Federal Practitioner

Lisa Iezzoni, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a disability researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, has used a wheelchair for more than 30 years because of multiple sclerosis. When she visits her primary care doctor, she doesn’t get weighed because the scales are not wheelchair accessible.

This failure to weigh her and other patients in wheelchairs could lead to serious medical problems. Weight is used to monitor a person’s overall health and prenatal health and to determine accurate doses for medications such as some chemotherapies, said Dr. Iezzoni.

In another situation, a man who used a wheelchair said that his primary care doctor never got him out of it for a complete physical exam. The patient later developed lymphoma, which first appeared in his groin. The doctor should have accommodated his disability and used a height-adjustable exam table or a portable lift to transfer him onto the table.

When physicians don’t provide access to medical care that patients with disabilities need, they put themselves at greater risk of lawsuits, fines, and settlements.

Yet, a new study in Health Affairs suggests that a large percentage of doctors are not fully aware of what they are legally required to do.

Under federal nondiscrimination laws (Americans With Disabilities Act, American Rehabilitation Act, and ADA Amendments Act), medical practices must provide equal access to people with disabilities, accommodate their disability-related needs, and not refuse them medical services because of their disabilities, say disability experts.
 

Where doctors go wrong with disability laws

What doctors don’t know about providing reasonable accommodations makes them vulnerable to lawsuits, which worries more than two-thirds of the 714 outpatient doctors surveyed.

Not only are they required to provide reasonable accommodations, but they also have to pay for them, the researchers said. One-fifth of the surveyed doctors said they didn’t know that practice owners have to pay.

More than one practice has made patients pay for services needed for their disability, such as sign language interpreters – the patients later complained this violated the ADA to enforcement agencies.

Doctors also don’t know that they have to collaborate with patients to determine what reasonable accommodations they need – over two-thirds of those surveyed said they didn’t know it was a joint responsibility, the study found.

When doctors fail to accommodate patients’ disability needs, they engage in discrimination and violate the ADA, says Elizabeth Pendo, JD, a coauthor of the study and the Joseph J. Simeone Professor of Law at Saint Louis University.

The Department of Justice has investigated several patient complaints of alleged disability discrimination recently and resolved the disputes with agreements and small fines in some cases. “The goal is not to get large financial settlements but to work with practices to get the correct procedures in place to be compliant,” said Ms. Pendo.

Physicians would be wise to check out whether their practices are as accessible as they think. Even if there’s a ramp to the office building, the parking lot may not have a van-accessible space or enough handicapped parking signs, or the exam room may be too narrow for a wheelchair to navigate.

These practices violated the ADA and agreed to make changes:

• Hamden, Conn., has two buildings that patients with physical disabilities couldn’t easily enter. The physician owners agreed to change the buildings’ entrances and access routes and add features to make it easier to use examination rooms and restrooms and the check-in and check-out areas.
• Seven medical offices in Riverside, Calif., failed to communicate effectively with deaf and hard-of-hearing patients. They should have had a qualified sign language interpreter, an assistive listening device, or another appropriate aid or service available to a deaf patient and her family. Instead, the office relied on a video remote interpretation system that often failed to work. The agreement requires the clinic to provide those aids and services to patients and their companions who are deaf or hard of hearing, advertise their availability, assess each patient who is deaf or hard of hearing to determine the best aids and services for their needs, and pay $5,000 in compensation to the complainant and a $1,000 civil penalty to the United States.
• Springfield, Mass., refused to provide full joint replacements to two patients being treated with buprenorphine, a medication used to treat opioid use disorder. Rather than accommodate the patients, the surgeons referred them elsewhere because they were uncomfortable with the postoperative pain management protocol for patients prescribed buprenorphine. “The Americans With Disabilities Act protects health care access for people under medical treatment for opioid use disorder,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Nathaniel R. Mendell. “Health care providers must comply with the ADA, even when doing so is inconvenient or makes them uncomfortable.” The agreement requires the practice to adopt a nondiscrimination policy, provide training on the ADA and opioid use disorder, and pay two complainants $15,000 each for pain and suffering.

The DOJ has filed civil lawsuits against medical practices when they failed to resolve the allegations. Recent cases include an ophthalmology practice with 24 facilities in Arizona that refused to help transfer patients in wheelchairs to surgery tables for eye surgery and required them to pay for transfer support services and two obstetricians-gynecologists in Bakersfield, Calif., who refused to provide routine medical care to a patient because of her HIV status.
 

What doctors should know

Many people tend to think of a person with a disability as being in a wheelchair. But the ADA has a very broad definition of disability, which includes any physical or mental impairment that substantially limits any major life activity, said Ms. Pendo.

“It was amended in 2008 to clarify that the definition includes people with chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer, cognitive and neurological disorders, substance abuse disorders, vision and hearing loss, and learning and other disabilities,” she said.

That means that doctors have to accommodate many types of disabilities, which can be challenging. The ADA only specifies that fixed structures need to be accessible, such as parking lots, driveways, and buildings, said Dr. Iezzoni.

When it comes to “reasonable accommodations,” doctors should decide that on a case-by-case basis, she said.

“We can say based on our study that 71% of doctors don’t know the right way to think about the accommodations – they don’t know they need to talk to patients so they can explain to them exactly what they need to accommodate their disability,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Doctors are also required to provide effective communication for patients with sensory or cognitive disabilities, which can depend on the severity, said Ms. Pendo. Is the person deaf or hard of hearing, blind or partially sighted – is the dementia mild or severe?

“The requirement is there, but what that looks like will vary by patient. That’s what’s challenging,” said Ms. Pendo.

Dr. Iezzoni recommends that doctor’s offices ask patients whether they need special help or individual assistance when they make appointments and enter their responses in their records. She also suggests that patients be asked at follow-up appointments whether they still need the same help or not.

“Disabilities can change over time – a person with bad arthritis may need help getting onto an exam table, but later get a knee or hip replacement that is effective and no longer need that help,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Benefits outweigh costs

Physicians have made progress in meeting the ADA’s physical accessibility requirements, said Dr. Iezzoni. “The literature suggests that doctors have done a good job at fixing the structural barriers people with mobility issues face, such as ramps and bathrooms.”

However, there are exceptions in rural older buildings which can be harder to retrofit for wheelchair accessibility, she said. “I recall interviewing a rural doctor several years ago who said that he knew his patients well and when a patient visits with mobility problems, he goes down and carries the patient up the steps to his office. My response was that is not respectful of the patient or safe for the patient or you. That doctor has since changed the location of his practice,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Some doctors may resist paying for accessible medical equipment because of cost, but she said the benefits are worth it. These include preventing staff injuries when they transfer patients and being used by patients with temporary disabilities and aging people with bad knees, backs, hearing and sight. In addition, businesses may be eligible for federal and state tax credits.

Dr. Iezzoni recently visited her doctor where they finally got height-adjustable exam tables. “I asked the assistant, who really likes these tables? She said it’s the elderly ladies of short stature – the table is lowered and they sit down and get on it.”

But, Dr. Iezonni’s main message to doctors is that patients with disabilities deserve equal quality of care. “Just because we have a disability doesn’t mean we should get worse care than other people. It’s a matter of professionalism that doctors should want to give the same quality care to all their patients.”

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

Lisa Iezzoni, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a disability researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, has used a wheelchair for more than 30 years because of multiple sclerosis. When she visits her primary care doctor, she doesn’t get weighed because the scales are not wheelchair accessible.

This failure to weigh her and other patients in wheelchairs could lead to serious medical problems. Weight is used to monitor a person’s overall health and prenatal health and to determine accurate doses for medications such as some chemotherapies, said Dr. Iezzoni.

In another situation, a man who used a wheelchair said that his primary care doctor never got him out of it for a complete physical exam. The patient later developed lymphoma, which first appeared in his groin. The doctor should have accommodated his disability and used a height-adjustable exam table or a portable lift to transfer him onto the table.

When physicians don’t provide access to medical care that patients with disabilities need, they put themselves at greater risk of lawsuits, fines, and settlements.

Yet, a new study in Health Affairs suggests that a large percentage of doctors are not fully aware of what they are legally required to do.

Under federal nondiscrimination laws (Americans With Disabilities Act, American Rehabilitation Act, and ADA Amendments Act), medical practices must provide equal access to people with disabilities, accommodate their disability-related needs, and not refuse them medical services because of their disabilities, say disability experts.
 

Where doctors go wrong with disability laws

What doctors don’t know about providing reasonable accommodations makes them vulnerable to lawsuits, which worries more than two-thirds of the 714 outpatient doctors surveyed.

Not only are they required to provide reasonable accommodations, but they also have to pay for them, the researchers said. One-fifth of the surveyed doctors said they didn’t know that practice owners have to pay.

More than one practice has made patients pay for services needed for their disability, such as sign language interpreters – the patients later complained this violated the ADA to enforcement agencies.

Doctors also don’t know that they have to collaborate with patients to determine what reasonable accommodations they need – over two-thirds of those surveyed said they didn’t know it was a joint responsibility, the study found.

When doctors fail to accommodate patients’ disability needs, they engage in discrimination and violate the ADA, says Elizabeth Pendo, JD, a coauthor of the study and the Joseph J. Simeone Professor of Law at Saint Louis University.

The Department of Justice has investigated several patient complaints of alleged disability discrimination recently and resolved the disputes with agreements and small fines in some cases. “The goal is not to get large financial settlements but to work with practices to get the correct procedures in place to be compliant,” said Ms. Pendo.

Physicians would be wise to check out whether their practices are as accessible as they think. Even if there’s a ramp to the office building, the parking lot may not have a van-accessible space or enough handicapped parking signs, or the exam room may be too narrow for a wheelchair to navigate.

These practices violated the ADA and agreed to make changes:

• Hamden, Conn., has two buildings that patients with physical disabilities couldn’t easily enter. The physician owners agreed to change the buildings’ entrances and access routes and add features to make it easier to use examination rooms and restrooms and the check-in and check-out areas.
• Seven medical offices in Riverside, Calif., failed to communicate effectively with deaf and hard-of-hearing patients. They should have had a qualified sign language interpreter, an assistive listening device, or another appropriate aid or service available to a deaf patient and her family. Instead, the office relied on a video remote interpretation system that often failed to work. The agreement requires the clinic to provide those aids and services to patients and their companions who are deaf or hard of hearing, advertise their availability, assess each patient who is deaf or hard of hearing to determine the best aids and services for their needs, and pay $5,000 in compensation to the complainant and a $1,000 civil penalty to the United States.
• Springfield, Mass., refused to provide full joint replacements to two patients being treated with buprenorphine, a medication used to treat opioid use disorder. Rather than accommodate the patients, the surgeons referred them elsewhere because they were uncomfortable with the postoperative pain management protocol for patients prescribed buprenorphine. “The Americans With Disabilities Act protects health care access for people under medical treatment for opioid use disorder,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Nathaniel R. Mendell. “Health care providers must comply with the ADA, even when doing so is inconvenient or makes them uncomfortable.” The agreement requires the practice to adopt a nondiscrimination policy, provide training on the ADA and opioid use disorder, and pay two complainants $15,000 each for pain and suffering.

The DOJ has filed civil lawsuits against medical practices when they failed to resolve the allegations. Recent cases include an ophthalmology practice with 24 facilities in Arizona that refused to help transfer patients in wheelchairs to surgery tables for eye surgery and required them to pay for transfer support services and two obstetricians-gynecologists in Bakersfield, Calif., who refused to provide routine medical care to a patient because of her HIV status.
 

What doctors should know

Many people tend to think of a person with a disability as being in a wheelchair. But the ADA has a very broad definition of disability, which includes any physical or mental impairment that substantially limits any major life activity, said Ms. Pendo.

“It was amended in 2008 to clarify that the definition includes people with chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer, cognitive and neurological disorders, substance abuse disorders, vision and hearing loss, and learning and other disabilities,” she said.

That means that doctors have to accommodate many types of disabilities, which can be challenging. The ADA only specifies that fixed structures need to be accessible, such as parking lots, driveways, and buildings, said Dr. Iezzoni.

When it comes to “reasonable accommodations,” doctors should decide that on a case-by-case basis, she said.

“We can say based on our study that 71% of doctors don’t know the right way to think about the accommodations – they don’t know they need to talk to patients so they can explain to them exactly what they need to accommodate their disability,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Doctors are also required to provide effective communication for patients with sensory or cognitive disabilities, which can depend on the severity, said Ms. Pendo. Is the person deaf or hard of hearing, blind or partially sighted – is the dementia mild or severe?

“The requirement is there, but what that looks like will vary by patient. That’s what’s challenging,” said Ms. Pendo.

Dr. Iezzoni recommends that doctor’s offices ask patients whether they need special help or individual assistance when they make appointments and enter their responses in their records. She also suggests that patients be asked at follow-up appointments whether they still need the same help or not.

“Disabilities can change over time – a person with bad arthritis may need help getting onto an exam table, but later get a knee or hip replacement that is effective and no longer need that help,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Benefits outweigh costs

Physicians have made progress in meeting the ADA’s physical accessibility requirements, said Dr. Iezzoni. “The literature suggests that doctors have done a good job at fixing the structural barriers people with mobility issues face, such as ramps and bathrooms.”

However, there are exceptions in rural older buildings which can be harder to retrofit for wheelchair accessibility, she said. “I recall interviewing a rural doctor several years ago who said that he knew his patients well and when a patient visits with mobility problems, he goes down and carries the patient up the steps to his office. My response was that is not respectful of the patient or safe for the patient or you. That doctor has since changed the location of his practice,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Some doctors may resist paying for accessible medical equipment because of cost, but she said the benefits are worth it. These include preventing staff injuries when they transfer patients and being used by patients with temporary disabilities and aging people with bad knees, backs, hearing and sight. In addition, businesses may be eligible for federal and state tax credits.

Dr. Iezzoni recently visited her doctor where they finally got height-adjustable exam tables. “I asked the assistant, who really likes these tables? She said it’s the elderly ladies of short stature – the table is lowered and they sit down and get on it.”

But, Dr. Iezonni’s main message to doctors is that patients with disabilities deserve equal quality of care. “Just because we have a disability doesn’t mean we should get worse care than other people. It’s a matter of professionalism that doctors should want to give the same quality care to all their patients.”

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

Lisa Iezzoni, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a disability researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, has used a wheelchair for more than 30 years because of multiple sclerosis. When she visits her primary care doctor, she doesn’t get weighed because the scales are not wheelchair accessible.

This failure to weigh her and other patients in wheelchairs could lead to serious medical problems. Weight is used to monitor a person’s overall health and prenatal health and to determine accurate doses for medications such as some chemotherapies, said Dr. Iezzoni.

In another situation, a man who used a wheelchair said that his primary care doctor never got him out of it for a complete physical exam. The patient later developed lymphoma, which first appeared in his groin. The doctor should have accommodated his disability and used a height-adjustable exam table or a portable lift to transfer him onto the table.

When physicians don’t provide access to medical care that patients with disabilities need, they put themselves at greater risk of lawsuits, fines, and settlements.

Yet, a new study in Health Affairs suggests that a large percentage of doctors are not fully aware of what they are legally required to do.

Under federal nondiscrimination laws (Americans With Disabilities Act, American Rehabilitation Act, and ADA Amendments Act), medical practices must provide equal access to people with disabilities, accommodate their disability-related needs, and not refuse them medical services because of their disabilities, say disability experts.
 

Where doctors go wrong with disability laws

What doctors don’t know about providing reasonable accommodations makes them vulnerable to lawsuits, which worries more than two-thirds of the 714 outpatient doctors surveyed.

