Federal Practitioner

Therapeutic inertia regarding intensification of blood pressure treatment has been shown to be more of an issue in Black patients, but this was not the case in the SPRINT trial, which involved a strict standardized approach to blood pressure management, a new analysis shows.

Ingram Publishing/ThinkStock

“Overall, we found that therapeutic inertia was similar in different races in the SPRINT trial. We did not see disparities that have been reported in previous observational studies,” lead author, Alexander Zheutlin, MD, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, told this news organization.

“These results show that a well-resourced approach in which a standardized approach to blood pressure measurement and treatment intensification is followed can overcome the racial disparity that is seen in therapeutic inertia and the treatment of blood pressure,” he added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open on Jan. 10.

The authors explain that hypertension remains a leading modifiable cause of racial disparities in cardiovascular disease. Despite similar treatment rates and increased availability of safe, effective, and affordable antihypertensive medications, blood pressure control rates among Black and Hispanic adults remain significantly lower than among White adults in the United States, and one of the factors contributing to this is thought to be therapeutic inertia – the phenomenon of clinicians not initiating or up-titrating clinically indicated therapy in the setting of unmet treatment goals.

The current analysis of the SPRINT trial was conducted to investigate whether racial and ethnic differences in therapeutic inertia in hypertension were present when blood pressure care was standardized and protocolized.

The landmark SPRINT trial compared intensive (<120 mm Hg) with standard (<140 mm Hg) systolic blood pressure treatment goals in adults 50 years and older at high risk for cardiovascular disease. The present analysis was restricted to participant visits with measured blood pressure above the target goal and included 4,141 patients in the standard group and 4,415 patients in the intensive group.

Results showed that the overall prevalence of therapeutic inertia – defined as no antihypertensive medication intensification at each study visit where the blood pressure was above target goal – was either similar or lower for Black and Hispanic participants than for White participants. This pattern was observed whether participants were randomized to the standard or intensive treatment group.

“These findings support the idea that a standardized approach to blood pressure management, as implemented in SPRINT, may help ensure equitable care is provided to all patients and could reduce the contribution of therapeutic inertia to disparities in uncontrolled blood pressure,” the authors say.

They point out that therapeutic inertia has been identified as a key clinician-level barrier to blood pressure control and is estimated to be present in more than 80% of clinic visits in community practice, whereas in the current analysis of the SPRINT trial, therapeutic inertia was present in 50% to 60% of participant visits with uncontrolled blood pressure.

“In SPRINT, blood pressure had to be measured at defined intervals with a specific method, and there were clear instructions on intensifying treatment if blood pressure was above a certain goal,” Dr. Zheutlin noted. “Our results show that within such strict confines, therapeutic inertia does not seem to be different between different racial groups. This suggests that we could make better gains in blood pressure control and more equitable treatment if we adopted a standardized approach to hypertension management.”

He added: “Many guidelines have been published on when to start treatment and the targets for blood pressure, but there is a lot of variation in how we turn these guidelines into protocols. We need to bring in more consistent protocols on blood pressure measurement and intensification and ensure they are followed. In practice, if the BP is 5 or 10 mm Hg above target, a clinician may defer a decision to intensify treatment and intensification never gets done. But if there was a strict protocol to follow, there would be less chance of this happening.”
 

Therapeutic inertia still high

In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Rivara, MD, Nisha Bansal, MD, and Bessie Young, MD, University of Washington, Seattle, say the current SPRINT analysis has broad implications for reducing racial and ethnic disparities in achievement of evidence-based treatment targets in the general population.

“In hypertension management, standardized protocols for medication adjustments may limit clinician practice heterogeneity to ultimately reduce differences in blood pressure control among racial and ethnic minority populations,” they write. But they add that such protocols must be implemented thoughtfully to incorporate individualized clinical assessment and clinician-patient shared decision-making.

Dr. Rivara et al. point out that the rates of therapeutic inertia in SPRINT, while lower than community-based estimates, were still very high. They suggest reasons for this could include clinician concerns about medication efficacy, adverse effects, and patient mistrust of medical professionals. Outside the clinical trial environment, additional considerations may include prescription drug and laboratory test costs, pharmacy access, and competing demands during busy clinic visits.

To address these challenges, they say that clinicians need education on current clinical practice guidelines, managing complications of intensified antihypertensive therapies, and shared decisionmaking, including culturally sensitive collaborative care. Similarly, care systems must support patients on how to address concerns about treatments.

Finally, further research is needed to better define the specific factors associated with therapeutic inertia to allow tailored interventions to overcome this inertia.

“In designing and performing such research, it is vital that investigators engage with racial and ethnic minority groups to better explore the intersection of race, ethnicity, therapeutic decision-making, trust, and shared decisionmaking,” they add.

The SPRINT trial was funded with federal funds from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Zheutlin reported receiving grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study.

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

Therapeutic inertia regarding intensification of blood pressure treatment has been shown to be more of an issue in Black patients, but this was not the case in the SPRINT trial, which involved a strict standardized approach to blood pressure management, a new analysis shows.

Ingram Publishing/ThinkStock

“Overall, we found that therapeutic inertia was similar in different races in the SPRINT trial. We did not see disparities that have been reported in previous observational studies,” lead author, Alexander Zheutlin, MD, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, told this news organization.

“These results show that a well-resourced approach in which a standardized approach to blood pressure measurement and treatment intensification is followed can overcome the racial disparity that is seen in therapeutic inertia and the treatment of blood pressure,” he added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open on Jan. 10.

