Federal Practitioner

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

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

Medscape Illustration/Dreamstime/Getty Images

More than 1 in 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ready to define long COVID?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medscape Illustration/Dreamstime/Getty Images

More than 1 in 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ready to define long COVID?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medscape Illustration/Dreamstime/Getty Images

More than 1 in 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ready to define long COVID?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

coldsnowstorm/iStock / Getty Images Plus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

coldsnowstorm/iStock / Getty Images Plus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

coldsnowstorm/iStock / Getty Images Plus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A number of clinical trials in breast cancer have opened in recent months. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from being enrolled.

• Menopausal women at moderate risk of developing breast cancer. A phase 2 study sponsored by the National Cancer Institute is seeking women aged 45-60 in late menopause or post menopause who are at “moderate” risk of developing breast cancer. Examples of criteria for moderate risk include prior proliferative disease on breast biopsy or having a first- or second-degree relative who developed breast cancer at aged 60 or younger. Researchers are looking for a signal that bazedoxifene plus conjugated estrogens (Duavee), a hot-flash therapy, could prevent breast cancer in at-risk people. Participants in the active-therapy group will receive once-daily oral medication for 6 months. The control patients will have the option of taking the medication after 6 months. The trial aims to enroll 120 participants. It began recruiting on Dec. 2, 2021, at the University of Kansas Medical Center; sites in California, Illinois, and Massachusetts are planned. The primary outcome is the change in fibroglandular volume. Overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QOL) will not be measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

• Early high-risk nonmetastatic HER2+ breast cancer with no prior treatment. Adults with this type of breast cancer are invited to join a phase 3 trial of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd; Enhertu) as neoadjuvant therapy. T-DXd is currently approved for patients with advanced disease, so this study could lead to a new indication. Participants will receive standard intravenous regimens of either T-DXd monotherapy; T-DXd followed by paclitaxel (Taxol), trastuzumab (Herceptin), and pertuzumab (Perjeta), referred to as the THP regime; or doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide followed by THP. The primary outcome is rate of pathologic complete response, and a secondary outcome is OS over approximately 5 years. QOL won’t be measured. The study opened on Oct. 25, 2021, and eventually hopes to recruit 624 participants in 19 countries and 15 U.S. states. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

“[This is an] important early trial to move trastuzumab deruxtecan to early disease. If successful as monotherapy, this would be a big win for patients,” commented Kathy Miller, MD, professor of oncology and medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis, a contributor to this news organization. She cautioned that monitoring rates of pneumonitis will be important in this curable setting.

• Locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2+ breast cancer with no prior tyrosine-kinase inhibitor therapy. Adult patients with these clinical features are eligible for a phase 3 study that is also testing a drug in an earlier setting than its current label – tucatinib (Tukysa) as first-line anti-HER2 therapy in advanced disease. Tucatinib was approved in April 2020 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as second-line therapy in such patients, so this study could also lead to a new indication. Participants in the experimental arm will receive tucatinib tablets twice daily and a combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab intravenously or subcutaneously every 3 weeks for up to approximately 3 years. Patients in the control arm will take a placebo instead of tucatinib. Seven sites across Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, and South Carolina aim to start recruiting 650 participants on Feb. 28, 2022. The primary outcome is progression-free survival (PFS). OS and QoL will be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

“Tucatinib has real activity,” commented Dr. Miller, adding that “we haven’t [yet] found the best way to exploit that activity for our patients.”

• Inoperable or metastatic HR+ HER2– breast cancer after one or two lines of systemic chemotherapy. Adults with this type of breast cancer are being recruited for a phase 3 study to compare datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd), an experimental antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), against a range of standard single-agent chemotherapies. Participants will receive either intravenous Dato-DXd or investigator’s choice of one of four chemotherapies: oral capecitabine (Xeloda), IV gemcitabine (Gemzar), IV eribulin (Halaven), or IV vinorelbine (Navelbine). The trial began recruiting for 700 participants at sites worldwide on Oct. 18, 2021. U.S. sites are in Michigan and California; trial centers in 15 other states are planned. Primary outcomes are OS over approximately 3.5 years and PFS over approximately 2 years. QOL is tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Commenting on this trial, Dr. Miller said: “ADCs will play an expanded role in our management. This may be one of the first to move into the ER+ population.”

• Advanced ER+, HER2– breast cancer. Adult patients with this type of cancer can join a phase 3 trial testing oral imlunestrant, an experimental selective estrogen-receptor degrader (SERD), against standard endocrine therapy. For up to 3 years, people in the study will take either daily tablets of imlunestrant or once-daily pills of imlunestrant and another SERD, abemaciclib (Verzenio). A third group of participants will receive their investigator’s choice of either daily tablets of exemestane (Aromasin) or monthly intramuscular injections of fulvestrant (Faslodex). The study opened to 800 participants on Oct. 4, 2021, at sites in 11 U.S. states and worldwide. The primary outcome is PFS over approximately 3 years; 5-year OS is a secondary outcome. QOL is not assessed. More details at clinicaltrials.gov

Dr. Miller predicted that “oral SERDs will replace fulvestrant in the future: We already have positive phase 3 data with elacestrant.”

Dr. Miller has a regular column with this news organization, Miller on Oncology. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A number of clinical trials in breast cancer have opened in recent months. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from being enrolled.

• Menopausal women at moderate risk of developing breast cancer. A phase 2 study sponsored by the National Cancer Institute is seeking women aged 45-60 in late menopause or post menopause who are at “moderate” risk of developing breast cancer. Examples of criteria for moderate risk include prior proliferative disease on breast biopsy or having a first- or second-degree relative who developed breast cancer at aged 60 or younger. Researchers are looking for a signal that bazedoxifene plus conjugated estrogens (Duavee), a hot-flash therapy, could prevent breast cancer in at-risk people. Participants in the active-therapy group will receive once-daily oral medication for 6 months. The control patients will have the option of taking the medication after 6 months. The trial aims to enroll 120 participants. It began recruiting on Dec. 2, 2021, at the University of Kansas Medical Center; sites in California, Illinois, and Massachusetts are planned. The primary outcome is the change in fibroglandular volume. Overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QOL) will not be measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

• Early high-risk nonmetastatic HER2+ breast cancer with no prior treatment. Adults with this type of breast cancer are invited to join a phase 3 trial of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd; Enhertu) as neoadjuvant therapy. T-DXd is currently approved for patients with advanced disease, so this study could lead to a new indication. Participants will receive standard intravenous regimens of either T-DXd monotherapy; T-DXd followed by paclitaxel (Taxol), trastuzumab (Herceptin), and pertuzumab (Perjeta), referred to as the THP regime; or doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide followed by THP. The primary outcome is rate of pathologic complete response, and a secondary outcome is OS over approximately 5 years. QOL won’t be measured. The study opened on Oct. 25, 2021, and eventually hopes to recruit 624 participants in 19 countries and 15 U.S. states. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

“[This is an] important early trial to move trastuzumab deruxtecan to early disease. If successful as monotherapy, this would be a big win for patients,” commented Kathy Miller, MD, professor of oncology and medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis, a contributor to this news organization. She cautioned that monitoring rates of pneumonitis will be important in this curable setting.

• Locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2+ breast cancer with no prior tyrosine-kinase inhibitor therapy. Adult patients with these clinical features are eligible for a phase 3 study that is also testing a drug in an earlier setting than its current label – tucatinib (Tukysa) as first-line anti-HER2 therapy in advanced disease. Tucatinib was approved in April 2020 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as second-line therapy in such patients, so this study could also lead to a new indication. Participants in the experimental arm will receive tucatinib tablets twice daily and a combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab intravenously or subcutaneously every 3 weeks for up to approximately 3 years. Patients in the control arm will take a placebo instead of tucatinib. Seven sites across Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, and South Carolina aim to start recruiting 650 participants on Feb. 28, 2022. The primary outcome is progression-free survival (PFS). OS and QoL will be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

“Tucatinib has real activity,” commented Dr. Miller, adding that “we haven’t [yet] found the best way to exploit that activity for our patients.”

• Inoperable or metastatic HR+ HER2– breast cancer after one or two lines of systemic chemotherapy. Adults with this type of breast cancer are being recruited for a phase 3 study to compare datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd), an experimental antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), against a range of standard single-agent chemotherapies. Participants will receive either intravenous Dato-DXd or investigator’s choice of one of four chemotherapies: oral capecitabine (Xeloda), IV gemcitabine (Gemzar), IV eribulin (Halaven), or IV vinorelbine (Navelbine). The trial began recruiting for 700 participants at sites worldwide on Oct. 18, 2021. U.S. sites are in Michigan and California; trial centers in 15 other states are planned. Primary outcomes are OS over approximately 3.5 years and PFS over approximately 2 years. QOL is tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Commenting on this trial, Dr. Miller said: “ADCs will play an expanded role in our management. This may be one of the first to move into the ER+ population.”

• Advanced ER+, HER2– breast cancer. Adult patients with this type of cancer can join a phase 3 trial testing oral imlunestrant, an experimental selective estrogen-receptor degrader (SERD), against standard endocrine therapy. For up to 3 years, people in the study will take either daily tablets of imlunestrant or once-daily pills of imlunestrant and another SERD, abemaciclib (Verzenio). A third group of participants will receive their investigator’s choice of either daily tablets of exemestane (Aromasin) or monthly intramuscular injections of fulvestrant (Faslodex). The study opened to 800 participants on Oct. 4, 2021, at sites in 11 U.S. states and worldwide. The primary outcome is PFS over approximately 3 years; 5-year OS is a secondary outcome. QOL is not assessed. More details at clinicaltrials.gov

Dr. Miller predicted that “oral SERDs will replace fulvestrant in the future: We already have positive phase 3 data with elacestrant.”

Dr. Miller has a regular column with this news organization, Miller on Oncology. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A number of clinical trials in breast cancer have opened in recent months. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from being enrolled.