Not only are they required to provide reasonable accommodations, but they also have to pay for them, the researchers said. One-fifth of the surveyed doctors said they didn’t know that practice owners have to pay.

More than one practice has made patients pay for services needed for their disability, such as sign language interpreters – the patients later complained this violated the ADA to enforcement agencies.

Doctors also don’t know that they have to collaborate with patients to determine what reasonable accommodations they need – over two-thirds of those surveyed said they didn’t know it was a joint responsibility, the study found.

When doctors fail to accommodate patients’ disability needs, they engage in discrimination and violate the ADA, says Elizabeth Pendo, JD, a coauthor of the study and the Joseph J. Simeone Professor of Law at Saint Louis University.

The Department of Justice has investigated several patient complaints of alleged disability discrimination recently and resolved the disputes with agreements and small fines in some cases. “The goal is not to get large financial settlements but to work with practices to get the correct procedures in place to be compliant,” said Ms. Pendo.

Physicians would be wise to check out whether their practices are as accessible as they think. Even if there’s a ramp to the office building, the parking lot may not have a van-accessible space or enough handicapped parking signs, or the exam room may be too narrow for a wheelchair to navigate.

These practices violated the ADA and agreed to make changes:

• Hamden, Conn., has two buildings that patients with physical disabilities couldn’t easily enter. The physician owners agreed to change the buildings’ entrances and access routes and add features to make it easier to use examination rooms and restrooms and the check-in and check-out areas.
• Seven medical offices in Riverside, Calif., failed to communicate effectively with deaf and hard-of-hearing patients. They should have had a qualified sign language interpreter, an assistive listening device, or another appropriate aid or service available to a deaf patient and her family. Instead, the office relied on a video remote interpretation system that often failed to work. The agreement requires the clinic to provide those aids and services to patients and their companions who are deaf or hard of hearing, advertise their availability, assess each patient who is deaf or hard of hearing to determine the best aids and services for their needs, and pay $5,000 in compensation to the complainant and a $1,000 civil penalty to the United States.
• Springfield, Mass., refused to provide full joint replacements to two patients being treated with buprenorphine, a medication used to treat opioid use disorder. Rather than accommodate the patients, the surgeons referred them elsewhere because they were uncomfortable with the postoperative pain management protocol for patients prescribed buprenorphine. “The Americans With Disabilities Act protects health care access for people under medical treatment for opioid use disorder,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Nathaniel R. Mendell. “Health care providers must comply with the ADA, even when doing so is inconvenient or makes them uncomfortable.” The agreement requires the practice to adopt a nondiscrimination policy, provide training on the ADA and opioid use disorder, and pay two complainants $15,000 each for pain and suffering.

The DOJ has filed civil lawsuits against medical practices when they failed to resolve the allegations. Recent cases include an ophthalmology practice with 24 facilities in Arizona that refused to help transfer patients in wheelchairs to surgery tables for eye surgery and required them to pay for transfer support services and two obstetricians-gynecologists in Bakersfield, Calif., who refused to provide routine medical care to a patient because of her HIV status.
 

What doctors should know

Many people tend to think of a person with a disability as being in a wheelchair. But the ADA has a very broad definition of disability, which includes any physical or mental impairment that substantially limits any major life activity, said Ms. Pendo.

“It was amended in 2008 to clarify that the definition includes people with chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer, cognitive and neurological disorders, substance abuse disorders, vision and hearing loss, and learning and other disabilities,” she said.

That means that doctors have to accommodate many types of disabilities, which can be challenging. The ADA only specifies that fixed structures need to be accessible, such as parking lots, driveways, and buildings, said Dr. Iezzoni.

When it comes to “reasonable accommodations,” doctors should decide that on a case-by-case basis, she said.

“We can say based on our study that 71% of doctors don’t know the right way to think about the accommodations – they don’t know they need to talk to patients so they can explain to them exactly what they need to accommodate their disability,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Doctors are also required to provide effective communication for patients with sensory or cognitive disabilities, which can depend on the severity, said Ms. Pendo. Is the person deaf or hard of hearing, blind or partially sighted – is the dementia mild or severe?

“The requirement is there, but what that looks like will vary by patient. That’s what’s challenging,” said Ms. Pendo.

Dr. Iezzoni recommends that doctor’s offices ask patients whether they need special help or individual assistance when they make appointments and enter their responses in their records. She also suggests that patients be asked at follow-up appointments whether they still need the same help or not.

“Disabilities can change over time – a person with bad arthritis may need help getting onto an exam table, but later get a knee or hip replacement that is effective and no longer need that help,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Benefits outweigh costs

Physicians have made progress in meeting the ADA’s physical accessibility requirements, said Dr. Iezzoni. “The literature suggests that doctors have done a good job at fixing the structural barriers people with mobility issues face, such as ramps and bathrooms.”

However, there are exceptions in rural older buildings which can be harder to retrofit for wheelchair accessibility, she said. “I recall interviewing a rural doctor several years ago who said that he knew his patients well and when a patient visits with mobility problems, he goes down and carries the patient up the steps to his office. My response was that is not respectful of the patient or safe for the patient or you. That doctor has since changed the location of his practice,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Some doctors may resist paying for accessible medical equipment because of cost, but she said the benefits are worth it. These include preventing staff injuries when they transfer patients and being used by patients with temporary disabilities and aging people with bad knees, backs, hearing and sight. In addition, businesses may be eligible for federal and state tax credits.

Dr. Iezzoni recently visited her doctor where they finally got height-adjustable exam tables. “I asked the assistant, who really likes these tables? She said it’s the elderly ladies of short stature – the table is lowered and they sit down and get on it.”

But, Dr. Iezonni’s main message to doctors is that patients with disabilities deserve equal quality of care. “Just because we have a disability doesn’t mean we should get worse care than other people. It’s a matter of professionalism that doctors should want to give the same quality care to all their patients.”

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

Updated pneumococcal vaccine recommendations for adults from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call for the use of the two recently approved vaccines in a more streamlined approach to avoid the complexities of age and patient conditions that hindered previous recommendations.

The recommendations, voted on by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in October and made final in January with publication in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), call for use of the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV15; Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme) or 20-valent PCV (PREVNAR20; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals).

The recommendations apply to PCV-naive adults in the United States who are either aged 65 years or older, or who are aged 19-64 years and have underlying conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart or liver disease, or HIV, and have not previously received a PCV or whose previous vaccination history is unknown.

If the PCV15 vaccine is used, a subsequent dose of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23; Pneumovax23, Merck Sharp & Dohme) should be provided, typically at least 1 year later, under the recommendations.

As reported by this news organization, PCV15 and PREVNAR20 received approval from the Food and Drug Administration last July.

Those approvals provided an impetus for the revised recommendations, “offer[ing] an opportunity to review the existing recommendations and available data,” Miwako Kobayashi, MD, first author of the MMWR report and a medical epidemiologist with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, in Atlanta, said in an interview.

“As part of that process, ACIP strived to simplify the recommendations,” she said.

The previous recommendations called for the PCV13 vaccine and the PPSV23 and had varying conditions (depending on certain age and risk groups) that added complexity to the process. Under the new approach, the same recommendation applies regardless of specific medical conditions or other risk factors.

“With the simplified recommendation for adults 19 through 64, we expect coverage may increase among this population,” Dr. Kobayashi said.

Compared with the PCV13 vaccine, PREVNAR20 protects against seven additional serotypes involved in cases of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumonia, which are responsible for up to 40% of all cases of pneumococcal disease and related deaths in the United States.

While the PREVNAR20 includes five more pneumococcal serotypes than PCV15, the

CDC does not recommend one over the other, Dr. Kobayashi noted.

More than 90% of cases of adult IPD involve older adults and adults with chronic medical conditions or immunocompromising conditions, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, or cochlear implants, the MMWR report notes.

Commenting on the recommendations, Amit A. Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., underscored the need for clinicians to be proactive in recommending the vaccines to those patients.

“Despite only needing one vaccine dose after turning 65 to be considered vaccinated, only about 70% of people in this group have received any pneumococcal vaccination,” he said in an interview. “This percentage has not increased much over the past several years.”

The new approach should help change that, he said.

“These new recommendations are a significant simplification from the prior confusing and challenging-to-implement recommendations from 2019,” Dr. Shah explained.

Among the 2019 recommendations was a stipulation for “shared decision-making” with PCV13, and a conversation that often only complicated matters, he noted.

“Patients and providers alike had confusion about this since it was not a clear-cut ‘yes, give it’ or ‘no, do not give it any longer’ recommendation.”

“Now that this new recommendation will require no extra time for a discussion in the clinic, and just a simple ‘it’s time for your pneumonia shot’ offer, this may become more feasible,” Dr. Shah added. “In addition, removal of the shared decision-making stipulation allows for this immunization to be easily protocolized in the clinic, similar to automatic offers to the flu vaccine for patients each year.”

According to the CDC, pneumococcal pneumonia causes an estimated 150,000 hospitalizations each year in the United States, while pneumococcal meningitis and bacteremia killed approximately 3,250 people in the United States in 2019.

“Clinicians are patients’ most trusted resource when it comes to vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Kobayashi said. “We encourage all clinicians to recommend pneumococcal vaccines when indicated.”

Dr. Kobayashi and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Updated pneumococcal vaccine recommendations for adults from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call for the use of the two recently approved vaccines in a more streamlined approach to avoid the complexities of age and patient conditions that hindered previous recommendations.

The recommendations, voted on by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in October and made final in January with publication in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), call for use of the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV15; Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme) or 20-valent PCV (PREVNAR20; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals).

The recommendations apply to PCV-naive adults in the United States who are either aged 65 years or older, or who are aged 19-64 years and have underlying conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart or liver disease, or HIV, and have not previously received a PCV or whose previous vaccination history is unknown.

If the PCV15 vaccine is used, a subsequent dose of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23; Pneumovax23, Merck Sharp & Dohme) should be provided, typically at least 1 year later, under the recommendations.

As reported by this news organization, PCV15 and PREVNAR20 received approval from the Food and Drug Administration last July.

Those approvals provided an impetus for the revised recommendations, “offer[ing] an opportunity to review the existing recommendations and available data,” Miwako Kobayashi, MD, first author of the MMWR report and a medical epidemiologist with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, in Atlanta, said in an interview.

“As part of that process, ACIP strived to simplify the recommendations,” she said.

The previous recommendations called for the PCV13 vaccine and the PPSV23 and had varying conditions (depending on certain age and risk groups) that added complexity to the process. Under the new approach, the same recommendation applies regardless of specific medical conditions or other risk factors.

“With the simplified recommendation for adults 19 through 64, we expect coverage may increase among this population,” Dr. Kobayashi said.

Compared with the PCV13 vaccine, PREVNAR20 protects against seven additional serotypes involved in cases of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumonia, which are responsible for up to 40% of all cases of pneumococcal disease and related deaths in the United States.

While the PREVNAR20 includes five more pneumococcal serotypes than PCV15, the

CDC does not recommend one over the other, Dr. Kobayashi noted.

More than 90% of cases of adult IPD involve older adults and adults with chronic medical conditions or immunocompromising conditions, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, or cochlear implants, the MMWR report notes.

Commenting on the recommendations, Amit A. Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., underscored the need for clinicians to be proactive in recommending the vaccines to those patients.

“Despite only needing one vaccine dose after turning 65 to be considered vaccinated, only about 70% of people in this group have received any pneumococcal vaccination,” he said in an interview. “This percentage has not increased much over the past several years.”

The new approach should help change that, he said.

“These new recommendations are a significant simplification from the prior confusing and challenging-to-implement recommendations from 2019,” Dr. Shah explained.

Among the 2019 recommendations was a stipulation for “shared decision-making” with PCV13, and a conversation that often only complicated matters, he noted.

“Patients and providers alike had confusion about this since it was not a clear-cut ‘yes, give it’ or ‘no, do not give it any longer’ recommendation.”

“Now that this new recommendation will require no extra time for a discussion in the clinic, and just a simple ‘it’s time for your pneumonia shot’ offer, this may become more feasible,” Dr. Shah added. “In addition, removal of the shared decision-making stipulation allows for this immunization to be easily protocolized in the clinic, similar to automatic offers to the flu vaccine for patients each year.”

According to the CDC, pneumococcal pneumonia causes an estimated 150,000 hospitalizations each year in the United States, while pneumococcal meningitis and bacteremia killed approximately 3,250 people in the United States in 2019.

“Clinicians are patients’ most trusted resource when it comes to vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Kobayashi said. “We encourage all clinicians to recommend pneumococcal vaccines when indicated.”

Dr. Kobayashi and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Updated pneumococcal vaccine recommendations for adults from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call for the use of the two recently approved vaccines in a more streamlined approach to avoid the complexities of age and patient conditions that hindered previous recommendations.

The recommendations, voted on by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in October and made final in January with publication in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), call for use of the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV15; Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme) or 20-valent PCV (PREVNAR20; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals).

The recommendations apply to PCV-naive adults in the United States who are either aged 65 years or older, or who are aged 19-64 years and have underlying conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart or liver disease, or HIV, and have not previously received a PCV or whose previous vaccination history is unknown.

If the PCV15 vaccine is used, a subsequent dose of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23; Pneumovax23, Merck Sharp & Dohme) should be provided, typically at least 1 year later, under the recommendations.

As reported by this news organization, PCV15 and PREVNAR20 received approval from the Food and Drug Administration last July.

Those approvals provided an impetus for the revised recommendations, “offer[ing] an opportunity to review the existing recommendations and available data,” Miwako Kobayashi, MD, first author of the MMWR report and a medical epidemiologist with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, in Atlanta, said in an interview.

“As part of that process, ACIP strived to simplify the recommendations,” she said.

The previous recommendations called for the PCV13 vaccine and the PPSV23 and had varying conditions (depending on certain age and risk groups) that added complexity to the process. Under the new approach, the same recommendation applies regardless of specific medical conditions or other risk factors.

“With the simplified recommendation for adults 19 through 64, we expect coverage may increase among this population,” Dr. Kobayashi said.

Compared with the PCV13 vaccine, PREVNAR20 protects against seven additional serotypes involved in cases of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumonia, which are responsible for up to 40% of all cases of pneumococcal disease and related deaths in the United States.

While the PREVNAR20 includes five more pneumococcal serotypes than PCV15, the

CDC does not recommend one over the other, Dr. Kobayashi noted.

More than 90% of cases of adult IPD involve older adults and adults with chronic medical conditions or immunocompromising conditions, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, or cochlear implants, the MMWR report notes.

Commenting on the recommendations, Amit A. Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., underscored the need for clinicians to be proactive in recommending the vaccines to those patients.

“Despite only needing one vaccine dose after turning 65 to be considered vaccinated, only about 70% of people in this group have received any pneumococcal vaccination,” he said in an interview. “This percentage has not increased much over the past several years.”

The new approach should help change that, he said.

“These new recommendations are a significant simplification from the prior confusing and challenging-to-implement recommendations from 2019,” Dr. Shah explained.

Among the 2019 recommendations was a stipulation for “shared decision-making” with PCV13, and a conversation that often only complicated matters, he noted.

“Patients and providers alike had confusion about this since it was not a clear-cut ‘yes, give it’ or ‘no, do not give it any longer’ recommendation.”

“Now that this new recommendation will require no extra time for a discussion in the clinic, and just a simple ‘it’s time for your pneumonia shot’ offer, this may become more feasible,” Dr. Shah added. “In addition, removal of the shared decision-making stipulation allows for this immunization to be easily protocolized in the clinic, similar to automatic offers to the flu vaccine for patients each year.”

