended to get a flu vaccine, with some rare exceptions, mainly concerning contraindications to vaccination. 

Contraindications are detailed in the ACIP flu statement each year, and they’re relatively uncommon conditions overall, so most people are recommended, if they’re in that age group 6 months and up, to get an annual flu vaccine.

Are there groups for whom influenza vaccination is especially important?

Yes. While influenza vaccination is recommended for everybody in that age group 6 months and up — and in truth, we can never really predict who’s going to get severely ill — some people are more likely to be at risk of having serious illness or hospitalization. Those people include adults aged 65 years or older; young children; people with certain chronic health conditions such as heart disease, lung disease, and diabetes; and people from some racial and ethnic groups.

 

Are there any specific influenza vaccination recommendations for these groups or others? 

Not for most people. In general, we have a number of different influenza vaccines each season; this year we have a total of nine brands. In general, there’s no preferential recommendation for one vaccine or type of vaccine for specific groups of people, with one exception: For people aged 65 years or older, there’s a preferential recommendation for three specific vaccines — the high-dose inactivated vaccine, Fluzone High-Dose; the recombinant vaccine, Flublok; and the adjuvanted inactivated vaccine, FLUAD. 

Among those three, there’s no preference for any one of them over the other two; they’re all preferred vaccines for this age group, if available. If none of those three vaccines are available at the time that somebody aged 65 or older is there to get vaccinated, people in this age group should get any other age-appropriate influenza vaccine that is available.

 

When should people get vaccinated if they haven’t already?

CDC and ACIP recommend vaccination for most people, ideally by the end of October. But for those who missed the end of October, it is absolutely not too late. Providers should continue to encourage vaccination and people should get their vaccines as long as flu viruses are circulating. 

The timing of the onset and the peak and the end of the flu season vary a bit from year to year. We often start to see generally activity begin to increase in the US in the fall, which is the reason for the end of October recommendation; however, flu activity doesn’t tend to peak in the US until after October. We’re talking December, January, or later, so getting vaccinated after October can still provide important protection during the peak of the season.

There does seem to be a tendency for people to think, OK, I haven’t gotten the vaccine yet, and there probably isn’t a lot of reason to do it now. But really, it’s definitely not too late, and that’s something we like to encourage people to think about, particularly as we move into December and January — it’s not too late if you missed October. 

Influenza vaccination is also available in so many places. You don’t necessarily have to go to a healthcare provider’s office; there are many retail chains which offer influenza vaccines.

 

Is influenza spreading right now? Are activity levels increasing?

Overall influenza activity currently is low nationally, although there’s starting to be some slight increases in the pediatric age groups and, of course, we do anticipate that it will increase in the coming weeks and months.

When we get vaccinated, the protection isn’t instantaneous. The immune system needs a bit of time to react to the vaccine and to develop antibodies. That can take about 2 weeks. Even with that, now is still absolutely not too late to get a vaccine. Neither is December, for that matter. As long as the flu viruses are circulating where you are, it is still worth getting vaccinated.

 

What was influenza vaccination coverage like last season?

It’s a little bit early to tell for the current season, but one of the things that we do know is that since the COVID-19 pandemic, coverage has dropped compared with before the COVID-19 pandemic. Before COVID-19, influenza vaccination coverage had been slowly increasing in most groups, but it has decreased since then, and those downturns in coverage haven’t recovered to prepandemic levels. For example, during 2023-2024, about half of children and adults received a flu vaccine. 

What can providers do to encourage influenza vaccination in their patients?

We know that a healthcare provider’s strong recommendation for flu vaccination is a really major factor in whether or not patients get a flu vaccine, and is more effective in increasing acceptance of vaccination than just about any other factor. 

There’s a method from CDC called SHARE, which is a helpful way to help make a strong recommendation and provide information to help patients make an informed decision about whether or not they want to be vaccinated.

