Federal Practitioner

Researchers point the finger squarely at starting salaries for physicians as the reason women earn less than their male peers in academic medicine, according to a new study. Worse still, the earning potential of women in most specialties is $214,440 (or 10%) less than their male colleagues over the course of the first 10 years of their careers in academic medicine.

Among the vast majority of subspecialties, women’s starting salaries and their salaries 10 years into their careers were lower than their male colleagues in academic medicine, per the study in JAMA Network Open.

Eva Catenaccio, MD, an epilepsy fellow at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the lead author of the study, told this news organization that the gender disparities in earning potential are “pervasive in academic medicine.” These earnings disparities, which occur in nearly all subspecialties and can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars in the first 10 years of an academic physician’s career, “are largely the result of gender differences in annual salary that start immediately after training,” she said.

Changing the timing of academic promotion and equalizing starting salary and salary growth can help close the salary gap, said Dr. Catenaccio.

The study also reveals that women could face a 1-year delay in promotion from assistant to associate professor, compared with men. This delay could reduce female physicians’ earning potential by a 10-year median of $26,042 (or 2%), whereas failure to be promoted at all could decrease the 10-year earning potential by a median of $218,724 (or 13%).

Across medicine more broadly, male physicians continue to earn 35% more than their female colleagues, according to the 2021 Medscape Physician Compensation Report. The biggest differences in take-home pay exist between male and female specialists, per the report. On average, male physicians earn $376,000, while women’s take-home pay is $283,000.
 

Medical schools and hospital leaders have a role to play

The earning potential during the first 10 years of post-training employment by gender was the most dramatic in neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and cardiology, per the study. Three subspecialties where women and men have similar earning potential include pediatric nephrology, pediatric neurology, and pediatric rheumatology.

The coauthors note that it’s commonly understood that women don’t negotiate as often or as successfully as their male colleagues. A 2019 study in JAMA Surgery of 606 male and female surgery residents revealed that while residents of both genders shared similar career goals, women had lower future salary expectations and a significantly more negative view of the salary negotiation process.

Dr. Catenaccio and her coauthors acknowledge that negotiation skills and financial literacy should be taught during medical school and postgraduate training. “However, the onus for ensuring salary equity should not fall on the individual candidate alone; rather, departmental and hospital leadership should take responsibility to ensure uniform starting salaries and prevent gender-based inequalities,” they wrote in the study.

“We hope that this study encourages academic medical institutions to increase transparency and equity around compensation, particularly for junior faculty,” Dr. Catenaccio said in an interview. “This will require both ensuring equal starting salaries and providing periodic adjustments throughout individuals’ careers to prevent divergence in earning potential by gender or any other individual characteristics.”

Harold Simon, MD, MBA, vice chair for faculty for the department of pediatrics and professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization that “[i]ncreased transparency around compensation can enable women to advocate for equitable pay. However, the burden for ensuring equity should not fall on individuals but instead must be the primary responsibility of academic institutions.”

Specifically, Dr. Simon advocates for hospital leaders to “ensure equity among providers including compensation [as] a crucial part of maintaining a diverse workforce and, ultimately, providing balanced access to health care for patients.”

In addition, the authors call for periodic compensation evaluations and adjustments to help prevent gender-based salary differences among female and male physicians in academia. “This is absolutely necessary, both to develop future compensation plans and to address any pre-existing gender-based salary inequities for those women currently well into their careers,” they wrote in the study.

Data analysis was conducted from March to May 2021. Researchers used models to estimate the impacts of promotion timing and potential interventions, which include equalizing starting salaries and annual salary rates.

The study included compensation data for 24,593 female and 29,886 male academic physicians across 45 subspecialties. It relied on publicly available data from the Association of American Medical Colleges’ annual Medical School Faculty Salary Survey report.

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

Researchers point the finger squarely at starting salaries for physicians as the reason women earn less than their male peers in academic medicine, according to a new study. Worse still, the earning potential of women in most specialties is $214,440 (or 10%) less than their male colleagues over the course of the first 10 years of their careers in academic medicine.

Among the vast majority of subspecialties, women’s starting salaries and their salaries 10 years into their careers were lower than their male colleagues in academic medicine, per the study in JAMA Network Open.

Eva Catenaccio, MD, an epilepsy fellow at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the lead author of the study, told this news organization that the gender disparities in earning potential are “pervasive in academic medicine.” These earnings disparities, which occur in nearly all subspecialties and can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars in the first 10 years of an academic physician’s career, “are largely the result of gender differences in annual salary that start immediately after training,” she said.

Changing the timing of academic promotion and equalizing starting salary and salary growth can help close the salary gap, said Dr. Catenaccio.

The study also reveals that women could face a 1-year delay in promotion from assistant to associate professor, compared with men. This delay could reduce female physicians’ earning potential by a 10-year median of $26,042 (or 2%), whereas failure to be promoted at all could decrease the 10-year earning potential by a median of $218,724 (or 13%).

Across medicine more broadly, male physicians continue to earn 35% more than their female colleagues, according to the 2021 Medscape Physician Compensation Report. The biggest differences in take-home pay exist between male and female specialists, per the report. On average, male physicians earn $376,000, while women’s take-home pay is $283,000.
 

Medical schools and hospital leaders have a role to play

The earning potential during the first 10 years of post-training employment by gender was the most dramatic in neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and cardiology, per the study. Three subspecialties where women and men have similar earning potential include pediatric nephrology, pediatric neurology, and pediatric rheumatology.

The coauthors note that it’s commonly understood that women don’t negotiate as often or as successfully as their male colleagues. A 2019 study in JAMA Surgery of 606 male and female surgery residents revealed that while residents of both genders shared similar career goals, women had lower future salary expectations and a significantly more negative view of the salary negotiation process.

Dr. Catenaccio and her coauthors acknowledge that negotiation skills and financial literacy should be taught during medical school and postgraduate training. “However, the onus for ensuring salary equity should not fall on the individual candidate alone; rather, departmental and hospital leadership should take responsibility to ensure uniform starting salaries and prevent gender-based inequalities,” they wrote in the study.

“We hope that this study encourages academic medical institutions to increase transparency and equity around compensation, particularly for junior faculty,” Dr. Catenaccio said in an interview. “This will require both ensuring equal starting salaries and providing periodic adjustments throughout individuals’ careers to prevent divergence in earning potential by gender or any other individual characteristics.”

Harold Simon, MD, MBA, vice chair for faculty for the department of pediatrics and professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization that “[i]ncreased transparency around compensation can enable women to advocate for equitable pay. However, the burden for ensuring equity should not fall on individuals but instead must be the primary responsibility of academic institutions.”

Specifically, Dr. Simon advocates for hospital leaders to “ensure equity among providers including compensation [as] a crucial part of maintaining a diverse workforce and, ultimately, providing balanced access to health care for patients.”

In addition, the authors call for periodic compensation evaluations and adjustments to help prevent gender-based salary differences among female and male physicians in academia. “This is absolutely necessary, both to develop future compensation plans and to address any pre-existing gender-based salary inequities for those women currently well into their careers,” they wrote in the study.

Data analysis was conducted from March to May 2021. Researchers used models to estimate the impacts of promotion timing and potential interventions, which include equalizing starting salaries and annual salary rates.

The study included compensation data for 24,593 female and 29,886 male academic physicians across 45 subspecialties. It relied on publicly available data from the Association of American Medical Colleges’ annual Medical School Faculty Salary Survey report.

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

Researchers point the finger squarely at starting salaries for physicians as the reason women earn less than their male peers in academic medicine, according to a new study. Worse still, the earning potential of women in most specialties is $214,440 (or 10%) less than their male colleagues over the course of the first 10 years of their careers in academic medicine.

Among the vast majority of subspecialties, women’s starting salaries and their salaries 10 years into their careers were lower than their male colleagues in academic medicine, per the study in JAMA Network Open.

Eva Catenaccio, MD, an epilepsy fellow at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the lead author of the study, told this news organization that the gender disparities in earning potential are “pervasive in academic medicine.” These earnings disparities, which occur in nearly all subspecialties and can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars in the first 10 years of an academic physician’s career, “are largely the result of gender differences in annual salary that start immediately after training,” she said.

Changing the timing of academic promotion and equalizing starting salary and salary growth can help close the salary gap, said Dr. Catenaccio.

The study also reveals that women could face a 1-year delay in promotion from assistant to associate professor, compared with men. This delay could reduce female physicians’ earning potential by a 10-year median of $26,042 (or 2%), whereas failure to be promoted at all could decrease the 10-year earning potential by a median of $218,724 (or 13%).

Across medicine more broadly, male physicians continue to earn 35% more than their female colleagues, according to the 2021 Medscape Physician Compensation Report. The biggest differences in take-home pay exist between male and female specialists, per the report. On average, male physicians earn $376,000, while women’s take-home pay is $283,000.
 

Medical schools and hospital leaders have a role to play

The earning potential during the first 10 years of post-training employment by gender was the most dramatic in neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and cardiology, per the study. Three subspecialties where women and men have similar earning potential include pediatric nephrology, pediatric neurology, and pediatric rheumatology.

The coauthors note that it’s commonly understood that women don’t negotiate as often or as successfully as their male colleagues. A 2019 study in JAMA Surgery of 606 male and female surgery residents revealed that while residents of both genders shared similar career goals, women had lower future salary expectations and a significantly more negative view of the salary negotiation process.

Dr. Catenaccio and her coauthors acknowledge that negotiation skills and financial literacy should be taught during medical school and postgraduate training. “However, the onus for ensuring salary equity should not fall on the individual candidate alone; rather, departmental and hospital leadership should take responsibility to ensure uniform starting salaries and prevent gender-based inequalities,” they wrote in the study.

“We hope that this study encourages academic medical institutions to increase transparency and equity around compensation, particularly for junior faculty,” Dr. Catenaccio said in an interview. “This will require both ensuring equal starting salaries and providing periodic adjustments throughout individuals’ careers to prevent divergence in earning potential by gender or any other individual characteristics.”

Harold Simon, MD, MBA, vice chair for faculty for the department of pediatrics and professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization that “[i]ncreased transparency around compensation can enable women to advocate for equitable pay. However, the burden for ensuring equity should not fall on individuals but instead must be the primary responsibility of academic institutions.”

Specifically, Dr. Simon advocates for hospital leaders to “ensure equity among providers including compensation [as] a crucial part of maintaining a diverse workforce and, ultimately, providing balanced access to health care for patients.”

In addition, the authors call for periodic compensation evaluations and adjustments to help prevent gender-based salary differences among female and male physicians in academia. “This is absolutely necessary, both to develop future compensation plans and to address any pre-existing gender-based salary inequities for those women currently well into their careers,” they wrote in the study.

Data analysis was conducted from March to May 2021. Researchers used models to estimate the impacts of promotion timing and potential interventions, which include equalizing starting salaries and annual salary rates.

The study included compensation data for 24,593 female and 29,886 male academic physicians across 45 subspecialties. It relied on publicly available data from the Association of American Medical Colleges’ annual Medical School Faculty Salary Survey report.

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

LAS VEGAS – In the opinion of Christoph U. Correll, MD, tardive dyskinesia (TD) “has been somewhat forgotten” by psychiatrists because the risk of patients developing the condition is considered to be significantly lower with second-generation antipsychotics compared with first-generation antipsychotics.

“But this does not seem to always be the case, because there is still a risk of TD, and we need to monitor for it,” Dr. Correll, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine at The Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “It is important to minimize the risk of TD by educating patients and caregivers about the risks of and alternatives to antipsychotic medication and early signs of TD.”

First described in 1957, TD is characterized by involuntary repetitive but irregular movements, mostly in the oral, lingual, and buccal regions – such as tongue protruding, puckering, chewing, and grimacing. Less often, there are movements in the hands, legs, feet, and torso. Symptoms can include mannerisms, stereotypies, tics, myoclonus, dystonias, tremor, and akathisia. “TD can be severe, persistent, and have medical and psychosocial consequences,” Dr. Correll said. “It can occur in untreated patients, but treatment with dopamine blocking agents – antipsychotics and metoclopramide – increases risk for TD.”

Differential diagnoses to consider include morbus Huntington, benign familial Chorea, and Sydenham’s Chorea. Less frequent causes of TD include metabolic conditions such as uremia, hyponatremia, hypernatremia, hypoparathyroidism, and hyperparathyroidism. “Those would need to be ruled out during the physical exam,” he said. There can also be inflammatory causes of TD such as herpes simplex virus, varicella, measles, mumps, and rubella.

A standard measure for TD diagnosis is the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS), an observer-rated 12-item anchored scale that takes 5-10 minutes to administer. However, the AIMS on its own does not diagnose TD. In 1982, researchers developed three diagnostic criteria for TD: At least 3 months of cumulative antipsychotic drug exposure; presence of at least moderate abnormal involuntary movements in one or more body area(s) or mild movements in two or more body areas, and absence of other conditions that might produce involuntary movements (Arch Gen Psychiatry 1982;39:486-7).

The impact of TD on everyday functioning depends on anatomic location as well as severity, Dr. Correll continued. The condition can cause impairments to speech, verbal communication, dentition, temporomandibular joint pain/myalgia, swallowing difficulties, and fine motor skills including instrumental activities of daily living and written communication. Truncal and lower extremity TD can affect gait, posture and postural stability, strength, power flexibility, physical capacity, and one’s ability to exercise. “There are also psychological impairments,” he said. “Patients can develop different awareness so they become self-conscious; there can be cognitive abnormalities, and they can become more anxious or [have an] increased sense of paranoia, isolation, stigma, social and/or educational/vocational impairment.”