According to the CDC, pneumococcal pneumonia causes an estimated 150,000 hospitalizations each year in the United States, while pneumococcal meningitis and bacteremia killed approximately 3,250 people in the United States in 2019.

“Clinicians are patients’ most trusted resource when it comes to vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Kobayashi said. “We encourage all clinicians to recommend pneumococcal vaccines when indicated.”

Dr. Kobayashi and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The newly approved insomnia drug daridorexant (Quviviq) improves sleep onset in adults, new phase 3 data suggest.  In the first of two studies, a 50-mg dose of daridorexant was associated with a reduction in latency to persistent sleep (LPS) of 11.7 minutes at month 3 versus placebo. The drug also was associated with improved daytime function.

Based on these results, the Food and Drug Administration approved daridorexant for the treatment of insomnia in adults earlier in January.

“The study shows that it is a really good drug that works differently from most other drugs,” said Emmanuel Mignot, MD, PhD, professor of sleep medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s more specific to sleep,” Dr. Mignot added.

The findings were published in the February issue of The Lancet Neurology.
 

Two trials, three doses

Daridorexant is a dual orexin receptor antagonist intended to reduce excessive wakefulness. The investigators hypothesized that, because of its therapeutic target, the drug would not cause sleepiness on the morning after administration.

To examine daridorexant’s safety and efficacy, the researchers conducted two double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trials. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had moderate to severe insomnia disorder, and had a self-reported history of disturbed sleep at least 3 nights per week for at least 3 months before screening.

In study 1, investigators randomly assigned participants in groups of equal size to daridorexant 25 mg, 50 mg, or placebo. In study 2, participants were randomly assigned to daridorexant 10 mg, 25 mg, or placebo.

During a placebo run-in period, participants underwent polysomnography on two consecutive nights to define baseline values. At the end of months 1 and 3 of the treatment period, participants again underwent 2 nights of polysomnography. A final night of polysomnography occurred during the placebo run-out period.

Self-assessments included the Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ). This questionnaire, to which participants responded daily, is designed to measure the daytime impairments related to insomnia. The IDSIQ questions focus on sleepiness, mood, alertness, and cognition.

The study’s primary endpoints were change from baseline in wake after sleep onset (WASO) and LPS at months 1 and 3. Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in self-reported total sleep time and change in the IDSIQ sleepiness domain score at months 1 and 3.

The investigators enrolled 930 participants in study 1 and 924 in study 2. In each study, more than two-thirds of participants were women, 39% were aged 65 or older, and demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups.
 

Dose-dependent effects

At month 1 in study 1, WASO was reduced by 22.8 minutes (P < .0001) in patients who received the 50-mg dose and by 12.2 minutes (P < .0001) in the 25-mg dose. At month 3, WASO was reduced by 18.3 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 50 mg and by 11.9 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 25 mg.

LPS was reduced by 11.4 minutes (P < .0001) at month 1 and by 11.7 minutes (P < .0001) at month 3 with the 50-mg dose versus placebo. LPS was reduced by 8.3 minutes (P = .0005) at month 1 and by 7.6 minutes (P = .0015) at month 3 with the 25-mg dose versus placebo.

At both time points, self-reported total sleep time was significantly increased and the IDSIQ sleepiness score significantly improved with the 50-mg dose. The 25-mg dose was associated with significant improvements in self-reported total sleep time at both time points, but not with significant improvements in IDSIQ sleepiness score.

In study 2, the 25-mg dose was associated with significant reductions in WASO at month 1 (11.6 minutes, P = .0001) and month 3 (10.3 minutes, P = .0028) compared with placebo. The 25-mg dose was not associated with significant differences in LPS at either time point, however.

Similarly, the 25-mg dose was associated with improvements in self-reported total sleep time, but not with the IDSIQ sleepiness score. The 10-mg dose was not associated with improvements on any endpoint compared with placebo.
 

Longer studies needed

In an accompanying editorial, Kai Spiegelhalder, PhD, University of Freiburg, Germany, and colleagues pointed out that although insomnia disorder is defined by self-reported difficulty initiating or maintaining sleep, none of the primary or secondary endpoints in these trials addressed these symptoms.

However, Dr. Mignot noted the use of the IDSIQ scale is the most interesting aspect of the study. Although difficulty with concentration and mood impairment are major symptoms of insomnia, they are often neglected. “This drug was reversing the daytime impairment that insomniacs have,” said Dr. Mignot. “We now need to systematically study people not only for the effect on sleep, but also that it makes them feel better the day after.”

He added that most of the current hypnotics were not developed to treat insomnia. Daridorexant, in contrast, targets the wake-promoting orexin system. “It works more selectively on sleep and not on other things. Most of the other sleeping pills have more complex effects on the brain,” Dr. Mignot said.

Commenting on the study, John Winkelman, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the low prevalence of side effects associated with daridorexant was remarkable. “This is not what most of the benzodiazepine receptor agonists looked like,” said Dr. Winkelman, who was not involved with the research.

Many insomnia drugs affect transmitter systems that are widespread in the brain, thus provoking side effects. But orexin-receptor antagonists “don’t seem to produce a lot of side effects,” he noted.

Although the study duration was reasonable, longer studies will be necessary, he added. “And it would be nice to see comparative data. Prescribers want to see some context.” said Dr. Winkelman.

The study was funded by Idorsia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Mignot reported receiving research or clinical trial funding from Axsome, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Apple, Huami, Sunovion, and Takeda. He has also received consulting fees or speakers’ conference reimbursement from Idorsia, Centessa Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Dreem, and Takeda. Dr. Winkelman has consulted for Idorsia and has participated in investigator-initiated studies supported by Merck.

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

The newly approved insomnia drug daridorexant (Quviviq) improves sleep onset in adults, new phase 3 data suggest.  In the first of two studies, a 50-mg dose of daridorexant was associated with a reduction in latency to persistent sleep (LPS) of 11.7 minutes at month 3 versus placebo. The drug also was associated with improved daytime function.

Based on these results, the Food and Drug Administration approved daridorexant for the treatment of insomnia in adults earlier in January.

“The study shows that it is a really good drug that works differently from most other drugs,” said Emmanuel Mignot, MD, PhD, professor of sleep medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s more specific to sleep,” Dr. Mignot added.

The findings were published in the February issue of The Lancet Neurology.
 

Two trials, three doses

Daridorexant is a dual orexin receptor antagonist intended to reduce excessive wakefulness. The investigators hypothesized that, because of its therapeutic target, the drug would not cause sleepiness on the morning after administration.

To examine daridorexant’s safety and efficacy, the researchers conducted two double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trials. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had moderate to severe insomnia disorder, and had a self-reported history of disturbed sleep at least 3 nights per week for at least 3 months before screening.

In study 1, investigators randomly assigned participants in groups of equal size to daridorexant 25 mg, 50 mg, or placebo. In study 2, participants were randomly assigned to daridorexant 10 mg, 25 mg, or placebo.

During a placebo run-in period, participants underwent polysomnography on two consecutive nights to define baseline values. At the end of months 1 and 3 of the treatment period, participants again underwent 2 nights of polysomnography. A final night of polysomnography occurred during the placebo run-out period.

Self-assessments included the Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ). This questionnaire, to which participants responded daily, is designed to measure the daytime impairments related to insomnia. The IDSIQ questions focus on sleepiness, mood, alertness, and cognition.

The study’s primary endpoints were change from baseline in wake after sleep onset (WASO) and LPS at months 1 and 3. Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in self-reported total sleep time and change in the IDSIQ sleepiness domain score at months 1 and 3.

The investigators enrolled 930 participants in study 1 and 924 in study 2. In each study, more than two-thirds of participants were women, 39% were aged 65 or older, and demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups.
 

Dose-dependent effects

At month 1 in study 1, WASO was reduced by 22.8 minutes (P < .0001) in patients who received the 50-mg dose and by 12.2 minutes (P < .0001) in the 25-mg dose. At month 3, WASO was reduced by 18.3 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 50 mg and by 11.9 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 25 mg.

LPS was reduced by 11.4 minutes (P < .0001) at month 1 and by 11.7 minutes (P < .0001) at month 3 with the 50-mg dose versus placebo. LPS was reduced by 8.3 minutes (P = .0005) at month 1 and by 7.6 minutes (P = .0015) at month 3 with the 25-mg dose versus placebo.

At both time points, self-reported total sleep time was significantly increased and the IDSIQ sleepiness score significantly improved with the 50-mg dose. The 25-mg dose was associated with significant improvements in self-reported total sleep time at both time points, but not with significant improvements in IDSIQ sleepiness score.

In study 2, the 25-mg dose was associated with significant reductions in WASO at month 1 (11.6 minutes, P = .0001) and month 3 (10.3 minutes, P = .0028) compared with placebo. The 25-mg dose was not associated with significant differences in LPS at either time point, however.

Similarly, the 25-mg dose was associated with improvements in self-reported total sleep time, but not with the IDSIQ sleepiness score. The 10-mg dose was not associated with improvements on any endpoint compared with placebo.
 

Longer studies needed

In an accompanying editorial, Kai Spiegelhalder, PhD, University of Freiburg, Germany, and colleagues pointed out that although insomnia disorder is defined by self-reported difficulty initiating or maintaining sleep, none of the primary or secondary endpoints in these trials addressed these symptoms.

However, Dr. Mignot noted the use of the IDSIQ scale is the most interesting aspect of the study. Although difficulty with concentration and mood impairment are major symptoms of insomnia, they are often neglected. “This drug was reversing the daytime impairment that insomniacs have,” said Dr. Mignot. “We now need to systematically study people not only for the effect on sleep, but also that it makes them feel better the day after.”

He added that most of the current hypnotics were not developed to treat insomnia. Daridorexant, in contrast, targets the wake-promoting orexin system. “It works more selectively on sleep and not on other things. Most of the other sleeping pills have more complex effects on the brain,” Dr. Mignot said.

Commenting on the study, John Winkelman, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the low prevalence of side effects associated with daridorexant was remarkable. “This is not what most of the benzodiazepine receptor agonists looked like,” said Dr. Winkelman, who was not involved with the research.

Many insomnia drugs affect transmitter systems that are widespread in the brain, thus provoking side effects. But orexin-receptor antagonists “don’t seem to produce a lot of side effects,” he noted.

Although the study duration was reasonable, longer studies will be necessary, he added. “And it would be nice to see comparative data. Prescribers want to see some context.” said Dr. Winkelman.

The study was funded by Idorsia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Mignot reported receiving research or clinical trial funding from Axsome, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Apple, Huami, Sunovion, and Takeda. He has also received consulting fees or speakers’ conference reimbursement from Idorsia, Centessa Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Dreem, and Takeda. Dr. Winkelman has consulted for Idorsia and has participated in investigator-initiated studies supported by Merck.

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

The newly approved insomnia drug daridorexant (Quviviq) improves sleep onset in adults, new phase 3 data suggest.  In the first of two studies, a 50-mg dose of daridorexant was associated with a reduction in latency to persistent sleep (LPS) of 11.7 minutes at month 3 versus placebo. The drug also was associated with improved daytime function.

Based on these results, the Food and Drug Administration approved daridorexant for the treatment of insomnia in adults earlier in January.

“The study shows that it is a really good drug that works differently from most other drugs,” said Emmanuel Mignot, MD, PhD, professor of sleep medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s more specific to sleep,” Dr. Mignot added.

The findings were published in the February issue of The Lancet Neurology.
 

Two trials, three doses

Daridorexant is a dual orexin receptor antagonist intended to reduce excessive wakefulness. The investigators hypothesized that, because of its therapeutic target, the drug would not cause sleepiness on the morning after administration.

To examine daridorexant’s safety and efficacy, the researchers conducted two double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trials. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had moderate to severe insomnia disorder, and had a self-reported history of disturbed sleep at least 3 nights per week for at least 3 months before screening.

In study 1, investigators randomly assigned participants in groups of equal size to daridorexant 25 mg, 50 mg, or placebo. In study 2, participants were randomly assigned to daridorexant 10 mg, 25 mg, or placebo.

During a placebo run-in period, participants underwent polysomnography on two consecutive nights to define baseline values. At the end of months 1 and 3 of the treatment period, participants again underwent 2 nights of polysomnography. A final night of polysomnography occurred during the placebo run-out period.

Self-assessments included the Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ). This questionnaire, to which participants responded daily, is designed to measure the daytime impairments related to insomnia. The IDSIQ questions focus on sleepiness, mood, alertness, and cognition.

The study’s primary endpoints were change from baseline in wake after sleep onset (WASO) and LPS at months 1 and 3. Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in self-reported total sleep time and change in the IDSIQ sleepiness domain score at months 1 and 3.

The investigators enrolled 930 participants in study 1 and 924 in study 2. In each study, more than two-thirds of participants were women, 39% were aged 65 or older, and demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups.
 

Dose-dependent effects

At month 1 in study 1, WASO was reduced by 22.8 minutes (P < .0001) in patients who received the 50-mg dose and by 12.2 minutes (P < .0001) in the 25-mg dose. At month 3, WASO was reduced by 18.3 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 50 mg and by 11.9 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 25 mg.

LPS was reduced by 11.4 minutes (P < .0001) at month 1 and by 11.7 minutes (P < .0001) at month 3 with the 50-mg dose versus placebo. LPS was reduced by 8.3 minutes (P = .0005) at month 1 and by 7.6 minutes (P = .0015) at month 3 with the 25-mg dose versus placebo.

At both time points, self-reported total sleep time was significantly increased and the IDSIQ sleepiness score significantly improved with the 50-mg dose. The 25-mg dose was associated with significant improvements in self-reported total sleep time at both time points, but not with significant improvements in IDSIQ sleepiness score.

In study 2, the 25-mg dose was associated with significant reductions in WASO at month 1 (11.6 minutes, P = .0001) and month 3 (10.3 minutes, P = .0028) compared with placebo. The 25-mg dose was not associated with significant differences in LPS at either time point, however.

Similarly, the 25-mg dose was associated with improvements in self-reported total sleep time, but not with the IDSIQ sleepiness score. The 10-mg dose was not associated with improvements on any endpoint compared with placebo.
 

Longer studies needed

In an accompanying editorial, Kai Spiegelhalder, PhD, University of Freiburg, Germany, and colleagues pointed out that although insomnia disorder is defined by self-reported difficulty initiating or maintaining sleep, none of the primary or secondary endpoints in these trials addressed these symptoms.

However, Dr. Mignot noted the use of the IDSIQ scale is the most interesting aspect of the study. Although difficulty with concentration and mood impairment are major symptoms of insomnia, they are often neglected. “This drug was reversing the daytime impairment that insomniacs have,” said Dr. Mignot. “We now need to systematically study people not only for the effect on sleep, but also that it makes them feel better the day after.”

He added that most of the current hypnotics were not developed to treat insomnia. Daridorexant, in contrast, targets the wake-promoting orexin system. “It works more selectively on sleep and not on other things. Most of the other sleeping pills have more complex effects on the brain,” Dr. Mignot said.

Commenting on the study, John Winkelman, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the low prevalence of side effects associated with daridorexant was remarkable. “This is not what most of the benzodiazepine receptor agonists looked like,” said Dr. Winkelman, who was not involved with the research.

Many insomnia drugs affect transmitter systems that are widespread in the brain, thus provoking side effects. But orexin-receptor antagonists “don’t seem to produce a lot of side effects,” he noted.