To implement SHARE, it’s an acronym with five parts. S is for Share the reasons why the flu vaccine is right for that patient. H is for Highlight positive experiences with flu vaccination, either personal or in practice. A is for Address patient concerns and questions about the flu vaccine, including things such as side effects, safety, and effectiveness. R is Remind patients that vaccination protects them and their loved ones from serious illness and related complications. E is Explain the potential complications and consequences of getting influenza, including serious health effects, time lost from family, work, and school, and potential financial costs.

Additional resources are accessible on CDC’s influenza resources page, including brochures, posters, and fact sheets that can help providers in encouraging and reminding people to get vaccinated.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Family physicians should familiarize themselves with doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis (doxy PEP) as a prescription for patients who frequently have unprotected sex (including oral, anal, and vaginal) with multiple partners, according to a presentation at the Family Medicine Forum (FMF) 2024. Doxy PEP decreases the risk for bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

Many family physicians may be unaware of doxy PEP as a means of avoiding STIs. “Doxy PEP is an incredible tool that can be used within 72 hours of unprotected sex to reduce bacterial STI risk,” said James Owen, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto in Ontario, Canada.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention point to data from three randomized, controlled trials that demonstrate the ability of doxy PEP to decrease syphilis and chlamydia infections by more than 70% and decrease gonococcal infections by about 50%, said Jordan Goodridge, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto.

 

Optimizing Doxy PEP

Doxy PEP (200 mg) is most effective when administered in the first 24 hours after unprotected sex, explained Goodridge. It is recommended that patients repeat the 200-mg dose if they are sexually active again within 24 hours.

To ensure optimal absorption of doxy PEP, the drug should not be taken with antacids or multivitamins, said Goodridge. Antacids “can bind to doxycycline and prevent it from being absorbed,” he said.

A key concern about doxy PEP is the development of antimicrobial resistance, noted Goodridge. “We don’t have long-term studies to give us an idea about what this risk is, to quantify it. The studies we have are relatively short, generally less than a year, and didn’t suggest that there was a huge risk [for antimicrobial resistance].”

Moreover, doxycycline is teratogenic, and its use is contraindicated in pregnancy, said Goodridge. If a pregnant patient is being treated for syphilis, then penicillin is the treatment of choice. For pregnant patients with penicillin allergy, Public Health Agency of Canada guidelines call for penicillin desensitization followed by penicillin.

The rate of syphilis has been rising in Canadian women of reproductive age, thus increasing the potential for congenital syphilis, noted Goodridge.

 

Benefits of HPV Vaccine

The 9-valent HPV vaccine is recommended in Canada for patients aged 9-26 years, but those aged 27 years or older at ongoing risk for HPV exposure may receive the 9-valent HPV vaccine after discussion with their healthcare providers, noted Owen.

High-risk patients can benefit from the vaccine even though they have likely had exposure to HPV, he added. “If someone has multiple sexual partners, they have probably been exposed to HPV at some point,” said Owen. “You still could reduce a patient’s risk for being exposed to certain oncogenic strains [of HPV]. Certainly, within our practices, we’re often giving it [that is, the HPV vaccine] to higher-risk individuals, including men having sex with men.”

 

HIV Prevention

“Condoms are still a mainstay of HIV and STI prevention, but condom use is going down,” said Owen.

In a national survey commissioned by the Toronto-based organization LetsStopAIDS and including more than 1100 Canadians aged 18-24 years, 24% of respondents said they use condoms “all the time.” In 2020, by contrast, more than half (53%) of respondents reported that they use condoms all the time.

Updated Canadian guidelines on the use of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are expected to be released in 2025 and will address questions about how frequently individuals taking HIV PrEP should be tested to ensure a negative HIV result. The guidelines will also provide guidance as to whether HIV serology or HIV viral load should be captured, said Owen. Patients in Canada who take HIV PrEP are now generally screened for HIV every 3 months.

A new HIV PrEP tool that has become available to Canadian clinicians is the injectable drug cabotegravir, which is dosed every 2 months.