The authors explain that hypertension remains a leading modifiable cause of racial disparities in cardiovascular disease. Despite similar treatment rates and increased availability of safe, effective, and affordable antihypertensive medications, blood pressure control rates among Black and Hispanic adults remain significantly lower than among White adults in the United States, and one of the factors contributing to this is thought to be therapeutic inertia – the phenomenon of clinicians not initiating or up-titrating clinically indicated therapy in the setting of unmet treatment goals.

The current analysis of the SPRINT trial was conducted to investigate whether racial and ethnic differences in therapeutic inertia in hypertension were present when blood pressure care was standardized and protocolized.

The landmark SPRINT trial compared intensive (<120 mm Hg) with standard (<140 mm Hg) systolic blood pressure treatment goals in adults 50 years and older at high risk for cardiovascular disease. The present analysis was restricted to participant visits with measured blood pressure above the target goal and included 4,141 patients in the standard group and 4,415 patients in the intensive group.

Results showed that the overall prevalence of therapeutic inertia – defined as no antihypertensive medication intensification at each study visit where the blood pressure was above target goal – was either similar or lower for Black and Hispanic participants than for White participants. This pattern was observed whether participants were randomized to the standard or intensive treatment group.

“These findings support the idea that a standardized approach to blood pressure management, as implemented in SPRINT, may help ensure equitable care is provided to all patients and could reduce the contribution of therapeutic inertia to disparities in uncontrolled blood pressure,” the authors say.

They point out that therapeutic inertia has been identified as a key clinician-level barrier to blood pressure control and is estimated to be present in more than 80% of clinic visits in community practice, whereas in the current analysis of the SPRINT trial, therapeutic inertia was present in 50% to 60% of participant visits with uncontrolled blood pressure.

“In SPRINT, blood pressure had to be measured at defined intervals with a specific method, and there were clear instructions on intensifying treatment if blood pressure was above a certain goal,” Dr. Zheutlin noted. “Our results show that within such strict confines, therapeutic inertia does not seem to be different between different racial groups. This suggests that we could make better gains in blood pressure control and more equitable treatment if we adopted a standardized approach to hypertension management.”

He added: “Many guidelines have been published on when to start treatment and the targets for blood pressure, but there is a lot of variation in how we turn these guidelines into protocols. We need to bring in more consistent protocols on blood pressure measurement and intensification and ensure they are followed. In practice, if the BP is 5 or 10 mm Hg above target, a clinician may defer a decision to intensify treatment and intensification never gets done. But if there was a strict protocol to follow, there would be less chance of this happening.”
 

Therapeutic inertia still high

In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Rivara, MD, Nisha Bansal, MD, and Bessie Young, MD, University of Washington, Seattle, say the current SPRINT analysis has broad implications for reducing racial and ethnic disparities in achievement of evidence-based treatment targets in the general population.

“In hypertension management, standardized protocols for medication adjustments may limit clinician practice heterogeneity to ultimately reduce differences in blood pressure control among racial and ethnic minority populations,” they write. But they add that such protocols must be implemented thoughtfully to incorporate individualized clinical assessment and clinician-patient shared decision-making.

Dr. Rivara et al. point out that the rates of therapeutic inertia in SPRINT, while lower than community-based estimates, were still very high. They suggest reasons for this could include clinician concerns about medication efficacy, adverse effects, and patient mistrust of medical professionals. Outside the clinical trial environment, additional considerations may include prescription drug and laboratory test costs, pharmacy access, and competing demands during busy clinic visits.

To address these challenges, they say that clinicians need education on current clinical practice guidelines, managing complications of intensified antihypertensive therapies, and shared decisionmaking, including culturally sensitive collaborative care. Similarly, care systems must support patients on how to address concerns about treatments.

Finally, further research is needed to better define the specific factors associated with therapeutic inertia to allow tailored interventions to overcome this inertia.

“In designing and performing such research, it is vital that investigators engage with racial and ethnic minority groups to better explore the intersection of race, ethnicity, therapeutic decision-making, trust, and shared decisionmaking,” they add.

The SPRINT trial was funded with federal funds from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Zheutlin reported receiving grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study.

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

Therapeutic inertia regarding intensification of blood pressure treatment has been shown to be more of an issue in Black patients, but this was not the case in the SPRINT trial, which involved a strict standardized approach to blood pressure management, a new analysis shows.

Ingram Publishing/ThinkStock

“Overall, we found that therapeutic inertia was similar in different races in the SPRINT trial. We did not see disparities that have been reported in previous observational studies,” lead author, Alexander Zheutlin, MD, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, told this news organization.

“These results show that a well-resourced approach in which a standardized approach to blood pressure measurement and treatment intensification is followed can overcome the racial disparity that is seen in therapeutic inertia and the treatment of blood pressure,” he added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open on Jan. 10.

The authors explain that hypertension remains a leading modifiable cause of racial disparities in cardiovascular disease. Despite similar treatment rates and increased availability of safe, effective, and affordable antihypertensive medications, blood pressure control rates among Black and Hispanic adults remain significantly lower than among White adults in the United States, and one of the factors contributing to this is thought to be therapeutic inertia – the phenomenon of clinicians not initiating or up-titrating clinically indicated therapy in the setting of unmet treatment goals.

The current analysis of the SPRINT trial was conducted to investigate whether racial and ethnic differences in therapeutic inertia in hypertension were present when blood pressure care was standardized and protocolized.

The landmark SPRINT trial compared intensive (<120 mm Hg) with standard (<140 mm Hg) systolic blood pressure treatment goals in adults 50 years and older at high risk for cardiovascular disease. The present analysis was restricted to participant visits with measured blood pressure above the target goal and included 4,141 patients in the standard group and 4,415 patients in the intensive group.