Although the study duration was reasonable, longer studies will be necessary, he added. “And it would be nice to see comparative data. Prescribers want to see some context.” said Dr. Winkelman.

The study was funded by Idorsia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Mignot reported receiving research or clinical trial funding from Axsome, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Apple, Huami, Sunovion, and Takeda. He has also received consulting fees or speakers’ conference reimbursement from Idorsia, Centessa Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Dreem, and Takeda. Dr. Winkelman has consulted for Idorsia and has participated in investigator-initiated studies supported by Merck.

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

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) plus chemotherapy should be considered the new first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer, according to the final results of a large phase 3 study.

An interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-590 study, published in 2020, found that the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in the first-line setting proved superior to chemotherapy alone in all outcome measures.

The updated analysis, which adds 12 months of follow-up data, shows “first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide clinically meaningful benefits in all patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer, including [gastroesophageal junction] adenocarcinoma,” said lead author Jean-Philippe Metges, MD, of the CHU Brest-Institut de Cancerologie et d’Hematologie ARPEGO Network, Brest, France.

Similar quality of life and safety data were also observed with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Dr. Metges added.

“These longer-term data further support first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as a new standard of care in patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer,” he said.

The updated analysis was presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
 

Pembro for esophageal cancer

Pembrolizumab first received regulatory approval in 2019 as monotherapy in the second-line setting to treat recurrent locally advanced or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus in tumors with programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

In response to the interim KEYNOTE-590 data, the FDA expanded the indication in 2021, granting accelerated approval for pembrolizumab in combination with platinum and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients who were not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy.

The updated KEYNOTE-590 data lend greater weight for the use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer.

In the analysis, a total of 749 eligible patients with previously untreated locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), adenocarcinoma, or Siewert type 1 esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma, regardless of PD-L1 status, were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles.

The authors evaluated overall survival in all patients as well as subgroups including those with ESCC, ESCC PD-L1 combined positive score ≥10 tumors, and PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors. The research team also looked at progression-free survival in most groups and overall response rate, duration of response, safety, and health-related quality of life.

Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or until 2 years, with no crossover permitted.

At the median follow-up of 34.8 months, median overall survival was longer for all patients receiving the combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.73) as well as patients with ESCC (HR, 0.73), ESCC CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.59), CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.64), and adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.73).

For progression-free survival, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was superior in all patients (HR, 0.64), the ESCC group (HR, 0.65), as well as the PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumor group (HR, 0.51).

The 24-month overall survival in all patients was also notably higher for those receiving the combination therapy – 26.3% versus 16.1% – as was 24-month progression-free survival – 11.6% versus 3.3%.

The overall response rate was 45.0% in the combination group, with 25 complete responses (6.7%), versus 29.3% in the control group, with 9 complete responses (2.4%). The median duration of response was 8.3 months in the combination group versus 6.0 months in the chemotherapy group. About 20% of patients in the combination group had a response rate lasting 24 months or longer, compared with 6% who received chemotherapy alone.

As for safety, grade 3-5 drug-related adverse events were similar in both arms – 72% for the combination versus 68% for chemotherapy alone. However, more patients in the combination group discontinued treatment because of drug-related adverse events – 21% versus 12%.

No additional or surprise adverse events occurred with the longer follow-up, plus quality of life was comparable between groups, Dr. Metges noted.

Stefano Cascinu, MD, Università Vita-Salute, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, who was not involved in the analysis, reiterated that this update confirms the findings from earlier analyses and shows a benefit across all subgroups.

“One of the most relevant findings was that 20% of patients were responding for more than 24 months,” he said. “It is also important that a similar quality of life was maintained.”

Although Dr. Cascinu emphasized that this is a landmark trial in advanced esophageal and gastric cancers, he indicated to several points that remain to be investigated. These include the reproducibility of the findings in common clinical situations – such as a patient with impaired performance status, malnutrition, or peritoneal involvement – as well as the role of PD-L1.

The efficacy of the combination therapy across all subgroups led to a wide FDA approval, though the European Medicines Agency limited its approval to patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors.

“Even though all subgroups did well, patients with [PD-L1] CPS ≥10 did better,” said Dr. Cascinu. “[And] in reality, the benefit may only be driven by a specific subpopulation.”

Dr. Cascinu added: “PD-L1 may be a negative biomarker and may be informative about the magnitude of benefit. This may be useful to discuss with patients regarding the expected benefit [of this therapeutic option].”

The study was supported by Merck & Co. Dr. Metges reported receiving payment for travel, accommodations, expenses from Amgen, LEO Pharma, and MSD Oncology, and receiving honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, and Syncore. Dr. Cascinu has disclosed honoraria from BMS, Lilly, MSD Oncology, and others, as well as a consulting or advisory role for many of these same manufacturers and serving on the speakers’ bureau of Lilly and SERVIER. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

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

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) plus chemotherapy should be considered the new first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer, according to the final results of a large phase 3 study.

An interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-590 study, published in 2020, found that the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in the first-line setting proved superior to chemotherapy alone in all outcome measures.

The updated analysis, which adds 12 months of follow-up data, shows “first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide clinically meaningful benefits in all patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer, including [gastroesophageal junction] adenocarcinoma,” said lead author Jean-Philippe Metges, MD, of the CHU Brest-Institut de Cancerologie et d’Hematologie ARPEGO Network, Brest, France.

Similar quality of life and safety data were also observed with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Dr. Metges added.

“These longer-term data further support first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as a new standard of care in patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer,” he said.

The updated analysis was presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
 

Pembro for esophageal cancer

Pembrolizumab first received regulatory approval in 2019 as monotherapy in the second-line setting to treat recurrent locally advanced or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus in tumors with programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

In response to the interim KEYNOTE-590 data, the FDA expanded the indication in 2021, granting accelerated approval for pembrolizumab in combination with platinum and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients who were not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy.

The updated KEYNOTE-590 data lend greater weight for the use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer.

In the analysis, a total of 749 eligible patients with previously untreated locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), adenocarcinoma, or Siewert type 1 esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma, regardless of PD-L1 status, were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles.

The authors evaluated overall survival in all patients as well as subgroups including those with ESCC, ESCC PD-L1 combined positive score ≥10 tumors, and PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors. The research team also looked at progression-free survival in most groups and overall response rate, duration of response, safety, and health-related quality of life.

Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or until 2 years, with no crossover permitted.

At the median follow-up of 34.8 months, median overall survival was longer for all patients receiving the combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.73) as well as patients with ESCC (HR, 0.73), ESCC CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.59), CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.64), and adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.73).

For progression-free survival, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was superior in all patients (HR, 0.64), the ESCC group (HR, 0.65), as well as the PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumor group (HR, 0.51).

The 24-month overall survival in all patients was also notably higher for those receiving the combination therapy – 26.3% versus 16.1% – as was 24-month progression-free survival – 11.6% versus 3.3%.

The overall response rate was 45.0% in the combination group, with 25 complete responses (6.7%), versus 29.3% in the control group, with 9 complete responses (2.4%). The median duration of response was 8.3 months in the combination group versus 6.0 months in the chemotherapy group. About 20% of patients in the combination group had a response rate lasting 24 months or longer, compared with 6% who received chemotherapy alone.

As for safety, grade 3-5 drug-related adverse events were similar in both arms – 72% for the combination versus 68% for chemotherapy alone. However, more patients in the combination group discontinued treatment because of drug-related adverse events – 21% versus 12%.

No additional or surprise adverse events occurred with the longer follow-up, plus quality of life was comparable between groups, Dr. Metges noted.

Stefano Cascinu, MD, Università Vita-Salute, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, who was not involved in the analysis, reiterated that this update confirms the findings from earlier analyses and shows a benefit across all subgroups.

“One of the most relevant findings was that 20% of patients were responding for more than 24 months,” he said. “It is also important that a similar quality of life was maintained.”

Although Dr. Cascinu emphasized that this is a landmark trial in advanced esophageal and gastric cancers, he indicated to several points that remain to be investigated. These include the reproducibility of the findings in common clinical situations – such as a patient with impaired performance status, malnutrition, or peritoneal involvement – as well as the role of PD-L1.

The efficacy of the combination therapy across all subgroups led to a wide FDA approval, though the European Medicines Agency limited its approval to patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors.

“Even though all subgroups did well, patients with [PD-L1] CPS ≥10 did better,” said Dr. Cascinu. “[And] in reality, the benefit may only be driven by a specific subpopulation.”

Dr. Cascinu added: “PD-L1 may be a negative biomarker and may be informative about the magnitude of benefit. This may be useful to discuss with patients regarding the expected benefit [of this therapeutic option].”

The study was supported by Merck & Co. Dr. Metges reported receiving payment for travel, accommodations, expenses from Amgen, LEO Pharma, and MSD Oncology, and receiving honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, and Syncore. Dr. Cascinu has disclosed honoraria from BMS, Lilly, MSD Oncology, and others, as well as a consulting or advisory role for many of these same manufacturers and serving on the speakers’ bureau of Lilly and SERVIER. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

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

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) plus chemotherapy should be considered the new first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer, according to the final results of a large phase 3 study.

An interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-590 study, published in 2020, found that the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in the first-line setting proved superior to chemotherapy alone in all outcome measures.

The updated analysis, which adds 12 months of follow-up data, shows “first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide clinically meaningful benefits in all patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer, including [gastroesophageal junction] adenocarcinoma,” said lead author Jean-Philippe Metges, MD, of the CHU Brest-Institut de Cancerologie et d’Hematologie ARPEGO Network, Brest, France.

Similar quality of life and safety data were also observed with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Dr. Metges added.

“These longer-term data further support first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as a new standard of care in patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer,” he said.

The updated analysis was presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
 

Pembro for esophageal cancer

Pembrolizumab first received regulatory approval in 2019 as monotherapy in the second-line setting to treat recurrent locally advanced or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus in tumors with programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

In response to the interim KEYNOTE-590 data, the FDA expanded the indication in 2021, granting accelerated approval for pembrolizumab in combination with platinum and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients who were not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy.

The updated KEYNOTE-590 data lend greater weight for the use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer.

In the analysis, a total of 749 eligible patients with previously untreated locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), adenocarcinoma, or Siewert type 1 esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma, regardless of PD-L1 status, were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles.

The authors evaluated overall survival in all patients as well as subgroups including those with ESCC, ESCC PD-L1 combined positive score ≥10 tumors, and PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors. The research team also looked at progression-free survival in most groups and overall response rate, duration of response, safety, and health-related quality of life.

Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or until 2 years, with no crossover permitted.

At the median follow-up of 34.8 months, median overall survival was longer for all patients receiving the combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.73) as well as patients with ESCC (HR, 0.73), ESCC CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.59), CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.64), and adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.73).

For progression-free survival, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was superior in all patients (HR, 0.64), the ESCC group (HR, 0.65), as well as the PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumor group (HR, 0.51).

The 24-month overall survival in all patients was also notably higher for those receiving the combination therapy – 26.3% versus 16.1% – as was 24-month progression-free survival – 11.6% versus 3.3%.

The overall response rate was 45.0% in the combination group, with 25 complete responses (6.7%), versus 29.3% in the control group, with 9 complete responses (2.4%). The median duration of response was 8.3 months in the combination group versus 6.0 months in the chemotherapy group. About 20% of patients in the combination group had a response rate lasting 24 months or longer, compared with 6% who received chemotherapy alone.

As for safety, grade 3-5 drug-related adverse events were similar in both arms – 72% for the combination versus 68% for chemotherapy alone. However, more patients in the combination group discontinued treatment because of drug-related adverse events – 21% versus 12%.

No additional or surprise adverse events occurred with the longer follow-up, plus quality of life was comparable between groups, Dr. Metges noted.

Stefano Cascinu, MD, Università Vita-Salute, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, who was not involved in the analysis, reiterated that this update confirms the findings from earlier analyses and shows a benefit across all subgroups.

“One of the most relevant findings was that 20% of patients were responding for more than 24 months,” he said. “It is also important that a similar quality of life was maintained.”

Although Dr. Cascinu emphasized that this is a landmark trial in advanced esophageal and gastric cancers, he indicated to several points that remain to be investigated. These include the reproducibility of the findings in common clinical situations – such as a patient with impaired performance status, malnutrition, or peritoneal involvement – as well as the role of PD-L1.

The efficacy of the combination therapy across all subgroups led to a wide FDA approval, though the European Medicines Agency limited its approval to patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors.

“Even though all subgroups did well, patients with [PD-L1] CPS ≥10 did better,” said Dr. Cascinu. “[And] in reality, the benefit may only be driven by a specific subpopulation.”

Dr. Cascinu added: “PD-L1 may be a negative biomarker and may be informative about the magnitude of benefit. This may be useful to discuss with patients regarding the expected benefit [of this therapeutic option].”

The study was supported by Merck & Co. Dr. Metges reported receiving payment for travel, accommodations, expenses from Amgen, LEO Pharma, and MSD Oncology, and receiving honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, and Syncore. Dr. Cascinu has disclosed honoraria from BMS, Lilly, MSD Oncology, and others, as well as a consulting or advisory role for many of these same manufacturers and serving on the speakers’ bureau of Lilly and SERVIER. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

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

Cancer, infection, and heart disease are greater risk factors for death in kidney transplant recipients who die with a functional graft than organ rejection, a retrospective Mayo Clinic cohort study indicates.

“It’s important to have immunosuppression to protect people from rejection, but we wanted to be able to say, ‘What are the other causes of kidney failure that we might be able to identify that help improve longer-term outcomes’,” coauthor Andrew Bentall, MBChB, MD, a Mayo Clinic nephrologist, told this news organization.

“And I think the main thing we found is that we need to differentiate people into two groups,” he said, including younger, nondiabetic patients who develop graft failure due to alloimmunity and older often diabetic patients “who are less likely to have a rejection episode but who are still at high risk for death from a malignancy or infection so maybe we can modify their immunosuppression, for example, and reduce their mortality risk which could be very helpful.”

The study was published online Jan. 17 in Transplantation Direct.
 

Cohort study

The cohort was made up of 5,752 consecutive kidney transplant recipients treated at one of three Mayo Clinic sites. The mean age of recipients was 53.8 years and one-quarter were 65 years of age or older. “At the time of transplantation, 69.8% were on dialysis, and 10.3% had received a prior kidney,” of which half were from a deceased donor, the authors note.

Almost all patients received tacrolimus as part of their maintenance immunosuppressive regimen. At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, overall graft failure occurred in 21.6% of patients, including death with a functioning graft (DWFG) in 12% and graft failure in 9.6% of patients. The most common causes of DWFG included malignancy at 20.0%, followed closely by infection at 19.7%, investigators note.

Cardiac disease was the cause of DWFG in 12.6% of patients, and the cause was unknown in 37%. Of those patients who died with a functioning graft, 12.3% died within the first year of transplantation. Roughly 45% died between 1 and 5 years later, and 42% died more than 5 years after transplantation.

On multivariable analysis, independent predictors of DWFG included:

• Older age at transplantation (hazard ratio, 1.75; P < .001)
• Male sex (HR, 1.34; P < .001)
• Dialysis prior to transplant (HR, 1.49; P < .001)
• Diabetes as a cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (HR, 1.88; P < .001)
• Prednisone use as maintenance therapy (HR, 1.34; P = .008)

Graft failure

Of patients who had graft failure, almost one-quarter occurred within the first year of transplantation, about 42% occurred 1 to 5 years later, and a third occurred more than 5 years later.