According to research by Dr. Correll and colleagues, unmodifiable patient-related risk factors for TD include older age, female sex, and being of white or African descent (J Neurol Sci 2018 June 15; 389:21-7). Unmodifiable illness-related risk factors include longer duration of illness, intellectual disability and brain damage, negative symptoms in schizophrenia, mood disorders, cognitive symptoms in mood disorders, and gene polymorphisms involving antipsychotic metabolism and dopamine functioning. Modifiable comorbidity-related factors include diabetes, smoking, and alcohol/substance abuse, while modifiable treatment-related factors include dopamine receptor blockers, higher cumulative and current antipsychotic dose or plasma levels, early parkinsonian side effects, treatment-emergent akathisia, and anticholinergic co-treatment. In a meta-analysis of 41 studies that aimed to determine the prevalence of TD, the mean age of the 11,493 patients was 43, 66% were male, and 77% had schizophrenia spectrum disorders (J Clin Psychiatry. 2017 Mar;78[3]:e264-78). The global mean TD prevalence was 25%, but the rates were lower with patients on current treatment with second-generation antipsychotics compared with those on first-generation antipsychotics (21% vs. 30%, respectively).

According to Dr. Correll, strategies for preventing TD include confirming and documenting the indication for dopamine antagonist antipsychotic medications, using conservative maintenance doses, and considering the use of SGAs, especially in those at high risk for EPS (extrapyramidal symptoms). “Don’t go too high [with the dose],” he said. “Stay below the EPS threshold. Inform patients and caregivers of the risk of TD and assess for incipient signs regularly using the AIMS.”

Treatment options include discontinuing antipsychotics, adjusting their dose, or switching patients from a first-generation antipsychotic to a second-generation antipsychotic. Supplementation with antioxidants/radical scavengers such as vitamin E, vitamin B₆, ginkgo biloba, and fish oil “can be tried, but have limited evidence, as is the case for melatonin.” Other options include clonazepam, amantadine, donepezil, and tetrabenazine, a reversible and specific inhibitor of vesicular monoamine transporter-2 (VMAT-2), a transporter that packages neurotransmitters (preferentially dopamine) into vesicles for release into the synapse and was approved in 2008 as an orphan drug for the treatment of choreiform movements associated with Huntington’s disease. “Neurologists have using tetrabenazine off-label for TD, but in schizophrenia and other psychiatric care, we rarely use it because it has to be given three times a day and it has a black box warning for depression and suicidality,” he said.

Dr. Correll noted that the Food and Drug Administration approval of two more recent VMAT-2 inhibitors – deutetrabenazine (Austedo) and valbenazine (Ingrezza) – provides an evidence-based care option for the effective management of TD. Deutetrabenazine requires titration over several weeks and twice-daily dosing, while valbenazine can reach the maximum dose by the beginning of week 2 and is dosed once daily. Deutetrabenazine should be taken with food, which is not required valbenazine.

“Both VMAT-2 inhibitors are generally well tolerated and have a positive benefit-risk ratio,” he said. “Both are recommended by the APA guidelines as the preferred and only evidence-based treatment for TD.”

Dr. Correll reported that he has received honoraria from and has been an advisory board member for numerous pharmaceutical companies. He has also received grant support from Janssen, the National Institute of Mental Health, the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Takeda, and the Thrasher Foundation.

LAS VEGAS – In the opinion of Christoph U. Correll, MD, tardive dyskinesia (TD) “has been somewhat forgotten” by psychiatrists because the risk of patients developing the condition is considered to be significantly lower with second-generation antipsychotics compared with first-generation antipsychotics.

“But this does not seem to always be the case, because there is still a risk of TD, and we need to monitor for it,” Dr. Correll, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine at The Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “It is important to minimize the risk of TD by educating patients and caregivers about the risks of and alternatives to antipsychotic medication and early signs of TD.”

First described in 1957, TD is characterized by involuntary repetitive but irregular movements, mostly in the oral, lingual, and buccal regions – such as tongue protruding, puckering, chewing, and grimacing. Less often, there are movements in the hands, legs, feet, and torso. Symptoms can include mannerisms, stereotypies, tics, myoclonus, dystonias, tremor, and akathisia. “TD can be severe, persistent, and have medical and psychosocial consequences,” Dr. Correll said. “It can occur in untreated patients, but treatment with dopamine blocking agents – antipsychotics and metoclopramide – increases risk for TD.”

Differential diagnoses to consider include morbus Huntington, benign familial Chorea, and Sydenham’s Chorea. Less frequent causes of TD include metabolic conditions such as uremia, hyponatremia, hypernatremia, hypoparathyroidism, and hyperparathyroidism. “Those would need to be ruled out during the physical exam,” he said. There can also be inflammatory causes of TD such as herpes simplex virus, varicella, measles, mumps, and rubella.

A standard measure for TD diagnosis is the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS), an observer-rated 12-item anchored scale that takes 5-10 minutes to administer. However, the AIMS on its own does not diagnose TD. In 1982, researchers developed three diagnostic criteria for TD: At least 3 months of cumulative antipsychotic drug exposure; presence of at least moderate abnormal involuntary movements in one or more body area(s) or mild movements in two or more body areas, and absence of other conditions that might produce involuntary movements (Arch Gen Psychiatry 1982;39:486-7).

The impact of TD on everyday functioning depends on anatomic location as well as severity, Dr. Correll continued. The condition can cause impairments to speech, verbal communication, dentition, temporomandibular joint pain/myalgia, swallowing difficulties, and fine motor skills including instrumental activities of daily living and written communication. Truncal and lower extremity TD can affect gait, posture and postural stability, strength, power flexibility, physical capacity, and one’s ability to exercise. “There are also psychological impairments,” he said. “Patients can develop different awareness so they become self-conscious; there can be cognitive abnormalities, and they can become more anxious or [have an] increased sense of paranoia, isolation, stigma, social and/or educational/vocational impairment.”

According to research by Dr. Correll and colleagues, unmodifiable patient-related risk factors for TD include older age, female sex, and being of white or African descent (J Neurol Sci 2018 June 15; 389:21-7). Unmodifiable illness-related risk factors include longer duration of illness, intellectual disability and brain damage, negative symptoms in schizophrenia, mood disorders, cognitive symptoms in mood disorders, and gene polymorphisms involving antipsychotic metabolism and dopamine functioning. Modifiable comorbidity-related factors include diabetes, smoking, and alcohol/substance abuse, while modifiable treatment-related factors include dopamine receptor blockers, higher cumulative and current antipsychotic dose or plasma levels, early parkinsonian side effects, treatment-emergent akathisia, and anticholinergic co-treatment. In a meta-analysis of 41 studies that aimed to determine the prevalence of TD, the mean age of the 11,493 patients was 43, 66% were male, and 77% had schizophrenia spectrum disorders (J Clin Psychiatry. 2017 Mar;78[3]:e264-78). The global mean TD prevalence was 25%, but the rates were lower with patients on current treatment with second-generation antipsychotics compared with those on first-generation antipsychotics (21% vs. 30%, respectively).

According to Dr. Correll, strategies for preventing TD include confirming and documenting the indication for dopamine antagonist antipsychotic medications, using conservative maintenance doses, and considering the use of SGAs, especially in those at high risk for EPS (extrapyramidal symptoms). “Don’t go too high [with the dose],” he said. “Stay below the EPS threshold. Inform patients and caregivers of the risk of TD and assess for incipient signs regularly using the AIMS.”

Treatment options include discontinuing antipsychotics, adjusting their dose, or switching patients from a first-generation antipsychotic to a second-generation antipsychotic. Supplementation with antioxidants/radical scavengers such as vitamin E, vitamin B₆, ginkgo biloba, and fish oil “can be tried, but have limited evidence, as is the case for melatonin.” Other options include clonazepam, amantadine, donepezil, and tetrabenazine, a reversible and specific inhibitor of vesicular monoamine transporter-2 (VMAT-2), a transporter that packages neurotransmitters (preferentially dopamine) into vesicles for release into the synapse and was approved in 2008 as an orphan drug for the treatment of choreiform movements associated with Huntington’s disease. “Neurologists have using tetrabenazine off-label for TD, but in schizophrenia and other psychiatric care, we rarely use it because it has to be given three times a day and it has a black box warning for depression and suicidality,” he said.

Dr. Correll noted that the Food and Drug Administration approval of two more recent VMAT-2 inhibitors – deutetrabenazine (Austedo) and valbenazine (Ingrezza) – provides an evidence-based care option for the effective management of TD. Deutetrabenazine requires titration over several weeks and twice-daily dosing, while valbenazine can reach the maximum dose by the beginning of week 2 and is dosed once daily. Deutetrabenazine should be taken with food, which is not required valbenazine.

“Both VMAT-2 inhibitors are generally well tolerated and have a positive benefit-risk ratio,” he said. “Both are recommended by the APA guidelines as the preferred and only evidence-based treatment for TD.”

Dr. Correll reported that he has received honoraria from and has been an advisory board member for numerous pharmaceutical companies. He has also received grant support from Janssen, the National Institute of Mental Health, the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Takeda, and the Thrasher Foundation.

LAS VEGAS – In the opinion of Christoph U. Correll, MD, tardive dyskinesia (TD) “has been somewhat forgotten” by psychiatrists because the risk of patients developing the condition is considered to be significantly lower with second-generation antipsychotics compared with first-generation antipsychotics.

“But this does not seem to always be the case, because there is still a risk of TD, and we need to monitor for it,” Dr. Correll, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine at The Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “It is important to minimize the risk of TD by educating patients and caregivers about the risks of and alternatives to antipsychotic medication and early signs of TD.”

First described in 1957, TD is characterized by involuntary repetitive but irregular movements, mostly in the oral, lingual, and buccal regions – such as tongue protruding, puckering, chewing, and grimacing. Less often, there are movements in the hands, legs, feet, and torso. Symptoms can include mannerisms, stereotypies, tics, myoclonus, dystonias, tremor, and akathisia. “TD can be severe, persistent, and have medical and psychosocial consequences,” Dr. Correll said. “It can occur in untreated patients, but treatment with dopamine blocking agents – antipsychotics and metoclopramide – increases risk for TD.”

Differential diagnoses to consider include morbus Huntington, benign familial Chorea, and Sydenham’s Chorea. Less frequent causes of TD include metabolic conditions such as uremia, hyponatremia, hypernatremia, hypoparathyroidism, and hyperparathyroidism. “Those would need to be ruled out during the physical exam,” he said. There can also be inflammatory causes of TD such as herpes simplex virus, varicella, measles, mumps, and rubella.

A standard measure for TD diagnosis is the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS), an observer-rated 12-item anchored scale that takes 5-10 minutes to administer. However, the AIMS on its own does not diagnose TD. In 1982, researchers developed three diagnostic criteria for TD: At least 3 months of cumulative antipsychotic drug exposure; presence of at least moderate abnormal involuntary movements in one or more body area(s) or mild movements in two or more body areas, and absence of other conditions that might produce involuntary movements (Arch Gen Psychiatry 1982;39:486-7).

The impact of TD on everyday functioning depends on anatomic location as well as severity, Dr. Correll continued. The condition can cause impairments to speech, verbal communication, dentition, temporomandibular joint pain/myalgia, swallowing difficulties, and fine motor skills including instrumental activities of daily living and written communication. Truncal and lower extremity TD can affect gait, posture and postural stability, strength, power flexibility, physical capacity, and one’s ability to exercise. “There are also psychological impairments,” he said. “Patients can develop different awareness so they become self-conscious; there can be cognitive abnormalities, and they can become more anxious or [have an] increased sense of paranoia, isolation, stigma, social and/or educational/vocational impairment.”

According to research by Dr. Correll and colleagues, unmodifiable patient-related risk factors for TD include older age, female sex, and being of white or African descent (J Neurol Sci 2018 June 15; 389:21-7). Unmodifiable illness-related risk factors include longer duration of illness, intellectual disability and brain damage, negative symptoms in schizophrenia, mood disorders, cognitive symptoms in mood disorders, and gene polymorphisms involving antipsychotic metabolism and dopamine functioning. Modifiable comorbidity-related factors include diabetes, smoking, and alcohol/substance abuse, while modifiable treatment-related factors include dopamine receptor blockers, higher cumulative and current antipsychotic dose or plasma levels, early parkinsonian side effects, treatment-emergent akathisia, and anticholinergic co-treatment. In a meta-analysis of 41 studies that aimed to determine the prevalence of TD, the mean age of the 11,493 patients was 43, 66% were male, and 77% had schizophrenia spectrum disorders (J Clin Psychiatry. 2017 Mar;78[3]:e264-78). The global mean TD prevalence was 25%, but the rates were lower with patients on current treatment with second-generation antipsychotics compared with those on first-generation antipsychotics (21% vs. 30%, respectively).

According to Dr. Correll, strategies for preventing TD include confirming and documenting the indication for dopamine antagonist antipsychotic medications, using conservative maintenance doses, and considering the use of SGAs, especially in those at high risk for EPS (extrapyramidal symptoms). “Don’t go too high [with the dose],” he said. “Stay below the EPS threshold. Inform patients and caregivers of the risk of TD and assess for incipient signs regularly using the AIMS.”

Treatment options include discontinuing antipsychotics, adjusting their dose, or switching patients from a first-generation antipsychotic to a second-generation antipsychotic. Supplementation with antioxidants/radical scavengers such as vitamin E, vitamin B₆, ginkgo biloba, and fish oil “can be tried, but have limited evidence, as is the case for melatonin.” Other options include clonazepam, amantadine, donepezil, and tetrabenazine, a reversible and specific inhibitor of vesicular monoamine transporter-2 (VMAT-2), a transporter that packages neurotransmitters (preferentially dopamine) into vesicles for release into the synapse and was approved in 2008 as an orphan drug for the treatment of choreiform movements associated with Huntington’s disease. “Neurologists have using tetrabenazine off-label for TD, but in schizophrenia and other psychiatric care, we rarely use it because it has to be given three times a day and it has a black box warning for depression and suicidality,” he said.