Results showed that the overall prevalence of therapeutic inertia – defined as no antihypertensive medication intensification at each study visit where the blood pressure was above target goal – was either similar or lower for Black and Hispanic participants than for White participants. This pattern was observed whether participants were randomized to the standard or intensive treatment group.

“These findings support the idea that a standardized approach to blood pressure management, as implemented in SPRINT, may help ensure equitable care is provided to all patients and could reduce the contribution of therapeutic inertia to disparities in uncontrolled blood pressure,” the authors say.

They point out that therapeutic inertia has been identified as a key clinician-level barrier to blood pressure control and is estimated to be present in more than 80% of clinic visits in community practice, whereas in the current analysis of the SPRINT trial, therapeutic inertia was present in 50% to 60% of participant visits with uncontrolled blood pressure.

“In SPRINT, blood pressure had to be measured at defined intervals with a specific method, and there were clear instructions on intensifying treatment if blood pressure was above a certain goal,” Dr. Zheutlin noted. “Our results show that within such strict confines, therapeutic inertia does not seem to be different between different racial groups. This suggests that we could make better gains in blood pressure control and more equitable treatment if we adopted a standardized approach to hypertension management.”

He added: “Many guidelines have been published on when to start treatment and the targets for blood pressure, but there is a lot of variation in how we turn these guidelines into protocols. We need to bring in more consistent protocols on blood pressure measurement and intensification and ensure they are followed. In practice, if the BP is 5 or 10 mm Hg above target, a clinician may defer a decision to intensify treatment and intensification never gets done. But if there was a strict protocol to follow, there would be less chance of this happening.”
 

Therapeutic inertia still high

In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Rivara, MD, Nisha Bansal, MD, and Bessie Young, MD, University of Washington, Seattle, say the current SPRINT analysis has broad implications for reducing racial and ethnic disparities in achievement of evidence-based treatment targets in the general population.

“In hypertension management, standardized protocols for medication adjustments may limit clinician practice heterogeneity to ultimately reduce differences in blood pressure control among racial and ethnic minority populations,” they write. But they add that such protocols must be implemented thoughtfully to incorporate individualized clinical assessment and clinician-patient shared decision-making.

Dr. Rivara et al. point out that the rates of therapeutic inertia in SPRINT, while lower than community-based estimates, were still very high. They suggest reasons for this could include clinician concerns about medication efficacy, adverse effects, and patient mistrust of medical professionals. Outside the clinical trial environment, additional considerations may include prescription drug and laboratory test costs, pharmacy access, and competing demands during busy clinic visits.

To address these challenges, they say that clinicians need education on current clinical practice guidelines, managing complications of intensified antihypertensive therapies, and shared decisionmaking, including culturally sensitive collaborative care. Similarly, care systems must support patients on how to address concerns about treatments.

Finally, further research is needed to better define the specific factors associated with therapeutic inertia to allow tailored interventions to overcome this inertia.

“In designing and performing such research, it is vital that investigators engage with racial and ethnic minority groups to better explore the intersection of race, ethnicity, therapeutic decision-making, trust, and shared decisionmaking,” they add.

The SPRINT trial was funded with federal funds from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Zheutlin reported receiving grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study.

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

The number of women screened for cervical cancer in the United States declined between 2005 and 2019 with lack of knowledge about the need for screening being cited as the most common reason for not receiving up-to-date screening. These are the results of a population-based, cross-sectional study conducted by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and were published online in JAMA Network Open.

“The fact that this reason increased over time across most sociodemographic groups suggests a need for interventions targeting screening awareness for all women,” lead author Ryan Suk, PhD, MS, from the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, and colleagues wrote.

Between 2005 and 2019, the researchers evaluated data from 20,557 women (weighted, 113.1 million women) included in the U.S. National Health Interview Survey. The cohort included women aged 21-65 years without previous hysterectomy and included data on sociodemographic factors such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, health insurance type, and rurality of residence.

Dr. Suk and colleagues found that the proportion of women without current screening increased from 2005 to 2019 (from 14.4% to 23.0%; P < .001) and that a higher proportion of those women were in the 21- to 29-year age group (weighted, 29.1%), compared with women in the 30- to 65-year age group (weighted, 21.1%; P < .001). Regardless of age, not knowing that screening was indicated was the most common reason cited for not having up-to-date screening.
 

Sociodemographic factors influence on rates and reasons for overdue screening

Based on weighted population estimates, 6.1% of women included were Asian, 17.2% were Hispanic, 13.1% were non-Hispanic Black, 61% were non-Hispanic White, and 2.7% were other races and/or ethnicities.

Dr. Suk and colleagues found that Asian women had the highest rates of overdue screening, compared with non-Hispanic White women, who had the lowest rates (weighted, 31.4% vs. 20.1%, respectively). The authors also found that reasons for overdue screening varied by sociodemographic factors. For example, while both Asian and Hispanic women cited lack of knowledge as a barrier to routine screening, Asian women were more likely to also report lack of recommendation from a health care professional as a barrier while Hispanic women were more likely to also report lack of access as a barrier to timely screening.

Over the 14-year study period, higher rates of overdue screening were also noted among those identifying as LGBTQ+ versus heterosexual (32.0% vs. 22.2%; P < .001), those with no insurance versus private insurance (41.7% vs. 18.1%; P < .001), and those living in rural versus urban areas (26.2% vs. 22.6%; P = .04).