Owen and Goodridge reported having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Family physicians should familiarize themselves with doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis (doxy PEP) as a prescription for patients who frequently have unprotected sex (including oral, anal, and vaginal) with multiple partners, according to a presentation at the Family Medicine Forum (FMF) 2024. Doxy PEP decreases the risk for bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

Many family physicians may be unaware of doxy PEP as a means of avoiding STIs. “Doxy PEP is an incredible tool that can be used within 72 hours of unprotected sex to reduce bacterial STI risk,” said James Owen, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto in Ontario, Canada.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention point to data from three randomized, controlled trials that demonstrate the ability of doxy PEP to decrease syphilis and chlamydia infections by more than 70% and decrease gonococcal infections by about 50%, said Jordan Goodridge, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto.

 

Optimizing Doxy PEP

Doxy PEP (200 mg) is most effective when administered in the first 24 hours after unprotected sex, explained Goodridge. It is recommended that patients repeat the 200-mg dose if they are sexually active again within 24 hours.

To ensure optimal absorption of doxy PEP, the drug should not be taken with antacids or multivitamins, said Goodridge. Antacids “can bind to doxycycline and prevent it from being absorbed,” he said.

A key concern about doxy PEP is the development of antimicrobial resistance, noted Goodridge. “We don’t have long-term studies to give us an idea about what this risk is, to quantify it. The studies we have are relatively short, generally less than a year, and didn’t suggest that there was a huge risk [for antimicrobial resistance].”

Moreover, doxycycline is teratogenic, and its use is contraindicated in pregnancy, said Goodridge. If a pregnant patient is being treated for syphilis, then penicillin is the treatment of choice. For pregnant patients with penicillin allergy, Public Health Agency of Canada guidelines call for penicillin desensitization followed by penicillin.

The rate of syphilis has been rising in Canadian women of reproductive age, thus increasing the potential for congenital syphilis, noted Goodridge.

 

Benefits of HPV Vaccine

The 9-valent HPV vaccine is recommended in Canada for patients aged 9-26 years, but those aged 27 years or older at ongoing risk for HPV exposure may receive the 9-valent HPV vaccine after discussion with their healthcare providers, noted Owen.

High-risk patients can benefit from the vaccine even though they have likely had exposure to HPV, he added. “If someone has multiple sexual partners, they have probably been exposed to HPV at some point,” said Owen. “You still could reduce a patient’s risk for being exposed to certain oncogenic strains [of HPV]. Certainly, within our practices, we’re often giving it [that is, the HPV vaccine] to higher-risk individuals, including men having sex with men.”

 

HIV Prevention

“Condoms are still a mainstay of HIV and STI prevention, but condom use is going down,” said Owen.

In a national survey commissioned by the Toronto-based organization LetsStopAIDS and including more than 1100 Canadians aged 18-24 years, 24% of respondents said they use condoms “all the time.” In 2020, by contrast, more than half (53%) of respondents reported that they use condoms all the time.

Updated Canadian guidelines on the use of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are expected to be released in 2025 and will address questions about how frequently individuals taking HIV PrEP should be tested to ensure a negative HIV result. The guidelines will also provide guidance as to whether HIV serology or HIV viral load should be captured, said Owen. Patients in Canada who take HIV PrEP are now generally screened for HIV every 3 months.

A new HIV PrEP tool that has become available to Canadian clinicians is the injectable drug cabotegravir, which is dosed every 2 months.

Owen and Goodridge reported having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Family physicians should familiarize themselves with doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis (doxy PEP) as a prescription for patients who frequently have unprotected sex (including oral, anal, and vaginal) with multiple partners, according to a presentation at the Family Medicine Forum (FMF) 2024. Doxy PEP decreases the risk for bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

Many family physicians may be unaware of doxy PEP as a means of avoiding STIs. “Doxy PEP is an incredible tool that can be used within 72 hours of unprotected sex to reduce bacterial STI risk,” said James Owen, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto in Ontario, Canada.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention point to data from three randomized, controlled trials that demonstrate the ability of doxy PEP to decrease syphilis and chlamydia infections by more than 70% and decrease gonococcal infections by about 50%, said Jordan Goodridge, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto.