Dr. Correll noted that the Food and Drug Administration approval of two more recent VMAT-2 inhibitors – deutetrabenazine (Austedo) and valbenazine (Ingrezza) – provides an evidence-based care option for the effective management of TD. Deutetrabenazine requires titration over several weeks and twice-daily dosing, while valbenazine can reach the maximum dose by the beginning of week 2 and is dosed once daily. Deutetrabenazine should be taken with food, which is not required valbenazine.

“Both VMAT-2 inhibitors are generally well tolerated and have a positive benefit-risk ratio,” he said. “Both are recommended by the APA guidelines as the preferred and only evidence-based treatment for TD.”

Dr. Correll reported that he has received honoraria from and has been an advisory board member for numerous pharmaceutical companies. He has also received grant support from Janssen, the National Institute of Mental Health, the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Takeda, and the Thrasher Foundation.

Reports based on a press release in October 2021 suggested it, but now the full data tell the story: Early monitoring and treatment of anal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) cut risk for anal cancer by 57% in people living with HIV.

“We now show, for the first time, that treatment of anal HSIL is effective in reducing the incidence of anal cancer,” said Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the Anal Neoplasia Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco. “These data should be included in an overall assessment for inclusion of screening for and treating HSIL as standard of care in people living with HIV.”

Dr. Palefsky presented the full results in a special session at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, which drew excitement, gratitude, and relief from both researchers and clinicians, who flocked to the session.

But it’s not just people with HIV who will benefit from this research. Dr. Palefsky suggested that the findings should also be considered as guides for other people at high-risk for anal cancer, such as people who are immunocompromised for other reasons, including those with lupus, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, or cisgender women who have had vulvar or cervical cancer or precancer.

“If we can show efficacy in the most challenging group of all, which are people living with HIV, we think the results can be as good, if not even better, in the other groups at high risk of anal cancer,” Dr. Palefsky said.

But to serve anyone – whether living with HIV or not – infrastructure, algorithms, and workforce training are going be needed to meet the currently unserved people through use of high-resolution anoscopy (HRA) and other screening technology, he said.

Dr. Palefsy and colleagues screened 10,723 people living with HIV being served at 15 clinics nationwide. More than half, 52.2%, had anal HSIL – 53.3% of the cisgender men living with HIV in the trial, 45.8% of the cis women living with HIV, and a full 62.5% of transgender participants.

Those 4,446 participants were split evenly between the treatment arm and the control arm. Those in the treatment arm received treatment for HSIL on their first study visit via one of five options: hyfrecation, office-based electrocautery ablation, infrared coagulation, topical 5-fluorouracil cream, or topical imiquimod. Then, every 6 months after that, they came in for HRA, blood tests, anal Pap smears, and biopsies to check for any lingering or new HSIL. If clinicians found such cells, they received treatment again. If biopsies still showed HSIL and clinician and participant were worried about cancer, they could come in as frequently as every 3 months and receive treatment each time.

The active-monitoring control group still received an anal Pap smear, blood tests, biopsy, and HRA every 6 months – a level of care that is currently not mandated anywhere for people living with HIV, Dr. Palefsky said in an interview. They were also able to come in for more frequent monitoring (every 3 months) if clinicians were worried about cancer.

“Those in both arms would have been getting more attention than if they had not participated in the study,” he said.

In addition, during screening, researchers found that cancer was already present in 17 other people, who skipped the study to go right to treatment.

Participants reflected the demographics of the HIV epidemic in the United States. They were older (median age, 51 years), mostly gay (78%), and cisgender male (80%). Close to half, 42%, were Black, and 16% were Latinx. In addition, cisgender women made up 16% of the participants and transgender people, and nonbinary individuals accounted for more than 3% of the participants. In addition, one in three smoked.

The vast majority of participants had well-controlled HIV and healthy immune systems, though half in each arm had a history of AIDS, defined as lowest-ever CD4 immune cell counts below 200. Today, more than 80% of participants had undetectable viral loads, defined as a viral load less than 50 copies/mL, and another 7% had HIV viral loads below 200. In total, 9.3% in the treatment arm and 10.9% in the control arm had HIV viral loads higher than that. At time of enrollment, CD4 counts were above 600 in each group, indicating healthy immune systems.

Although all participants were there because they had anal HSIL, more than 1 in 10 – 13% – had abnormal cells so extensive that they covered more than half of the anal canal or the perianal region.

Once everyone was enrolled, researchers began monitoring and treatment, looking specifically for 31 cases of cancer – a number the team had determined that they’d need in order to draw any conclusions. Dr. Palefsky didn’t have to wait long. They were still trying to enroll the last 1,000 participants to have the power necessary to reach that number when the cancer diagnoses came in.

Dr. Palefsky told this news organization that the reason for that is unclear. It could be that some of those cases would have resolved on their own, and so the swiftness with which they reached the required number of cancer cases belies their seriousness. It could also be that the particular people who enrolled in this trial were engaging in behaviors that put them at even higher risk for anal cancer than the population of people living with HIV in the United States.

Or it could be that symptom-based screening is missing a lot of cancers that currently go untreated.

“So perhaps we will be seeing an increase in anal cancer reported in the future compared to the currently reported rates,” he said. “We don’t really know.”

Regardless of the reason for the speed to cases of cancer, the results were definitive: Nine participants were diagnosed with invasive anal cancer in the treatment arm, while 21 were diagnosed with invasive anal cancer in the control arm. That’s a 57% reduction in cancer occurrence between the arms. Or, to put it another way, the rate of anal cancer among people in the treatment arm was 173 per 100,000 people-years. In the active monitoring arm, it was 402 per 100,000 person-years. For context, the overall rate of anal cancer among people living with HIV is 50 per 100,000 person-years. The rate in the general U.S. population is 8 per 100,000 people-years.

The experimental treatment was such a definitive success that the investigators stopped the trial and shifted all participants in the control arm to treatment.
 

‘We have to build’

Before Dr. Palefsky was even done presenting the data, clinicians, people living with HIV, and experts at the session were already brainstorming as to how to get these results into practice.

“These data are what we have long needed to fuel some action on this important problem, including medical cost reimbursement through insurance and increasing the number of persons trained and capable in anal cancer screening,” John Brooks, MD, head of the epidemiology research team at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention, wrote in the virtual chat.

Jeff Taylor, a member of the ANCHOR advisory board and a person living with HIV who participated in one of the first azidothymidine trials in the late 1980s, responded quickly.

“What kind of advocacy from researchers, HIV clinicians and [people living with HIV] is needed to get this on treatment guidelines, HRA providers trained and certified, and payors to cover this so [people living with HIV] actually have access to lifesaving screening and [treatment]?” Mr. Taylor asked.

It’s a serious challenge. David Malebranche, MD, an Atlanta-based internal medicine physician who specializes in sexual health and HIV, commented in an interview. When he saw the initial press release last year on the ANCHOR findings, his first reaction was: “Thank god. We finally have some data to show what we’ve been trying to get people to do” all along.

But then he wondered, who is going to perform these tests? It’s a fair question. Currently, the wait for an HRA is 6-12 months in many parts of the country. And Dr. Malebranche can’t imagine this being added to his already full plate as a primary care provider.

“If you tell a primary care provider now that they have to do a rectal Pap smear, that’s going to be a problem while you’re also asking them to screen each patient for depression, anxiety, domestic abuse, intimate partner violence, all the healthcare maintenance and all the other screening tests – and then you deal with not only the urgent complaint but then all the complex medical issues on top of that – in a 15-minute or 10-minute visit,” he said.

Now that we have these data, he said, “we have to build.”

Dr. Palefsky agreed. Very few centers have enough people skilled at performing HRAs to meet the current demand, and it’s not realistic to expect clinicians to perform an HRA every 6 months like the study team did. There need to be algorithms put in place to help practitioners figure out who among their patients living with HIV could benefit from this increased screening, as well as biomarkers to identify HSIL progression and regression without the use of HRA, Dr. Palefsky told attendees. And more clinicians need to be recruited and trained to read HRAs, which can be difficult for the untrained eye to decipher.

Dr. Malebranche added another, more fundamental thing that needs to be built. Dr. Malebranche has worked in HIV clinics where the majority of his patients qualify for insurance under the Ryan White Program and get their medications through the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. While Ryan White programs can provide critical wraparound care, Dr. Malebranche has had to refer out for something like an HRA or cancer treatment. But the people who only access care through such programs may not have coverage with the clinics that perform HRA or that treat cancer. And that’s if they can even find someone to see them.

“If I live in a state like Georgia, which doesn’t have Medicaid expansion and we have people who are uninsured, where do you send them?” Dr. Malebranche asked. “This isn’t theoretical. I ran into this problem when I was working at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation last year. ... This is a call for infrastructure.”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Brooks reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Palefsky has received consultant fees from Merck, Vir Biotechnology, Virion Therapeutics, and Antiva Bioscience, as well as speaker fees from Merck. Dr. Malebranche has received consulting and advising fees from ViiV Healthcare.

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

Reports based on a press release in October 2021 suggested it, but now the full data tell the story: Early monitoring and treatment of anal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) cut risk for anal cancer by 57% in people living with HIV.

“We now show, for the first time, that treatment of anal HSIL is effective in reducing the incidence of anal cancer,” said Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the Anal Neoplasia Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco. “These data should be included in an overall assessment for inclusion of screening for and treating HSIL as standard of care in people living with HIV.”

Dr. Palefsky presented the full results in a special session at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, which drew excitement, gratitude, and relief from both researchers and clinicians, who flocked to the session.

But it’s not just people with HIV who will benefit from this research. Dr. Palefsky suggested that the findings should also be considered as guides for other people at high-risk for anal cancer, such as people who are immunocompromised for other reasons, including those with lupus, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, or cisgender women who have had vulvar or cervical cancer or precancer.

“If we can show efficacy in the most challenging group of all, which are people living with HIV, we think the results can be as good, if not even better, in the other groups at high risk of anal cancer,” Dr. Palefsky said.

But to serve anyone – whether living with HIV or not – infrastructure, algorithms, and workforce training are going be needed to meet the currently unserved people through use of high-resolution anoscopy (HRA) and other screening technology, he said.

Dr. Palefsy and colleagues screened 10,723 people living with HIV being served at 15 clinics nationwide. More than half, 52.2%, had anal HSIL – 53.3% of the cisgender men living with HIV in the trial, 45.8% of the cis women living with HIV, and a full 62.5% of transgender participants.

Those 4,446 participants were split evenly between the treatment arm and the control arm. Those in the treatment arm received treatment for HSIL on their first study visit via one of five options: hyfrecation, office-based electrocautery ablation, infrared coagulation, topical 5-fluorouracil cream, or topical imiquimod. Then, every 6 months after that, they came in for HRA, blood tests, anal Pap smears, and biopsies to check for any lingering or new HSIL. If clinicians found such cells, they received treatment again. If biopsies still showed HSIL and clinician and participant were worried about cancer, they could come in as frequently as every 3 months and receive treatment each time.

The active-monitoring control group still received an anal Pap smear, blood tests, biopsy, and HRA every 6 months – a level of care that is currently not mandated anywhere for people living with HIV, Dr. Palefsky said in an interview. They were also able to come in for more frequent monitoring (every 3 months) if clinicians were worried about cancer.

“Those in both arms would have been getting more attention than if they had not participated in the study,” he said.

In addition, during screening, researchers found that cancer was already present in 17 other people, who skipped the study to go right to treatment.

Participants reflected the demographics of the HIV epidemic in the United States. They were older (median age, 51 years), mostly gay (78%), and cisgender male (80%). Close to half, 42%, were Black, and 16% were Latinx. In addition, cisgender women made up 16% of the participants and transgender people, and nonbinary individuals accounted for more than 3% of the participants. In addition, one in three smoked.

The vast majority of participants had well-controlled HIV and healthy immune systems, though half in each arm had a history of AIDS, defined as lowest-ever CD4 immune cell counts below 200. Today, more than 80% of participants had undetectable viral loads, defined as a viral load less than 50 copies/mL, and another 7% had HIV viral loads below 200. In total, 9.3% in the treatment arm and 10.9% in the control arm had HIV viral loads higher than that. At time of enrollment, CD4 counts were above 600 in each group, indicating healthy immune systems.

Although all participants were there because they had anal HSIL, more than 1 in 10 – 13% – had abnormal cells so extensive that they covered more than half of the anal canal or the perianal region.

Once everyone was enrolled, researchers began monitoring and treatment, looking specifically for 31 cases of cancer – a number the team had determined that they’d need in order to draw any conclusions. Dr. Palefsky didn’t have to wait long. They were still trying to enroll the last 1,000 participants to have the power necessary to reach that number when the cancer diagnoses came in.

Dr. Palefsky told this news organization that the reason for that is unclear. It could be that some of those cases would have resolved on their own, and so the swiftness with which they reached the required number of cancer cases belies their seriousness. It could also be that the particular people who enrolled in this trial were engaging in behaviors that put them at even higher risk for anal cancer than the population of people living with HIV in the United States.

Or it could be that symptom-based screening is missing a lot of cancers that currently go untreated.

“So perhaps we will be seeing an increase in anal cancer reported in the future compared to the currently reported rates,” he said. “We don’t really know.”

Regardless of the reason for the speed to cases of cancer, the results were definitive: Nine participants were diagnosed with invasive anal cancer in the treatment arm, while 21 were diagnosed with invasive anal cancer in the control arm. That’s a 57% reduction in cancer occurrence between the arms. Or, to put it another way, the rate of anal cancer among people in the treatment arm was 173 per 100,000 people-years. In the active monitoring arm, it was 402 per 100,000 person-years. For context, the overall rate of anal cancer among people living with HIV is 50 per 100,000 person-years. The rate in the general U.S. population is 8 per 100,000 people-years.