For the study, guideline-concordant, up-to-date screening in 2005 was defined as screening every 3 years for women aged 21-65 years based on USPSTF guidelines and clinical recommendations. For 2019, up-to-date screening was defined as screening every 3 years with a Papanicolaou (Pap smear) test alone for women aged 21-29 years and screening every 3 years with a Pap smear alone or every 5 years with high-risk human papillomavirus testing or cotesting for women aged 30-65 years.

Dr. Suk and colleagues suggested that guideline updates over the study period could have led to uncertainty regarding appropriate timing and recommended screening intervals, which in turn, may have played a role in decreased cancer screening recommendations.

“Studies have suggested that changing guidelines may produce an increase in both overscreening and underscreening but those already at higher risk of cervical cancer may be most susceptible to underscreening,” wrote the authors.

In an interview, Ruchi Garg, MD, from Mid Atlantic Gynecologic Oncology and Pelvic Surgery Associates, Fairfax, Va., commented: “I think it has been hard to keep up with the guidelines changing so frequently. Furthermore it’s not clearly delineated (or at least there seems to be confusion or extrapolation) that the guidelines are just for Pap smear and that it doesn’t translate into a well woman checkup/pelvic exam; [however], if physicians continue to tell the patients to come in every year, then there won’t be so much underscreening since the physicians/providers will be able to keep track of when the Pap smears need to get done.”

Similar to the study authors, Dr. Garg also suggested that community lectures and public health announcements, particularly when guidelines are updated, will be helpful in enhancing patient education and reducing the rate of this preventable cancer.

The study authors and commentator disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The number of women screened for cervical cancer in the United States declined between 2005 and 2019 with lack of knowledge about the need for screening being cited as the most common reason for not receiving up-to-date screening. These are the results of a population-based, cross-sectional study conducted by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and were published online in JAMA Network Open.

“The fact that this reason increased over time across most sociodemographic groups suggests a need for interventions targeting screening awareness for all women,” lead author Ryan Suk, PhD, MS, from the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, and colleagues wrote.

Between 2005 and 2019, the researchers evaluated data from 20,557 women (weighted, 113.1 million women) included in the U.S. National Health Interview Survey. The cohort included women aged 21-65 years without previous hysterectomy and included data on sociodemographic factors such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, health insurance type, and rurality of residence.

Dr. Suk and colleagues found that the proportion of women without current screening increased from 2005 to 2019 (from 14.4% to 23.0%; P < .001) and that a higher proportion of those women were in the 21- to 29-year age group (weighted, 29.1%), compared with women in the 30- to 65-year age group (weighted, 21.1%; P < .001). Regardless of age, not knowing that screening was indicated was the most common reason cited for not having up-to-date screening.
 

Sociodemographic factors influence on rates and reasons for overdue screening

Based on weighted population estimates, 6.1% of women included were Asian, 17.2% were Hispanic, 13.1% were non-Hispanic Black, 61% were non-Hispanic White, and 2.7% were other races and/or ethnicities.

Dr. Suk and colleagues found that Asian women had the highest rates of overdue screening, compared with non-Hispanic White women, who had the lowest rates (weighted, 31.4% vs. 20.1%, respectively). The authors also found that reasons for overdue screening varied by sociodemographic factors. For example, while both Asian and Hispanic women cited lack of knowledge as a barrier to routine screening, Asian women were more likely to also report lack of recommendation from a health care professional as a barrier while Hispanic women were more likely to also report lack of access as a barrier to timely screening.

Over the 14-year study period, higher rates of overdue screening were also noted among those identifying as LGBTQ+ versus heterosexual (32.0% vs. 22.2%; P < .001), those with no insurance versus private insurance (41.7% vs. 18.1%; P < .001), and those living in rural versus urban areas (26.2% vs. 22.6%; P = .04).

For the study, guideline-concordant, up-to-date screening in 2005 was defined as screening every 3 years for women aged 21-65 years based on USPSTF guidelines and clinical recommendations. For 2019, up-to-date screening was defined as screening every 3 years with a Papanicolaou (Pap smear) test alone for women aged 21-29 years and screening every 3 years with a Pap smear alone or every 5 years with high-risk human papillomavirus testing or cotesting for women aged 30-65 years.

Dr. Suk and colleagues suggested that guideline updates over the study period could have led to uncertainty regarding appropriate timing and recommended screening intervals, which in turn, may have played a role in decreased cancer screening recommendations.

“Studies have suggested that changing guidelines may produce an increase in both overscreening and underscreening but those already at higher risk of cervical cancer may be most susceptible to underscreening,” wrote the authors.

In an interview, Ruchi Garg, MD, from Mid Atlantic Gynecologic Oncology and Pelvic Surgery Associates, Fairfax, Va., commented: “I think it has been hard to keep up with the guidelines changing so frequently. Furthermore it’s not clearly delineated (or at least there seems to be confusion or extrapolation) that the guidelines are just for Pap smear and that it doesn’t translate into a well woman checkup/pelvic exam; [however], if physicians continue to tell the patients to come in every year, then there won’t be so much underscreening since the physicians/providers will be able to keep track of when the Pap smears need to get done.”

Similar to the study authors, Dr. Garg also suggested that community lectures and public health announcements, particularly when guidelines are updated, will be helpful in enhancing patient education and reducing the rate of this preventable cancer.

The study authors and commentator disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The number of women screened for cervical cancer in the United States declined between 2005 and 2019 with lack of knowledge about the need for screening being cited as the most common reason for not receiving up-to-date screening. These are the results of a population-based, cross-sectional study conducted by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and were published online in JAMA Network Open.

“The fact that this reason increased over time across most sociodemographic groups suggests a need for interventions targeting screening awareness for all women,” lead author Ryan Suk, PhD, MS, from the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, and colleagues wrote.