 

Optimizing Doxy PEP

Doxy PEP (200 mg) is most effective when administered in the first 24 hours after unprotected sex, explained Goodridge. It is recommended that patients repeat the 200-mg dose if they are sexually active again within 24 hours.

To ensure optimal absorption of doxy PEP, the drug should not be taken with antacids or multivitamins, said Goodridge. Antacids “can bind to doxycycline and prevent it from being absorbed,” he said.

A key concern about doxy PEP is the development of antimicrobial resistance, noted Goodridge. “We don’t have long-term studies to give us an idea about what this risk is, to quantify it. The studies we have are relatively short, generally less than a year, and didn’t suggest that there was a huge risk [for antimicrobial resistance].”

Moreover, doxycycline is teratogenic, and its use is contraindicated in pregnancy, said Goodridge. If a pregnant patient is being treated for syphilis, then penicillin is the treatment of choice. For pregnant patients with penicillin allergy, Public Health Agency of Canada guidelines call for penicillin desensitization followed by penicillin.

The rate of syphilis has been rising in Canadian women of reproductive age, thus increasing the potential for congenital syphilis, noted Goodridge.

 

Benefits of HPV Vaccine

The 9-valent HPV vaccine is recommended in Canada for patients aged 9-26 years, but those aged 27 years or older at ongoing risk for HPV exposure may receive the 9-valent HPV vaccine after discussion with their healthcare providers, noted Owen.

High-risk patients can benefit from the vaccine even though they have likely had exposure to HPV, he added. “If someone has multiple sexual partners, they have probably been exposed to HPV at some point,” said Owen. “You still could reduce a patient’s risk for being exposed to certain oncogenic strains [of HPV]. Certainly, within our practices, we’re often giving it [that is, the HPV vaccine] to higher-risk individuals, including men having sex with men.”

 

HIV Prevention

“Condoms are still a mainstay of HIV and STI prevention, but condom use is going down,” said Owen.

In a national survey commissioned by the Toronto-based organization LetsStopAIDS and including more than 1100 Canadians aged 18-24 years, 24% of respondents said they use condoms “all the time.” In 2020, by contrast, more than half (53%) of respondents reported that they use condoms all the time.

Updated Canadian guidelines on the use of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are expected to be released in 2025 and will address questions about how frequently individuals taking HIV PrEP should be tested to ensure a negative HIV result. The guidelines will also provide guidance as to whether HIV serology or HIV viral load should be captured, said Owen. Patients in Canada who take HIV PrEP are now generally screened for HIV every 3 months.

A new HIV PrEP tool that has become available to Canadian clinicians is the injectable drug cabotegravir, which is dosed every 2 months.

Owen and Goodridge reported having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) exceeded its 2024 goal to house 41,000 veterans, housing 47,935 veterans—an increase of 16.9% and the highest number housed in a single year since 2019. What’s more, it passed that housing goal a month early.

Ending veteran homelessness has been a priority for VA and the Biden-Harris administration. Since 2022, the VA has permanently housed nearly 134,000 homeless veterans. The number of veterans experiencing homelessness in the US has decreased by over 4% since 2020 and by more than 52% since 2010.

The marked decline in homelessness is largely due to the VA’s change in approach. Transitional housing often has followed a linear stepwise model, designed to foster housing readiness by encouraging sobriety and treatment compliance before moving the veteran to the next stage, from emergency shelter to transitional, and finally, permanent housing. While this method worked for some, it posed challenges for those with serious mental illness, substance addiction, or chronic medical conditions.

The VA began shifting its approach in 2012, adopting what it calls its north star—the evidence-based housing first approach. This strategy prioritizes getting veterans into housing as quickly as possible, skipping the intermediate transitional interventions, and then providing wraparound services such as job training and legal and education assistance. “Permanent housing is a critical tool, rather than a reward, for recovery,” says Shawn Liu, director of communications for the VA Homeless Programs Office, in a 2023 article.