• Menopausal women at moderate risk of developing breast cancer. A phase 2 study sponsored by the National Cancer Institute is seeking women aged 45-60 in late menopause or post menopause who are at “moderate” risk of developing breast cancer. Examples of criteria for moderate risk include prior proliferative disease on breast biopsy or having a first- or second-degree relative who developed breast cancer at aged 60 or younger. Researchers are looking for a signal that bazedoxifene plus conjugated estrogens (Duavee), a hot-flash therapy, could prevent breast cancer in at-risk people. Participants in the active-therapy group will receive once-daily oral medication for 6 months. The control patients will have the option of taking the medication after 6 months. The trial aims to enroll 120 participants. It began recruiting on Dec. 2, 2021, at the University of Kansas Medical Center; sites in California, Illinois, and Massachusetts are planned. The primary outcome is the change in fibroglandular volume. Overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QOL) will not be measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

• Early high-risk nonmetastatic HER2+ breast cancer with no prior treatment. Adults with this type of breast cancer are invited to join a phase 3 trial of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd; Enhertu) as neoadjuvant therapy. T-DXd is currently approved for patients with advanced disease, so this study could lead to a new indication. Participants will receive standard intravenous regimens of either T-DXd monotherapy; T-DXd followed by paclitaxel (Taxol), trastuzumab (Herceptin), and pertuzumab (Perjeta), referred to as the THP regime; or doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide followed by THP. The primary outcome is rate of pathologic complete response, and a secondary outcome is OS over approximately 5 years. QOL won’t be measured. The study opened on Oct. 25, 2021, and eventually hopes to recruit 624 participants in 19 countries and 15 U.S. states. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

“[This is an] important early trial to move trastuzumab deruxtecan to early disease. If successful as monotherapy, this would be a big win for patients,” commented Kathy Miller, MD, professor of oncology and medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis, a contributor to this news organization. She cautioned that monitoring rates of pneumonitis will be important in this curable setting.

• Locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2+ breast cancer with no prior tyrosine-kinase inhibitor therapy. Adult patients with these clinical features are eligible for a phase 3 study that is also testing a drug in an earlier setting than its current label – tucatinib (Tukysa) as first-line anti-HER2 therapy in advanced disease. Tucatinib was approved in April 2020 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as second-line therapy in such patients, so this study could also lead to a new indication. Participants in the experimental arm will receive tucatinib tablets twice daily and a combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab intravenously or subcutaneously every 3 weeks for up to approximately 3 years. Patients in the control arm will take a placebo instead of tucatinib. Seven sites across Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, and South Carolina aim to start recruiting 650 participants on Feb. 28, 2022. The primary outcome is progression-free survival (PFS). OS and QoL will be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

“Tucatinib has real activity,” commented Dr. Miller, adding that “we haven’t [yet] found the best way to exploit that activity for our patients.”

• Inoperable or metastatic HR+ HER2– breast cancer after one or two lines of systemic chemotherapy. Adults with this type of breast cancer are being recruited for a phase 3 study to compare datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd), an experimental antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), against a range of standard single-agent chemotherapies. Participants will receive either intravenous Dato-DXd or investigator’s choice of one of four chemotherapies: oral capecitabine (Xeloda), IV gemcitabine (Gemzar), IV eribulin (Halaven), or IV vinorelbine (Navelbine). The trial began recruiting for 700 participants at sites worldwide on Oct. 18, 2021. U.S. sites are in Michigan and California; trial centers in 15 other states are planned. Primary outcomes are OS over approximately 3.5 years and PFS over approximately 2 years. QOL is tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Commenting on this trial, Dr. Miller said: “ADCs will play an expanded role in our management. This may be one of the first to move into the ER+ population.”

• Advanced ER+, HER2– breast cancer. Adult patients with this type of cancer can join a phase 3 trial testing oral imlunestrant, an experimental selective estrogen-receptor degrader (SERD), against standard endocrine therapy. For up to 3 years, people in the study will take either daily tablets of imlunestrant or once-daily pills of imlunestrant and another SERD, abemaciclib (Verzenio). A third group of participants will receive their investigator’s choice of either daily tablets of exemestane (Aromasin) or monthly intramuscular injections of fulvestrant (Faslodex). The study opened to 800 participants on Oct. 4, 2021, at sites in 11 U.S. states and worldwide. The primary outcome is PFS over approximately 3 years; 5-year OS is a secondary outcome. QOL is not assessed. More details at clinicaltrials.gov

Dr. Miller predicted that “oral SERDs will replace fulvestrant in the future: We already have positive phase 3 data with elacestrant.”

Dr. Miller has a regular column with this news organization, Miller on Oncology. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Peter Schwartz, MD, was chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at a hospital in Reading, Pa., in the mid-1990s when a young physician sought him out. The doctor, whom Dr. Schwartz regarded as talented and empathetic, was visibly shaken. The expectant mother they were caring for had just lost her unborn child.

“The doctor came into my office within an hour of the event and asked me to look at the case,” Dr. Schwartz recalled. “I could see that they had failed to recognize ominous changes in the fetal heart rate, and I faced the pain of having to tell them, ‘I think this could have been handled much better.’” Dr. Schwartz delivered the news as compassionately as he could, but a subsequent review confirmed his suspicion: The doctor had made a serious error.

“The doctor was devastated,” he said. “She got counseling and took time off, but in the end, she quit practicing medicine. She said, ‘If I keep practicing, something like that could happen again, and I don’t think I could handle it.’”

To err may be human, but in a health care setting, the harm can be catastrophic. While patients and their families are the ones who suffer most, doctors can be so traumatized by their medical mistakes that their feelings of guilt, shame, and self-doubt can lead to depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and even suicidal ideation. The trauma can be so profound that, in a now famous 2000 editorial in the British Medical Journal, Albert Wu, MD, gave the phenomenon a name: “second victim syndrome.”

Today, as quality improvement organizations and health systems work to address medical errors in a just and transparent way, they’re realizing that finding ways to help traumatized clinicians is integral to their efforts.
 

Are doctors really ‘second victims?’

Although the medical field is moving away from the term “second victim,” which patient advocates argue lacks a ring of accountability, the emotional trauma doctors and other clinicians endure is garnering increased attention. In the 2 decades since Dr. Wu wrote his editorial, research has shown that many types of adverse health care events can evoke traumatic responses. In fact, studies indicate that from 10.4% to 43.3% of health care workers may experience negative symptoms following an adverse event.

But for doctors – who have sworn an oath to do no harm – the emotional toll of having committed a serious medical error can be particularly burdensome and lingering. In a Dutch study involving more than 4,300 doctors and nurses, respondents who were involved in a patient safety incident that resulted in harm were nine times more likely to have negative symptoms lasting longer than 6 months than those who were involved in a near-miss experience.

“There’s a feeling of wanting to erase yourself,” says Danielle Ofri, MD, a New York internist and author of “When We Do Harm: A Doctor Confronts Medical Error.”

That emotional response can have a profound impact on the way medical errors are disclosed, investigated, and ultimately resolved, said Thomas Gallagher, MD, an internist and executive director of the Collaborative for Accountability and Improvement, a patient safety program at the University of Washington.

“When something goes wrong, as physicians, we don’t know what to do,” Dr. Gallagher says. “We feel awful, and often our human reflexes lead us astray. The doctor’s own emotions become barriers to addressing the situation.” For example, guilt and shame may lead doctors to try to hide or diminish their mistakes. Some doctors might try to shift blame, while others may feel so guilty they assume they were responsible for an outcome that was beyond their control.

Recognizing that clinicians’ responses to medical errors are inextricably tangled with how those events are addressed, a growing number of health systems are making clinician support a key element when dealing with medical errors.
 

Emotional first aid

Although it’s typical for physicians to feel isolated in the wake of errors, these experiences are far from unique. Research conducted by University of Missouri Health Care nurse scientist Susan Scott, RN, PhD, shows that just as most individuals experiencing grief pass through several distinct emotional stages, health care professionals who make errors go through emotional stages that may occur sequentially or concurrently.

An initial period of chaos is often followed by intrusive reflections, haunting re-enactments, and feelings of inadequacy. The doctor’s thinking moves from “How did that happen?” to “What did I miss?” to “What will people think about me?” As the error comes under scrutiny by quality improvement organizations, licensing boards, and/or lawyers, the doctor feels besieged. The doctor may want to reach out but is afraid to. According to Dr. Scott, only 15% of care providers ask for help.

Recognizing that physicians and other care providers rarely ask for support – or may not realize they need it – a growing number of health systems are implementing Communication and Resolution Programs (CRPs). Rather than respond to medical errors with a deny-and-defend mentality, CRPs emphasize transparency and accountability.

This approach, which the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has embraced and codified with its Communication and Optimal Resolution (CANDOR) toolkit, focuses on prompt incident reporting; communication with and support for patients, family members, and caregivers affected by the event; event analysis; quality improvement; and just resolution of the event, including apologies and financial compensation where appropriate.

The CANDOR toolkit, which includes a module entitled Care for the Caregiver, directs health systems to identify individuals and establish teams, led by representatives from patient safety and/or risk management, who can respond promptly to an event. After ensuring the patient is clinically stable and safe, the CANDOR process provides for immediate and ongoing emotional support to the patient, the family, and the caregiver.

“A lot of what CRPs are about is creating structures and processes that normalize an open and compassionate response to harm events in medicine,” says Dr. Gallagher, who estimates that between 400 and 500 health systems now have CRPs in place.
 

Wisdom through adversity

While clinicians experience many difficult and negative emotions in the wake of medical errors, how they move forward after the event varies markedly. Some, unable to come to terms with the trauma, may move to another institution or leave medicine entirely. Others, while occasionally reliving the trauma, learn to cope. For the most fortunate, enduring the trauma of a medical error can lead to growth, insight, and wisdom.