Between 2005 and 2019, the researchers evaluated data from 20,557 women (weighted, 113.1 million women) included in the U.S. National Health Interview Survey. The cohort included women aged 21-65 years without previous hysterectomy and included data on sociodemographic factors such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, health insurance type, and rurality of residence.

Dr. Suk and colleagues found that the proportion of women without current screening increased from 2005 to 2019 (from 14.4% to 23.0%; P < .001) and that a higher proportion of those women were in the 21- to 29-year age group (weighted, 29.1%), compared with women in the 30- to 65-year age group (weighted, 21.1%; P < .001). Regardless of age, not knowing that screening was indicated was the most common reason cited for not having up-to-date screening.
 

Sociodemographic factors influence on rates and reasons for overdue screening

Based on weighted population estimates, 6.1% of women included were Asian, 17.2% were Hispanic, 13.1% were non-Hispanic Black, 61% were non-Hispanic White, and 2.7% were other races and/or ethnicities.

Dr. Suk and colleagues found that Asian women had the highest rates of overdue screening, compared with non-Hispanic White women, who had the lowest rates (weighted, 31.4% vs. 20.1%, respectively). The authors also found that reasons for overdue screening varied by sociodemographic factors. For example, while both Asian and Hispanic women cited lack of knowledge as a barrier to routine screening, Asian women were more likely to also report lack of recommendation from a health care professional as a barrier while Hispanic women were more likely to also report lack of access as a barrier to timely screening.

Over the 14-year study period, higher rates of overdue screening were also noted among those identifying as LGBTQ+ versus heterosexual (32.0% vs. 22.2%; P < .001), those with no insurance versus private insurance (41.7% vs. 18.1%; P < .001), and those living in rural versus urban areas (26.2% vs. 22.6%; P = .04).

For the study, guideline-concordant, up-to-date screening in 2005 was defined as screening every 3 years for women aged 21-65 years based on USPSTF guidelines and clinical recommendations. For 2019, up-to-date screening was defined as screening every 3 years with a Papanicolaou (Pap smear) test alone for women aged 21-29 years and screening every 3 years with a Pap smear alone or every 5 years with high-risk human papillomavirus testing or cotesting for women aged 30-65 years.

Dr. Suk and colleagues suggested that guideline updates over the study period could have led to uncertainty regarding appropriate timing and recommended screening intervals, which in turn, may have played a role in decreased cancer screening recommendations.

“Studies have suggested that changing guidelines may produce an increase in both overscreening and underscreening but those already at higher risk of cervical cancer may be most susceptible to underscreening,” wrote the authors.

In an interview, Ruchi Garg, MD, from Mid Atlantic Gynecologic Oncology and Pelvic Surgery Associates, Fairfax, Va., commented: “I think it has been hard to keep up with the guidelines changing so frequently. Furthermore it’s not clearly delineated (or at least there seems to be confusion or extrapolation) that the guidelines are just for Pap smear and that it doesn’t translate into a well woman checkup/pelvic exam; [however], if physicians continue to tell the patients to come in every year, then there won’t be so much underscreening since the physicians/providers will be able to keep track of when the Pap smears need to get done.”

Similar to the study authors, Dr. Garg also suggested that community lectures and public health announcements, particularly when guidelines are updated, will be helpful in enhancing patient education and reducing the rate of this preventable cancer.

The study authors and commentator disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

For many years, sorafenib was the only FDA-approved systemic treatment for patients with uHCC. Initial case reports of remarkable responses of tumors to immunotherapy, and results of the Phase I/II CheckMate-040 clinical trial, led to the September 2017 FDA approval of nivolumab for the treatment of patients with uHCC after progression on sorafenib. Thereafter, several randomized clinical trials comparing sorafenib to immunotherapy and immunotherapy combinations were initiated, including the comparison of nivolumab to sorafenib. In June 2019 it was announced that this trial did not reach its prespecified endpoint, and the FDA approval for the uHCC indication was voluntarily withdrawn. In December 2021, Yau et al published the final results of the CheckMate-459 randomized trial that included 743 adult patients with advanced HCC randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab (n=371) or sorafenib (n=372) in the first line setting.  The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The median OS was 16.4 months (95% CI 13.9–18.4) with nivolumab and 14.7 months (11.9–17.2) with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.72–1.02]; P = 0.075; minimum follow-up 22.8 months). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 43 (12%) patients receiving nivolumab and 39 (11%) patients receiving sorafenib. The authors concluded that though first-line nivolumab treatment did not significantly improve OS compared with sorafenib, single-agent nivolumab might be considered a treatment option for patients in whom tyrosine kinase inhibitors or antiangiogenic drugs are not safe.

Cheng et al reported an update on the outcomes of the IMbrave150 study, 12 months after the primary analysis. This study established atezolizumab and bevacizumab as the current standard of care for the initial systemic treatment of patients with uHCC. The median OS was 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-23.7) with atezolizumab/bevacizumab and 13.4 months (95% CI 11.4-16.9) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.85; descriptive P < 0.001). The overall response rate (ORR) was 30% with atezolizumab/bevacizumab, while treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 143 (43%) of 329 receiving atezolizumab/bevacizumab and 72 (46%) of 156 receiving sorafenib. Treatment-related grade 5 events occurred in 6 (2%) and 1 (<1%) patients. Therefore, atezolizumab/bevacizumab remains the first-line standard of care for patients with uHCC.