Most patients (39%) who went on to graft failure did so as a result of “alloimmunity”, a term investigators used to cover all types of rejection, with a smaller number of graft failures being caused by glomerular diseases, at 18.6%, and renal tubular injury, at 13.9%.

“In the first year after transplantation, surgical complications and primary nonfunction of the allograft caused 60.3% ... of graft losses,” the authors point out. Beyond the first year, alloimmunity accounted for approximately half of the cases of graft failure, investigators note.

In the multivariable analysis for overall graft failure, risk factors included:

• Young recipient age (HR, 0.80; P < .001)
• History of a previous kidney transplant (HR, 1.33; P = .042)
• Dialysis at time of transplantation (HR, 1.54; P < .001)
• Black recipient race (HR, 1.40; P = .006)
• Black donor race (HR, 1.35; P = .038)
• Diabetes as a cause of ESRD (HR, 1.40; P = .002)
• HLA mismatch (HR, 1.27; P < .001)
• Delayed graft function (HR, 2.20; P < .001)

“Over time, DWFG was more common than graft failure,” the authors note.
 

Modifiable risk factors

As Dr. Bentall acknowledged, not all risk factors contributing to DWFG or graft failure are modifiable. However, diabetes – which stood out as a risk factor for both DWFG and graft failure – is potentially modifiable before patients reach ESRD, as he suggested. Diabetes is currently a cause for up to 40% of all ESRD cases in the United States.

“We can’t necessarily always reverse the diabetes, but there are significant new medications that can be used along with weight loss strategies to improve diabetes control,” he noted.

Similarly, it’s well established that patients who come into transplantation with a body mass index in excess of 30 kg/m2 have more scarring and damage to the kidney 5- and 10-years post-transplantation than healthy weight patients, as Dr. Bentall observed. “Again, this is a key modifiable component, and it fits into diabetes intervention strategies as well,” he emphasized. The use of prednisone as maintenance immunosuppressive therapy similarly emerged as a risk factor for DWFG.

Transplant recipients who receive prednisone may well be a higher risk population to begin with, “but we are also using prednisone in our older patients because we try to use less induction immunosuppression at the time of transplantation. So if we can try and get people off prednisone, that may lessen their risk of infection and subsequent mortality,” Dr. Bentall noted.

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

Cancer, infection, and heart disease are greater risk factors for death in kidney transplant recipients who die with a functional graft than organ rejection, a retrospective Mayo Clinic cohort study indicates.

“It’s important to have immunosuppression to protect people from rejection, but we wanted to be able to say, ‘What are the other causes of kidney failure that we might be able to identify that help improve longer-term outcomes’,” coauthor Andrew Bentall, MBChB, MD, a Mayo Clinic nephrologist, told this news organization.

“And I think the main thing we found is that we need to differentiate people into two groups,” he said, including younger, nondiabetic patients who develop graft failure due to alloimmunity and older often diabetic patients “who are less likely to have a rejection episode but who are still at high risk for death from a malignancy or infection so maybe we can modify their immunosuppression, for example, and reduce their mortality risk which could be very helpful.”

The study was published online Jan. 17 in Transplantation Direct.
 

Cohort study

The cohort was made up of 5,752 consecutive kidney transplant recipients treated at one of three Mayo Clinic sites. The mean age of recipients was 53.8 years and one-quarter were 65 years of age or older. “At the time of transplantation, 69.8% were on dialysis, and 10.3% had received a prior kidney,” of which half were from a deceased donor, the authors note.

Almost all patients received tacrolimus as part of their maintenance immunosuppressive regimen. At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, overall graft failure occurred in 21.6% of patients, including death with a functioning graft (DWFG) in 12% and graft failure in 9.6% of patients. The most common causes of DWFG included malignancy at 20.0%, followed closely by infection at 19.7%, investigators note.

Cardiac disease was the cause of DWFG in 12.6% of patients, and the cause was unknown in 37%. Of those patients who died with a functioning graft, 12.3% died within the first year of transplantation. Roughly 45% died between 1 and 5 years later, and 42% died more than 5 years after transplantation.

On multivariable analysis, independent predictors of DWFG included:

• Older age at transplantation (hazard ratio, 1.75; P < .001)
• Male sex (HR, 1.34; P < .001)
• Dialysis prior to transplant (HR, 1.49; P < .001)
• Diabetes as a cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (HR, 1.88; P < .001)
• Prednisone use as maintenance therapy (HR, 1.34; P = .008)

Graft failure

Of patients who had graft failure, almost one-quarter occurred within the first year of transplantation, about 42% occurred 1 to 5 years later, and a third occurred more than 5 years later.

Most patients (39%) who went on to graft failure did so as a result of “alloimmunity”, a term investigators used to cover all types of rejection, with a smaller number of graft failures being caused by glomerular diseases, at 18.6%, and renal tubular injury, at 13.9%.

“In the first year after transplantation, surgical complications and primary nonfunction of the allograft caused 60.3% ... of graft losses,” the authors point out. Beyond the first year, alloimmunity accounted for approximately half of the cases of graft failure, investigators note.

In the multivariable analysis for overall graft failure, risk factors included:

• Young recipient age (HR, 0.80; P < .001)
• History of a previous kidney transplant (HR, 1.33; P = .042)
• Dialysis at time of transplantation (HR, 1.54; P < .001)
• Black recipient race (HR, 1.40; P = .006)
• Black donor race (HR, 1.35; P = .038)
• Diabetes as a cause of ESRD (HR, 1.40; P = .002)
• HLA mismatch (HR, 1.27; P < .001)
• Delayed graft function (HR, 2.20; P < .001)

“Over time, DWFG was more common than graft failure,” the authors note.
 

Modifiable risk factors

As Dr. Bentall acknowledged, not all risk factors contributing to DWFG or graft failure are modifiable. However, diabetes – which stood out as a risk factor for both DWFG and graft failure – is potentially modifiable before patients reach ESRD, as he suggested. Diabetes is currently a cause for up to 40% of all ESRD cases in the United States.

“We can’t necessarily always reverse the diabetes, but there are significant new medications that can be used along with weight loss strategies to improve diabetes control,” he noted.

Similarly, it’s well established that patients who come into transplantation with a body mass index in excess of 30 kg/m2 have more scarring and damage to the kidney 5- and 10-years post-transplantation than healthy weight patients, as Dr. Bentall observed. “Again, this is a key modifiable component, and it fits into diabetes intervention strategies as well,” he emphasized. The use of prednisone as maintenance immunosuppressive therapy similarly emerged as a risk factor for DWFG.

Transplant recipients who receive prednisone may well be a higher risk population to begin with, “but we are also using prednisone in our older patients because we try to use less induction immunosuppression at the time of transplantation. So if we can try and get people off prednisone, that may lessen their risk of infection and subsequent mortality,” Dr. Bentall noted.

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

Cancer, infection, and heart disease are greater risk factors for death in kidney transplant recipients who die with a functional graft than organ rejection, a retrospective Mayo Clinic cohort study indicates.

“It’s important to have immunosuppression to protect people from rejection, but we wanted to be able to say, ‘What are the other causes of kidney failure that we might be able to identify that help improve longer-term outcomes’,” coauthor Andrew Bentall, MBChB, MD, a Mayo Clinic nephrologist, told this news organization.

“And I think the main thing we found is that we need to differentiate people into two groups,” he said, including younger, nondiabetic patients who develop graft failure due to alloimmunity and older often diabetic patients “who are less likely to have a rejection episode but who are still at high risk for death from a malignancy or infection so maybe we can modify their immunosuppression, for example, and reduce their mortality risk which could be very helpful.”

The study was published online Jan. 17 in Transplantation Direct.
 

Cohort study

The cohort was made up of 5,752 consecutive kidney transplant recipients treated at one of three Mayo Clinic sites. The mean age of recipients was 53.8 years and one-quarter were 65 years of age or older. “At the time of transplantation, 69.8% were on dialysis, and 10.3% had received a prior kidney,” of which half were from a deceased donor, the authors note.

Almost all patients received tacrolimus as part of their maintenance immunosuppressive regimen. At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, overall graft failure occurred in 21.6% of patients, including death with a functioning graft (DWFG) in 12% and graft failure in 9.6% of patients. The most common causes of DWFG included malignancy at 20.0%, followed closely by infection at 19.7%, investigators note.

Cardiac disease was the cause of DWFG in 12.6% of patients, and the cause was unknown in 37%. Of those patients who died with a functioning graft, 12.3% died within the first year of transplantation. Roughly 45% died between 1 and 5 years later, and 42% died more than 5 years after transplantation.

On multivariable analysis, independent predictors of DWFG included:

• Older age at transplantation (hazard ratio, 1.75; P < .001)
• Male sex (HR, 1.34; P < .001)
• Dialysis prior to transplant (HR, 1.49; P < .001)
• Diabetes as a cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (HR, 1.88; P < .001)
• Prednisone use as maintenance therapy (HR, 1.34; P = .008)

Graft failure

Of patients who had graft failure, almost one-quarter occurred within the first year of transplantation, about 42% occurred 1 to 5 years later, and a third occurred more than 5 years later.

Most patients (39%) who went on to graft failure did so as a result of “alloimmunity”, a term investigators used to cover all types of rejection, with a smaller number of graft failures being caused by glomerular diseases, at 18.6%, and renal tubular injury, at 13.9%.

“In the first year after transplantation, surgical complications and primary nonfunction of the allograft caused 60.3% ... of graft losses,” the authors point out. Beyond the first year, alloimmunity accounted for approximately half of the cases of graft failure, investigators note.

In the multivariable analysis for overall graft failure, risk factors included:

• Young recipient age (HR, 0.80; P < .001)
• History of a previous kidney transplant (HR, 1.33; P = .042)
• Dialysis at time of transplantation (HR, 1.54; P < .001)
• Black recipient race (HR, 1.40; P = .006)
• Black donor race (HR, 1.35; P = .038)
• Diabetes as a cause of ESRD (HR, 1.40; P = .002)
• HLA mismatch (HR, 1.27; P < .001)
• Delayed graft function (HR, 2.20; P < .001)

“Over time, DWFG was more common than graft failure,” the authors note.
 

Modifiable risk factors

As Dr. Bentall acknowledged, not all risk factors contributing to DWFG or graft failure are modifiable. However, diabetes – which stood out as a risk factor for both DWFG and graft failure – is potentially modifiable before patients reach ESRD, as he suggested. Diabetes is currently a cause for up to 40% of all ESRD cases in the United States.

“We can’t necessarily always reverse the diabetes, but there are significant new medications that can be used along with weight loss strategies to improve diabetes control,” he noted.

Similarly, it’s well established that patients who come into transplantation with a body mass index in excess of 30 kg/m2 have more scarring and damage to the kidney 5- and 10-years post-transplantation than healthy weight patients, as Dr. Bentall observed. “Again, this is a key modifiable component, and it fits into diabetes intervention strategies as well,” he emphasized. The use of prednisone as maintenance immunosuppressive therapy similarly emerged as a risk factor for DWFG.

Transplant recipients who receive prednisone may well be a higher risk population to begin with, “but we are also using prednisone in our older patients because we try to use less induction immunosuppression at the time of transplantation. So if we can try and get people off prednisone, that may lessen their risk of infection and subsequent mortality,” Dr. Bentall noted.

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

Many patients with early breast cancer are being undertreated, concludes a novel study that examined the management of such patients across various geographical regions across the United States.

A standard treatment for early breast cancer is endocrine therapy (ET), with drugs such a tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors.

But the study found that ET was not being used in about half of the eligible patients.

For example, only 13,115 of 26,255 eligible patients (48.8%) initiated ET within 1 year of diagnosis, and only 13,944 (52.1%) continued with ET.

“This is remarkable, considering that ET confers an impressive one-third reduction in the risk of death from breast cancer in the first 15 years after diagnosis,” comment authors Michael J. Hassett, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.

The findings were published online on Jan. 27 in JAMA Oncology.

This study provides an “important and disturbing” glimpse of the hidden barriers patients face when seeking quality, guideline-concordant care, says Kathy Miller, MD, the Ballve Lantero professor of oncology at Indiana University School of Medicine and associate director of clinical research at the IU Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, who was approached for comment.
 

Geographical variations

In their study, Dr. Hasset and colleagues set out determine the extent to which geospatial variations in early breast cancer care are attributable to health service area versus patient factors. They analyzed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Medicare data for 31,571 patients with newly diagnosed with stage I-II nonmetastatic breast cancer between 2007 and 2013 who were followed for at least 3 years.

The patients had a median age of 71 years, and 61.4% had stage I disease at diagnosis.

Geospatial density maps (heat maps) in the paper highlight regional performance patterns. For initiation of ET within 1 year of diagnosis, the regions that appeared the worst (with less than 50% of patients getting this treatment) were parts of California, Utah, New Mexico, Louisiana, Georgia, Kentucky, Washington, and an isolated patch in Michigan.

In addition to the striking finding that nearly half of all women who are eligible for ET did not receive that therapy, the investigators found that 81.6% of 21,190 eligible patients received radiation therapy and 72.8% of 9,903 eligible patients received chemotherapy.

This also varied across the graphical regions, with the heat maps showing that the areas that were delivering radiation and chemotherapy to 70% to 80% of women were similar to the areas that were not initiating ET in about half of these women.

The authors found that the geographical region and health service area (HSA) explained more observed variation (24% to 48%) than patient factors (1% to 4%).

“While patient characteristics, such as race and ethnicity, were significantly associated with variation in breast cancer care, they explained a relatively small proportion of the total observed geospatial variance,” the authors comment.

“In fact, most of the total observed variance was owing to randomness or unexplained factors,” they add. The largest share of variation – 35% to 45% – was unexplained.

“The ET metrics demonstrated the largest total observed variance, the lowest absolute performance (only 49% of patients had an ET prescription within 1 year of diagnosis), and the strongest association with region/HSA,” they conclude.

Though limited by factors inherent in a retrospective review of SEER-Medicare data, the “unexplained nature of most geospatial variation in initial breast cancer care is not likely to change,” they comment.

Future quality improvement efforts should focus on reducing this unwarranted geospatial variation, particularly through the use of ET in eligible patients and with strategies that work across health care delivery systems, they suggest.

Approached for comment on the new findings, Dr. Miller posits that “many factors may be at play.”

“Unfortunately, the SEER database doesn’t allow us to sort out the impact of poverty/cost of care, distance to medical care, availability of specialty and subspecialty care, and payer/provider networks that may limit choices and options for second opinions,” Dr. Miller told this news organization.

She said that patients should be encouraged to consult reliable patient-focused information, such as that provided by the American Society of Clinical Oncology through its disease-specific sites, and to seek a second opinion from a university center. In many cases, major centers have become more accessible through virtual visits made available in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, she noted.

This study was supported by Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society. The authors and Dr. Miller have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Miller is a regular contributor to Medscape with her Miller on Oncology column.

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

Many patients with early breast cancer are being undertreated, concludes a novel study that examined the management of such patients across various geographical regions across the United States.

A standard treatment for early breast cancer is endocrine therapy (ET), with drugs such a tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors.

But the study found that ET was not being used in about half of the eligible patients.

For example, only 13,115 of 26,255 eligible patients (48.8%) initiated ET within 1 year of diagnosis, and only 13,944 (52.1%) continued with ET.

“This is remarkable, considering that ET confers an impressive one-third reduction in the risk of death from breast cancer in the first 15 years after diagnosis,” comment authors Michael J. Hassett, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.

The findings were published online on Jan. 27 in JAMA Oncology.