A systematic review of studies from 1992 to 2017, shows that the housing first model leads to quicker exits from homelessness and greater long-term housing stability compared with traditional methods. The VA has also found that doing away with enrollment preconditions helps shorten stays among transitional housing providers, improves rates of permanent housing, and increases access to supportive services when needed.

Evidence suggests that the housing first model may reduce the use of emergency department services, hospitalizations, and hospitalized time compared with traditional treatment methods (although the meta-analysis found “considerable variability” between its examined studies). However, evidence that the Housing First model improves health outcomes associated with mental health, substance abuse, or physical health, remains inconclusive. 

In 2010, a demonstration project in the VA setting compared the housing first model with a treatment‐first program for 177 homeless veterans. The study found that the housing first model reduced time to housing placement from 223 to 35 days, significantly increased housing retention rates (98% vs 86%), and significantly reduced emergency room visits.

Over the past decade, the VA has focused on building on the strengths of the program and identifying areas for improvement, such as increasing the prevalence of recovery-oriented philosophies among service providers. “Nearly 48,000 formerly homeless veterans now have a safe, stable place to call home—and there’s nothing more important than that,” said VA Secretary Denis McDonough. “No veteran should experience homelessness in this nation they swore to defend. We are making real progress in this fight, and we will not rest until veteran homelessness is a thing of the past.”

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) exceeded its 2024 goal to house 41,000 veterans, housing 47,935 veterans—an increase of 16.9% and the highest number housed in a single year since 2019. What’s more, it passed that housing goal a month early.

Ending veteran homelessness has been a priority for VA and the Biden-Harris administration. Since 2022, the VA has permanently housed nearly 134,000 homeless veterans. The number of veterans experiencing homelessness in the US has decreased by over 4% since 2020 and by more than 52% since 2010.

The marked decline in homelessness is largely due to the VA’s change in approach. Transitional housing often has followed a linear stepwise model, designed to foster housing readiness by encouraging sobriety and treatment compliance before moving the veteran to the next stage, from emergency shelter to transitional, and finally, permanent housing. While this method worked for some, it posed challenges for those with serious mental illness, substance addiction, or chronic medical conditions.

The VA began shifting its approach in 2012, adopting what it calls its north star—the evidence-based housing first approach. This strategy prioritizes getting veterans into housing as quickly as possible, skipping the intermediate transitional interventions, and then providing wraparound services such as job training and legal and education assistance. “Permanent housing is a critical tool, rather than a reward, for recovery,” says Shawn Liu, director of communications for the VA Homeless Programs Office, in a 2023 article.

A systematic review of studies from 1992 to 2017, shows that the housing first model leads to quicker exits from homelessness and greater long-term housing stability compared with traditional methods. The VA has also found that doing away with enrollment preconditions helps shorten stays among transitional housing providers, improves rates of permanent housing, and increases access to supportive services when needed.

Evidence suggests that the housing first model may reduce the use of emergency department services, hospitalizations, and hospitalized time compared with traditional treatment methods (although the meta-analysis found “considerable variability” between its examined studies). However, evidence that the Housing First model improves health outcomes associated with mental health, substance abuse, or physical health, remains inconclusive. 

In 2010, a demonstration project in the VA setting compared the housing first model with a treatment‐first program for 177 homeless veterans. The study found that the housing first model reduced time to housing placement from 223 to 35 days, significantly increased housing retention rates (98% vs 86%), and significantly reduced emergency room visits.

Over the past decade, the VA has focused on building on the strengths of the program and identifying areas for improvement, such as increasing the prevalence of recovery-oriented philosophies among service providers. “Nearly 48,000 formerly homeless veterans now have a safe, stable place to call home—and there’s nothing more important than that,” said VA Secretary Denis McDonough. “No veteran should experience homelessness in this nation they swore to defend. We are making real progress in this fight, and we will not rest until veteran homelessness is a thing of the past.”