Finally, Jácome et al undertook a combined analysis of 3 randomized controlled trials (KEYNOTE-240, CheckMate-459, and IMbrave150), with 1,657 patients with uHCC and who were treated with either immunotherapy (n=985) or sorafenib (in the first-line setting) or placebo (in the sorafenib-refractory setting) (n=672). The conclusion of the meta-analysis was that checkpoint inhibitors were associated with superior OS (HR, 0.75; P = .006), progression-free survival (HR, 0.74; P = .03), and ORR (odds ratio [OR], 2.82; P < .001) and lower odds of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (OR, 0.44; P = .04) than the comparators, confirming that immunotherapy remains an integral part of the treatment of patients with uHCC.

For many years, sorafenib was the only FDA-approved systemic treatment for patients with uHCC. Initial case reports of remarkable responses of tumors to immunotherapy, and results of the Phase I/II CheckMate-040 clinical trial, led to the September 2017 FDA approval of nivolumab for the treatment of patients with uHCC after progression on sorafenib. Thereafter, several randomized clinical trials comparing sorafenib to immunotherapy and immunotherapy combinations were initiated, including the comparison of nivolumab to sorafenib. In June 2019 it was announced that this trial did not reach its prespecified endpoint, and the FDA approval for the uHCC indication was voluntarily withdrawn. In December 2021, Yau et al published the final results of the CheckMate-459 randomized trial that included 743 adult patients with advanced HCC randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab (n=371) or sorafenib (n=372) in the first line setting.  The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The median OS was 16.4 months (95% CI 13.9–18.4) with nivolumab and 14.7 months (11.9–17.2) with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.72–1.02]; P = 0.075; minimum follow-up 22.8 months). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 43 (12%) patients receiving nivolumab and 39 (11%) patients receiving sorafenib. The authors concluded that though first-line nivolumab treatment did not significantly improve OS compared with sorafenib, single-agent nivolumab might be considered a treatment option for patients in whom tyrosine kinase inhibitors or antiangiogenic drugs are not safe.

Cheng et al reported an update on the outcomes of the IMbrave150 study, 12 months after the primary analysis. This study established atezolizumab and bevacizumab as the current standard of care for the initial systemic treatment of patients with uHCC. The median OS was 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-23.7) with atezolizumab/bevacizumab and 13.4 months (95% CI 11.4-16.9) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.85; descriptive P < 0.001). The overall response rate (ORR) was 30% with atezolizumab/bevacizumab, while treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 143 (43%) of 329 receiving atezolizumab/bevacizumab and 72 (46%) of 156 receiving sorafenib. Treatment-related grade 5 events occurred in 6 (2%) and 1 (<1%) patients. Therefore, atezolizumab/bevacizumab remains the first-line standard of care for patients with uHCC.

Finally, Jácome et al undertook a combined analysis of 3 randomized controlled trials (KEYNOTE-240, CheckMate-459, and IMbrave150), with 1,657 patients with uHCC and who were treated with either immunotherapy (n=985) or sorafenib (in the first-line setting) or placebo (in the sorafenib-refractory setting) (n=672). The conclusion of the meta-analysis was that checkpoint inhibitors were associated with superior OS (HR, 0.75; P = .006), progression-free survival (HR, 0.74; P = .03), and ORR (odds ratio [OR], 2.82; P < .001) and lower odds of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (OR, 0.44; P = .04) than the comparators, confirming that immunotherapy remains an integral part of the treatment of patients with uHCC.

For many years, sorafenib was the only FDA-approved systemic treatment for patients with uHCC. Initial case reports of remarkable responses of tumors to immunotherapy, and results of the Phase I/II CheckMate-040 clinical trial, led to the September 2017 FDA approval of nivolumab for the treatment of patients with uHCC after progression on sorafenib. Thereafter, several randomized clinical trials comparing sorafenib to immunotherapy and immunotherapy combinations were initiated, including the comparison of nivolumab to sorafenib. In June 2019 it was announced that this trial did not reach its prespecified endpoint, and the FDA approval for the uHCC indication was voluntarily withdrawn. In December 2021, Yau et al published the final results of the CheckMate-459 randomized trial that included 743 adult patients with advanced HCC randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab (n=371) or sorafenib (n=372) in the first line setting.  The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The median OS was 16.4 months (95% CI 13.9–18.4) with nivolumab and 14.7 months (11.9–17.2) with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.72–1.02]; P = 0.075; minimum follow-up 22.8 months). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 43 (12%) patients receiving nivolumab and 39 (11%) patients receiving sorafenib. The authors concluded that though first-line nivolumab treatment did not significantly improve OS compared with sorafenib, single-agent nivolumab might be considered a treatment option for patients in whom tyrosine kinase inhibitors or antiangiogenic drugs are not safe.

Cheng et al reported an update on the outcomes of the IMbrave150 study, 12 months after the primary analysis. This study established atezolizumab and bevacizumab as the current standard of care for the initial systemic treatment of patients with uHCC. The median OS was 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-23.7) with atezolizumab/bevacizumab and 13.4 months (95% CI 11.4-16.9) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.85; descriptive P < 0.001). The overall response rate (ORR) was 30% with atezolizumab/bevacizumab, while treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 143 (43%) of 329 receiving atezolizumab/bevacizumab and 72 (46%) of 156 receiving sorafenib. Treatment-related grade 5 events occurred in 6 (2%) and 1 (<1%) patients. Therefore, atezolizumab/bevacizumab remains the first-line standard of care for patients with uHCC.