The experimental treatment was such a definitive success that the investigators stopped the trial and shifted all participants in the control arm to treatment.
 

‘We have to build’

Before Dr. Palefsky was even done presenting the data, clinicians, people living with HIV, and experts at the session were already brainstorming as to how to get these results into practice.

“These data are what we have long needed to fuel some action on this important problem, including medical cost reimbursement through insurance and increasing the number of persons trained and capable in anal cancer screening,” John Brooks, MD, head of the epidemiology research team at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention, wrote in the virtual chat.

Jeff Taylor, a member of the ANCHOR advisory board and a person living with HIV who participated in one of the first azidothymidine trials in the late 1980s, responded quickly.

“What kind of advocacy from researchers, HIV clinicians and [people living with HIV] is needed to get this on treatment guidelines, HRA providers trained and certified, and payors to cover this so [people living with HIV] actually have access to lifesaving screening and [treatment]?” Mr. Taylor asked.

It’s a serious challenge. David Malebranche, MD, an Atlanta-based internal medicine physician who specializes in sexual health and HIV, commented in an interview. When he saw the initial press release last year on the ANCHOR findings, his first reaction was: “Thank god. We finally have some data to show what we’ve been trying to get people to do” all along.

But then he wondered, who is going to perform these tests? It’s a fair question. Currently, the wait for an HRA is 6-12 months in many parts of the country. And Dr. Malebranche can’t imagine this being added to his already full plate as a primary care provider.

“If you tell a primary care provider now that they have to do a rectal Pap smear, that’s going to be a problem while you’re also asking them to screen each patient for depression, anxiety, domestic abuse, intimate partner violence, all the healthcare maintenance and all the other screening tests – and then you deal with not only the urgent complaint but then all the complex medical issues on top of that – in a 15-minute or 10-minute visit,” he said.

Now that we have these data, he said, “we have to build.”

Dr. Palefsky agreed. Very few centers have enough people skilled at performing HRAs to meet the current demand, and it’s not realistic to expect clinicians to perform an HRA every 6 months like the study team did. There need to be algorithms put in place to help practitioners figure out who among their patients living with HIV could benefit from this increased screening, as well as biomarkers to identify HSIL progression and regression without the use of HRA, Dr. Palefsky told attendees. And more clinicians need to be recruited and trained to read HRAs, which can be difficult for the untrained eye to decipher.

Dr. Malebranche added another, more fundamental thing that needs to be built. Dr. Malebranche has worked in HIV clinics where the majority of his patients qualify for insurance under the Ryan White Program and get their medications through the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. While Ryan White programs can provide critical wraparound care, Dr. Malebranche has had to refer out for something like an HRA or cancer treatment. But the people who only access care through such programs may not have coverage with the clinics that perform HRA or that treat cancer. And that’s if they can even find someone to see them.

“If I live in a state like Georgia, which doesn’t have Medicaid expansion and we have people who are uninsured, where do you send them?” Dr. Malebranche asked. “This isn’t theoretical. I ran into this problem when I was working at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation last year. ... This is a call for infrastructure.”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Brooks reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Palefsky has received consultant fees from Merck, Vir Biotechnology, Virion Therapeutics, and Antiva Bioscience, as well as speaker fees from Merck. Dr. Malebranche has received consulting and advising fees from ViiV Healthcare.

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

Reports based on a press release in October 2021 suggested it, but now the full data tell the story: Early monitoring and treatment of anal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) cut risk for anal cancer by 57% in people living with HIV.

“We now show, for the first time, that treatment of anal HSIL is effective in reducing the incidence of anal cancer,” said Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the Anal Neoplasia Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco. “These data should be included in an overall assessment for inclusion of screening for and treating HSIL as standard of care in people living with HIV.”

Dr. Palefsky presented the full results in a special session at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, which drew excitement, gratitude, and relief from both researchers and clinicians, who flocked to the session.

But it’s not just people with HIV who will benefit from this research. Dr. Palefsky suggested that the findings should also be considered as guides for other people at high-risk for anal cancer, such as people who are immunocompromised for other reasons, including those with lupus, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, or cisgender women who have had vulvar or cervical cancer or precancer.

“If we can show efficacy in the most challenging group of all, which are people living with HIV, we think the results can be as good, if not even better, in the other groups at high risk of anal cancer,” Dr. Palefsky said.

But to serve anyone – whether living with HIV or not – infrastructure, algorithms, and workforce training are going be needed to meet the currently unserved people through use of high-resolution anoscopy (HRA) and other screening technology, he said.

Dr. Palefsy and colleagues screened 10,723 people living with HIV being served at 15 clinics nationwide. More than half, 52.2%, had anal HSIL – 53.3% of the cisgender men living with HIV in the trial, 45.8% of the cis women living with HIV, and a full 62.5% of transgender participants.

Those 4,446 participants were split evenly between the treatment arm and the control arm. Those in the treatment arm received treatment for HSIL on their first study visit via one of five options: hyfrecation, office-based electrocautery ablation, infrared coagulation, topical 5-fluorouracil cream, or topical imiquimod. Then, every 6 months after that, they came in for HRA, blood tests, anal Pap smears, and biopsies to check for any lingering or new HSIL. If clinicians found such cells, they received treatment again. If biopsies still showed HSIL and clinician and participant were worried about cancer, they could come in as frequently as every 3 months and receive treatment each time.

The active-monitoring control group still received an anal Pap smear, blood tests, biopsy, and HRA every 6 months – a level of care that is currently not mandated anywhere for people living with HIV, Dr. Palefsky said in an interview. They were also able to come in for more frequent monitoring (every 3 months) if clinicians were worried about cancer.

“Those in both arms would have been getting more attention than if they had not participated in the study,” he said.

In addition, during screening, researchers found that cancer was already present in 17 other people, who skipped the study to go right to treatment.

Participants reflected the demographics of the HIV epidemic in the United States. They were older (median age, 51 years), mostly gay (78%), and cisgender male (80%). Close to half, 42%, were Black, and 16% were Latinx. In addition, cisgender women made up 16% of the participants and transgender people, and nonbinary individuals accounted for more than 3% of the participants. In addition, one in three smoked.

The vast majority of participants had well-controlled HIV and healthy immune systems, though half in each arm had a history of AIDS, defined as lowest-ever CD4 immune cell counts below 200. Today, more than 80% of participants had undetectable viral loads, defined as a viral load less than 50 copies/mL, and another 7% had HIV viral loads below 200. In total, 9.3% in the treatment arm and 10.9% in the control arm had HIV viral loads higher than that. At time of enrollment, CD4 counts were above 600 in each group, indicating healthy immune systems.

Although all participants were there because they had anal HSIL, more than 1 in 10 – 13% – had abnormal cells so extensive that they covered more than half of the anal canal or the perianal region.

Once everyone was enrolled, researchers began monitoring and treatment, looking specifically for 31 cases of cancer – a number the team had determined that they’d need in order to draw any conclusions. Dr. Palefsky didn’t have to wait long. They were still trying to enroll the last 1,000 participants to have the power necessary to reach that number when the cancer diagnoses came in.

Dr. Palefsky told this news organization that the reason for that is unclear. It could be that some of those cases would have resolved on their own, and so the swiftness with which they reached the required number of cancer cases belies their seriousness. It could also be that the particular people who enrolled in this trial were engaging in behaviors that put them at even higher risk for anal cancer than the population of people living with HIV in the United States.

Or it could be that symptom-based screening is missing a lot of cancers that currently go untreated.

“So perhaps we will be seeing an increase in anal cancer reported in the future compared to the currently reported rates,” he said. “We don’t really know.”

Regardless of the reason for the speed to cases of cancer, the results were definitive: Nine participants were diagnosed with invasive anal cancer in the treatment arm, while 21 were diagnosed with invasive anal cancer in the control arm. That’s a 57% reduction in cancer occurrence between the arms. Or, to put it another way, the rate of anal cancer among people in the treatment arm was 173 per 100,000 people-years. In the active monitoring arm, it was 402 per 100,000 person-years. For context, the overall rate of anal cancer among people living with HIV is 50 per 100,000 person-years. The rate in the general U.S. population is 8 per 100,000 people-years.

The experimental treatment was such a definitive success that the investigators stopped the trial and shifted all participants in the control arm to treatment.
 

‘We have to build’

Before Dr. Palefsky was even done presenting the data, clinicians, people living with HIV, and experts at the session were already brainstorming as to how to get these results into practice.

“These data are what we have long needed to fuel some action on this important problem, including medical cost reimbursement through insurance and increasing the number of persons trained and capable in anal cancer screening,” John Brooks, MD, head of the epidemiology research team at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention, wrote in the virtual chat.

Jeff Taylor, a member of the ANCHOR advisory board and a person living with HIV who participated in one of the first azidothymidine trials in the late 1980s, responded quickly.

“What kind of advocacy from researchers, HIV clinicians and [people living with HIV] is needed to get this on treatment guidelines, HRA providers trained and certified, and payors to cover this so [people living with HIV] actually have access to lifesaving screening and [treatment]?” Mr. Taylor asked.

It’s a serious challenge. David Malebranche, MD, an Atlanta-based internal medicine physician who specializes in sexual health and HIV, commented in an interview. When he saw the initial press release last year on the ANCHOR findings, his first reaction was: “Thank god. We finally have some data to show what we’ve been trying to get people to do” all along.

But then he wondered, who is going to perform these tests? It’s a fair question. Currently, the wait for an HRA is 6-12 months in many parts of the country. And Dr. Malebranche can’t imagine this being added to his already full plate as a primary care provider.

“If you tell a primary care provider now that they have to do a rectal Pap smear, that’s going to be a problem while you’re also asking them to screen each patient for depression, anxiety, domestic abuse, intimate partner violence, all the healthcare maintenance and all the other screening tests – and then you deal with not only the urgent complaint but then all the complex medical issues on top of that – in a 15-minute or 10-minute visit,” he said.

Now that we have these data, he said, “we have to build.”

Dr. Palefsky agreed. Very few centers have enough people skilled at performing HRAs to meet the current demand, and it’s not realistic to expect clinicians to perform an HRA every 6 months like the study team did. There need to be algorithms put in place to help practitioners figure out who among their patients living with HIV could benefit from this increased screening, as well as biomarkers to identify HSIL progression and regression without the use of HRA, Dr. Palefsky told attendees. And more clinicians need to be recruited and trained to read HRAs, which can be difficult for the untrained eye to decipher.

Dr. Malebranche added another, more fundamental thing that needs to be built. Dr. Malebranche has worked in HIV clinics where the majority of his patients qualify for insurance under the Ryan White Program and get their medications through the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. While Ryan White programs can provide critical wraparound care, Dr. Malebranche has had to refer out for something like an HRA or cancer treatment. But the people who only access care through such programs may not have coverage with the clinics that perform HRA or that treat cancer. And that’s if they can even find someone to see them.

“If I live in a state like Georgia, which doesn’t have Medicaid expansion and we have people who are uninsured, where do you send them?” Dr. Malebranche asked. “This isn’t theoretical. I ran into this problem when I was working at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation last year. ... This is a call for infrastructure.”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Brooks reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Palefsky has received consultant fees from Merck, Vir Biotechnology, Virion Therapeutics, and Antiva Bioscience, as well as speaker fees from Merck. Dr. Malebranche has received consulting and advising fees from ViiV Healthcare.

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

Use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs (DOACs) appears to be just as effective as warfarin in preventing future thrombotic events in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) stroke and are less likely to result in major bleeding, a retrospective study suggests.

The ACTION CVT study was presented at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022 by Ekaterina Bakradze, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

It was also simultaneously published online in Stroke.

“This real-world data supports use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs as a reasonable alternative to warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis,” Dr. Bakradze concluded.

But she added that because this study was based on retrospective observational data, the findings should be interpreted with caution and require confirmation by larger prospective studies.

Two such studies are now underway: the Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Treatment of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (DOAC-CVT) study and the randomized Study of Rivaroxaban for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (SECRET) trial.

Dr. Bakradze explained that cerebral venous thrombosis is a less common cause of stroke and occurs more often in women and younger patients, with a median age of 37 years. Current recommended treatment consists of heparin followed by oral anticoagulation.

She noted that although randomized trials and current guidelines indicate that DOACs are a preferred alternative to warfarin for the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism, there are limited data on their use in patients with CVT.

A small, randomized trial (RESPECT-CVT) showed no significant difference in efficacy and safety outcomes between dabigatran and warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, but with only 120 patients, this trial was too small for definite answers to this question.

A better understanding of this issue is important, because the mechanisms underlying cerebral venous thrombosis and other thromboembolism and their subsequent risks may differ, Dr. Bakradze said.

As randomized trials in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis are difficult to perform because the condition has a low incidence and low event rates, the researchers decided to look at this question with a large retrospective multicenter study.

The ACTION-CVT study involved 845 consecutive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis over 6 years (from January 2015 and December 2020) from 27 centers in Italy, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. Patients were identified from medical records with diagnostic codes and confirmed with imaging.

The primary predictor in the study was oral anticoagulant type (DOAC vs. warfarin). Study outcomes were abstracted by individual sites through review of all available medical records.

The primary outcome was recurrent venous thrombosis (venous thromboembolism or cerebral venous thrombosis) during follow-up. Imaging outcomes based on recanalization status on last venous imaging study abstracted from radiology reports were also reported.

The safety outcome was major hemorrhage, defined as new or worsening intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), or major extracranial hemorrhage. Results were adjusted for age, sex, and relevant medical conditions.

The mean age of the patients included was 44.8 years, 64.7% were women, 33% received DOAC only, 51.8% received warfarin only, and 15.1% received both treatments at different times.