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) exceeded its 2024 goal to house 41,000 veterans, housing 47,935 veterans—an increase of 16.9% and the highest number housed in a single year since 2019. What’s more, it passed that housing goal a month early.

Ending veteran homelessness has been a priority for VA and the Biden-Harris administration. Since 2022, the VA has permanently housed nearly 134,000 homeless veterans. The number of veterans experiencing homelessness in the US has decreased by over 4% since 2020 and by more than 52% since 2010.

The marked decline in homelessness is largely due to the VA’s change in approach. Transitional housing often has followed a linear stepwise model, designed to foster housing readiness by encouraging sobriety and treatment compliance before moving the veteran to the next stage, from emergency shelter to transitional, and finally, permanent housing. While this method worked for some, it posed challenges for those with serious mental illness, substance addiction, or chronic medical conditions.

The VA began shifting its approach in 2012, adopting what it calls its north star—the evidence-based housing first approach. This strategy prioritizes getting veterans into housing as quickly as possible, skipping the intermediate transitional interventions, and then providing wraparound services such as job training and legal and education assistance. “Permanent housing is a critical tool, rather than a reward, for recovery,” says Shawn Liu, director of communications for the VA Homeless Programs Office, in a 2023 article.

A systematic review of studies from 1992 to 2017, shows that the housing first model leads to quicker exits from homelessness and greater long-term housing stability compared with traditional methods. The VA has also found that doing away with enrollment preconditions helps shorten stays among transitional housing providers, improves rates of permanent housing, and increases access to supportive services when needed.

Evidence suggests that the housing first model may reduce the use of emergency department services, hospitalizations, and hospitalized time compared with traditional treatment methods (although the meta-analysis found “considerable variability” between its examined studies). However, evidence that the Housing First model improves health outcomes associated with mental health, substance abuse, or physical health, remains inconclusive. 

In 2010, a demonstration project in the VA setting compared the housing first model with a treatment‐first program for 177 homeless veterans. The study found that the housing first model reduced time to housing placement from 223 to 35 days, significantly increased housing retention rates (98% vs 86%), and significantly reduced emergency room visits.

Over the past decade, the VA has focused on building on the strengths of the program and identifying areas for improvement, such as increasing the prevalence of recovery-oriented philosophies among service providers. “Nearly 48,000 formerly homeless veterans now have a safe, stable place to call home—and there’s nothing more important than that,” said VA Secretary Denis McDonough. “No veteran should experience homelessness in this nation they swore to defend. We are making real progress in this fight, and we will not rest until veteran homelessness is a thing of the past.”

Could assessing the well-being of older patients create better treatment plans?

Researchers with the US Department of Veterans Affairs posit that doing so just might improve patient quality of life.

In an article in Medical Care, Dawne Vogt, PhD, and her colleagues described two surveys of well-being developed for use in clinical settings.

“Well-Being Signs” (WBS), a 1-minute screening, asks patients about how satisfied they are with the most important parts of their daily life, which could include time with family. It also asks how regularly involved they are in the activities and their level of functioning.

“Well-Being Brief” (WBB) is self-administered and asks more in-depth questions about finances, health, social relationships, and vocation. Clinicians can use the tool to make referrals to appropriate services like counseling or resources like senior centers.

“They’re not things that we’ve historically paid a lot of attention to, at least in the healthcare setting,” said Vogt, a research psychologist in the Women’s Health Sciences Division of the VA Boston Healthcare System in Massachusetts. “A growing body of research shows that they have really big implications for health.”

The two approaches stem from an increased awareness of the relationship between social determinants of health and outcomes. Both screenings can be implemented more effectively in a clinical setting than other measures because of their brevity and ease of use, she said.

Vogt shared that anecdotally, she finds patients are pleasantly surprised by the questionnaires “because they’re being seen in a way that they don’t always feel like they’re seen.”

Vogt said that the two well-being measurements are more nuanced than standard screenings for depression.