This study provides an “important and disturbing” glimpse of the hidden barriers patients face when seeking quality, guideline-concordant care, says Kathy Miller, MD, the Ballve Lantero professor of oncology at Indiana University School of Medicine and associate director of clinical research at the IU Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, who was approached for comment.
 

Geographical variations

In their study, Dr. Hasset and colleagues set out determine the extent to which geospatial variations in early breast cancer care are attributable to health service area versus patient factors. They analyzed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Medicare data for 31,571 patients with newly diagnosed with stage I-II nonmetastatic breast cancer between 2007 and 2013 who were followed for at least 3 years.

The patients had a median age of 71 years, and 61.4% had stage I disease at diagnosis.

Geospatial density maps (heat maps) in the paper highlight regional performance patterns. For initiation of ET within 1 year of diagnosis, the regions that appeared the worst (with less than 50% of patients getting this treatment) were parts of California, Utah, New Mexico, Louisiana, Georgia, Kentucky, Washington, and an isolated patch in Michigan.

In addition to the striking finding that nearly half of all women who are eligible for ET did not receive that therapy, the investigators found that 81.6% of 21,190 eligible patients received radiation therapy and 72.8% of 9,903 eligible patients received chemotherapy.

This also varied across the graphical regions, with the heat maps showing that the areas that were delivering radiation and chemotherapy to 70% to 80% of women were similar to the areas that were not initiating ET in about half of these women.

The authors found that the geographical region and health service area (HSA) explained more observed variation (24% to 48%) than patient factors (1% to 4%).

“While patient characteristics, such as race and ethnicity, were significantly associated with variation in breast cancer care, they explained a relatively small proportion of the total observed geospatial variance,” the authors comment.

“In fact, most of the total observed variance was owing to randomness or unexplained factors,” they add. The largest share of variation – 35% to 45% – was unexplained.

“The ET metrics demonstrated the largest total observed variance, the lowest absolute performance (only 49% of patients had an ET prescription within 1 year of diagnosis), and the strongest association with region/HSA,” they conclude.

Though limited by factors inherent in a retrospective review of SEER-Medicare data, the “unexplained nature of most geospatial variation in initial breast cancer care is not likely to change,” they comment.

Future quality improvement efforts should focus on reducing this unwarranted geospatial variation, particularly through the use of ET in eligible patients and with strategies that work across health care delivery systems, they suggest.

Approached for comment on the new findings, Dr. Miller posits that “many factors may be at play.”

“Unfortunately, the SEER database doesn’t allow us to sort out the impact of poverty/cost of care, distance to medical care, availability of specialty and subspecialty care, and payer/provider networks that may limit choices and options for second opinions,” Dr. Miller told this news organization.

She said that patients should be encouraged to consult reliable patient-focused information, such as that provided by the American Society of Clinical Oncology through its disease-specific sites, and to seek a second opinion from a university center. In many cases, major centers have become more accessible through virtual visits made available in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, she noted.

This study was supported by Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society. The authors and Dr. Miller have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Miller is a regular contributor to Medscape with her Miller on Oncology column.

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

Many patients with early breast cancer are being undertreated, concludes a novel study that examined the management of such patients across various geographical regions across the United States.

A standard treatment for early breast cancer is endocrine therapy (ET), with drugs such a tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors.

But the study found that ET was not being used in about half of the eligible patients.

For example, only 13,115 of 26,255 eligible patients (48.8%) initiated ET within 1 year of diagnosis, and only 13,944 (52.1%) continued with ET.

“This is remarkable, considering that ET confers an impressive one-third reduction in the risk of death from breast cancer in the first 15 years after diagnosis,” comment authors Michael J. Hassett, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.

The findings were published online on Jan. 27 in JAMA Oncology.

This study provides an “important and disturbing” glimpse of the hidden barriers patients face when seeking quality, guideline-concordant care, says Kathy Miller, MD, the Ballve Lantero professor of oncology at Indiana University School of Medicine and associate director of clinical research at the IU Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, who was approached for comment.
 

Geographical variations

In their study, Dr. Hasset and colleagues set out determine the extent to which geospatial variations in early breast cancer care are attributable to health service area versus patient factors. They analyzed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Medicare data for 31,571 patients with newly diagnosed with stage I-II nonmetastatic breast cancer between 2007 and 2013 who were followed for at least 3 years.

The patients had a median age of 71 years, and 61.4% had stage I disease at diagnosis.

Geospatial density maps (heat maps) in the paper highlight regional performance patterns. For initiation of ET within 1 year of diagnosis, the regions that appeared the worst (with less than 50% of patients getting this treatment) were parts of California, Utah, New Mexico, Louisiana, Georgia, Kentucky, Washington, and an isolated patch in Michigan.

In addition to the striking finding that nearly half of all women who are eligible for ET did not receive that therapy, the investigators found that 81.6% of 21,190 eligible patients received radiation therapy and 72.8% of 9,903 eligible patients received chemotherapy.

This also varied across the graphical regions, with the heat maps showing that the areas that were delivering radiation and chemotherapy to 70% to 80% of women were similar to the areas that were not initiating ET in about half of these women.

The authors found that the geographical region and health service area (HSA) explained more observed variation (24% to 48%) than patient factors (1% to 4%).

“While patient characteristics, such as race and ethnicity, were significantly associated with variation in breast cancer care, they explained a relatively small proportion of the total observed geospatial variance,” the authors comment.

“In fact, most of the total observed variance was owing to randomness or unexplained factors,” they add. The largest share of variation – 35% to 45% – was unexplained.

“The ET metrics demonstrated the largest total observed variance, the lowest absolute performance (only 49% of patients had an ET prescription within 1 year of diagnosis), and the strongest association with region/HSA,” they conclude.

Though limited by factors inherent in a retrospective review of SEER-Medicare data, the “unexplained nature of most geospatial variation in initial breast cancer care is not likely to change,” they comment.

Future quality improvement efforts should focus on reducing this unwarranted geospatial variation, particularly through the use of ET in eligible patients and with strategies that work across health care delivery systems, they suggest.

Approached for comment on the new findings, Dr. Miller posits that “many factors may be at play.”

“Unfortunately, the SEER database doesn’t allow us to sort out the impact of poverty/cost of care, distance to medical care, availability of specialty and subspecialty care, and payer/provider networks that may limit choices and options for second opinions,” Dr. Miller told this news organization.

She said that patients should be encouraged to consult reliable patient-focused information, such as that provided by the American Society of Clinical Oncology through its disease-specific sites, and to seek a second opinion from a university center. In many cases, major centers have become more accessible through virtual visits made available in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, she noted.

This study was supported by Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society. The authors and Dr. Miller have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Miller is a regular contributor to Medscape with her Miller on Oncology column.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic is now associated with the highest number of excess deaths worldwide since the 1918 flu pandemic, sometimes known as the “Spanish flu.”

Excess mortality is a way of quantifying the impact of a pandemic, based on overall mortality from nonpandemic periods. Mortality data over long periods of time are not available for many countries, but Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain have accumulated death count data for an uninterrupted period of more than 100 years.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Kaspar Staub, PhD, of the University of Zurich led a team of researchers in reviewing data on monthly excess deaths from all causes for Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain for 2020 to 2021. Dr. Staub and colleagues also compared these numbers to other pandemic and nonpandemic periods since the end of the 19th century. The starting years were 1877 for Switzerland, 1851 for Sweden, and 1908 for Spain.

The researchers collected data for monthly all-cause deaths from the statistical offices of each country and determined excess mortality by comparing these numbers to population size and age structure.

They found that 2020 showed the highest number of excess deaths since 1918, with relative excess of deaths of 12.5% in Switzerland, 8.5% in Sweden, and 17.3 % in Spain.

To put it another way, the number of excess deaths per 100,000 people was 100 for Switzerland, 75 for Sweden, and 155 for Spain.

“Our findings suggest that the pandemic led to the second-largest mortality disaster driven by a viral infection in more than 100 years in the three countries we studied, second only to the 1918 influenza pandemic,” the researchers wrote.

They explained that the excess mortality for the year 1918 was six to seven times higher than the 2020 numbers, but that the 2020 numbers might have been higher without the strong public health interventions taken worldwide to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Early estimates suggest that vaccination prevented approximately 470,000 deaths in persons aged 60 years or older across 33 European countries between December 2019 and November 2021,” they wrote. However, because the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, “a more conclusive assessment will have to wait,” they added.

The 2020 numbers also were higher than most mortality rates since 1918, including peak years of previous influenza pandemics that occurred in 1957, 1968, 1977, and, most recently, the swine flu pandemic of 2009 which was caused by a novel strain of the H1N1 influenza virus.

The study findings had some limitations. For example, only three countries were included. Also, monthly death numbers according to sex, age, and cause of death were available only for the past 60 years, and data from years before the 20th century may not be reliable, the researchers said.

The new study does not account for the long-term effects of patients suffering from long COVID, they noted.

Study findings support strong public health response

“With the COVID-19 pandemic ongoing, this study reinforces the historic magnitude of the problem in terms of mortality and could add to the justification for ongoing public health measures such as vaccination drives and vaccine mandates to curb deaths,” said Suman Pal, MD, an internal medicine physician at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.

“The results are surprising because when we view the rapid advancement in medical science over the last few decades, which have led to a decline in mortality from many previously fatal diseases, the scale of excess mortality from COVID-19 seems to have offset many such gains in the past 2 years.”

Prior studies of United States mortality data have estimated that excess deaths in the United States in 2020 exceeded the deaths attributed to COVID-19, said Dr. Pal. “The findings of this study could help clinicians in their discussion of the need for COVID-19 prevention measures with their patients” and inform discussions between doctors and patients about prevention strategies, he explained.

“Emphasizing that this pandemic is the second-largest cause of death due to a viral infection in a century could help patients understand the need for public health measures that may be viewed as unprecedented, such as government-imposed lockdowns, contact tracing, mask requirements, restrictions on travel, and vaccine mandates,” Dr. Pal noted. Better understanding of the evidence behind such measures may decrease the public’s resistance to following them, he added.As for additional research, “region-specific analysis of excess deaths may help estimate the impact of COVID-19 better, especially in regions where data reporting may be unreliable.”

Dr. F. Perry Wilson's take on study

“All-cause mortality is a key metric to assess the impact of the pandemic, because each death is treated equally,” said F. Perry Wilson, MD, of Yale University, in an interview. “With this type of analysis, there is no vague definition of a death from COVID or with COVID,” he explained. “A death is a death, and more deaths than expected is, of course, a bad thing. These analyses give a high-level view of the true human cost of the pandemic,” he said.

Yale School of Medicine

Dr. Wilson said he was not surprised by the findings. “There have been multiple studies, across multiple countries including the United States, which show similar findings—that observed deaths during this pandemic are substantially higher than expected,” he said. The current study findings are unique in that they compare the current pandemic to death rates in a nearly unbroken chain into the last century using data that only a few countries can provide, he noted. 

The mortality data are “quite similar to what we see in the United States, with the exception that Spain was particularly hard-hit in the first COVID-19 wave in April 2020, said Dr. Wilson. By contrast, “the U.S. had substantially more excess deaths in the recent Delta wave, presumably due to lower vaccination uptake,” he added.

The current study is important for clinicians and their patients, said Dr. Wilson. “Data like these can help cut through some of the misinformation, such as the idea that only people who would have died anyway die of COVID, or that COVID is not severe,” he emphasized. “Overall death data are quite clear that far more people, millions more people, died over the last 22 months than could possibly be explained except by a global-level mortality event,” he said. 

“One thing this study reminds us of is the value of high-quality data,” said Dr. Wilson. “Few countries have near complete vital statistics records on their entire populations and these can be so crucial to understand the true impact of pandemics and other disasters,” he explained. Of course, mortality data also serve as a reminder “that COVID is a serious disease: a once-in-a-century (we hope) pandemic,” he added.

The current study showed that excess death rates were similar, but not the same, from country to country, Dr. Wilson noted. “Moving forward, we need to learn what factors, from vaccination to social distancing strategies,” saved lives around the world,” he said. 

The study was supported by the Foundation for Research in Science and the Humanities at the University of Zurich, the Swiss National Science Foundation, and the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The researchers, Dr. Pal, and Dr. Wilson had no financial conflicts.

*This article was updated on 2/1/2022.

The COVID-19 pandemic is now associated with the highest number of excess deaths worldwide since the 1918 flu pandemic, sometimes known as the “Spanish flu.”

Excess mortality is a way of quantifying the impact of a pandemic, based on overall mortality from nonpandemic periods. Mortality data over long periods of time are not available for many countries, but Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain have accumulated death count data for an uninterrupted period of more than 100 years.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Kaspar Staub, PhD, of the University of Zurich led a team of researchers in reviewing data on monthly excess deaths from all causes for Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain for 2020 to 2021. Dr. Staub and colleagues also compared these numbers to other pandemic and nonpandemic periods since the end of the 19th century. The starting years were 1877 for Switzerland, 1851 for Sweden, and 1908 for Spain.

The researchers collected data for monthly all-cause deaths from the statistical offices of each country and determined excess mortality by comparing these numbers to population size and age structure.

They found that 2020 showed the highest number of excess deaths since 1918, with relative excess of deaths of 12.5% in Switzerland, 8.5% in Sweden, and 17.3 % in Spain.

To put it another way, the number of excess deaths per 100,000 people was 100 for Switzerland, 75 for Sweden, and 155 for Spain.

“Our findings suggest that the pandemic led to the second-largest mortality disaster driven by a viral infection in more than 100 years in the three countries we studied, second only to the 1918 influenza pandemic,” the researchers wrote.

They explained that the excess mortality for the year 1918 was six to seven times higher than the 2020 numbers, but that the 2020 numbers might have been higher without the strong public health interventions taken worldwide to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Early estimates suggest that vaccination prevented approximately 470,000 deaths in persons aged 60 years or older across 33 European countries between December 2019 and November 2021,” they wrote. However, because the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, “a more conclusive assessment will have to wait,” they added.

The 2020 numbers also were higher than most mortality rates since 1918, including peak years of previous influenza pandemics that occurred in 1957, 1968, 1977, and, most recently, the swine flu pandemic of 2009 which was caused by a novel strain of the H1N1 influenza virus.

The study findings had some limitations. For example, only three countries were included. Also, monthly death numbers according to sex, age, and cause of death were available only for the past 60 years, and data from years before the 20th century may not be reliable, the researchers said.

The new study does not account for the long-term effects of patients suffering from long COVID, they noted.

Study findings support strong public health response

“With the COVID-19 pandemic ongoing, this study reinforces the historic magnitude of the problem in terms of mortality and could add to the justification for ongoing public health measures such as vaccination drives and vaccine mandates to curb deaths,” said Suman Pal, MD, an internal medicine physician at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.

“The results are surprising because when we view the rapid advancement in medical science over the last few decades, which have led to a decline in mortality from many previously fatal diseases, the scale of excess mortality from COVID-19 seems to have offset many such gains in the past 2 years.”

Prior studies of United States mortality data have estimated that excess deaths in the United States in 2020 exceeded the deaths attributed to COVID-19, said Dr. Pal. “The findings of this study could help clinicians in their discussion of the need for COVID-19 prevention measures with their patients” and inform discussions between doctors and patients about prevention strategies, he explained.

“Emphasizing that this pandemic is the second-largest cause of death due to a viral infection in a century could help patients understand the need for public health measures that may be viewed as unprecedented, such as government-imposed lockdowns, contact tracing, mask requirements, restrictions on travel, and vaccine mandates,” Dr. Pal noted. Better understanding of the evidence behind such measures may decrease the public’s resistance to following them, he added.As for additional research, “region-specific analysis of excess deaths may help estimate the impact of COVID-19 better, especially in regions where data reporting may be unreliable.”