In an article published in the journal Academic Medicine, researchers asked 61 physicians who had made serious medical errors, “What helped you to cope positively?” Some of the most common responses – talking about their feelings with a peer, disclosing and apologizing for a mistake, and developing system changes to prevent additional errors – are baked into some health systems’ CRP programs. Other respondents said they dedicated themselves to learning from the mistake, becoming experts in a given field, or sharing what they learned from the experience through teaching.

Dr. Ofri said that after she made an error decades ago while managing a patient with diabetic ketoacidosis, her senior resident publicly berated her for it. The incident taught her a clinical lesson: Never remove an insulin drip without administering long-acting insulin. More importantly, the resident’s verbal thumping taught her about the corrosive effects of shame. Today, Dr. Ofri, who works in a teaching hospital, says that when meeting a new medical team, she begins by recounting her five biggest medical errors.

“I want them to come to me if they make a mistake,” she says. “I want to first make sure the patient is okay. But then I want to make sure the doctor is okay. I also want to know: What was it about the system that contributed to the error, and what can we do to prevent similar errors in the future?”
 

Acceptance and compassion

Time, experience, supportive peers, an understanding partner or spouse: all of these can help a doctor recover from the trauma of a mistake. “But they’re not an eraser,” Dr. Schwartz said.

Sometimes, doctors say, the path forward starts with acceptance.

Jan Bonhoeffer, MD, author of “Dare to Care: How to Survive and Thrive in Today’s Medical World,” tells a story about a mistake that transformed his life. In 2004, he was working in a busy London emergency department when an adolescent girl arrived complaining of breathing trouble. Dr. Bonhoeffer diagnosed her with asthma and discharged her with an inhaler. The next day, the girl was back in the hospital – this time in the ICU, intubated, and on a ventilator. Because he had failed to take an x-ray, Dr. Bonhoeffer missed the tumor growing in the girl’s chest.

Dr. Bonhoeffer was shattered by his error. “After that experience, I knew I wanted to make learning from my mistakes part of my daily practice,” he says. Now, at the end of each workday, Dr. Bonhoeffer takes an inventory of the day and reflects on all his actions, large and small, clinical and not. “I take a few minutes and think about everything I did and what I should have done differently,” he said. The daily practice can be humbling because it forces him to confront his errors, but it is also empowering, he said, “because the next day I get to make a different choice.”

Dr. Bonhoeffer added, “Doctors are fallible, and you have to be compassionate with yourself. Compassion isn’t sweet. It’s not motherhood and honey pies. It’s coming to terms with reality. It’s not a cure, but it’s healing.”

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

Peter Schwartz, MD, was chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at a hospital in Reading, Pa., in the mid-1990s when a young physician sought him out. The doctor, whom Dr. Schwartz regarded as talented and empathetic, was visibly shaken. The expectant mother they were caring for had just lost her unborn child.

“The doctor came into my office within an hour of the event and asked me to look at the case,” Dr. Schwartz recalled. “I could see that they had failed to recognize ominous changes in the fetal heart rate, and I faced the pain of having to tell them, ‘I think this could have been handled much better.’” Dr. Schwartz delivered the news as compassionately as he could, but a subsequent review confirmed his suspicion: The doctor had made a serious error.

“The doctor was devastated,” he said. “She got counseling and took time off, but in the end, she quit practicing medicine. She said, ‘If I keep practicing, something like that could happen again, and I don’t think I could handle it.’”

To err may be human, but in a health care setting, the harm can be catastrophic. While patients and their families are the ones who suffer most, doctors can be so traumatized by their medical mistakes that their feelings of guilt, shame, and self-doubt can lead to depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and even suicidal ideation. The trauma can be so profound that, in a now famous 2000 editorial in the British Medical Journal, Albert Wu, MD, gave the phenomenon a name: “second victim syndrome.”

Today, as quality improvement organizations and health systems work to address medical errors in a just and transparent way, they’re realizing that finding ways to help traumatized clinicians is integral to their efforts.
 

Are doctors really ‘second victims?’

Although the medical field is moving away from the term “second victim,” which patient advocates argue lacks a ring of accountability, the emotional trauma doctors and other clinicians endure is garnering increased attention. In the 2 decades since Dr. Wu wrote his editorial, research has shown that many types of adverse health care events can evoke traumatic responses. In fact, studies indicate that from 10.4% to 43.3% of health care workers may experience negative symptoms following an adverse event.

But for doctors – who have sworn an oath to do no harm – the emotional toll of having committed a serious medical error can be particularly burdensome and lingering. In a Dutch study involving more than 4,300 doctors and nurses, respondents who were involved in a patient safety incident that resulted in harm were nine times more likely to have negative symptoms lasting longer than 6 months than those who were involved in a near-miss experience.

“There’s a feeling of wanting to erase yourself,” says Danielle Ofri, MD, a New York internist and author of “When We Do Harm: A Doctor Confronts Medical Error.”

That emotional response can have a profound impact on the way medical errors are disclosed, investigated, and ultimately resolved, said Thomas Gallagher, MD, an internist and executive director of the Collaborative for Accountability and Improvement, a patient safety program at the University of Washington.

“When something goes wrong, as physicians, we don’t know what to do,” Dr. Gallagher says. “We feel awful, and often our human reflexes lead us astray. The doctor’s own emotions become barriers to addressing the situation.” For example, guilt and shame may lead doctors to try to hide or diminish their mistakes. Some doctors might try to shift blame, while others may feel so guilty they assume they were responsible for an outcome that was beyond their control.

Recognizing that clinicians’ responses to medical errors are inextricably tangled with how those events are addressed, a growing number of health systems are making clinician support a key element when dealing with medical errors.
 

Emotional first aid

Although it’s typical for physicians to feel isolated in the wake of errors, these experiences are far from unique. Research conducted by University of Missouri Health Care nurse scientist Susan Scott, RN, PhD, shows that just as most individuals experiencing grief pass through several distinct emotional stages, health care professionals who make errors go through emotional stages that may occur sequentially or concurrently.

An initial period of chaos is often followed by intrusive reflections, haunting re-enactments, and feelings of inadequacy. The doctor’s thinking moves from “How did that happen?” to “What did I miss?” to “What will people think about me?” As the error comes under scrutiny by quality improvement organizations, licensing boards, and/or lawyers, the doctor feels besieged. The doctor may want to reach out but is afraid to. According to Dr. Scott, only 15% of care providers ask for help.

Recognizing that physicians and other care providers rarely ask for support – or may not realize they need it – a growing number of health systems are implementing Communication and Resolution Programs (CRPs). Rather than respond to medical errors with a deny-and-defend mentality, CRPs emphasize transparency and accountability.

This approach, which the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has embraced and codified with its Communication and Optimal Resolution (CANDOR) toolkit, focuses on prompt incident reporting; communication with and support for patients, family members, and caregivers affected by the event; event analysis; quality improvement; and just resolution of the event, including apologies and financial compensation where appropriate.

The CANDOR toolkit, which includes a module entitled Care for the Caregiver, directs health systems to identify individuals and establish teams, led by representatives from patient safety and/or risk management, who can respond promptly to an event. After ensuring the patient is clinically stable and safe, the CANDOR process provides for immediate and ongoing emotional support to the patient, the family, and the caregiver.

“A lot of what CRPs are about is creating structures and processes that normalize an open and compassionate response to harm events in medicine,” says Dr. Gallagher, who estimates that between 400 and 500 health systems now have CRPs in place.
 

Wisdom through adversity

While clinicians experience many difficult and negative emotions in the wake of medical errors, how they move forward after the event varies markedly. Some, unable to come to terms with the trauma, may move to another institution or leave medicine entirely. Others, while occasionally reliving the trauma, learn to cope. For the most fortunate, enduring the trauma of a medical error can lead to growth, insight, and wisdom.

In an article published in the journal Academic Medicine, researchers asked 61 physicians who had made serious medical errors, “What helped you to cope positively?” Some of the most common responses – talking about their feelings with a peer, disclosing and apologizing for a mistake, and developing system changes to prevent additional errors – are baked into some health systems’ CRP programs. Other respondents said they dedicated themselves to learning from the mistake, becoming experts in a given field, or sharing what they learned from the experience through teaching.

Dr. Ofri said that after she made an error decades ago while managing a patient with diabetic ketoacidosis, her senior resident publicly berated her for it. The incident taught her a clinical lesson: Never remove an insulin drip without administering long-acting insulin. More importantly, the resident’s verbal thumping taught her about the corrosive effects of shame. Today, Dr. Ofri, who works in a teaching hospital, says that when meeting a new medical team, she begins by recounting her five biggest medical errors.

“I want them to come to me if they make a mistake,” she says. “I want to first make sure the patient is okay. But then I want to make sure the doctor is okay. I also want to know: What was it about the system that contributed to the error, and what can we do to prevent similar errors in the future?”
 

Acceptance and compassion

Time, experience, supportive peers, an understanding partner or spouse: all of these can help a doctor recover from the trauma of a mistake. “But they’re not an eraser,” Dr. Schwartz said.

Sometimes, doctors say, the path forward starts with acceptance.

Jan Bonhoeffer, MD, author of “Dare to Care: How to Survive and Thrive in Today’s Medical World,” tells a story about a mistake that transformed his life. In 2004, he was working in a busy London emergency department when an adolescent girl arrived complaining of breathing trouble. Dr. Bonhoeffer diagnosed her with asthma and discharged her with an inhaler. The next day, the girl was back in the hospital – this time in the ICU, intubated, and on a ventilator. Because he had failed to take an x-ray, Dr. Bonhoeffer missed the tumor growing in the girl’s chest.

Dr. Bonhoeffer was shattered by his error. “After that experience, I knew I wanted to make learning from my mistakes part of my daily practice,” he says. Now, at the end of each workday, Dr. Bonhoeffer takes an inventory of the day and reflects on all his actions, large and small, clinical and not. “I take a few minutes and think about everything I did and what I should have done differently,” he said. The daily practice can be humbling because it forces him to confront his errors, but it is also empowering, he said, “because the next day I get to make a different choice.”