Results showed that during a median follow-up of 345 days, there were 5.68 recurrent venous thrombosis events, 3.77 major hemorrhages, and 1.84 deaths per 100 patient-years.

Among 525 patients who met recanalization analysis inclusion criteria, 36.6% had complete, 48.2% had partial, and 15.2% had no recanalization.

When compared with warfarin, DOAC treatment was associated with similar risk for recurrent venous thrombosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.73; P = .84), death (aHR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.24-2.08; P = .53), and rate of partial/complete recanalization (aHR, 0.92, 95% CI, 0.48-1.73; P = .79).

But patients who received a DOAC had a significantly lower rate of major hemorrhage (aHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.81; P = .02).

When examined separately, the occurrence of ICH per 100 patient-years was much lower among the patients prescribed DOACs than those who were prescribed warfarin (1.52 vs. 3.51), whereas the occurrence of major bleeding outside the brain was similar (0.91 vs. 1.15).
 

Similar efficacy, better safety

Commenting on the study at an ISC press conference, Mitchell Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, said: “The community has been concerned about extending the use of these new direct-acting oral anticoagulant drugs to cerebral venous thrombosis, but this study suggests that these patients may benefit from these new agents too.”

Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, also commented: “This study confirms what we already know from other indications about these DOAC drugs: that they have similar efficacy to warfarin but a better safety profile. These results are really spot on with that. These drugs are also much easier and more convenient to use than warfarin.”

“This is a great step forward,” he added. “Only 30% of patients in this study received DOACs, reflecting the fact that clinicians may be a little reluctant to use them in this condition. But this study now has the potential to change practice.”

In an editorial accompanying the publication in Stroke, Johnathon Gorman, MD, and Thalia Field, MD, from the Vancouver Stroke Program at the University of British Columbia, say that despite its methodological limitations, the ACTION-CVT study “provides added value to the current state of knowledge by virtue of its size and ‘real world’ setting that is reflective of how DOACs are being used to manage CVT in current clinical practice.”

They point out that although baseline characteristics between the DOAC and warfarin groups were similar, the possibility of confounding cannot be excluded, and “other characteristics not easily captured in a retrospective study may sway anticoagulation strategy.”

They acknowledge, however, that an additional propensity score analysis “provides reassurance that the groups are reasonably balanced, adjusting for variables associated with recurrent cerebral venous thrombosis, recanalization, and hemorrhage.”

The editorialists conclude that ACTION-CVT gives additional reassurance for DOACs as an alternative approach to warfarin as a treatment for cerebral venous thrombosis and for the shifts in clinical practice that are already occurring at many centers.

The study was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health Ricerca Corrente–IRCCS MultiMedica. Dr. Bakradze reports no disclosures. Dr. Field is the principal investigator of the SECRET trial, which received in-kind study medication from Bayer Canada. She reports honoraria from HLS Therapeutics outside the submitted work and is on the board of Destine Health. The other editorialist reports no conflicts.

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

Use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs (DOACs) appears to be just as effective as warfarin in preventing future thrombotic events in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) stroke and are less likely to result in major bleeding, a retrospective study suggests.

The ACTION CVT study was presented at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022 by Ekaterina Bakradze, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

It was also simultaneously published online in Stroke.

“This real-world data supports use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs as a reasonable alternative to warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis,” Dr. Bakradze concluded.

But she added that because this study was based on retrospective observational data, the findings should be interpreted with caution and require confirmation by larger prospective studies.

Two such studies are now underway: the Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Treatment of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (DOAC-CVT) study and the randomized Study of Rivaroxaban for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (SECRET) trial.

Dr. Bakradze explained that cerebral venous thrombosis is a less common cause of stroke and occurs more often in women and younger patients, with a median age of 37 years. Current recommended treatment consists of heparin followed by oral anticoagulation.

She noted that although randomized trials and current guidelines indicate that DOACs are a preferred alternative to warfarin for the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism, there are limited data on their use in patients with CVT.

A small, randomized trial (RESPECT-CVT) showed no significant difference in efficacy and safety outcomes between dabigatran and warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, but with only 120 patients, this trial was too small for definite answers to this question.

A better understanding of this issue is important, because the mechanisms underlying cerebral venous thrombosis and other thromboembolism and their subsequent risks may differ, Dr. Bakradze said.

As randomized trials in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis are difficult to perform because the condition has a low incidence and low event rates, the researchers decided to look at this question with a large retrospective multicenter study.

The ACTION-CVT study involved 845 consecutive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis over 6 years (from January 2015 and December 2020) from 27 centers in Italy, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. Patients were identified from medical records with diagnostic codes and confirmed with imaging.

The primary predictor in the study was oral anticoagulant type (DOAC vs. warfarin). Study outcomes were abstracted by individual sites through review of all available medical records.

The primary outcome was recurrent venous thrombosis (venous thromboembolism or cerebral venous thrombosis) during follow-up. Imaging outcomes based on recanalization status on last venous imaging study abstracted from radiology reports were also reported.

The safety outcome was major hemorrhage, defined as new or worsening intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), or major extracranial hemorrhage. Results were adjusted for age, sex, and relevant medical conditions.

The mean age of the patients included was 44.8 years, 64.7% were women, 33% received DOAC only, 51.8% received warfarin only, and 15.1% received both treatments at different times.

Results showed that during a median follow-up of 345 days, there were 5.68 recurrent venous thrombosis events, 3.77 major hemorrhages, and 1.84 deaths per 100 patient-years.

Among 525 patients who met recanalization analysis inclusion criteria, 36.6% had complete, 48.2% had partial, and 15.2% had no recanalization.

When compared with warfarin, DOAC treatment was associated with similar risk for recurrent venous thrombosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.73; P = .84), death (aHR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.24-2.08; P = .53), and rate of partial/complete recanalization (aHR, 0.92, 95% CI, 0.48-1.73; P = .79).

But patients who received a DOAC had a significantly lower rate of major hemorrhage (aHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.81; P = .02).

When examined separately, the occurrence of ICH per 100 patient-years was much lower among the patients prescribed DOACs than those who were prescribed warfarin (1.52 vs. 3.51), whereas the occurrence of major bleeding outside the brain was similar (0.91 vs. 1.15).
 

Similar efficacy, better safety

Commenting on the study at an ISC press conference, Mitchell Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, said: “The community has been concerned about extending the use of these new direct-acting oral anticoagulant drugs to cerebral venous thrombosis, but this study suggests that these patients may benefit from these new agents too.”

Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, also commented: “This study confirms what we already know from other indications about these DOAC drugs: that they have similar efficacy to warfarin but a better safety profile. These results are really spot on with that. These drugs are also much easier and more convenient to use than warfarin.”

“This is a great step forward,” he added. “Only 30% of patients in this study received DOACs, reflecting the fact that clinicians may be a little reluctant to use them in this condition. But this study now has the potential to change practice.”

In an editorial accompanying the publication in Stroke, Johnathon Gorman, MD, and Thalia Field, MD, from the Vancouver Stroke Program at the University of British Columbia, say that despite its methodological limitations, the ACTION-CVT study “provides added value to the current state of knowledge by virtue of its size and ‘real world’ setting that is reflective of how DOACs are being used to manage CVT in current clinical practice.”

They point out that although baseline characteristics between the DOAC and warfarin groups were similar, the possibility of confounding cannot be excluded, and “other characteristics not easily captured in a retrospective study may sway anticoagulation strategy.”

They acknowledge, however, that an additional propensity score analysis “provides reassurance that the groups are reasonably balanced, adjusting for variables associated with recurrent cerebral venous thrombosis, recanalization, and hemorrhage.”

The editorialists conclude that ACTION-CVT gives additional reassurance for DOACs as an alternative approach to warfarin as a treatment for cerebral venous thrombosis and for the shifts in clinical practice that are already occurring at many centers.

The study was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health Ricerca Corrente–IRCCS MultiMedica. Dr. Bakradze reports no disclosures. Dr. Field is the principal investigator of the SECRET trial, which received in-kind study medication from Bayer Canada. She reports honoraria from HLS Therapeutics outside the submitted work and is on the board of Destine Health. The other editorialist reports no conflicts.

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

Use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs (DOACs) appears to be just as effective as warfarin in preventing future thrombotic events in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) stroke and are less likely to result in major bleeding, a retrospective study suggests.

The ACTION CVT study was presented at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022 by Ekaterina Bakradze, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

It was also simultaneously published online in Stroke.

“This real-world data supports use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs as a reasonable alternative to warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis,” Dr. Bakradze concluded.

But she added that because this study was based on retrospective observational data, the findings should be interpreted with caution and require confirmation by larger prospective studies.

Two such studies are now underway: the Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Treatment of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (DOAC-CVT) study and the randomized Study of Rivaroxaban for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (SECRET) trial.

Dr. Bakradze explained that cerebral venous thrombosis is a less common cause of stroke and occurs more often in women and younger patients, with a median age of 37 years. Current recommended treatment consists of heparin followed by oral anticoagulation.

She noted that although randomized trials and current guidelines indicate that DOACs are a preferred alternative to warfarin for the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism, there are limited data on their use in patients with CVT.

A small, randomized trial (RESPECT-CVT) showed no significant difference in efficacy and safety outcomes between dabigatran and warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, but with only 120 patients, this trial was too small for definite answers to this question.

A better understanding of this issue is important, because the mechanisms underlying cerebral venous thrombosis and other thromboembolism and their subsequent risks may differ, Dr. Bakradze said.

As randomized trials in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis are difficult to perform because the condition has a low incidence and low event rates, the researchers decided to look at this question with a large retrospective multicenter study.

The ACTION-CVT study involved 845 consecutive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis over 6 years (from January 2015 and December 2020) from 27 centers in Italy, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. Patients were identified from medical records with diagnostic codes and confirmed with imaging.

The primary predictor in the study was oral anticoagulant type (DOAC vs. warfarin). Study outcomes were abstracted by individual sites through review of all available medical records.

The primary outcome was recurrent venous thrombosis (venous thromboembolism or cerebral venous thrombosis) during follow-up. Imaging outcomes based on recanalization status on last venous imaging study abstracted from radiology reports were also reported.

The safety outcome was major hemorrhage, defined as new or worsening intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), or major extracranial hemorrhage. Results were adjusted for age, sex, and relevant medical conditions.

The mean age of the patients included was 44.8 years, 64.7% were women, 33% received DOAC only, 51.8% received warfarin only, and 15.1% received both treatments at different times.

Results showed that during a median follow-up of 345 days, there were 5.68 recurrent venous thrombosis events, 3.77 major hemorrhages, and 1.84 deaths per 100 patient-years.

Among 525 patients who met recanalization analysis inclusion criteria, 36.6% had complete, 48.2% had partial, and 15.2% had no recanalization.

When compared with warfarin, DOAC treatment was associated with similar risk for recurrent venous thrombosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.73; P = .84), death (aHR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.24-2.08; P = .53), and rate of partial/complete recanalization (aHR, 0.92, 95% CI, 0.48-1.73; P = .79).

But patients who received a DOAC had a significantly lower rate of major hemorrhage (aHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.81; P = .02).

When examined separately, the occurrence of ICH per 100 patient-years was much lower among the patients prescribed DOACs than those who were prescribed warfarin (1.52 vs. 3.51), whereas the occurrence of major bleeding outside the brain was similar (0.91 vs. 1.15).
 

Similar efficacy, better safety

Commenting on the study at an ISC press conference, Mitchell Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, said: “The community has been concerned about extending the use of these new direct-acting oral anticoagulant drugs to cerebral venous thrombosis, but this study suggests that these patients may benefit from these new agents too.”

Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, also commented: “This study confirms what we already know from other indications about these DOAC drugs: that they have similar efficacy to warfarin but a better safety profile. These results are really spot on with that. These drugs are also much easier and more convenient to use than warfarin.”

“This is a great step forward,” he added. “Only 30% of patients in this study received DOACs, reflecting the fact that clinicians may be a little reluctant to use them in this condition. But this study now has the potential to change practice.”

In an editorial accompanying the publication in Stroke, Johnathon Gorman, MD, and Thalia Field, MD, from the Vancouver Stroke Program at the University of British Columbia, say that despite its methodological limitations, the ACTION-CVT study “provides added value to the current state of knowledge by virtue of its size and ‘real world’ setting that is reflective of how DOACs are being used to manage CVT in current clinical practice.”

They point out that although baseline characteristics between the DOAC and warfarin groups were similar, the possibility of confounding cannot be excluded, and “other characteristics not easily captured in a retrospective study may sway anticoagulation strategy.”

They acknowledge, however, that an additional propensity score analysis “provides reassurance that the groups are reasonably balanced, adjusting for variables associated with recurrent cerebral venous thrombosis, recanalization, and hemorrhage.”

The editorialists conclude that ACTION-CVT gives additional reassurance for DOACs as an alternative approach to warfarin as a treatment for cerebral venous thrombosis and for the shifts in clinical practice that are already occurring at many centers.

The study was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health Ricerca Corrente–IRCCS MultiMedica. Dr. Bakradze reports no disclosures. Dr. Field is the principal investigator of the SECRET trial, which received in-kind study medication from Bayer Canada. She reports honoraria from HLS Therapeutics outside the submitted work and is on the board of Destine Health. The other editorialist reports no conflicts.

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

A high percentage of people with type 2 diabetes also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but fewer than 1 in 20 get the triumvirate of evidence-based medications – drugs to lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose levels – that can mitigate the dominant health risks they face, a large multicenter cohort study reported.

The cohort consisted of 324,706 patients with diabetes and ASCVD in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network in 2018.

Senior study author Christopher B. Granger, MD, said in an interview that the findings represent “a shocking underuse of treatments proven to improve outcomes in this high-risk population.” For example, he noted that high-intensity statins are “inexpensive, well tolerated, and highly effective, but the fact that they’re only used in 26.8% of this population is really an indictment and embarrassment for our health-care system.”