“A measure of depression tells you something much more narrow than a measure of well-being tells you,” she said, adding that identifying problem areas early can help prevent developing mental health disorders. For example, Vogt said that veterans with higher well-being are less likely to develop posttraumatic stress disorder when exposed to trauma.

The WBS has been validated, while the WBB questionnaire awaits final testing.

James Michail, MD, a family and geriatric physician with Providence Health & Services in Los Angeles, California, said he views the well-being screeners as launching points into discussing whether a treatment is enhancing or inhibiting a patient’s life.

“We have screenings for everything else but not for wellness, and the goal of care isn’t necessarily always treatment,” Michail said. “It’s taking the whole person into consideration. There’s a person behind the disease.”

Kendra Segura, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Los Angeles, said she is open to using a well-being screener. Usually, building repertoire with a patient takes time, and sometimes only then can it allow for a more candid assessment of well-being.

“Over the course of several visits, that is when patients open up,” she said. “It’s when that starts to happen where they start to tell you about their well-being. It’s not an easy thing to establish.”

The authors of the article reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Could assessing the well-being of older patients create better treatment plans?

Researchers with the US Department of Veterans Affairs posit that doing so just might improve patient quality of life.

In an article in Medical Care, Dawne Vogt, PhD, and her colleagues described two surveys of well-being developed for use in clinical settings.

“Well-Being Signs” (WBS), a 1-minute screening, asks patients about how satisfied they are with the most important parts of their daily life, which could include time with family. It also asks how regularly involved they are in the activities and their level of functioning.

“Well-Being Brief” (WBB) is self-administered and asks more in-depth questions about finances, health, social relationships, and vocation. Clinicians can use the tool to make referrals to appropriate services like counseling or resources like senior centers.

“They’re not things that we’ve historically paid a lot of attention to, at least in the healthcare setting,” said Vogt, a research psychologist in the Women’s Health Sciences Division of the VA Boston Healthcare System in Massachusetts. “A growing body of research shows that they have really big implications for health.”

The two approaches stem from an increased awareness of the relationship between social determinants of health and outcomes. Both screenings can be implemented more effectively in a clinical setting than other measures because of their brevity and ease of use, she said.

Vogt shared that anecdotally, she finds patients are pleasantly surprised by the questionnaires “because they’re being seen in a way that they don’t always feel like they’re seen.”

Vogt said that the two well-being measurements are more nuanced than standard screenings for depression.

“A measure of depression tells you something much more narrow than a measure of well-being tells you,” she said, adding that identifying problem areas early can help prevent developing mental health disorders. For example, Vogt said that veterans with higher well-being are less likely to develop posttraumatic stress disorder when exposed to trauma.

The WBS has been validated, while the WBB questionnaire awaits final testing.

James Michail, MD, a family and geriatric physician with Providence Health & Services in Los Angeles, California, said he views the well-being screeners as launching points into discussing whether a treatment is enhancing or inhibiting a patient’s life.

“We have screenings for everything else but not for wellness, and the goal of care isn’t necessarily always treatment,” Michail said. “It’s taking the whole person into consideration. There’s a person behind the disease.”

Kendra Segura, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Los Angeles, said she is open to using a well-being screener. Usually, building repertoire with a patient takes time, and sometimes only then can it allow for a more candid assessment of well-being.

“Over the course of several visits, that is when patients open up,” she said. “It’s when that starts to happen where they start to tell you about their well-being. It’s not an easy thing to establish.”

The authors of the article reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Could assessing the well-being of older patients create better treatment plans?

Researchers with the US Department of Veterans Affairs posit that doing so just might improve patient quality of life.

In an article in Medical Care, Dawne Vogt, PhD, and her colleagues described two surveys of well-being developed for use in clinical settings.

“Well-Being Signs” (WBS), a 1-minute screening, asks patients about how satisfied they are with the most important parts of their daily life, which could include time with family. It also asks how regularly involved they are in the activities and their level of functioning.