Dr. Bonhoeffer added, “Doctors are fallible, and you have to be compassionate with yourself. Compassion isn’t sweet. It’s not motherhood and honey pies. It’s coming to terms with reality. It’s not a cure, but it’s healing.”

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

Peter Schwartz, MD, was chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at a hospital in Reading, Pa., in the mid-1990s when a young physician sought him out. The doctor, whom Dr. Schwartz regarded as talented and empathetic, was visibly shaken. The expectant mother they were caring for had just lost her unborn child.

“The doctor came into my office within an hour of the event and asked me to look at the case,” Dr. Schwartz recalled. “I could see that they had failed to recognize ominous changes in the fetal heart rate, and I faced the pain of having to tell them, ‘I think this could have been handled much better.’” Dr. Schwartz delivered the news as compassionately as he could, but a subsequent review confirmed his suspicion: The doctor had made a serious error.

“The doctor was devastated,” he said. “She got counseling and took time off, but in the end, she quit practicing medicine. She said, ‘If I keep practicing, something like that could happen again, and I don’t think I could handle it.’”

To err may be human, but in a health care setting, the harm can be catastrophic. While patients and their families are the ones who suffer most, doctors can be so traumatized by their medical mistakes that their feelings of guilt, shame, and self-doubt can lead to depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and even suicidal ideation. The trauma can be so profound that, in a now famous 2000 editorial in the British Medical Journal, Albert Wu, MD, gave the phenomenon a name: “second victim syndrome.”

Today, as quality improvement organizations and health systems work to address medical errors in a just and transparent way, they’re realizing that finding ways to help traumatized clinicians is integral to their efforts.
 

Are doctors really ‘second victims?’

Although the medical field is moving away from the term “second victim,” which patient advocates argue lacks a ring of accountability, the emotional trauma doctors and other clinicians endure is garnering increased attention. In the 2 decades since Dr. Wu wrote his editorial, research has shown that many types of adverse health care events can evoke traumatic responses. In fact, studies indicate that from 10.4% to 43.3% of health care workers may experience negative symptoms following an adverse event.

But for doctors – who have sworn an oath to do no harm – the emotional toll of having committed a serious medical error can be particularly burdensome and lingering. In a Dutch study involving more than 4,300 doctors and nurses, respondents who were involved in a patient safety incident that resulted in harm were nine times more likely to have negative symptoms lasting longer than 6 months than those who were involved in a near-miss experience.

“There’s a feeling of wanting to erase yourself,” says Danielle Ofri, MD, a New York internist and author of “When We Do Harm: A Doctor Confronts Medical Error.”

That emotional response can have a profound impact on the way medical errors are disclosed, investigated, and ultimately resolved, said Thomas Gallagher, MD, an internist and executive director of the Collaborative for Accountability and Improvement, a patient safety program at the University of Washington.

“When something goes wrong, as physicians, we don’t know what to do,” Dr. Gallagher says. “We feel awful, and often our human reflexes lead us astray. The doctor’s own emotions become barriers to addressing the situation.” For example, guilt and shame may lead doctors to try to hide or diminish their mistakes. Some doctors might try to shift blame, while others may feel so guilty they assume they were responsible for an outcome that was beyond their control.

Recognizing that clinicians’ responses to medical errors are inextricably tangled with how those events are addressed, a growing number of health systems are making clinician support a key element when dealing with medical errors.
 

Emotional first aid

Although it’s typical for physicians to feel isolated in the wake of errors, these experiences are far from unique. Research conducted by University of Missouri Health Care nurse scientist Susan Scott, RN, PhD, shows that just as most individuals experiencing grief pass through several distinct emotional stages, health care professionals who make errors go through emotional stages that may occur sequentially or concurrently.

An initial period of chaos is often followed by intrusive reflections, haunting re-enactments, and feelings of inadequacy. The doctor’s thinking moves from “How did that happen?” to “What did I miss?” to “What will people think about me?” As the error comes under scrutiny by quality improvement organizations, licensing boards, and/or lawyers, the doctor feels besieged. The doctor may want to reach out but is afraid to. According to Dr. Scott, only 15% of care providers ask for help.

Recognizing that physicians and other care providers rarely ask for support – or may not realize they need it – a growing number of health systems are implementing Communication and Resolution Programs (CRPs). Rather than respond to medical errors with a deny-and-defend mentality, CRPs emphasize transparency and accountability.

This approach, which the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has embraced and codified with its Communication and Optimal Resolution (CANDOR) toolkit, focuses on prompt incident reporting; communication with and support for patients, family members, and caregivers affected by the event; event analysis; quality improvement; and just resolution of the event, including apologies and financial compensation where appropriate.

The CANDOR toolkit, which includes a module entitled Care for the Caregiver, directs health systems to identify individuals and establish teams, led by representatives from patient safety and/or risk management, who can respond promptly to an event. After ensuring the patient is clinically stable and safe, the CANDOR process provides for immediate and ongoing emotional support to the patient, the family, and the caregiver.

“A lot of what CRPs are about is creating structures and processes that normalize an open and compassionate response to harm events in medicine,” says Dr. Gallagher, who estimates that between 400 and 500 health systems now have CRPs in place.
 

Wisdom through adversity

While clinicians experience many difficult and negative emotions in the wake of medical errors, how they move forward after the event varies markedly. Some, unable to come to terms with the trauma, may move to another institution or leave medicine entirely. Others, while occasionally reliving the trauma, learn to cope. For the most fortunate, enduring the trauma of a medical error can lead to growth, insight, and wisdom.

In an article published in the journal Academic Medicine, researchers asked 61 physicians who had made serious medical errors, “What helped you to cope positively?” Some of the most common responses – talking about their feelings with a peer, disclosing and apologizing for a mistake, and developing system changes to prevent additional errors – are baked into some health systems’ CRP programs. Other respondents said they dedicated themselves to learning from the mistake, becoming experts in a given field, or sharing what they learned from the experience through teaching.

Dr. Ofri said that after she made an error decades ago while managing a patient with diabetic ketoacidosis, her senior resident publicly berated her for it. The incident taught her a clinical lesson: Never remove an insulin drip without administering long-acting insulin. More importantly, the resident’s verbal thumping taught her about the corrosive effects of shame. Today, Dr. Ofri, who works in a teaching hospital, says that when meeting a new medical team, she begins by recounting her five biggest medical errors.

“I want them to come to me if they make a mistake,” she says. “I want to first make sure the patient is okay. But then I want to make sure the doctor is okay. I also want to know: What was it about the system that contributed to the error, and what can we do to prevent similar errors in the future?”
 

Acceptance and compassion

Time, experience, supportive peers, an understanding partner or spouse: all of these can help a doctor recover from the trauma of a mistake. “But they’re not an eraser,” Dr. Schwartz said.

Sometimes, doctors say, the path forward starts with acceptance.

Jan Bonhoeffer, MD, author of “Dare to Care: How to Survive and Thrive in Today’s Medical World,” tells a story about a mistake that transformed his life. In 2004, he was working in a busy London emergency department when an adolescent girl arrived complaining of breathing trouble. Dr. Bonhoeffer diagnosed her with asthma and discharged her with an inhaler. The next day, the girl was back in the hospital – this time in the ICU, intubated, and on a ventilator. Because he had failed to take an x-ray, Dr. Bonhoeffer missed the tumor growing in the girl’s chest.

Dr. Bonhoeffer was shattered by his error. “After that experience, I knew I wanted to make learning from my mistakes part of my daily practice,” he says. Now, at the end of each workday, Dr. Bonhoeffer takes an inventory of the day and reflects on all his actions, large and small, clinical and not. “I take a few minutes and think about everything I did and what I should have done differently,” he said. The daily practice can be humbling because it forces him to confront his errors, but it is also empowering, he said, “because the next day I get to make a different choice.”

Dr. Bonhoeffer added, “Doctors are fallible, and you have to be compassionate with yourself. Compassion isn’t sweet. It’s not motherhood and honey pies. It’s coming to terms with reality. It’s not a cure, but it’s healing.”

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

Medicare has received a key endorsement of its plan to restrict payment for the controversial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug aducanumab (Aduhelm) – but also drew pleas from other groups for more generous reimbursement of the drug, as well as expected similar medications currently in development.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services received more than 9,900 comments on its plan, according to the current tally posted on its website. However, it is unclear when the final count will be available.

CMS intends to limit federal payment for monoclonal antibodies that target amyloid to clinical trials. Among supporters of this approach is the influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an expert panel that helps Congress and CMS manage the federal health program.

Opponents of the CMS plan include several pharmaceutical companies. Patient and consumer groups, individuals, and lawmakers had mixed views.

CMS officials will weigh the feedback provided in the comments when setting a final coverage policy for aducanumab. It is expected the agency’s final decision will be announced on April 11.
 

Ongoing debate

The comments submitted to CMS reflect ongoing debate about whether the evidence proves aducanumab provides significant clinical benefit.

The Food and Drug Administration’s unusual approach to clearing the drug for U.S. sales triggered a review of its management of the accelerated approval process by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health & Human Services.

The FDA granted an accelerated approval for aducanumab in June based on evidence that the drug clears amyloid in the brain. However, it is unclear whether clearing the protein from the brain results in clinical benefit.

Usually, accelerated approvals precede the completion of phase 3 drug trials, with the FDA allowing early access to a medicine while awaiting confirmatory trials.

In the case of aducanumab, results of the phase 3 confirmatory trials ENGAGE and EMERGE were available at the time of FDA approval. However, interpretation of the findings is controversial.

Biogen contends that the amyloid-clearing effect of the higher dose of aducanumab shown in EMERGE indicates the drug has clinical potential. However, others argue that amyloid clearance does not indicate clinical benefit.