The study analyzed prescriptions of high-intensity statins to lower cholesterol, ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) for blood pressure, and SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists for hyperglycemia in a population with both diabetes and ASCVD.

This study amplifies the perceived treatment gap in cardiovascular risk reduction in persons with diabetes,” Paul S. Jellinger, MD, of the Center for Diabetes and Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla., said in an interview. “The unfortunate treatment deficiency documented among 325,000 patients in 12 health systems is carefully quantitated and the message is loud, clear, and simple: There is gross underutilization of agents – ACE inhibitors and ARBs, SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and high-intensity statins – with definitively proven ASCVD benefit.”

Overcoming barriers to prescriptions

The study noted that more work needs to be done to overcome the barriers to more widespread use of these therapies in patients with both diabetes and ASCVD.

Specifically with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, cost was more likely to be a barrier than with the other drug groups, but that didn’t explain the low levels of high-intensity statin prescriptions, said Dr. Granger of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The first barrier he mentioned is what he called “clinical inertia.” He said: “I’m a cardiologist who cares for these patients in my clinic each week, and there are so many different things that we need to be trying to achieve with the brief time we have with each patient in our clinic setting that people tend to miss the opportunity.”

The cost barrier, especially with the glucose-lowering therapies, can be overcome with clinic and health care system programs that aid patients in getting discounted drugs, he noted.

Other barriers Dr. Granger pointed out are lack of education – “So many people think that people with previous muscle aches can’t take a high-intensity statin, and we know that’s not true” – and misinformation, which he called “the more nefarious issue.”

He said, “Part of the problem is that misinformation travels much faster than accurate information. There’s so much out there about statins being toxic, which is just not true.”

Fragmentation of the U.S. health care system and the lack of feedback on quality measures, and physicians deferring decisions on glucose-lowering therapy to endocrinologists also pose barriers to more widespread use of evidence-based therapies in patients with diabetes and ASCVD, Dr. Granger said.

“This is a call to action,” Dr. Granger said. “By clearly describing these gaps, we hope that people will see this as an important opportunity to improve care not only at the level of individual providers, but even more importantly at the level of health systems.”

Dr. Jellinger said the “dismal results” of the study serve as a “wake-up call,” adding that “my own perception among my colleagues, along with the data referred to in this article, point to definitely higher usage among commercially insured patients. However, even in more enriched populations the message is not having its full impact. We have remarkable agents for our patients with diabetes that can make a real impact in diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. Our twofold goal should be to aggressively educate a broad slate of health care professionals and, of course, make patient access easy and affordable without ‘prior authorization.’ ”

The study noted the need to bring the prescribing patterns for patients with both diabetes and ASCVD more in line with evidence-based guidelines. To that end, said Dr. Granger, the researchers are moving ahead on a randomized study of a quality improvement project involving about 45 U.S. cardiology clinics using a feedback loop to apply more consistent prescribing patterns for the three therapy groups. “Hopefully a year from now we’ll have a lot more information about this problem,” Dr. Granger added.

Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly funded the study. Dr. Granger reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Medtronic, Akros Pharma, Apple, AstraZeneca, Daichi-Sankyo, Novartis, AbbVie, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CeleCor, Correvio, Espero, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Rhoshan Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Jellinger is on speaker’s bureaus for Esperion and Amgen.
 

A high percentage of people with type 2 diabetes also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but fewer than 1 in 20 get the triumvirate of evidence-based medications – drugs to lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose levels – that can mitigate the dominant health risks they face, a large multicenter cohort study reported.

The cohort consisted of 324,706 patients with diabetes and ASCVD in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network in 2018.

Senior study author Christopher B. Granger, MD, said in an interview that the findings represent “a shocking underuse of treatments proven to improve outcomes in this high-risk population.” For example, he noted that high-intensity statins are “inexpensive, well tolerated, and highly effective, but the fact that they’re only used in 26.8% of this population is really an indictment and embarrassment for our health-care system.”

The study analyzed prescriptions of high-intensity statins to lower cholesterol, ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) for blood pressure, and SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists for hyperglycemia in a population with both diabetes and ASCVD.

This study amplifies the perceived treatment gap in cardiovascular risk reduction in persons with diabetes,” Paul S. Jellinger, MD, of the Center for Diabetes and Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla., said in an interview. “The unfortunate treatment deficiency documented among 325,000 patients in 12 health systems is carefully quantitated and the message is loud, clear, and simple: There is gross underutilization of agents – ACE inhibitors and ARBs, SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and high-intensity statins – with definitively proven ASCVD benefit.”

Overcoming barriers to prescriptions

The study noted that more work needs to be done to overcome the barriers to more widespread use of these therapies in patients with both diabetes and ASCVD.

Specifically with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, cost was more likely to be a barrier than with the other drug groups, but that didn’t explain the low levels of high-intensity statin prescriptions, said Dr. Granger of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The first barrier he mentioned is what he called “clinical inertia.” He said: “I’m a cardiologist who cares for these patients in my clinic each week, and there are so many different things that we need to be trying to achieve with the brief time we have with each patient in our clinic setting that people tend to miss the opportunity.”

The cost barrier, especially with the glucose-lowering therapies, can be overcome with clinic and health care system programs that aid patients in getting discounted drugs, he noted.

Other barriers Dr. Granger pointed out are lack of education – “So many people think that people with previous muscle aches can’t take a high-intensity statin, and we know that’s not true” – and misinformation, which he called “the more nefarious issue.”

He said, “Part of the problem is that misinformation travels much faster than accurate information. There’s so much out there about statins being toxic, which is just not true.”

Fragmentation of the U.S. health care system and the lack of feedback on quality measures, and physicians deferring decisions on glucose-lowering therapy to endocrinologists also pose barriers to more widespread use of evidence-based therapies in patients with diabetes and ASCVD, Dr. Granger said.

“This is a call to action,” Dr. Granger said. “By clearly describing these gaps, we hope that people will see this as an important opportunity to improve care not only at the level of individual providers, but even more importantly at the level of health systems.”

Dr. Jellinger said the “dismal results” of the study serve as a “wake-up call,” adding that “my own perception among my colleagues, along with the data referred to in this article, point to definitely higher usage among commercially insured patients. However, even in more enriched populations the message is not having its full impact. We have remarkable agents for our patients with diabetes that can make a real impact in diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. Our twofold goal should be to aggressively educate a broad slate of health care professionals and, of course, make patient access easy and affordable without ‘prior authorization.’ ”

The study noted the need to bring the prescribing patterns for patients with both diabetes and ASCVD more in line with evidence-based guidelines. To that end, said Dr. Granger, the researchers are moving ahead on a randomized study of a quality improvement project involving about 45 U.S. cardiology clinics using a feedback loop to apply more consistent prescribing patterns for the three therapy groups. “Hopefully a year from now we’ll have a lot more information about this problem,” Dr. Granger added.

Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly funded the study. Dr. Granger reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Medtronic, Akros Pharma, Apple, AstraZeneca, Daichi-Sankyo, Novartis, AbbVie, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CeleCor, Correvio, Espero, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Rhoshan Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Jellinger is on speaker’s bureaus for Esperion and Amgen.
 

A high percentage of people with type 2 diabetes also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but fewer than 1 in 20 get the triumvirate of evidence-based medications – drugs to lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose levels – that can mitigate the dominant health risks they face, a large multicenter cohort study reported.

The cohort consisted of 324,706 patients with diabetes and ASCVD in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network in 2018.

Senior study author Christopher B. Granger, MD, said in an interview that the findings represent “a shocking underuse of treatments proven to improve outcomes in this high-risk population.” For example, he noted that high-intensity statins are “inexpensive, well tolerated, and highly effective, but the fact that they’re only used in 26.8% of this population is really an indictment and embarrassment for our health-care system.”

The study analyzed prescriptions of high-intensity statins to lower cholesterol, ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) for blood pressure, and SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists for hyperglycemia in a population with both diabetes and ASCVD.

This study amplifies the perceived treatment gap in cardiovascular risk reduction in persons with diabetes,” Paul S. Jellinger, MD, of the Center for Diabetes and Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla., said in an interview. “The unfortunate treatment deficiency documented among 325,000 patients in 12 health systems is carefully quantitated and the message is loud, clear, and simple: There is gross underutilization of agents – ACE inhibitors and ARBs, SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and high-intensity statins – with definitively proven ASCVD benefit.”

Overcoming barriers to prescriptions

The study noted that more work needs to be done to overcome the barriers to more widespread use of these therapies in patients with both diabetes and ASCVD.

Specifically with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, cost was more likely to be a barrier than with the other drug groups, but that didn’t explain the low levels of high-intensity statin prescriptions, said Dr. Granger of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The first barrier he mentioned is what he called “clinical inertia.” He said: “I’m a cardiologist who cares for these patients in my clinic each week, and there are so many different things that we need to be trying to achieve with the brief time we have with each patient in our clinic setting that people tend to miss the opportunity.”

The cost barrier, especially with the glucose-lowering therapies, can be overcome with clinic and health care system programs that aid patients in getting discounted drugs, he noted.

Other barriers Dr. Granger pointed out are lack of education – “So many people think that people with previous muscle aches can’t take a high-intensity statin, and we know that’s not true” – and misinformation, which he called “the more nefarious issue.”

He said, “Part of the problem is that misinformation travels much faster than accurate information. There’s so much out there about statins being toxic, which is just not true.”

Fragmentation of the U.S. health care system and the lack of feedback on quality measures, and physicians deferring decisions on glucose-lowering therapy to endocrinologists also pose barriers to more widespread use of evidence-based therapies in patients with diabetes and ASCVD, Dr. Granger said.

“This is a call to action,” Dr. Granger said. “By clearly describing these gaps, we hope that people will see this as an important opportunity to improve care not only at the level of individual providers, but even more importantly at the level of health systems.”

Dr. Jellinger said the “dismal results” of the study serve as a “wake-up call,” adding that “my own perception among my colleagues, along with the data referred to in this article, point to definitely higher usage among commercially insured patients. However, even in more enriched populations the message is not having its full impact. We have remarkable agents for our patients with diabetes that can make a real impact in diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. Our twofold goal should be to aggressively educate a broad slate of health care professionals and, of course, make patient access easy and affordable without ‘prior authorization.’ ”

The study noted the need to bring the prescribing patterns for patients with both diabetes and ASCVD more in line with evidence-based guidelines. To that end, said Dr. Granger, the researchers are moving ahead on a randomized study of a quality improvement project involving about 45 U.S. cardiology clinics using a feedback loop to apply more consistent prescribing patterns for the three therapy groups. “Hopefully a year from now we’ll have a lot more information about this problem,” Dr. Granger added.

Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly funded the study. Dr. Granger reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Medtronic, Akros Pharma, Apple, AstraZeneca, Daichi-Sankyo, Novartis, AbbVie, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CeleCor, Correvio, Espero, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Rhoshan Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Jellinger is on speaker’s bureaus for Esperion and Amgen.
 

Loss of smell. Fatigue. Mental health challenges. Difficulty breathing and other lower respiratory diseases. Fluid and electrolyte disorders. Cardiac dysrhythmia and other nonspecific chest pains. Trouble with urination. Diabetes?

Statistically, these are the conditions that defined post-acute SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) infection, or long COVID, for 28,118 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR before the Omicron wave. The data, presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, can be used to guide diagnoses of long COVID, and may be the guide soon at Kaiser Permanente offices, Michael Horberg, MD, executive director of research, community benefit, and Medicaid strategy at the Mid-Atlantic Permanente Research Institute, said in an interview.

Medscape Illustration/Dreamstime/Getty Images

More than 1 in 10

About one in four people who’d had COVID reported symptoms they thought might be long COVID, but through the analysis, they found that only 13% actually developed new conditions that could be categorized as long COVID.

“When you start controlling for all those chronic conditions, a lot of symptoms fall out,” Dr. Horberg told this news organization. “Plus, when you start comparing to the COVID-negative population, especially in the first 30 days of your positive diagnosis, actually, the COVID-negative patients have essentially almost the same amount, sometimes more.”

For instance, in the first month after diagnosis, though people with COVID reported anxiety symptoms after their diagnoses, people who’d never had COVID were coming in even more often with that symptom. And although gastrointestinal disorders were common in people who’d had COVID, they were just as likely in people who had not. Nausea and vomiting were actually 19% more common in people without COVID than in those with it. And people without COVID were nearly twice as likely to develop nutritional and endocrine disorders.

In the longer run, people who’d had COVID were 25% more likely to develop dysrhythmias, 20% more likely to develop diabetes, 60% more likely to develop fatigue, 21% more likely to develop genitourinary conditions, 39% more likely to develop chest pains, and a full 3.88 times more likely to develop trouble with olfaction.

And although people who’d had COVID were numerically 5% more likely to develop both abdominal pain and vertigo, 4% more likely to develop nervous system disorders, and 1% more likely to develop anxiety disorders longer term, none of those reached statistical significance.

The only diagnosis that doesn’t make sense to Dr. Horberg is diabetes.

“At this point I don’t think it’s been fully explained,” Dr. Horberg said. “I don’t think COVID is affecting the pancreas. But I do think that these are people who probably sought medical care, who hadn’t been seeking medical care and that the findings of diabetes were incidental diagnoses.”

Still, Dr. Horberg isn’t saying never on that. “As they say, more research is needed,” he added.
 

Ready to define long COVID?

As an intensive care unit physician and pulmonologist, Michael Risbano, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, has seen a lot of COVID. As the co-manager of the medical system’s post-COVID clinic, he’s also seen a lot of people coming in for help with what could be long COVID. When he saw the data from Dr. Horberg’s presentation, at first it seemed to confirm what he’d already known. But then he looked further.

“Well, this is actually making sense,” Dr. Risbano thought. At his clinic, it’s been an ongoing challenge to tease out what symptoms existed before COVID. Unlike Kaiser, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center is not a closed system.