Finally, Jácome et al undertook a combined analysis of 3 randomized controlled trials (KEYNOTE-240, CheckMate-459, and IMbrave150), with 1,657 patients with uHCC and who were treated with either immunotherapy (n=985) or sorafenib (in the first-line setting) or placebo (in the sorafenib-refractory setting) (n=672). The conclusion of the meta-analysis was that checkpoint inhibitors were associated with superior OS (HR, 0.75; P = .006), progression-free survival (HR, 0.74; P = .03), and ORR (odds ratio [OR], 2.82; P < .001) and lower odds of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (OR, 0.44; P = .04) than the comparators, confirming that immunotherapy remains an integral part of the treatment of patients with uHCC.

This commentary was submitted as a rebuttal to “PA name change bad for patients and the profession.”

To the Editor:

At a time when COVID-19 cases are climbing and health care workers are struggling to meet the needs of our nation’s healthcare system, the commentary by Rebekah Bernard, MD, divides health care providers and demeans the education, experience, and value of physician associates (PA) and nurse practitioners (NP) in our opinion.

The ill timing of this negative message is equally matched by her mischaracterization of the PA title change and PA efforts to eliminate outdated administrative barriers, as well as her baseless attack on NP education and clinical training.

Let us be clear about one thing: What patients really want and deserve is access to high-quality care delivered by the health care provider of their choice. Patients deserve health care providers who are committed to modern, integrated, and coordinated health care delivery, led by professionals who are dedicated to ensuring that everyone is practicing to the full extent of their education, clinical experience, and scope of practice. Patients deserve health care providers who respect each other and work together to embrace solutions that will improve health care for the future.

Decades of research confirm the high quality of PA- and NP-delivered health care. The evidence is in, and it is irrefutable: PA- and NP-delivered care is associated with improved access to care, lower health care costs, and fewer avoidable emergency room visits.

With regard to the PA title change, the fact is this: Changing the profession’s title does not change what PAs do or affect a PA’s scope of practice. The new title – physician associate – directly addresses the common misperception that PAs merely “assist” physicians. It is in the best interest of patients and the health care system for PAs to hold a professional title that ensures clarity about the work that PAs do.

For the sake of patients, we urge Bernard and her organization to stop continuously attacking other professions and focus on what really matters – providing access to safe, effective, equitable, high-quality care to all patients.

We are committed to patient-centered, coordinated health care, and we continue to work with like-minded physicians and other colleagues to make this a reality.

Ms. Orozco is president and chair of the board of directors for the American Academy of Physician Associates. Dr. Kapu is president of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners.


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

This commentary was submitted as a rebuttal to “PA name change bad for patients and the profession.”

To the Editor:

At a time when COVID-19 cases are climbing and health care workers are struggling to meet the needs of our nation’s healthcare system, the commentary by Rebekah Bernard, MD, divides health care providers and demeans the education, experience, and value of physician associates (PA) and nurse practitioners (NP) in our opinion.

The ill timing of this negative message is equally matched by her mischaracterization of the PA title change and PA efforts to eliminate outdated administrative barriers, as well as her baseless attack on NP education and clinical training.

Let us be clear about one thing: What patients really want and deserve is access to high-quality care delivered by the health care provider of their choice. Patients deserve health care providers who are committed to modern, integrated, and coordinated health care delivery, led by professionals who are dedicated to ensuring that everyone is practicing to the full extent of their education, clinical experience, and scope of practice. Patients deserve health care providers who respect each other and work together to embrace solutions that will improve health care for the future.

Decades of research confirm the high quality of PA- and NP-delivered health care. The evidence is in, and it is irrefutable: PA- and NP-delivered care is associated with improved access to care, lower health care costs, and fewer avoidable emergency room visits.

With regard to the PA title change, the fact is this: Changing the profession’s title does not change what PAs do or affect a PA’s scope of practice. The new title – physician associate – directly addresses the common misperception that PAs merely “assist” physicians. It is in the best interest of patients and the health care system for PAs to hold a professional title that ensures clarity about the work that PAs do.

For the sake of patients, we urge Bernard and her organization to stop continuously attacking other professions and focus on what really matters – providing access to safe, effective, equitable, high-quality care to all patients.

We are committed to patient-centered, coordinated health care, and we continue to work with like-minded physicians and other colleagues to make this a reality.

Ms. Orozco is president and chair of the board of directors for the American Academy of Physician Associates. Dr. Kapu is president of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners.


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

This commentary was submitted as a rebuttal to “PA name change bad for patients and the profession.”

To the Editor:

At a time when COVID-19 cases are climbing and health care workers are struggling to meet the needs of our nation’s healthcare system, the commentary by Rebekah Bernard, MD, divides health care providers and demeans the education, experience, and value of physician associates (PA) and nurse practitioners (NP) in our opinion.

The ill timing of this negative message is equally matched by her mischaracterization of the PA title change and PA efforts to eliminate outdated administrative barriers, as well as her baseless attack on NP education and clinical training.

Let us be clear about one thing: What patients really want and deserve is access to high-quality care delivered by the health care provider of their choice. Patients deserve health care providers who are committed to modern, integrated, and coordinated health care delivery, led by professionals who are dedicated to ensuring that everyone is practicing to the full extent of their education, clinical experience, and scope of practice. Patients deserve health care providers who respect each other and work together to embrace solutions that will improve health care for the future.

Decades of research confirm the high quality of PA- and NP-delivered health care. The evidence is in, and it is irrefutable: PA- and NP-delivered care is associated with improved access to care, lower health care costs, and fewer avoidable emergency room visits.

With regard to the PA title change, the fact is this: Changing the profession’s title does not change what PAs do or affect a PA’s scope of practice. The new title – physician associate – directly addresses the common misperception that PAs merely “assist” physicians. It is in the best interest of patients and the health care system for PAs to hold a professional title that ensures clarity about the work that PAs do.