Limiting Medicare coverage of aducanumab for treatment of AD means “the progression of disease, for nearly all beneficiaries, would continue unabated,” Biogen wrote in its comment to CMS.
 

Conflicting data

Supporters of the CMS plan have a different view of the trial data. They note the failure of aducanumab in the companion ENGAGE trial, while also questioning the magnitude of benefit suggested by even the most positive data cited for the drug in the EMERGE trial.

Both studies used the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) score, an 18-point scale measuring cognition and function.

In his comment to CMS, MedPAC chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, noted the change in CDR-SB score of 0.39 in EMERGE’s high-dose aducanumab group. CMS has described this as being “less than the 1-2 point change that has been suggested as a minimal clinically important difference,” Dr. Chernew wrote.

MedPAC does not normally comment on Medicare coverage decisions, but did so in this case because of its significance and because of the potential fiscal implications, he noted.

“Though there is only limited, conflicting data on Aduhelm’s clinical effectiveness, Medicare would pay a high price for the product,” Dr. Chernew wrote, pointing out the $28,200 annual U.S. price of the drug.

MedPAC thus endorsed the coverage-with-evidence-development (CED) pathway. Under this approach, Medicare would pay for these drugs when used in clinical trials that meet certain criteria.
 

Legal challenge?

In its comment to CMS, Biogen questioned the agency’s legal grounds for limiting coverage of aducanumab. A mandate on clinical trials as part of the CED proposal “runs afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act’s prohibition against arbitrary and capricious agency action,” Biogen said.

The drug company argued that its own planned follow-on studies would provide the kind of data Medicare officials want to see. It also argued for greater use of observational data, including real-world evidence, and of information from Medicare claims.

Roche’s Genentech, which is also developing antiamyloid drugs for AD, echoed some of Biogen’s concerns about the aducanumab plan.

CMS’ CED plan would be “unnecessarily restrictive and discouraging for patients living with this destructive disease,” David Burt, executive director for federal government affairs at Genentech, wrote in a comment to CMS.

CMS should clarify that the CED requirement would not apply to cases of FDA-approved antiamyloid therapies that have demonstrated “clinically meaningful improvement,” Mr. Burt added. He noted there are phase 3 trials of drugs in this class that could soon produce data.

CMS should “fully consider the broad ramifications and significant unintended consequences of prematurely placing unduly severe restrictions on the entire class of antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies,” Mr. Burt wrote.
 

Health care inequity

In its comment to CMS, Biogen also noted the Medicare proposal would “compound the already pervasive inequities in access to treatment and will ultimately prove highly detrimental to health equity.”

There are already concerns about the access of Black and Latinx patients to clinical trials. The planned CED approach would tightly restrict access to aducanumab, as well as expected follow-ons in the amyloid-directed monoclonal antibody (mAb) drug class, the company said.

“Many of the trial sites for Aduhelm, as well as for other amyloid-directed [monoclonal antibodies] are not hospital-based outpatient settings, but include infusion centers, private practices, and medical research centers,” Biogen wrote.

Patient groups such as UsAgainstAlzheimer’s told CMS the CED approach would worsen disparities, despite the aim of Medicare officials to increase participation of Black and Latinx patients in future testing.

“CMS will be hard-pressed to achieve diversity if such hospitals are the only locations where Medicare beneficiaries are able to access mAbs,” USAgainstAlzheimer’s wrote in a Feb. 10 comment.

In contrast, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research praised CMS for what it described as an effort to address a lack of representation of Black and Latinx patients in earlier aducanumab research.

However, the NCHR also suggested CMS revise its plan to mandate that clinical trials include patients who are representative of the national population diagnosed with AD.

“Rather than being concerned about the percentage of patients in specific racial and ethnic groups, we propose that CMS include sufficient numbers of patients in different racial, ethnic, and age groups to ensure that there is enough statistical power for subgroup analyses to determine safety and efficacy for each of the major demographic groups,” the NCHR wrote.
 

Patient health, Medicare at risk

On Feb. 8, a group of House Republican lawmakers asked CMS to reverse its stance. In a publicly released letter, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and colleagues urged broader coverage of aducanumab.

In the letter, the group emphasized the idea of aducanumab as a potential treatment for patients with Down syndrome who are at risk for AD.

“The link between Down Syndrome and AD is still being researched by scientists,” Rep. Rodgers and colleagues wrote.

“However, there appears to be a correlation between the additional 21st chromosome present in people with Down Syndrome and the chromosome’s gene that makes amyloid precursor proteins and can cause a build-up of the beta-amyloid plaques common amongst those with AD,” they add.

On the other hand, CMS garnered earlier support from influential Democrats. On Jan. 13, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr (D-N.J.) and House Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) released a letter praising CMS for its plan for covering aducanumab.

In addition to the HHS-OIG review of the FDA’s approval of the drug, the two House committees are in the midst of their own investigation of the agency’s decision to clear the drug.

“Any broader coverage determination before there is clarity on Aduhelm’s approval process and findings from the myriad ongoing investigations may put the health of millions of Alzheimer’s patients on the line and the financial stability of the nation’s health insurance program for American seniors at risk,” Rep. Pallone and Rep. Maloney wrote.

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

Medicare has received a key endorsement of its plan to restrict payment for the controversial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug aducanumab (Aduhelm) – but also drew pleas from other groups for more generous reimbursement of the drug, as well as expected similar medications currently in development.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services received more than 9,900 comments on its plan, according to the current tally posted on its website. However, it is unclear when the final count will be available.

CMS intends to limit federal payment for monoclonal antibodies that target amyloid to clinical trials. Among supporters of this approach is the influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an expert panel that helps Congress and CMS manage the federal health program.

Opponents of the CMS plan include several pharmaceutical companies. Patient and consumer groups, individuals, and lawmakers had mixed views.

CMS officials will weigh the feedback provided in the comments when setting a final coverage policy for aducanumab. It is expected the agency’s final decision will be announced on April 11.
 

Ongoing debate

The comments submitted to CMS reflect ongoing debate about whether the evidence proves aducanumab provides significant clinical benefit.

The Food and Drug Administration’s unusual approach to clearing the drug for U.S. sales triggered a review of its management of the accelerated approval process by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health & Human Services.

The FDA granted an accelerated approval for aducanumab in June based on evidence that the drug clears amyloid in the brain. However, it is unclear whether clearing the protein from the brain results in clinical benefit.

Usually, accelerated approvals precede the completion of phase 3 drug trials, with the FDA allowing early access to a medicine while awaiting confirmatory trials.

In the case of aducanumab, results of the phase 3 confirmatory trials ENGAGE and EMERGE were available at the time of FDA approval. However, interpretation of the findings is controversial.

Biogen contends that the amyloid-clearing effect of the higher dose of aducanumab shown in EMERGE indicates the drug has clinical potential. However, others argue that amyloid clearance does not indicate clinical benefit.

Limiting Medicare coverage of aducanumab for treatment of AD means “the progression of disease, for nearly all beneficiaries, would continue unabated,” Biogen wrote in its comment to CMS.
 

Conflicting data

Supporters of the CMS plan have a different view of the trial data. They note the failure of aducanumab in the companion ENGAGE trial, while also questioning the magnitude of benefit suggested by even the most positive data cited for the drug in the EMERGE trial.

Both studies used the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) score, an 18-point scale measuring cognition and function.

In his comment to CMS, MedPAC chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, noted the change in CDR-SB score of 0.39 in EMERGE’s high-dose aducanumab group. CMS has described this as being “less than the 1-2 point change that has been suggested as a minimal clinically important difference,” Dr. Chernew wrote.

MedPAC does not normally comment on Medicare coverage decisions, but did so in this case because of its significance and because of the potential fiscal implications, he noted.

“Though there is only limited, conflicting data on Aduhelm’s clinical effectiveness, Medicare would pay a high price for the product,” Dr. Chernew wrote, pointing out the $28,200 annual U.S. price of the drug.

MedPAC thus endorsed the coverage-with-evidence-development (CED) pathway. Under this approach, Medicare would pay for these drugs when used in clinical trials that meet certain criteria.
 

Legal challenge?

In its comment to CMS, Biogen questioned the agency’s legal grounds for limiting coverage of aducanumab. A mandate on clinical trials as part of the CED proposal “runs afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act’s prohibition against arbitrary and capricious agency action,” Biogen said.

The drug company argued that its own planned follow-on studies would provide the kind of data Medicare officials want to see. It also argued for greater use of observational data, including real-world evidence, and of information from Medicare claims.

Roche’s Genentech, which is also developing antiamyloid drugs for AD, echoed some of Biogen’s concerns about the aducanumab plan.

CMS’ CED plan would be “unnecessarily restrictive and discouraging for patients living with this destructive disease,” David Burt, executive director for federal government affairs at Genentech, wrote in a comment to CMS.

CMS should clarify that the CED requirement would not apply to cases of FDA-approved antiamyloid therapies that have demonstrated “clinically meaningful improvement,” Mr. Burt added. He noted there are phase 3 trials of drugs in this class that could soon produce data.

CMS should “fully consider the broad ramifications and significant unintended consequences of prematurely placing unduly severe restrictions on the entire class of antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies,” Mr. Burt wrote.
 

Health care inequity

In its comment to CMS, Biogen also noted the Medicare proposal would “compound the already pervasive inequities in access to treatment and will ultimately prove highly detrimental to health equity.”

There are already concerns about the access of Black and Latinx patients to clinical trials. The planned CED approach would tightly restrict access to aducanumab, as well as expected follow-ons in the amyloid-directed monoclonal antibody (mAb) drug class, the company said.

“Many of the trial sites for Aduhelm, as well as for other amyloid-directed [monoclonal antibodies] are not hospital-based outpatient settings, but include infusion centers, private practices, and medical research centers,” Biogen wrote.

Patient groups such as UsAgainstAlzheimer’s told CMS the CED approach would worsen disparities, despite the aim of Medicare officials to increase participation of Black and Latinx patients in future testing.