“We know some people who tend to get sick [with COVID] have some underlying medical issues already,” Dr. Risbano said in an interview. “But we don’t always have a good baseline as to what they were like beforehand, so we don’t always know what’s changed.”

He said the study design here, though retrospective and based on chart review rather than prospective observation, starts to put symptoms into the larger context of a patient’s life. And the diabetes association really stood out to him. He recalled one patient who, when she was admitted to the ICU, had a hemoglobin A1c that was totally normal. But when that patient returned a few months later, her blood sugar had skyrocketed.

“It was sky-high, like 13, and she was in diabetic ketoacidosis,” he said. “I know that’s an N of 1, but my wife is a dietitian and a case manager, and she’s having a lot of people coming in with a new diagnosis of diabetes.”

Still, he said he’s not sure that the conditions the study identified should be the basis for a definition of long COVID.

“I don’t know if you can come up with a definition out of this,” he said. “But I think this is at least helpful in telling us what disease states are different pre- and post-COVID, and what sorts of diagnoses clinicians should look for when a patient comes in after having a COVID diagnosis.”

Dr. Horberg and Dr. Risbano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

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

Loss of smell. Fatigue. Mental health challenges. Difficulty breathing and other lower respiratory diseases. Fluid and electrolyte disorders. Cardiac dysrhythmia and other nonspecific chest pains. Trouble with urination. Diabetes?

Statistically, these are the conditions that defined post-acute SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) infection, or long COVID, for 28,118 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR before the Omicron wave. The data, presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, can be used to guide diagnoses of long COVID, and may be the guide soon at Kaiser Permanente offices, Michael Horberg, MD, executive director of research, community benefit, and Medicaid strategy at the Mid-Atlantic Permanente Research Institute, said in an interview.

Medscape Illustration/Dreamstime/Getty Images

More than 1 in 10

About one in four people who’d had COVID reported symptoms they thought might be long COVID, but through the analysis, they found that only 13% actually developed new conditions that could be categorized as long COVID.

“When you start controlling for all those chronic conditions, a lot of symptoms fall out,” Dr. Horberg told this news organization. “Plus, when you start comparing to the COVID-negative population, especially in the first 30 days of your positive diagnosis, actually, the COVID-negative patients have essentially almost the same amount, sometimes more.”

For instance, in the first month after diagnosis, though people with COVID reported anxiety symptoms after their diagnoses, people who’d never had COVID were coming in even more often with that symptom. And although gastrointestinal disorders were common in people who’d had COVID, they were just as likely in people who had not. Nausea and vomiting were actually 19% more common in people without COVID than in those with it. And people without COVID were nearly twice as likely to develop nutritional and endocrine disorders.

In the longer run, people who’d had COVID were 25% more likely to develop dysrhythmias, 20% more likely to develop diabetes, 60% more likely to develop fatigue, 21% more likely to develop genitourinary conditions, 39% more likely to develop chest pains, and a full 3.88 times more likely to develop trouble with olfaction.

And although people who’d had COVID were numerically 5% more likely to develop both abdominal pain and vertigo, 4% more likely to develop nervous system disorders, and 1% more likely to develop anxiety disorders longer term, none of those reached statistical significance.

The only diagnosis that doesn’t make sense to Dr. Horberg is diabetes.

“At this point I don’t think it’s been fully explained,” Dr. Horberg said. “I don’t think COVID is affecting the pancreas. But I do think that these are people who probably sought medical care, who hadn’t been seeking medical care and that the findings of diabetes were incidental diagnoses.”

Still, Dr. Horberg isn’t saying never on that. “As they say, more research is needed,” he added.
 

Ready to define long COVID?

As an intensive care unit physician and pulmonologist, Michael Risbano, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, has seen a lot of COVID. As the co-manager of the medical system’s post-COVID clinic, he’s also seen a lot of people coming in for help with what could be long COVID. When he saw the data from Dr. Horberg’s presentation, at first it seemed to confirm what he’d already known. But then he looked further.

“Well, this is actually making sense,” Dr. Risbano thought. At his clinic, it’s been an ongoing challenge to tease out what symptoms existed before COVID. Unlike Kaiser, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center is not a closed system.

“We know some people who tend to get sick [with COVID] have some underlying medical issues already,” Dr. Risbano said in an interview. “But we don’t always have a good baseline as to what they were like beforehand, so we don’t always know what’s changed.”

He said the study design here, though retrospective and based on chart review rather than prospective observation, starts to put symptoms into the larger context of a patient’s life. And the diabetes association really stood out to him. He recalled one patient who, when she was admitted to the ICU, had a hemoglobin A1c that was totally normal. But when that patient returned a few months later, her blood sugar had skyrocketed.

“It was sky-high, like 13, and she was in diabetic ketoacidosis,” he said. “I know that’s an N of 1, but my wife is a dietitian and a case manager, and she’s having a lot of people coming in with a new diagnosis of diabetes.”

Still, he said he’s not sure that the conditions the study identified should be the basis for a definition of long COVID.

“I don’t know if you can come up with a definition out of this,” he said. “But I think this is at least helpful in telling us what disease states are different pre- and post-COVID, and what sorts of diagnoses clinicians should look for when a patient comes in after having a COVID diagnosis.”

Dr. Horberg and Dr. Risbano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

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

Loss of smell. Fatigue. Mental health challenges. Difficulty breathing and other lower respiratory diseases. Fluid and electrolyte disorders. Cardiac dysrhythmia and other nonspecific chest pains. Trouble with urination. Diabetes?

Statistically, these are the conditions that defined post-acute SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) infection, or long COVID, for 28,118 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR before the Omicron wave. The data, presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, can be used to guide diagnoses of long COVID, and may be the guide soon at Kaiser Permanente offices, Michael Horberg, MD, executive director of research, community benefit, and Medicaid strategy at the Mid-Atlantic Permanente Research Institute, said in an interview.

Medscape Illustration/Dreamstime/Getty Images

More than 1 in 10

About one in four people who’d had COVID reported symptoms they thought might be long COVID, but through the analysis, they found that only 13% actually developed new conditions that could be categorized as long COVID.

“When you start controlling for all those chronic conditions, a lot of symptoms fall out,” Dr. Horberg told this news organization. “Plus, when you start comparing to the COVID-negative population, especially in the first 30 days of your positive diagnosis, actually, the COVID-negative patients have essentially almost the same amount, sometimes more.”

For instance, in the first month after diagnosis, though people with COVID reported anxiety symptoms after their diagnoses, people who’d never had COVID were coming in even more often with that symptom. And although gastrointestinal disorders were common in people who’d had COVID, they were just as likely in people who had not. Nausea and vomiting were actually 19% more common in people without COVID than in those with it. And people without COVID were nearly twice as likely to develop nutritional and endocrine disorders.

In the longer run, people who’d had COVID were 25% more likely to develop dysrhythmias, 20% more likely to develop diabetes, 60% more likely to develop fatigue, 21% more likely to develop genitourinary conditions, 39% more likely to develop chest pains, and a full 3.88 times more likely to develop trouble with olfaction.

And although people who’d had COVID were numerically 5% more likely to develop both abdominal pain and vertigo, 4% more likely to develop nervous system disorders, and 1% more likely to develop anxiety disorders longer term, none of those reached statistical significance.

The only diagnosis that doesn’t make sense to Dr. Horberg is diabetes.

“At this point I don’t think it’s been fully explained,” Dr. Horberg said. “I don’t think COVID is affecting the pancreas. But I do think that these are people who probably sought medical care, who hadn’t been seeking medical care and that the findings of diabetes were incidental diagnoses.”

Still, Dr. Horberg isn’t saying never on that. “As they say, more research is needed,” he added.
 

Ready to define long COVID?

As an intensive care unit physician and pulmonologist, Michael Risbano, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, has seen a lot of COVID. As the co-manager of the medical system’s post-COVID clinic, he’s also seen a lot of people coming in for help with what could be long COVID. When he saw the data from Dr. Horberg’s presentation, at first it seemed to confirm what he’d already known. But then he looked further.

“Well, this is actually making sense,” Dr. Risbano thought. At his clinic, it’s been an ongoing challenge to tease out what symptoms existed before COVID. Unlike Kaiser, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center is not a closed system.

“We know some people who tend to get sick [with COVID] have some underlying medical issues already,” Dr. Risbano said in an interview. “But we don’t always have a good baseline as to what they were like beforehand, so we don’t always know what’s changed.”

He said the study design here, though retrospective and based on chart review rather than prospective observation, starts to put symptoms into the larger context of a patient’s life. And the diabetes association really stood out to him. He recalled one patient who, when she was admitted to the ICU, had a hemoglobin A1c that was totally normal. But when that patient returned a few months later, her blood sugar had skyrocketed.

“It was sky-high, like 13, and she was in diabetic ketoacidosis,” he said. “I know that’s an N of 1, but my wife is a dietitian and a case manager, and she’s having a lot of people coming in with a new diagnosis of diabetes.”

Still, he said he’s not sure that the conditions the study identified should be the basis for a definition of long COVID.

“I don’t know if you can come up with a definition out of this,” he said. “But I think this is at least helpful in telling us what disease states are different pre- and post-COVID, and what sorts of diagnoses clinicians should look for when a patient comes in after having a COVID diagnosis.”

Dr. Horberg and Dr. Risbano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

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

The majority of Americans are not aware that alcohol consumption causes a variety of cancers and especially do not consider wine and beer to have a link with cancer, suggest the results from a national survey.

coldsnowstorm/iStock / Getty Images Plus

“Alcohol is a leading modifiable risk factor for cancer, yet most Americans are unaware that alcohol increases cancer risk,” write lead author Andrew Seidenberg, PhD, MPH, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md., and colleagues.

“Increasing awareness of the alcohol-cancer link, such as through multimedia campaigns and patient-provider communication, may be an important new strategy for health advocates working to implement preventive alcohol policies,” they add.

The findings were published in the February issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

“This is the first study to examine the relationship between alcohol control policy support and awareness of the alcohol-cancer link among a national U.S. sample,” the authors write.

The results show that there is some public support for the idea of adding written warnings about the alcohol-cancer risk to alcoholic beverages, which is something that a number of cancer organizations have been petitioning for.

A petition filed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Institute for Cancer Research, and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, all in collaboration with several public health organizations, proposes labeling that would read: “WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, consumption of alcoholic beverages can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers.”

Such labeling has “the potential to save lives by ensuring that consumers have a more accurate understanding of the link between alcohol and cancer, which will empower them to better protect their health,” the groups said in the petition.
 

Public support

The findings come from an analysis of the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey 5 Cycle 4. A total of 3,865 adults participated in the survey, approximately half of whom were nondrinkers.

As well as investigating how aware people were of the alcohol-cancer link, the investigators looked at how prevalent public support might be for the following three communication-focused alcohol policies:

• Banning outdoor alcohol-related advertising
• Requiring health warnings on alcohol beverage containers
• Requiring recommended drinking guidelines on alcoholic beverage containers

“Awareness of the alcohol-cancer link was measured separately for wine, beer, and liquor by asking: In your opinion, how much does drinking the following types of alcohol affect the risk of getting cancer?” the authors explain.

“Awareness of the alcohol-cancer link was low,” the investigators comment; only about one-third (31.8%) of participants were aware that alcohol increases the risk of cancer. The figures were even lower for individual beverage type, at 20.3% for wine, 24.9% for beer, and 31.2% for liquor. Furthermore, approximately half of participants responded with “don’t know” to the three awareness items, investigators noted.

On the other hand, more than half of the Americans surveyed supported adding both health warning labels (65.1%) and information on recommended drinking guidelines (63.9%) to alcoholic beverage containers. Support was lower (34.4% of respondents) for banning outdoor alcohol advertising.

Among Americans who were aware that alcohol increased cancer risk, support was also higher for all three policies.

For example, about 75% of respondents who were aware that alcohol increases cancer risk supported adding health warnings and drinking guidelines to beverage containers, compared with about half of Americans who felt that alcohol consumption had either no effect on or decreased cancer risk.

Even among those who were aware of the alcohol-cancer link, public support for outdoor advertising was not high (37.8%), but it was even lower (23.6%) among respondents who felt alcohol had no effect on or decreased the risk of cancer.

“Policy support was highest among nondrinkers, followed by drinkers, and was lowest among heavier drinkers,” the authors report.

For example, almost 43% of nondrinkers supported restrictions on outdoor alcohol advertising, compared with only about 28.6% of drinkers and 22% of heavier drinkers. More respondents supported adding health warning labels on alcoholic beverages – 70% of nondrinkers, 65% of drinkers, and 57% of heavier drinkers, investigators observe.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The majority of Americans are not aware that alcohol consumption causes a variety of cancers and especially do not consider wine and beer to have a link with cancer, suggest the results from a national survey.

coldsnowstorm/iStock / Getty Images Plus

“Alcohol is a leading modifiable risk factor for cancer, yet most Americans are unaware that alcohol increases cancer risk,” write lead author Andrew Seidenberg, PhD, MPH, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md., and colleagues.

“Increasing awareness of the alcohol-cancer link, such as through multimedia campaigns and patient-provider communication, may be an important new strategy for health advocates working to implement preventive alcohol policies,” they add.

The findings were published in the February issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

“This is the first study to examine the relationship between alcohol control policy support and awareness of the alcohol-cancer link among a national U.S. sample,” the authors write.

The results show that there is some public support for the idea of adding written warnings about the alcohol-cancer risk to alcoholic beverages, which is something that a number of cancer organizations have been petitioning for.

A petition filed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Institute for Cancer Research, and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, all in collaboration with several public health organizations, proposes labeling that would read: “WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, consumption of alcoholic beverages can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers.”