Dr. F. Perry Wilson's take on study

“All-cause mortality is a key metric to assess the impact of the pandemic, because each death is treated equally,” said F. Perry Wilson, MD, of Yale University, in an interview. “With this type of analysis, there is no vague definition of a death from COVID or with COVID,” he explained. “A death is a death, and more deaths than expected is, of course, a bad thing. These analyses give a high-level view of the true human cost of the pandemic,” he said.

Yale School of Medicine

Dr. Wilson said he was not surprised by the findings. “There have been multiple studies, across multiple countries including the United States, which show similar findings—that observed deaths during this pandemic are substantially higher than expected,” he said. The current study findings are unique in that they compare the current pandemic to death rates in a nearly unbroken chain into the last century using data that only a few countries can provide, he noted. 

The mortality data are “quite similar to what we see in the United States, with the exception that Spain was particularly hard-hit in the first COVID-19 wave in April 2020, said Dr. Wilson. By contrast, “the U.S. had substantially more excess deaths in the recent Delta wave, presumably due to lower vaccination uptake,” he added.

The current study is important for clinicians and their patients, said Dr. Wilson. “Data like these can help cut through some of the misinformation, such as the idea that only people who would have died anyway die of COVID, or that COVID is not severe,” he emphasized. “Overall death data are quite clear that far more people, millions more people, died over the last 22 months than could possibly be explained except by a global-level mortality event,” he said. 

“One thing this study reminds us of is the value of high-quality data,” said Dr. Wilson. “Few countries have near complete vital statistics records on their entire populations and these can be so crucial to understand the true impact of pandemics and other disasters,” he explained. Of course, mortality data also serve as a reminder “that COVID is a serious disease: a once-in-a-century (we hope) pandemic,” he added.

The current study showed that excess death rates were similar, but not the same, from country to country, Dr. Wilson noted. “Moving forward, we need to learn what factors, from vaccination to social distancing strategies,” saved lives around the world,” he said. 

The study was supported by the Foundation for Research in Science and the Humanities at the University of Zurich, the Swiss National Science Foundation, and the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The researchers, Dr. Pal, and Dr. Wilson had no financial conflicts.

*This article was updated on 2/1/2022.

The COVID-19 pandemic is now associated with the highest number of excess deaths worldwide since the 1918 flu pandemic, sometimes known as the “Spanish flu.”

Excess mortality is a way of quantifying the impact of a pandemic, based on overall mortality from nonpandemic periods. Mortality data over long periods of time are not available for many countries, but Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain have accumulated death count data for an uninterrupted period of more than 100 years.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Kaspar Staub, PhD, of the University of Zurich led a team of researchers in reviewing data on monthly excess deaths from all causes for Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain for 2020 to 2021. Dr. Staub and colleagues also compared these numbers to other pandemic and nonpandemic periods since the end of the 19th century. The starting years were 1877 for Switzerland, 1851 for Sweden, and 1908 for Spain.

The researchers collected data for monthly all-cause deaths from the statistical offices of each country and determined excess mortality by comparing these numbers to population size and age structure.

They found that 2020 showed the highest number of excess deaths since 1918, with relative excess of deaths of 12.5% in Switzerland, 8.5% in Sweden, and 17.3 % in Spain.

To put it another way, the number of excess deaths per 100,000 people was 100 for Switzerland, 75 for Sweden, and 155 for Spain.

“Our findings suggest that the pandemic led to the second-largest mortality disaster driven by a viral infection in more than 100 years in the three countries we studied, second only to the 1918 influenza pandemic,” the researchers wrote.

They explained that the excess mortality for the year 1918 was six to seven times higher than the 2020 numbers, but that the 2020 numbers might have been higher without the strong public health interventions taken worldwide to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Early estimates suggest that vaccination prevented approximately 470,000 deaths in persons aged 60 years or older across 33 European countries between December 2019 and November 2021,” they wrote. However, because the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, “a more conclusive assessment will have to wait,” they added.

The 2020 numbers also were higher than most mortality rates since 1918, including peak years of previous influenza pandemics that occurred in 1957, 1968, 1977, and, most recently, the swine flu pandemic of 2009 which was caused by a novel strain of the H1N1 influenza virus.

The study findings had some limitations. For example, only three countries were included. Also, monthly death numbers according to sex, age, and cause of death were available only for the past 60 years, and data from years before the 20th century may not be reliable, the researchers said.

The new study does not account for the long-term effects of patients suffering from long COVID, they noted.

Study findings support strong public health response

“With the COVID-19 pandemic ongoing, this study reinforces the historic magnitude of the problem in terms of mortality and could add to the justification for ongoing public health measures such as vaccination drives and vaccine mandates to curb deaths,” said Suman Pal, MD, an internal medicine physician at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.

“The results are surprising because when we view the rapid advancement in medical science over the last few decades, which have led to a decline in mortality from many previously fatal diseases, the scale of excess mortality from COVID-19 seems to have offset many such gains in the past 2 years.”

Prior studies of United States mortality data have estimated that excess deaths in the United States in 2020 exceeded the deaths attributed to COVID-19, said Dr. Pal. “The findings of this study could help clinicians in their discussion of the need for COVID-19 prevention measures with their patients” and inform discussions between doctors and patients about prevention strategies, he explained.

“Emphasizing that this pandemic is the second-largest cause of death due to a viral infection in a century could help patients understand the need for public health measures that may be viewed as unprecedented, such as government-imposed lockdowns, contact tracing, mask requirements, restrictions on travel, and vaccine mandates,” Dr. Pal noted. Better understanding of the evidence behind such measures may decrease the public’s resistance to following them, he added.As for additional research, “region-specific analysis of excess deaths may help estimate the impact of COVID-19 better, especially in regions where data reporting may be unreliable.”

Dr. F. Perry Wilson's take on study

“All-cause mortality is a key metric to assess the impact of the pandemic, because each death is treated equally,” said F. Perry Wilson, MD, of Yale University, in an interview. “With this type of analysis, there is no vague definition of a death from COVID or with COVID,” he explained. “A death is a death, and more deaths than expected is, of course, a bad thing. These analyses give a high-level view of the true human cost of the pandemic,” he said.

Yale School of Medicine

Dr. Wilson said he was not surprised by the findings. “There have been multiple studies, across multiple countries including the United States, which show similar findings—that observed deaths during this pandemic are substantially higher than expected,” he said. The current study findings are unique in that they compare the current pandemic to death rates in a nearly unbroken chain into the last century using data that only a few countries can provide, he noted. 

The mortality data are “quite similar to what we see in the United States, with the exception that Spain was particularly hard-hit in the first COVID-19 wave in April 2020, said Dr. Wilson. By contrast, “the U.S. had substantially more excess deaths in the recent Delta wave, presumably due to lower vaccination uptake,” he added.

The current study is important for clinicians and their patients, said Dr. Wilson. “Data like these can help cut through some of the misinformation, such as the idea that only people who would have died anyway die of COVID, or that COVID is not severe,” he emphasized. “Overall death data are quite clear that far more people, millions more people, died over the last 22 months than could possibly be explained except by a global-level mortality event,” he said. 

“One thing this study reminds us of is the value of high-quality data,” said Dr. Wilson. “Few countries have near complete vital statistics records on their entire populations and these can be so crucial to understand the true impact of pandemics and other disasters,” he explained. Of course, mortality data also serve as a reminder “that COVID is a serious disease: a once-in-a-century (we hope) pandemic,” he added.

The current study showed that excess death rates were similar, but not the same, from country to country, Dr. Wilson noted. “Moving forward, we need to learn what factors, from vaccination to social distancing strategies,” saved lives around the world,” he said. 

The study was supported by the Foundation for Research in Science and the Humanities at the University of Zurich, the Swiss National Science Foundation, and the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The researchers, Dr. Pal, and Dr. Wilson had no financial conflicts.

*This article was updated on 2/1/2022.

High plasma concentrations of buprenorphine may reduce fentanyl-induced respiratory depression, new research suggests.

The primary endpoint measure in a small “proof of principal” pharmacology study was effect of escalating fentanyl dosing on respiratory depression by way of decreased isohypercapnic minute ventilation (VE) – or volume of gas inhaled or exhaled per minute from the lungs.

sdominick/iStock/Getty Images

Results showed the maximum decrease in highest-dose fentanyl-induced VE was almost 50% less for opioid-tolerant patients receiving a 2.0 ng/mL concentration of steady-state plasma buprenorphine than when receiving matching placebo.

Risk for apnea requiring stimulation after fentanyl dosing was also significantly lower with buprenorphine.

“Even though the study is small, a lot of data were collected which will allow us to very accurately predict which plasma concentrations, and therefore drug doses, are needed to protect people adequately in practice,” study coinvestigator Geert Jan Groeneveld, MD, PhD, neurologist and clinical pharmacologist at the Centre for Human Drug Research, Leiden, the Netherlands, and professor of clinical neuropharmacology at Leiden University Medical Center, told this news organization.

He added the “beautiful results” were in line with what the researchers expected and although further research is needed, the study provides a lot of useful information for clinicians.

“I think this is an approach that works, and this study makes that clear,” Dr. Groeneveld added.

The findings were published online Jan. 27, 2022, in PLoS One.
 

High death rate from synthetic opioids

A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted that, between June 2020 and June 2021, there were more than 100,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States. Of these, more than 73,000 were attributed to opioids and more than 60,000 to synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

Most opioid-related overdose deaths in the United States are attributable to synthetic opioids “that can unexpectedly cause respiratory depression by being ingested as a substitute for heroin or with [other] drugs,” Indivior noted in a press release.

Buprenorphine is a partial agonist that “binds with high affinity to mu-opioid receptors but displays partial respiratory depression effects,” the investigators wrote.

As reported by this news organization, the Food and Drug Administration approved buprenorphine extended release (Sublocade, Indivior) in 2017 as the first once-monthly injection for the treatment of opioid use disorder.

In the current study, which was conducted in Leiden, the Netherlands, the investigators used continuous intravenous buprenorphine in order to “mimic” the sustained plasma concentrations of the drug that can be delivered with the long-acting injectable, noted Christian Heidbreder, PhD, chief scientific officer at Indivior.

“This was an experimental medicine study, whereby we used intravenous buprenorphine to really understand the interaction with escalating doses of fentanyl” on respiratory depression, he told this news organization.
 

Two-part, two-period study

In part A, period one of the two-period crossover study, 14 healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to receive for 360 minutes continuous infusion of 0.02 or 0.05 mg/70 kg per hour of buprenorphine to target plasma concentrations of 0.2 or 0.5 ng/mL, respectively, or matching placebo. In the second period, participants received the alternative infusion – either placebo or the active drug.

In part B, eight opioid-tolerant patients who had used high-dose opioids for at least 3 months prior received a higher infusion rate of 0.1, 0.2, or 0.5 mg/70 kg per hour to target plasma concentrations of 1, 2, or 5 ng/mL, respectively.

The 2 ng/mL “is a very important threshold for us” and the result from several previous experiments, Dr. Heidbreder noted. So the investigators targeted that concentration as well as one below and one “much higher” in the current study.

“Because tolerance to opioid effects is poorly characterized in patients receiving long-term opioids, opioid-tolerant participants in part B had a fixed treatment sequence, receiving placebo infusion plus fentanyl challenges in period 1 to optimize the fentanyl dose escalation before buprenorphine and fentanyl were coadministered in period 2,” the investigators reported.

All participants received up to four escalating doses of intravenous fentanyl after reaching target buprenorphine plasma concentrations.

For healthy volunteers, the planned fentanyl doses were 0.075, 0.15, 0.25, and 0.35 mg/70 kg. For the opioid-tolerant patients, the doses were 0.25, 0.35, 0.5, and 0.7 mg/70 kg.

The infusions began after baseline VE had stabilized at 20 plus or minus 2 L/min, which is about four times above normal resting VE.
 

First clinical evidence?

Results showed fentanyl-induced adverse changes in VE were less at higher concentrations of buprenorphine plasma.

Opioid-tolerant patients receiving the 2.0 ng/mL concentration of buprenorphine had a 33.7% decrease in highest dose fentanyl-induced VE versus an 82.3% decrease when receiving placebo.

In addition, fentanyl reduced VE up to 49% (95% confidence interval, 21%-76%) in opioid-tolerant patients in all buprenorphine concentration groups combined versus reducing VE up to 100% (95% CI, 68%-132%) during placebo infusion (P = .006).

In addition, buprenorphine was associated with a lower risk versus placebo for apnea requiring verbal stimulation after fentanyl dosing (odds ratio, 0.07; P = .001).

For the healthy volunteers, the first fentanyl bolus reduced VE by 26% for those at target buprenorphine concentration of 0.5 ng/mL versus 51% when receiving placebo (P = .001). The second bolus reduced VE by 47% versus 79%, respectively (P < .001).

“Discontinuations for apnea limited treatment comparisons beyond the second fentanyl injection,” the investigators reported.

Overall, the findings “provide the first clinical evidence that high sustained plasma concentrations of buprenorphine may protect against respiratory depression induced by potent opioids,” they added.

Additional research is now “warranted to assess the competitive interaction of buprenorphine and fentanyl (as well as other illicitly manufactured fentanyl analogs) as we continue to deepen our understanding of buprenorphine as an evidence-based treatment for patients struggling with opioid use disorder,” Dr. Heidbreder said in a press release.

It’s unclear whether the study’s findings are generalizable to other populations, said Dr. Heidbreder.

“So what we are going to do next is to see what is actually happening in a real world, much broader patient population; and for that we’ll be using [the injectable] Sublocade as the medication of choice,” said Dr. Heidbreder.

“Conceptually, we feel confident about these data, but now we need to demonstrate what is happening in the real world,” he added.

The study was funded by Indivior. Dr. Groeneveld has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Heidbreder is an employee of Indivior.

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

High plasma concentrations of buprenorphine may reduce fentanyl-induced respiratory depression, new research suggests.

The primary endpoint measure in a small “proof of principal” pharmacology study was effect of escalating fentanyl dosing on respiratory depression by way of decreased isohypercapnic minute ventilation (VE) – or volume of gas inhaled or exhaled per minute from the lungs.

sdominick/iStock/Getty Images

Results showed the maximum decrease in highest-dose fentanyl-induced VE was almost 50% less for opioid-tolerant patients receiving a 2.0 ng/mL concentration of steady-state plasma buprenorphine than when receiving matching placebo.

Risk for apnea requiring stimulation after fentanyl dosing was also significantly lower with buprenorphine.

“Even though the study is small, a lot of data were collected which will allow us to very accurately predict which plasma concentrations, and therefore drug doses, are needed to protect people adequately in practice,” study coinvestigator Geert Jan Groeneveld, MD, PhD, neurologist and clinical pharmacologist at the Centre for Human Drug Research, Leiden, the Netherlands, and professor of clinical neuropharmacology at Leiden University Medical Center, told this news organization.

He added the “beautiful results” were in line with what the researchers expected and although further research is needed, the study provides a lot of useful information for clinicians.

“I think this is an approach that works, and this study makes that clear,” Dr. Groeneveld added.

The findings were published online Jan. 27, 2022, in PLoS One.
 

High death rate from synthetic opioids

A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted that, between June 2020 and June 2021, there were more than 100,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States. Of these, more than 73,000 were attributed to opioids and more than 60,000 to synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

Most opioid-related overdose deaths in the United States are attributable to synthetic opioids “that can unexpectedly cause respiratory depression by being ingested as a substitute for heroin or with [other] drugs,” Indivior noted in a press release.