“CMS will be hard-pressed to achieve diversity if such hospitals are the only locations where Medicare beneficiaries are able to access mAbs,” USAgainstAlzheimer’s wrote in a Feb. 10 comment.

In contrast, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research praised CMS for what it described as an effort to address a lack of representation of Black and Latinx patients in earlier aducanumab research.

However, the NCHR also suggested CMS revise its plan to mandate that clinical trials include patients who are representative of the national population diagnosed with AD.

“Rather than being concerned about the percentage of patients in specific racial and ethnic groups, we propose that CMS include sufficient numbers of patients in different racial, ethnic, and age groups to ensure that there is enough statistical power for subgroup analyses to determine safety and efficacy for each of the major demographic groups,” the NCHR wrote.
 

Patient health, Medicare at risk

On Feb. 8, a group of House Republican lawmakers asked CMS to reverse its stance. In a publicly released letter, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and colleagues urged broader coverage of aducanumab.

In the letter, the group emphasized the idea of aducanumab as a potential treatment for patients with Down syndrome who are at risk for AD.

“The link between Down Syndrome and AD is still being researched by scientists,” Rep. Rodgers and colleagues wrote.

“However, there appears to be a correlation between the additional 21st chromosome present in people with Down Syndrome and the chromosome’s gene that makes amyloid precursor proteins and can cause a build-up of the beta-amyloid plaques common amongst those with AD,” they add.

On the other hand, CMS garnered earlier support from influential Democrats. On Jan. 13, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr (D-N.J.) and House Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) released a letter praising CMS for its plan for covering aducanumab.

In addition to the HHS-OIG review of the FDA’s approval of the drug, the two House committees are in the midst of their own investigation of the agency’s decision to clear the drug.

“Any broader coverage determination before there is clarity on Aduhelm’s approval process and findings from the myriad ongoing investigations may put the health of millions of Alzheimer’s patients on the line and the financial stability of the nation’s health insurance program for American seniors at risk,” Rep. Pallone and Rep. Maloney wrote.

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

Medicare has received a key endorsement of its plan to restrict payment for the controversial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug aducanumab (Aduhelm) – but also drew pleas from other groups for more generous reimbursement of the drug, as well as expected similar medications currently in development.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services received more than 9,900 comments on its plan, according to the current tally posted on its website. However, it is unclear when the final count will be available.

CMS intends to limit federal payment for monoclonal antibodies that target amyloid to clinical trials. Among supporters of this approach is the influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an expert panel that helps Congress and CMS manage the federal health program.

Opponents of the CMS plan include several pharmaceutical companies. Patient and consumer groups, individuals, and lawmakers had mixed views.

CMS officials will weigh the feedback provided in the comments when setting a final coverage policy for aducanumab. It is expected the agency’s final decision will be announced on April 11.
 

Ongoing debate

The comments submitted to CMS reflect ongoing debate about whether the evidence proves aducanumab provides significant clinical benefit.

The Food and Drug Administration’s unusual approach to clearing the drug for U.S. sales triggered a review of its management of the accelerated approval process by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health & Human Services.

The FDA granted an accelerated approval for aducanumab in June based on evidence that the drug clears amyloid in the brain. However, it is unclear whether clearing the protein from the brain results in clinical benefit.

Usually, accelerated approvals precede the completion of phase 3 drug trials, with the FDA allowing early access to a medicine while awaiting confirmatory trials.

In the case of aducanumab, results of the phase 3 confirmatory trials ENGAGE and EMERGE were available at the time of FDA approval. However, interpretation of the findings is controversial.

Biogen contends that the amyloid-clearing effect of the higher dose of aducanumab shown in EMERGE indicates the drug has clinical potential. However, others argue that amyloid clearance does not indicate clinical benefit.

Limiting Medicare coverage of aducanumab for treatment of AD means “the progression of disease, for nearly all beneficiaries, would continue unabated,” Biogen wrote in its comment to CMS.
 

Conflicting data

Supporters of the CMS plan have a different view of the trial data. They note the failure of aducanumab in the companion ENGAGE trial, while also questioning the magnitude of benefit suggested by even the most positive data cited for the drug in the EMERGE trial.

Both studies used the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) score, an 18-point scale measuring cognition and function.

In his comment to CMS, MedPAC chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, noted the change in CDR-SB score of 0.39 in EMERGE’s high-dose aducanumab group. CMS has described this as being “less than the 1-2 point change that has been suggested as a minimal clinically important difference,” Dr. Chernew wrote.

MedPAC does not normally comment on Medicare coverage decisions, but did so in this case because of its significance and because of the potential fiscal implications, he noted.

“Though there is only limited, conflicting data on Aduhelm’s clinical effectiveness, Medicare would pay a high price for the product,” Dr. Chernew wrote, pointing out the $28,200 annual U.S. price of the drug.

MedPAC thus endorsed the coverage-with-evidence-development (CED) pathway. Under this approach, Medicare would pay for these drugs when used in clinical trials that meet certain criteria.
 

Legal challenge?

In its comment to CMS, Biogen questioned the agency’s legal grounds for limiting coverage of aducanumab. A mandate on clinical trials as part of the CED proposal “runs afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act’s prohibition against arbitrary and capricious agency action,” Biogen said.

The drug company argued that its own planned follow-on studies would provide the kind of data Medicare officials want to see. It also argued for greater use of observational data, including real-world evidence, and of information from Medicare claims.

Roche’s Genentech, which is also developing antiamyloid drugs for AD, echoed some of Biogen’s concerns about the aducanumab plan.

CMS’ CED plan would be “unnecessarily restrictive and discouraging for patients living with this destructive disease,” David Burt, executive director for federal government affairs at Genentech, wrote in a comment to CMS.

CMS should clarify that the CED requirement would not apply to cases of FDA-approved antiamyloid therapies that have demonstrated “clinically meaningful improvement,” Mr. Burt added. He noted there are phase 3 trials of drugs in this class that could soon produce data.

CMS should “fully consider the broad ramifications and significant unintended consequences of prematurely placing unduly severe restrictions on the entire class of antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies,” Mr. Burt wrote.
 

Health care inequity

In its comment to CMS, Biogen also noted the Medicare proposal would “compound the already pervasive inequities in access to treatment and will ultimately prove highly detrimental to health equity.”

There are already concerns about the access of Black and Latinx patients to clinical trials. The planned CED approach would tightly restrict access to aducanumab, as well as expected follow-ons in the amyloid-directed monoclonal antibody (mAb) drug class, the company said.

“Many of the trial sites for Aduhelm, as well as for other amyloid-directed [monoclonal antibodies] are not hospital-based outpatient settings, but include infusion centers, private practices, and medical research centers,” Biogen wrote.

Patient groups such as UsAgainstAlzheimer’s told CMS the CED approach would worsen disparities, despite the aim of Medicare officials to increase participation of Black and Latinx patients in future testing.

“CMS will be hard-pressed to achieve diversity if such hospitals are the only locations where Medicare beneficiaries are able to access mAbs,” USAgainstAlzheimer’s wrote in a Feb. 10 comment.

In contrast, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research praised CMS for what it described as an effort to address a lack of representation of Black and Latinx patients in earlier aducanumab research.

However, the NCHR also suggested CMS revise its plan to mandate that clinical trials include patients who are representative of the national population diagnosed with AD.

“Rather than being concerned about the percentage of patients in specific racial and ethnic groups, we propose that CMS include sufficient numbers of patients in different racial, ethnic, and age groups to ensure that there is enough statistical power for subgroup analyses to determine safety and efficacy for each of the major demographic groups,” the NCHR wrote.
 

Patient health, Medicare at risk

On Feb. 8, a group of House Republican lawmakers asked CMS to reverse its stance. In a publicly released letter, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and colleagues urged broader coverage of aducanumab.

In the letter, the group emphasized the idea of aducanumab as a potential treatment for patients with Down syndrome who are at risk for AD.

“The link between Down Syndrome and AD is still being researched by scientists,” Rep. Rodgers and colleagues wrote.

“However, there appears to be a correlation between the additional 21st chromosome present in people with Down Syndrome and the chromosome’s gene that makes amyloid precursor proteins and can cause a build-up of the beta-amyloid plaques common amongst those with AD,” they add.

On the other hand, CMS garnered earlier support from influential Democrats. On Jan. 13, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr (D-N.J.) and House Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) released a letter praising CMS for its plan for covering aducanumab.

In addition to the HHS-OIG review of the FDA’s approval of the drug, the two House committees are in the midst of their own investigation of the agency’s decision to clear the drug.

“Any broader coverage determination before there is clarity on Aduhelm’s approval process and findings from the myriad ongoing investigations may put the health of millions of Alzheimer’s patients on the line and the financial stability of the nation’s health insurance program for American seniors at risk,” Rep. Pallone and Rep. Maloney wrote.

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

On Feb. 15, Robert Califf, MD, narrowly won Senate confirmation to once again serve as the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, overcoming protest votes from lawmakers about abortion and opioid issues.

FDA photo by Michael J. Ermarth

The Senate voted 50-46 in favor of Dr. Califf’s nomination. A cardiologist long affiliated with Duke University and a noted expert on clinical trials, Dr. Califf also led the FDA from February 2016 through January 2017.

In 2016, the Senate confirmed him as FDA chief in an 89-4 vote. At that time, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, and a few other senators said they were concerned that Dr. Califf’s links to the drug industry would hamper his ability to regulate drugmakers, particularly in terms of rules on prescription painkillers.

Sen. Manchin also objected to Dr. Califf’s second nomination as FDA commissioner, as did several fellow Democrats, including Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts. In a statement issued after the Feb. 15 vote, Sen. Markey said he has “consistently raised concerns about the FDA’s egregious mishandling of opioid approvals and its role in enabling the current opioid epidemic.”