Such labeling has “the potential to save lives by ensuring that consumers have a more accurate understanding of the link between alcohol and cancer, which will empower them to better protect their health,” the groups said in the petition.
 

Public support

The findings come from an analysis of the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey 5 Cycle 4. A total of 3,865 adults participated in the survey, approximately half of whom were nondrinkers.

As well as investigating how aware people were of the alcohol-cancer link, the investigators looked at how prevalent public support might be for the following three communication-focused alcohol policies:

• Banning outdoor alcohol-related advertising
• Requiring health warnings on alcohol beverage containers
• Requiring recommended drinking guidelines on alcoholic beverage containers

“Awareness of the alcohol-cancer link was measured separately for wine, beer, and liquor by asking: In your opinion, how much does drinking the following types of alcohol affect the risk of getting cancer?” the authors explain.

“Awareness of the alcohol-cancer link was low,” the investigators comment; only about one-third (31.8%) of participants were aware that alcohol increases the risk of cancer. The figures were even lower for individual beverage type, at 20.3% for wine, 24.9% for beer, and 31.2% for liquor. Furthermore, approximately half of participants responded with “don’t know” to the three awareness items, investigators noted.

On the other hand, more than half of the Americans surveyed supported adding both health warning labels (65.1%) and information on recommended drinking guidelines (63.9%) to alcoholic beverage containers. Support was lower (34.4% of respondents) for banning outdoor alcohol advertising.

Among Americans who were aware that alcohol increased cancer risk, support was also higher for all three policies.

For example, about 75% of respondents who were aware that alcohol increases cancer risk supported adding health warnings and drinking guidelines to beverage containers, compared with about half of Americans who felt that alcohol consumption had either no effect on or decreased cancer risk.

Even among those who were aware of the alcohol-cancer link, public support for outdoor advertising was not high (37.8%), but it was even lower (23.6%) among respondents who felt alcohol had no effect on or decreased the risk of cancer.

“Policy support was highest among nondrinkers, followed by drinkers, and was lowest among heavier drinkers,” the authors report.

For example, almost 43% of nondrinkers supported restrictions on outdoor alcohol advertising, compared with only about 28.6% of drinkers and 22% of heavier drinkers. More respondents supported adding health warning labels on alcoholic beverages – 70% of nondrinkers, 65% of drinkers, and 57% of heavier drinkers, investigators observe.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The majority of Americans are not aware that alcohol consumption causes a variety of cancers and especially do not consider wine and beer to have a link with cancer, suggest the results from a national survey.

coldsnowstorm/iStock / Getty Images Plus

“Alcohol is a leading modifiable risk factor for cancer, yet most Americans are unaware that alcohol increases cancer risk,” write lead author Andrew Seidenberg, PhD, MPH, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md., and colleagues.

“Increasing awareness of the alcohol-cancer link, such as through multimedia campaigns and patient-provider communication, may be an important new strategy for health advocates working to implement preventive alcohol policies,” they add.

The findings were published in the February issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

“This is the first study to examine the relationship between alcohol control policy support and awareness of the alcohol-cancer link among a national U.S. sample,” the authors write.

The results show that there is some public support for the idea of adding written warnings about the alcohol-cancer risk to alcoholic beverages, which is something that a number of cancer organizations have been petitioning for.

A petition filed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Institute for Cancer Research, and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, all in collaboration with several public health organizations, proposes labeling that would read: “WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, consumption of alcoholic beverages can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers.”

Such labeling has “the potential to save lives by ensuring that consumers have a more accurate understanding of the link between alcohol and cancer, which will empower them to better protect their health,” the groups said in the petition.
 

Public support

The findings come from an analysis of the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey 5 Cycle 4. A total of 3,865 adults participated in the survey, approximately half of whom were nondrinkers.

As well as investigating how aware people were of the alcohol-cancer link, the investigators looked at how prevalent public support might be for the following three communication-focused alcohol policies:

• Banning outdoor alcohol-related advertising
• Requiring health warnings on alcohol beverage containers
• Requiring recommended drinking guidelines on alcoholic beverage containers

“Awareness of the alcohol-cancer link was measured separately for wine, beer, and liquor by asking: In your opinion, how much does drinking the following types of alcohol affect the risk of getting cancer?” the authors explain.

“Awareness of the alcohol-cancer link was low,” the investigators comment; only about one-third (31.8%) of participants were aware that alcohol increases the risk of cancer. The figures were even lower for individual beverage type, at 20.3% for wine, 24.9% for beer, and 31.2% for liquor. Furthermore, approximately half of participants responded with “don’t know” to the three awareness items, investigators noted.

On the other hand, more than half of the Americans surveyed supported adding both health warning labels (65.1%) and information on recommended drinking guidelines (63.9%) to alcoholic beverage containers. Support was lower (34.4% of respondents) for banning outdoor alcohol advertising.

Among Americans who were aware that alcohol increased cancer risk, support was also higher for all three policies.

For example, about 75% of respondents who were aware that alcohol increases cancer risk supported adding health warnings and drinking guidelines to beverage containers, compared with about half of Americans who felt that alcohol consumption had either no effect on or decreased cancer risk.

Even among those who were aware of the alcohol-cancer link, public support for outdoor advertising was not high (37.8%), but it was even lower (23.6%) among respondents who felt alcohol had no effect on or decreased the risk of cancer.

“Policy support was highest among nondrinkers, followed by drinkers, and was lowest among heavier drinkers,” the authors report.

For example, almost 43% of nondrinkers supported restrictions on outdoor alcohol advertising, compared with only about 28.6% of drinkers and 22% of heavier drinkers. More respondents supported adding health warning labels on alcoholic beverages – 70% of nondrinkers, 65% of drinkers, and 57% of heavier drinkers, investigators observe.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

About 73% of Americans are now immune to the Omicron variant, which could increase to 80% by mid-March, a university health institute says.

About half of eligible Americans have received booster shots, and about 80 million confirmed COVID-19 infections have been reported. Many more infections have occurred but haven’t been officially recorded, The Associated Press reported.

The high percentage of immunity from vaccination and previous infection tends to prevent or shorten new illnesses and reduce the amount of virus circulating overall. Health experts are now discussing whether the number is high enough to stop new waves or reduce the burden on hospitals.

“I am optimistic even if we have a surge in summer, cases will go up, but hospitalizations and deaths will not,” Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, told the AP.

Dr. Mokdad works on COVID-19 forecasting for the university’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which has been a reliable model during the pandemic. Dr. Mokdad calculated the 73% number for the AP.

“We have changed,” he said. “We have been exposed to this virus and we know how to deal with it.”

The United States is now reporting about 125,000 new cases per day, according to the data tracker from the New York Times, marking a 68% decrease from the past 2 weeks. Hospitalizations are also down 39%, and about 2,300 new deaths are being reported daily, marking a 13% decline.

There will be more outbreaks as new variants emerge, immunity wanes, and some people remain unvaccinated, Dr. Mokdad said. But the coronavirus is no longer new, and the entire population is no longer “immunologically naive.” Scientists are now trying to understand how long booster protection will last against Omicron and how many people have been infected who had mild or no symptoms that were never reported.

By the end of the Omicron surge, about three out of four people in the United States will have been infected, Shaun Truelove, PhD, an epidemiologist and disease modeler at Johns Hopkins University, told the AP.

“We know it’s a huge proportion of the population,” he said. “This varies a lot by location, and in some areas, we expect the number infected to be closer to one in two.”

That means different regions and groups of people have different levels of protection and risk. In Virginia, for instance, disease modelers estimate that about 45% of residents have the highest level of immunity by being vaccinated and boosted or vaccinated with a recent Omicron infection. Another 47% have immunity that has waned somewhat.

“That’s going to be a nice shield of armor for our population as a whole,” Bryan Lewis, PhD, an epidemiologist who leads the University of Virginia’s COVID-19 modeling team, told the outlet. “If we do get to very low case rates, we certainly can ease back on some of these restrictions.”

About 7% of Virginians are considered the most vulnerable because they were never vaccinated or infected, he noted. Nationwide, about 80 million Americans are still vulnerable, the AP reported.

“The 26% who could still get Omicron right now have to be very careful,” Dr. Mokdad said.

The percentages will continue to change as immunity wanes and new variants circulate in the country. For now, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model estimates that about 63% to 81% of Americans are protected.

“We’ve reached a much better position for the coming months, but with waning immunity, we shouldn’t take it for granted,” Dr. Mokdad said.

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

About 73% of Americans are now immune to the Omicron variant, which could increase to 80% by mid-March, a university health institute says.

About half of eligible Americans have received booster shots, and about 80 million confirmed COVID-19 infections have been reported. Many more infections have occurred but haven’t been officially recorded, The Associated Press reported.

The high percentage of immunity from vaccination and previous infection tends to prevent or shorten new illnesses and reduce the amount of virus circulating overall. Health experts are now discussing whether the number is high enough to stop new waves or reduce the burden on hospitals.

“I am optimistic even if we have a surge in summer, cases will go up, but hospitalizations and deaths will not,” Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, told the AP.

Dr. Mokdad works on COVID-19 forecasting for the university’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which has been a reliable model during the pandemic. Dr. Mokdad calculated the 73% number for the AP.

“We have changed,” he said. “We have been exposed to this virus and we know how to deal with it.”

The United States is now reporting about 125,000 new cases per day, according to the data tracker from the New York Times, marking a 68% decrease from the past 2 weeks. Hospitalizations are also down 39%, and about 2,300 new deaths are being reported daily, marking a 13% decline.

There will be more outbreaks as new variants emerge, immunity wanes, and some people remain unvaccinated, Dr. Mokdad said. But the coronavirus is no longer new, and the entire population is no longer “immunologically naive.” Scientists are now trying to understand how long booster protection will last against Omicron and how many people have been infected who had mild or no symptoms that were never reported.

By the end of the Omicron surge, about three out of four people in the United States will have been infected, Shaun Truelove, PhD, an epidemiologist and disease modeler at Johns Hopkins University, told the AP.

“We know it’s a huge proportion of the population,” he said. “This varies a lot by location, and in some areas, we expect the number infected to be closer to one in two.”

That means different regions and groups of people have different levels of protection and risk. In Virginia, for instance, disease modelers estimate that about 45% of residents have the highest level of immunity by being vaccinated and boosted or vaccinated with a recent Omicron infection. Another 47% have immunity that has waned somewhat.

“That’s going to be a nice shield of armor for our population as a whole,” Bryan Lewis, PhD, an epidemiologist who leads the University of Virginia’s COVID-19 modeling team, told the outlet. “If we do get to very low case rates, we certainly can ease back on some of these restrictions.”

About 7% of Virginians are considered the most vulnerable because they were never vaccinated or infected, he noted. Nationwide, about 80 million Americans are still vulnerable, the AP reported.

“The 26% who could still get Omicron right now have to be very careful,” Dr. Mokdad said.

The percentages will continue to change as immunity wanes and new variants circulate in the country. For now, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model estimates that about 63% to 81% of Americans are protected.

“We’ve reached a much better position for the coming months, but with waning immunity, we shouldn’t take it for granted,” Dr. Mokdad said.

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

About 73% of Americans are now immune to the Omicron variant, which could increase to 80% by mid-March, a university health institute says.

About half of eligible Americans have received booster shots, and about 80 million confirmed COVID-19 infections have been reported. Many more infections have occurred but haven’t been officially recorded, The Associated Press reported.

The high percentage of immunity from vaccination and previous infection tends to prevent or shorten new illnesses and reduce the amount of virus circulating overall. Health experts are now discussing whether the number is high enough to stop new waves or reduce the burden on hospitals.

“I am optimistic even if we have a surge in summer, cases will go up, but hospitalizations and deaths will not,” Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, told the AP.

Dr. Mokdad works on COVID-19 forecasting for the university’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which has been a reliable model during the pandemic. Dr. Mokdad calculated the 73% number for the AP.

“We have changed,” he said. “We have been exposed to this virus and we know how to deal with it.”

The United States is now reporting about 125,000 new cases per day, according to the data tracker from the New York Times, marking a 68% decrease from the past 2 weeks. Hospitalizations are also down 39%, and about 2,300 new deaths are being reported daily, marking a 13% decline.

There will be more outbreaks as new variants emerge, immunity wanes, and some people remain unvaccinated, Dr. Mokdad said. But the coronavirus is no longer new, and the entire population is no longer “immunologically naive.” Scientists are now trying to understand how long booster protection will last against Omicron and how many people have been infected who had mild or no symptoms that were never reported.

By the end of the Omicron surge, about three out of four people in the United States will have been infected, Shaun Truelove, PhD, an epidemiologist and disease modeler at Johns Hopkins University, told the AP.

“We know it’s a huge proportion of the population,” he said. “This varies a lot by location, and in some areas, we expect the number infected to be closer to one in two.”

That means different regions and groups of people have different levels of protection and risk. In Virginia, for instance, disease modelers estimate that about 45% of residents have the highest level of immunity by being vaccinated and boosted or vaccinated with a recent Omicron infection. Another 47% have immunity that has waned somewhat.

“That’s going to be a nice shield of armor for our population as a whole,” Bryan Lewis, PhD, an epidemiologist who leads the University of Virginia’s COVID-19 modeling team, told the outlet. “If we do get to very low case rates, we certainly can ease back on some of these restrictions.”

About 7% of Virginians are considered the most vulnerable because they were never vaccinated or infected, he noted. Nationwide, about 80 million Americans are still vulnerable, the AP reported.

“The 26% who could still get Omicron right now have to be very careful,” Dr. Mokdad said.

The percentages will continue to change as immunity wanes and new variants circulate in the country. For now, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model estimates that about 63% to 81% of Americans are protected.

“We’ve reached a much better position for the coming months, but with waning immunity, we shouldn’t take it for granted,” Dr. Mokdad said.

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