Buprenorphine is a partial agonist that “binds with high affinity to mu-opioid receptors but displays partial respiratory depression effects,” the investigators wrote.

As reported by this news organization, the Food and Drug Administration approved buprenorphine extended release (Sublocade, Indivior) in 2017 as the first once-monthly injection for the treatment of opioid use disorder.

In the current study, which was conducted in Leiden, the Netherlands, the investigators used continuous intravenous buprenorphine in order to “mimic” the sustained plasma concentrations of the drug that can be delivered with the long-acting injectable, noted Christian Heidbreder, PhD, chief scientific officer at Indivior.

“This was an experimental medicine study, whereby we used intravenous buprenorphine to really understand the interaction with escalating doses of fentanyl” on respiratory depression, he told this news organization.
 

Two-part, two-period study

In part A, period one of the two-period crossover study, 14 healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to receive for 360 minutes continuous infusion of 0.02 or 0.05 mg/70 kg per hour of buprenorphine to target plasma concentrations of 0.2 or 0.5 ng/mL, respectively, or matching placebo. In the second period, participants received the alternative infusion – either placebo or the active drug.

In part B, eight opioid-tolerant patients who had used high-dose opioids for at least 3 months prior received a higher infusion rate of 0.1, 0.2, or 0.5 mg/70 kg per hour to target plasma concentrations of 1, 2, or 5 ng/mL, respectively.

The 2 ng/mL “is a very important threshold for us” and the result from several previous experiments, Dr. Heidbreder noted. So the investigators targeted that concentration as well as one below and one “much higher” in the current study.

“Because tolerance to opioid effects is poorly characterized in patients receiving long-term opioids, opioid-tolerant participants in part B had a fixed treatment sequence, receiving placebo infusion plus fentanyl challenges in period 1 to optimize the fentanyl dose escalation before buprenorphine and fentanyl were coadministered in period 2,” the investigators reported.

All participants received up to four escalating doses of intravenous fentanyl after reaching target buprenorphine plasma concentrations.

For healthy volunteers, the planned fentanyl doses were 0.075, 0.15, 0.25, and 0.35 mg/70 kg. For the opioid-tolerant patients, the doses were 0.25, 0.35, 0.5, and 0.7 mg/70 kg.

The infusions began after baseline VE had stabilized at 20 plus or minus 2 L/min, which is about four times above normal resting VE.
 

First clinical evidence?

Results showed fentanyl-induced adverse changes in VE were less at higher concentrations of buprenorphine plasma.

Opioid-tolerant patients receiving the 2.0 ng/mL concentration of buprenorphine had a 33.7% decrease in highest dose fentanyl-induced VE versus an 82.3% decrease when receiving placebo.

In addition, fentanyl reduced VE up to 49% (95% confidence interval, 21%-76%) in opioid-tolerant patients in all buprenorphine concentration groups combined versus reducing VE up to 100% (95% CI, 68%-132%) during placebo infusion (P = .006).

In addition, buprenorphine was associated with a lower risk versus placebo for apnea requiring verbal stimulation after fentanyl dosing (odds ratio, 0.07; P = .001).

For the healthy volunteers, the first fentanyl bolus reduced VE by 26% for those at target buprenorphine concentration of 0.5 ng/mL versus 51% when receiving placebo (P = .001). The second bolus reduced VE by 47% versus 79%, respectively (P < .001).

“Discontinuations for apnea limited treatment comparisons beyond the second fentanyl injection,” the investigators reported.

Overall, the findings “provide the first clinical evidence that high sustained plasma concentrations of buprenorphine may protect against respiratory depression induced by potent opioids,” they added.

Additional research is now “warranted to assess the competitive interaction of buprenorphine and fentanyl (as well as other illicitly manufactured fentanyl analogs) as we continue to deepen our understanding of buprenorphine as an evidence-based treatment for patients struggling with opioid use disorder,” Dr. Heidbreder said in a press release.

It’s unclear whether the study’s findings are generalizable to other populations, said Dr. Heidbreder.

“So what we are going to do next is to see what is actually happening in a real world, much broader patient population; and for that we’ll be using [the injectable] Sublocade as the medication of choice,” said Dr. Heidbreder.

“Conceptually, we feel confident about these data, but now we need to demonstrate what is happening in the real world,” he added.

The study was funded by Indivior. Dr. Groeneveld has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Heidbreder is an employee of Indivior.

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

High plasma concentrations of buprenorphine may reduce fentanyl-induced respiratory depression, new research suggests.

The primary endpoint measure in a small “proof of principal” pharmacology study was effect of escalating fentanyl dosing on respiratory depression by way of decreased isohypercapnic minute ventilation (VE) – or volume of gas inhaled or exhaled per minute from the lungs.

sdominick/iStock/Getty Images

Results showed the maximum decrease in highest-dose fentanyl-induced VE was almost 50% less for opioid-tolerant patients receiving a 2.0 ng/mL concentration of steady-state plasma buprenorphine than when receiving matching placebo.

Risk for apnea requiring stimulation after fentanyl dosing was also significantly lower with buprenorphine.

“Even though the study is small, a lot of data were collected which will allow us to very accurately predict which plasma concentrations, and therefore drug doses, are needed to protect people adequately in practice,” study coinvestigator Geert Jan Groeneveld, MD, PhD, neurologist and clinical pharmacologist at the Centre for Human Drug Research, Leiden, the Netherlands, and professor of clinical neuropharmacology at Leiden University Medical Center, told this news organization.

He added the “beautiful results” were in line with what the researchers expected and although further research is needed, the study provides a lot of useful information for clinicians.

“I think this is an approach that works, and this study makes that clear,” Dr. Groeneveld added.

The findings were published online Jan. 27, 2022, in PLoS One.
 

High death rate from synthetic opioids

A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted that, between June 2020 and June 2021, there were more than 100,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States. Of these, more than 73,000 were attributed to opioids and more than 60,000 to synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

Most opioid-related overdose deaths in the United States are attributable to synthetic opioids “that can unexpectedly cause respiratory depression by being ingested as a substitute for heroin or with [other] drugs,” Indivior noted in a press release.

Buprenorphine is a partial agonist that “binds with high affinity to mu-opioid receptors but displays partial respiratory depression effects,” the investigators wrote.

As reported by this news organization, the Food and Drug Administration approved buprenorphine extended release (Sublocade, Indivior) in 2017 as the first once-monthly injection for the treatment of opioid use disorder.

In the current study, which was conducted in Leiden, the Netherlands, the investigators used continuous intravenous buprenorphine in order to “mimic” the sustained plasma concentrations of the drug that can be delivered with the long-acting injectable, noted Christian Heidbreder, PhD, chief scientific officer at Indivior.

“This was an experimental medicine study, whereby we used intravenous buprenorphine to really understand the interaction with escalating doses of fentanyl” on respiratory depression, he told this news organization.
 

Two-part, two-period study

In part A, period one of the two-period crossover study, 14 healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to receive for 360 minutes continuous infusion of 0.02 or 0.05 mg/70 kg per hour of buprenorphine to target plasma concentrations of 0.2 or 0.5 ng/mL, respectively, or matching placebo. In the second period, participants received the alternative infusion – either placebo or the active drug.

In part B, eight opioid-tolerant patients who had used high-dose opioids for at least 3 months prior received a higher infusion rate of 0.1, 0.2, or 0.5 mg/70 kg per hour to target plasma concentrations of 1, 2, or 5 ng/mL, respectively.

The 2 ng/mL “is a very important threshold for us” and the result from several previous experiments, Dr. Heidbreder noted. So the investigators targeted that concentration as well as one below and one “much higher” in the current study.

“Because tolerance to opioid effects is poorly characterized in patients receiving long-term opioids, opioid-tolerant participants in part B had a fixed treatment sequence, receiving placebo infusion plus fentanyl challenges in period 1 to optimize the fentanyl dose escalation before buprenorphine and fentanyl were coadministered in period 2,” the investigators reported.

All participants received up to four escalating doses of intravenous fentanyl after reaching target buprenorphine plasma concentrations.

For healthy volunteers, the planned fentanyl doses were 0.075, 0.15, 0.25, and 0.35 mg/70 kg. For the opioid-tolerant patients, the doses were 0.25, 0.35, 0.5, and 0.7 mg/70 kg.

The infusions began after baseline VE had stabilized at 20 plus or minus 2 L/min, which is about four times above normal resting VE.
 

First clinical evidence?

Results showed fentanyl-induced adverse changes in VE were less at higher concentrations of buprenorphine plasma.

Opioid-tolerant patients receiving the 2.0 ng/mL concentration of buprenorphine had a 33.7% decrease in highest dose fentanyl-induced VE versus an 82.3% decrease when receiving placebo.

In addition, fentanyl reduced VE up to 49% (95% confidence interval, 21%-76%) in opioid-tolerant patients in all buprenorphine concentration groups combined versus reducing VE up to 100% (95% CI, 68%-132%) during placebo infusion (P = .006).

In addition, buprenorphine was associated with a lower risk versus placebo for apnea requiring verbal stimulation after fentanyl dosing (odds ratio, 0.07; P = .001).

For the healthy volunteers, the first fentanyl bolus reduced VE by 26% for those at target buprenorphine concentration of 0.5 ng/mL versus 51% when receiving placebo (P = .001). The second bolus reduced VE by 47% versus 79%, respectively (P < .001).

“Discontinuations for apnea limited treatment comparisons beyond the second fentanyl injection,” the investigators reported.

Overall, the findings “provide the first clinical evidence that high sustained plasma concentrations of buprenorphine may protect against respiratory depression induced by potent opioids,” they added.

Additional research is now “warranted to assess the competitive interaction of buprenorphine and fentanyl (as well as other illicitly manufactured fentanyl analogs) as we continue to deepen our understanding of buprenorphine as an evidence-based treatment for patients struggling with opioid use disorder,” Dr. Heidbreder said in a press release.

It’s unclear whether the study’s findings are generalizable to other populations, said Dr. Heidbreder.

“So what we are going to do next is to see what is actually happening in a real world, much broader patient population; and for that we’ll be using [the injectable] Sublocade as the medication of choice,” said Dr. Heidbreder.

“Conceptually, we feel confident about these data, but now we need to demonstrate what is happening in the real world,” he added.

The study was funded by Indivior. Dr. Groeneveld has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Heidbreder is an employee of Indivior.

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

Young women appear to be at a higher risk of ischemic stroke than young men, according to a new systematic review of studies on this topic.

The review included 19 studies that reported on sex-specific stroke incidence among young adults and found that overall, in young adults aged 18-35 years, there were 44% more women with ischemic strokes than men.

This gap narrowed in the age group 35-45 years, for which there was conflicting evidence whether more men or women have ischemic strokes.

“An assertion that young women may be disproportionately at risk of ischemic stroke represents a significant departure from our current scientific understanding and may have important implications about the etiology of ischemic strokes in young adults,” the authors note.

“One of the take-home messages from this study is that stroke happens across the entire age spectrum, including young adults, even if they do not have traditional risk factors,” study coauthor Sharon N. Poisson, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, told this news organization.

“If a young person presents with focal neurological symptoms, the possibility of a stroke should not be discounted just because they may not fit the typical profile of a stroke patient. We need more education of the population that young people – including young women – can have a stroke and that fast action to call emergency services is critical,” she said.  

The study was published online Jan. 24 in the journal Stroke as part of a special “Go Red for Women” spotlight issue.

The researchers note that historically it has been believed that men have a higher incidence of stroke in every age group until very old age. However, recent evidence focused on the young adult age group has reported that there are more young women (ages 18-45) with ischemic strokes compared with young men, suggesting that young women may be disproportionately at risk compared with their male counterparts.

Pointing out that a better understanding of these sex differences is important in implementing strategies that can more effectively prevent and treat strokes in this age group, the researchers conducted the current review to synthesize the updated evidence.

They searched PubMed from January 2008 to July 2021 for relevant studies that were population-based and reported stroke incidence by sex or sex-specific incidence rate ratios of young adults age 45 and younger. Statistical synthesis was performed to estimate sex difference by age group (less than or equal to 35, 35-45 and less than or equal to 45 years) and stroke type.

They found 19 relevant studies, including three that reported on overlapping data, with a total of 69,793 young adults (33,775 women and 36,018 men).   

Nine studies did not show a statistically significant sex difference among young adults less than or equal to 45 years. Three studies found higher rates of ischemic stroke among men among young adults less than or equal to 30 to 35 years. Four studies showed more women with ischemic strokes among young adults less than or equal to 35 years.

Overall, there was an effect of a significantly higher incidence of ischemic stroke in women younger than age 35 years, with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.44. In the 35- to 45-year age group, there was a nonsignificant sex difference in the rate of ischemic stroke, with a slight trend toward a higher incidence in women (IRR, 1.08).

“In this study the sex difference was not clear in the 35-45 age group. But in the age group of over 45 years we know that men have a higher risk of stroke than women, which is probably related to a higher level of atherosclerotic risk factors,” Dr. Poisson commented.

“Interpreting data on stroke in young people is challenging, as stroke is not so common in this population,” she said. “Combining multiple studies helps, but this also introduces a lot of variability, so we need to interpret these results with some caution. However, this is certainly intriguing data and suggests that something interesting may be going on in young adults,” she added. “These observations give us an initial clue that we need to look further into this issue.”

The study did not look at the possible mechanisms behind the results, as the current data came from administrative datasets that are limited in terms of the information collected.  

But Dr. Poisson noted that the traditional risk factors for stroke are high blood pressure and the usual atherosclerotic factors such as high cholesterol.

“These are normally more common in men than in women, and myocardial infarction is more common in younger men than in younger women. But the observation that young women may have a higher risk of stroke than young men suggests that something different may be going on in the mechanism for stroke.” 

She pointed out that women have some unique risk factors for stroke, including oral contraceptive use, pregnancy, and the postpartum period, particularly pre-eclampsia during pregnancy. In addition, migraine, especially migraine with aura, is associated with an increased stroke risk, and migraine is more common in young women than in young men.  

“We don’t completely understand the role of these risk factors, but they may contribute to the results that we found,” Dr. Poisson commented. “The role of estrogen in stroke is complicated. While estrogen is generally thought to be protective against atherosclerotic risk factors, it also increases risk of clotting, so high estrogen states like pregnancy increase risk of stroke,” she added.  

To better understand what is happening, prospectively collected clinical data on younger patients who have had a stroke are needed. Some such studies are underway, but a concerted effort to do this in a large, multicenter registry would be desirable, Dr. Poisson said.

She noted that the presentation of a stroke in young people would be similar to that in the older population, with the most recent acronym to help recognize stroke symptoms being “BE FAST” – balance, eyes (vision), face (drooping), arm, speech (slurred), time (call emergency services quickly).

Call for more women in clinical trials

In an accompanying commentary, Cheryl Bushnell, MD, professor of neurology at Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and Moira Kapral, MD, professor in medicine and health policy at the University of Toronto, say these findings support the need for further study to understand and address the causes and risk factors of stroke in young women.

However, they point out that representation and reporting of women in clinical trials of acute stroke continues to be suboptimal, and they call for improved incorporation of sex and gender into study design, analysis, and interpretation, which they say is critical for producing research that is broadly generalizable and applicable to different populations. 

Coauthor Stacey L. Daugherty, MD, is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Poisson and Dr. Kapral have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bushnell reports ownership interest in Care Directions.

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