“To date, the FDA still has not implemented many of the reforms necessary to ensure that it is fulfilling its role as our nation’s top pharmaceutical cop on the beat,” Sen. Markey said. “I have not received any real commitment from Dr. Califf to truly reform the FDA or to learn from the failures that fueled this public health crisis.”

This time, Dr. Califf lost support among Republican senators due to objections raised by groups seeking to end women’s access to abortion. Susan B. Anthony List and National Right to Life asked senators in a January letter to oppose Dr. Califf’s nomination, citing their objections to how the FDA handled reporting of adverse events from abortions by medication during Dr. Califf’s Tenure.

But some Republicans supported Califf in the Tuesday vote. Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania all voted in his favor.

On Feb. 14, Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA, chairwoman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, urged her colleagues to vote for Dr. Califf to give the FDA strong leadership to tackle urgent health needs such as the opioid crisis, youth tobacco use, antimicrobial resistance, and inequities in health care.

“At this critical moment, we need a trusted hand to lead the FDA,” she said in a floor speech. Dr. Califf’s previous service at the FDA and his years spent as a research scientist “give him the experience to take on this challenge.”

Separately, three former FDA commissioners on Feb. 15 published an opinion article that appeared in The Hill. Republican presidents nominated two of these former FDA chiefs: Scott Gottlieb, MD, and Mark McClellan, MD. The third, Margaret Hamburg, MD, was nominated by President Barack Obama, as was Dr. Califf for his first time as FDA chief.

There’s an urgent need for a confirmed leader at the FDA as the United States seeks to move beyond the pandemic, the former FDA chiefs wrote. The work ahead includes continued efforts with vaccines as well as efforts to bolster medical supply chains, they said.

Dr. Califf “knows how to advance the safe development and use of medical products and to bring a sound, science-based foundation to the FDA’s regulatory actions. Because of this, he has earned the confidence of FDA’s professional career staff, as well as a broad base of patient groups, academic experts, medical professionals, and public health organizations,” Dr. Gottlieb, Dr. Hamburg, and Dr. McClellan wrote.

The article also was signed by former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Andy Slavitt, who served in the Obama administration.
 

Support of medical community

The American Heart Association issued a statement on Feb.15, congratulating Dr. Califf on his second confirmation after the Senate vote.

“With a distinguished career in public service and a long-time volunteer leader at the American Heart Association, Dr. Califf has honed his ability to communicate and build trust with diverse constituencies,” CEO Nancy Brown said in the statement. “He will use his experience as a cardiologist to safeguard the health and well-being of people throughout the country, and his background in research to prioritize science and evidence-based policymaking.”

Dr. Califf was also backed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physicians when he was nominated for the role last year by President Joe Biden.

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

On Feb. 15, Robert Califf, MD, narrowly won Senate confirmation to once again serve as the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, overcoming protest votes from lawmakers about abortion and opioid issues.

FDA photo by Michael J. Ermarth

The Senate voted 50-46 in favor of Dr. Califf’s nomination. A cardiologist long affiliated with Duke University and a noted expert on clinical trials, Dr. Califf also led the FDA from February 2016 through January 2017.

In 2016, the Senate confirmed him as FDA chief in an 89-4 vote. At that time, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, and a few other senators said they were concerned that Dr. Califf’s links to the drug industry would hamper his ability to regulate drugmakers, particularly in terms of rules on prescription painkillers.

Sen. Manchin also objected to Dr. Califf’s second nomination as FDA commissioner, as did several fellow Democrats, including Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts. In a statement issued after the Feb. 15 vote, Sen. Markey said he has “consistently raised concerns about the FDA’s egregious mishandling of opioid approvals and its role in enabling the current opioid epidemic.”

“To date, the FDA still has not implemented many of the reforms necessary to ensure that it is fulfilling its role as our nation’s top pharmaceutical cop on the beat,” Sen. Markey said. “I have not received any real commitment from Dr. Califf to truly reform the FDA or to learn from the failures that fueled this public health crisis.”

This time, Dr. Califf lost support among Republican senators due to objections raised by groups seeking to end women’s access to abortion. Susan B. Anthony List and National Right to Life asked senators in a January letter to oppose Dr. Califf’s nomination, citing their objections to how the FDA handled reporting of adverse events from abortions by medication during Dr. Califf’s Tenure.

But some Republicans supported Califf in the Tuesday vote. Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania all voted in his favor.

On Feb. 14, Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA, chairwoman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, urged her colleagues to vote for Dr. Califf to give the FDA strong leadership to tackle urgent health needs such as the opioid crisis, youth tobacco use, antimicrobial resistance, and inequities in health care.

“At this critical moment, we need a trusted hand to lead the FDA,” she said in a floor speech. Dr. Califf’s previous service at the FDA and his years spent as a research scientist “give him the experience to take on this challenge.”

Separately, three former FDA commissioners on Feb. 15 published an opinion article that appeared in The Hill. Republican presidents nominated two of these former FDA chiefs: Scott Gottlieb, MD, and Mark McClellan, MD. The third, Margaret Hamburg, MD, was nominated by President Barack Obama, as was Dr. Califf for his first time as FDA chief.

There’s an urgent need for a confirmed leader at the FDA as the United States seeks to move beyond the pandemic, the former FDA chiefs wrote. The work ahead includes continued efforts with vaccines as well as efforts to bolster medical supply chains, they said.

Dr. Califf “knows how to advance the safe development and use of medical products and to bring a sound, science-based foundation to the FDA’s regulatory actions. Because of this, he has earned the confidence of FDA’s professional career staff, as well as a broad base of patient groups, academic experts, medical professionals, and public health organizations,” Dr. Gottlieb, Dr. Hamburg, and Dr. McClellan wrote.

The article also was signed by former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Andy Slavitt, who served in the Obama administration.
 

Support of medical community

The American Heart Association issued a statement on Feb.15, congratulating Dr. Califf on his second confirmation after the Senate vote.

“With a distinguished career in public service and a long-time volunteer leader at the American Heart Association, Dr. Califf has honed his ability to communicate and build trust with diverse constituencies,” CEO Nancy Brown said in the statement. “He will use his experience as a cardiologist to safeguard the health and well-being of people throughout the country, and his background in research to prioritize science and evidence-based policymaking.”

Dr. Califf was also backed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physicians when he was nominated for the role last year by President Joe Biden.

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

On Feb. 15, Robert Califf, MD, narrowly won Senate confirmation to once again serve as the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, overcoming protest votes from lawmakers about abortion and opioid issues.

FDA photo by Michael J. Ermarth

The Senate voted 50-46 in favor of Dr. Califf’s nomination. A cardiologist long affiliated with Duke University and a noted expert on clinical trials, Dr. Califf also led the FDA from February 2016 through January 2017.

In 2016, the Senate confirmed him as FDA chief in an 89-4 vote. At that time, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, and a few other senators said they were concerned that Dr. Califf’s links to the drug industry would hamper his ability to regulate drugmakers, particularly in terms of rules on prescription painkillers.

Sen. Manchin also objected to Dr. Califf’s second nomination as FDA commissioner, as did several fellow Democrats, including Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts. In a statement issued after the Feb. 15 vote, Sen. Markey said he has “consistently raised concerns about the FDA’s egregious mishandling of opioid approvals and its role in enabling the current opioid epidemic.”

“To date, the FDA still has not implemented many of the reforms necessary to ensure that it is fulfilling its role as our nation’s top pharmaceutical cop on the beat,” Sen. Markey said. “I have not received any real commitment from Dr. Califf to truly reform the FDA or to learn from the failures that fueled this public health crisis.”

This time, Dr. Califf lost support among Republican senators due to objections raised by groups seeking to end women’s access to abortion. Susan B. Anthony List and National Right to Life asked senators in a January letter to oppose Dr. Califf’s nomination, citing their objections to how the FDA handled reporting of adverse events from abortions by medication during Dr. Califf’s Tenure.

But some Republicans supported Califf in the Tuesday vote. Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania all voted in his favor.

On Feb. 14, Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA, chairwoman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, urged her colleagues to vote for Dr. Califf to give the FDA strong leadership to tackle urgent health needs such as the opioid crisis, youth tobacco use, antimicrobial resistance, and inequities in health care.

“At this critical moment, we need a trusted hand to lead the FDA,” she said in a floor speech. Dr. Califf’s previous service at the FDA and his years spent as a research scientist “give him the experience to take on this challenge.”

Separately, three former FDA commissioners on Feb. 15 published an opinion article that appeared in The Hill. Republican presidents nominated two of these former FDA chiefs: Scott Gottlieb, MD, and Mark McClellan, MD. The third, Margaret Hamburg, MD, was nominated by President Barack Obama, as was Dr. Califf for his first time as FDA chief.

There’s an urgent need for a confirmed leader at the FDA as the United States seeks to move beyond the pandemic, the former FDA chiefs wrote. The work ahead includes continued efforts with vaccines as well as efforts to bolster medical supply chains, they said.

Dr. Califf “knows how to advance the safe development and use of medical products and to bring a sound, science-based foundation to the FDA’s regulatory actions. Because of this, he has earned the confidence of FDA’s professional career staff, as well as a broad base of patient groups, academic experts, medical professionals, and public health organizations,” Dr. Gottlieb, Dr. Hamburg, and Dr. McClellan wrote.

The article also was signed by former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Andy Slavitt, who served in the Obama administration.
 

Support of medical community

The American Heart Association issued a statement on Feb.15, congratulating Dr. Califf on his second confirmation after the Senate vote.

“With a distinguished career in public service and a long-time volunteer leader at the American Heart Association, Dr. Califf has honed his ability to communicate and build trust with diverse constituencies,” CEO Nancy Brown said in the statement. “He will use his experience as a cardiologist to safeguard the health and well-being of people throughout the country, and his background in research to prioritize science and evidence-based policymaking.”

Dr. Califf was also backed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physicians when he was nominated for the role last year by President Joe Biden.