“Well-Being Brief” (WBB) is self-administered and asks more in-depth questions about finances, health, social relationships, and vocation. Clinicians can use the tool to make referrals to appropriate services like counseling or resources like senior centers.

“They’re not things that we’ve historically paid a lot of attention to, at least in the healthcare setting,” said Vogt, a research psychologist in the Women’s Health Sciences Division of the VA Boston Healthcare System in Massachusetts. “A growing body of research shows that they have really big implications for health.”

The two approaches stem from an increased awareness of the relationship between social determinants of health and outcomes. Both screenings can be implemented more effectively in a clinical setting than other measures because of their brevity and ease of use, she said.

Vogt shared that anecdotally, she finds patients are pleasantly surprised by the questionnaires “because they’re being seen in a way that they don’t always feel like they’re seen.”

Vogt said that the two well-being measurements are more nuanced than standard screenings for depression.

“A measure of depression tells you something much more narrow than a measure of well-being tells you,” she said, adding that identifying problem areas early can help prevent developing mental health disorders. For example, Vogt said that veterans with higher well-being are less likely to develop posttraumatic stress disorder when exposed to trauma.

The WBS has been validated, while the WBB questionnaire awaits final testing.

James Michail, MD, a family and geriatric physician with Providence Health & Services in Los Angeles, California, said he views the well-being screeners as launching points into discussing whether a treatment is enhancing or inhibiting a patient’s life.

“We have screenings for everything else but not for wellness, and the goal of care isn’t necessarily always treatment,” Michail said. “It’s taking the whole person into consideration. There’s a person behind the disease.”

Kendra Segura, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Los Angeles, said she is open to using a well-being screener. Usually, building repertoire with a patient takes time, and sometimes only then can it allow for a more candid assessment of well-being.

“Over the course of several visits, that is when patients open up,” she said. “It’s when that starts to happen where they start to tell you about their well-being. It’s not an easy thing to establish.”

The authors of the article reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with stages I-III screen-detected colorectal cancer (CRC) have better disease-free survival rates than those with non-screen–detected CRC, an effect that was independent of patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with screen-detected CRC have better stage-specific overall survival rates than those with non-screen–detected CRC, but the impact of screening on recurrence rates is unknown.
• A retrospective study analyzed patients with CRC (age, 55-75 years) from the Netherlands Cancer Registry diagnosed by screening or not.
• Screen-detected CRC were identified in patients who underwent colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT), whereas non-screen–detected CRC were those that were detected in symptomatic patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included 3725 patients with CRC (39.6% women), of which 1652 (44.3%) and 2073 (55.7%) patients had screen-detected and non-screen–detected CRC, respectively; CRC was distributed approximately evenly across stages I-III (35.3%, 27.1%, and 37.6%, respectively).
• Screen-detected CRC had significantly higher 3-year rates of disease-free survival compared with non-screen–detected CRC (87.8% vs 77.2%; P < .001).
• The improvement in disease-free survival rates for screen-detected CRC was particularly notable in stage III cases, with rates of 77.9% vs 66.7% for non-screen–detected CRC (P < .001).
• Screen-detected CRC was more often detected at an earlier stage than non-screen–detected CRC (stage I or II: 72.4% vs 54.4%; P < .001).
• Across all stages, detection of CRC by screening was associated with a 33% lower risk for recurrence (P < .001) independent of patient age, gender, tumor location, stage, and treatment.
• Recurrence was the strongest predictor of overall survival across the study population (hazard ratio, 15.90; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Apart from CRC stage, mode of detection could be used to assess an individual’s risk for recurrence and survival, which may contribute to a more personalized treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sanne J.K.F. Pluimers, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center/Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The follow-up time was relatively short, restricting the ability to evaluate the long-term effects of screening on CRC recurrence. This study focused on recurrence solely within the FIT-based screening program, and the results were not generalizable to other screening methods. Due to Dutch privacy law, data on CRC-specific causes of death were unavailable, which may have affected the specificity of survival outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no funding source for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.