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

Statin intolerance is far less common than previously reported, according to a new meta-analysis, with data on more than 4 million adults from around the world, looking at reported statin adverse effects.

The study puts the prevalence of statin intolerance at 6% to 10%, meaning that statin intolerance is “overestimated and overdiagnosed” in most cases, Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, from the Medical University of Lodz and the University of Zielona Góra, Poland, said in a news release.

It also means that “around 93% of patients on statin therapy can be treated effectively, with very good tolerability and without any safety issues,” Dr. Banach added.

The study, conducted on behalf of the Lipid and Blood Pressure Meta-Analysis Collaboration and the International Lipid Expert Panel, was published online Feb. 16 in the European Heart Journal.
 

Reassuring data

In a statement from the British nonprofit Science Media Center, Sir Nilesh J. Samani, MBChB, MD, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, said: “Decades of evidence have proven that statins save lives. This latest analysis, showing that the risk of side effects from statins are less than previously thought, should provide reassurance to those who are recommended this medicine to reduce their risk of a heart attack or stroke.”

The reported prevalence of statin intolerance varies widely, from 2% to 3% to as high as 50%, chiefly because “there is still a lack of a clear and easy way to apply the definition of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach told this news organization.

“The ones we use in lipid clinics – by National Lipid Association (NLA), European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS), and International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP) – are not used or are rarely used in everyday clinical practice by GPs and other specialists,” Dr. Banach explained.

He also blames “physician inertia: When they listen to a patient complain of muscle pain, or see elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT), in most of the cases, they will immediately discontinue statins, without any further investigations. One should remember that there are many secondary causes of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach said.

To get a better handle on the true prevalence of statin intolerance, the study team did a meta-analysis of 4,143,517 patients worldwide from 176 studies: 112 randomized controlled trials and 64 cohort studies.

The overall prevalence of statin intolerance was 9.1% (95% confidence interval, 8.0%-10.0%).

The prevalence of statin intolerance was even lower when assessed with diagnostic criteria from the NLA (7.0%; 95% CI, 6.0%-8.0%), the ILEP (6.7%; 95% CI, 5.0%-8.0%), and the EAS (5.9%; 95% CI, 4.0%-7.0%).

The main factors associated with an increased risk for statin intolerance are female gender, hypothyroidism, high statin dose, advanced age, concomitant use of anti-arrhythmic drugs, and obesity. Other factors include race (being Asian or African American), type 2 diabetes, alcohol use, and chronic liver and renal diseases.

“Our findings mean that we should evaluate patients’ symptoms very carefully, firstly to see whether symptoms are indeed caused by statins, and secondly to evaluate whether it might be patients’ perceptions that statins are harmful – so called nocebo or drucebo effect – which could be responsible for more than 50% of all symptoms, rather than the drug itself,” Dr. Banach said.

He encourages use of the Statin-Associated Muscle Symptom Clinical Index (SAMS-CI) to assess the likelihood that a patient’s muscle symptoms are caused or worsened by statin use.

Substantial analysis, valid results

“This is a substantial analysis [and], based on what we know about statin side effects to date, the results are likely to be broadly valid and indicate that we should not overestimate statin side effects or be too quick to stop statins without due consideration,” Riyaz Patel, MBBS, professor of cardiology, University College London, told the Science Media Center.

“Some patients do experience real side effects, and we do our best to help them with alternative therapies, as with any other medicine. However, for the vast majority of people experiencing statin side effects, we can usually work with the patient to understand the symptoms, use proven strategies to manage these, and ensure they do not miss out on the well-established benefits of statins,” Mr. Patel said.

“This is especially important for people who have already had a heart attack or stroke, where statin therapy is really important in preventing further events,” Mr. Patel added.

Also weighing in on the results, Peter Sever, MB BChir, professor of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, Imperial College London, said: “The importance for clinicians and patients is to realize that commonly reported symptoms, such as muscle aches and pains and lethargy, are not due to the chemistry of the drug.”

“These ‘nocebo’ symptoms may be psychological in origin, but they are no less real than pharmacological symptoms in how they affect quality of life,” Mr. Sever told the Science Media Center.

“However, it’s important to note that as they are not directly caused by the drug, they should not override the decision to prescribe and take statins on account of their proven benefit in reducing death and disability from heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular conditions,” he added.

This meta-analysis was conducted independently; no company or institution supported it financially. Dr. Banach is on the speakers bureau for Amgen, Herbapol, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, Mylan/Viatris, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and Zentiva; is a consultant to Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Daichii Sankyo, Esperion, FreiaPharmaceuticals, Novartis, Polfarmex, and Sanofi-Aventis; has received grants from Amgen, Mylan/Viatris, Sanofi, and Valeant; and serves as CMO for Nomi Biotech Corporation. Dr. Samani has no relevant disclosures. Mr. Patel has received past honoraria and consulting fees from drug companies manufacturing new cholesterol-lowering drugs and currently works with NICE as a topic advisor for CVD prevention. Mr. Sever has received research grants and consultancy from Pfizer and Amgen.

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

Statin intolerance is far less common than previously reported, according to a new meta-analysis, with data on more than 4 million adults from around the world, looking at reported statin adverse effects.

The study puts the prevalence of statin intolerance at 6% to 10%, meaning that statin intolerance is “overestimated and overdiagnosed” in most cases, Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, from the Medical University of Lodz and the University of Zielona Góra, Poland, said in a news release.

It also means that “around 93% of patients on statin therapy can be treated effectively, with very good tolerability and without any safety issues,” Dr. Banach added.

The study, conducted on behalf of the Lipid and Blood Pressure Meta-Analysis Collaboration and the International Lipid Expert Panel, was published online Feb. 16 in the European Heart Journal.
 

Reassuring data

In a statement from the British nonprofit Science Media Center, Sir Nilesh J. Samani, MBChB, MD, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, said: “Decades of evidence have proven that statins save lives. This latest analysis, showing that the risk of side effects from statins are less than previously thought, should provide reassurance to those who are recommended this medicine to reduce their risk of a heart attack or stroke.”

The reported prevalence of statin intolerance varies widely, from 2% to 3% to as high as 50%, chiefly because “there is still a lack of a clear and easy way to apply the definition of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach told this news organization.

“The ones we use in lipid clinics – by National Lipid Association (NLA), European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS), and International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP) – are not used or are rarely used in everyday clinical practice by GPs and other specialists,” Dr. Banach explained.

He also blames “physician inertia: When they listen to a patient complain of muscle pain, or see elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT), in most of the cases, they will immediately discontinue statins, without any further investigations. One should remember that there are many secondary causes of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach said.

To get a better handle on the true prevalence of statin intolerance, the study team did a meta-analysis of 4,143,517 patients worldwide from 176 studies: 112 randomized controlled trials and 64 cohort studies.

The overall prevalence of statin intolerance was 9.1% (95% confidence interval, 8.0%-10.0%).

The prevalence of statin intolerance was even lower when assessed with diagnostic criteria from the NLA (7.0%; 95% CI, 6.0%-8.0%), the ILEP (6.7%; 95% CI, 5.0%-8.0%), and the EAS (5.9%; 95% CI, 4.0%-7.0%).

The main factors associated with an increased risk for statin intolerance are female gender, hypothyroidism, high statin dose, advanced age, concomitant use of anti-arrhythmic drugs, and obesity. Other factors include race (being Asian or African American), type 2 diabetes, alcohol use, and chronic liver and renal diseases.

“Our findings mean that we should evaluate patients’ symptoms very carefully, firstly to see whether symptoms are indeed caused by statins, and secondly to evaluate whether it might be patients’ perceptions that statins are harmful – so called nocebo or drucebo effect – which could be responsible for more than 50% of all symptoms, rather than the drug itself,” Dr. Banach said.

He encourages use of the Statin-Associated Muscle Symptom Clinical Index (SAMS-CI) to assess the likelihood that a patient’s muscle symptoms are caused or worsened by statin use.

Substantial analysis, valid results

“This is a substantial analysis [and], based on what we know about statin side effects to date, the results are likely to be broadly valid and indicate that we should not overestimate statin side effects or be too quick to stop statins without due consideration,” Riyaz Patel, MBBS, professor of cardiology, University College London, told the Science Media Center.

“Some patients do experience real side effects, and we do our best to help them with alternative therapies, as with any other medicine. However, for the vast majority of people experiencing statin side effects, we can usually work with the patient to understand the symptoms, use proven strategies to manage these, and ensure they do not miss out on the well-established benefits of statins,” Mr. Patel said.

“This is especially important for people who have already had a heart attack or stroke, where statin therapy is really important in preventing further events,” Mr. Patel added.

Also weighing in on the results, Peter Sever, MB BChir, professor of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, Imperial College London, said: “The importance for clinicians and patients is to realize that commonly reported symptoms, such as muscle aches and pains and lethargy, are not due to the chemistry of the drug.”

“These ‘nocebo’ symptoms may be psychological in origin, but they are no less real than pharmacological symptoms in how they affect quality of life,” Mr. Sever told the Science Media Center.

“However, it’s important to note that as they are not directly caused by the drug, they should not override the decision to prescribe and take statins on account of their proven benefit in reducing death and disability from heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular conditions,” he added.

This meta-analysis was conducted independently; no company or institution supported it financially. Dr. Banach is on the speakers bureau for Amgen, Herbapol, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, Mylan/Viatris, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and Zentiva; is a consultant to Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Daichii Sankyo, Esperion, FreiaPharmaceuticals, Novartis, Polfarmex, and Sanofi-Aventis; has received grants from Amgen, Mylan/Viatris, Sanofi, and Valeant; and serves as CMO for Nomi Biotech Corporation. Dr. Samani has no relevant disclosures. Mr. Patel has received past honoraria and consulting fees from drug companies manufacturing new cholesterol-lowering drugs and currently works with NICE as a topic advisor for CVD prevention. Mr. Sever has received research grants and consultancy from Pfizer and Amgen.