For the sake of patients, we urge Bernard and her organization to stop continuously attacking other professions and focus on what really matters – providing access to safe, effective, equitable, high-quality care to all patients.

We are committed to patient-centered, coordinated health care, and we continue to work with like-minded physicians and other colleagues to make this a reality.

Ms. Orozco is president and chair of the board of directors for the American Academy of Physician Associates. Dr. Kapu is president of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners.


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

Social rhythm therapy (SRT), which uses behavioral strategies to support healthy sleep and other routines, is linked to improved mood and reduced suicide risk in young people with bipolar disorder (BD), early research suggests.

The small study also showed SRT is both feasible and acceptable in this patient population.

Tab1962/iStockphoto.com

Results showed SRT, which was primarily delivered via telehealth sessions, began to show efficacy approximately 6 weeks into the 12-week therapeutic program, the researchers noted.

“Improving the regularity of daily rhythms like sleep, physical activity, and social activities can be really robust in improving mental health and even reducing suicide risk,” study investigator Hilary P. Blumberg, MD, the John and Hope Furth Professor of Psychiatric Neuroscience and director of the mood disorders research program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview.

The findings are published in the American Journal of Psychotherapy.
 

Trigger for depression, mania

Previous research shows unstable circadian rhythms may trigger depressive and manic symptoms – and are risk factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Although interpersonal and social rhythm therapy has shown promise in patients with mood disorders, there is little research focusing only on the social rhythm aspect of the therapy.

The researchers only examined SRT, modified to create a therapeutic program aimed at adolescents and young adults.

The study included 13 participants (mean age, 20.5 years) with BD and a score of 15 or more on the 29-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-29) and/or a score of 12 or more on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS).

Participants were enrolled in the National Institute of Mental Health Brain Emotion Circuitry Targeted Self-Monitoring and Regulation Therapy (BE-SMART) program, which requires MRI sessions at three in-person visits to assess brain changes with the therapy. All but one participant was taking mood-stabilizing medications.

“We didn’t ask them to come off medications because we didn’t want to exacerbate things,” said Dr. Blumberg. She added the therapeutic approach “could be adjunctive to further improve symptoms and reduce risk.”

SRT was delivered in 12 weekly sessions. The majority occurred on a secure video platform. Three were conducted in person.

Working with a therapist, participants were taught how to follow a daily routine. Dr. Blumberg noted this is not just a matter of going to sleep and getting up at the same time every day, but thoroughly reviewing details of all daily activities and routines, including who participants eat with and when, their exercise schedule, and social engagements.

Each week, participants completed the five-item version of the Social Rhythm Metric. At the end of the intervention, they also completed the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ). Scores on the CSQ range from 8 to 32, with scores of 26-32 indicating “excellent” satisfaction.

In addition, participants and therapists completed the Working Alliance Inventory, which assesses the client-therapist relationship by asking about such things as degree of comfort and respect.

Before and after the intervention, participants reported the regularity of their social rhythms using the Brief Social Rhythm Scale (BSRS) and risk for suicidal behavior using a subscale of the Concise Health Risk Tracking (CHRT) scale.
 

High retention, ‘excellent satisfaction’

Results showed 10 of the 13 participants (9 females) completed all study procedures, for a retention rate of 77%. Treatment satisfaction was excellent (mean CSQ, 29.4).

Both therapists and participants had high scores on all aspects of the Working Alliance Inventory scale.

“High treatment retention, excellent client satisfaction, and strong working alliance scores support the feasibility and acceptability of this intervention for adolescents and young adults with bipolar disorder,” the investigators wrote.

Participants showed significant improvement in social rhythm regularity and reductions in depression and manic symptoms as well as suicide propensity (P = .016 for BSRS; .024 for HDRS-29; .028 for YMRS; and .028 for CHRT suicide propensity). Effect sizes were in the moderate to high range.

By the midpoint of the therapy, there were significant improvements in social rhythm regularity and suicide propensity and trend-level reductions in depression, suggesting the potential for early benefits.

Dr. Blumberg noted it is difficult to find a therapy that helps with both depressive and mania symptoms. “An antidepressant may reduce depression, but sometimes can worsen manic symptoms.”
 

Impact on emotional brain circuitry?

The association between improved regularity of social rhythms and reduced suicide propensity persisted even after controlling for mood symptom changes.

“Suicide risk was reduced not just because subjects were less depressed. There’s something about regularizing rhythms that can reduce suicide risk,” said Dr. Blumberg.

The reviewers noted that SRT administered remotely improves accessibility; and this intervention “is well suited to the future of psychotherapy delivery, which will undoubtedly include remote treatment delivery.”

The absence of a comparator condition was cited as a study limitation. The investigators noted the small sample size means the findings should be interpreted cautiously and verified in an adequately powered randomized controlled trial.

The researchers now have early results from the brain scanning component of the study. “Preliminary findings suggest the intervention seems to benefit emotional brain circuitry,” Dr. Blumberg said.

The researchers are about to embark on a new study funded by a grant from the American Foundation of Suicide Prevention. It will investigate SRT in preventing suicide in adolescents and adults to age 29 years with depression or BD.

In addition, the researchers have secured support from the Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation to research prevention in youth at risk for BD – and from Women’s Health Access Matters to examine the therapy in women 50 and older with depression, a population possibly at increased risk for dementia.
 

‘Promising’ results

Commenting on the findings, Michael Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, and research psychiatrist at the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Philadelphia, praised the study.

“It’s a very, very promising initial study because even though there’s no control group, it does show that participants liked the program, most finished it, and on average, people got quite a bit better,” said Dr. Thase, who was not involved with the research.

The treatment may be especially beneficial for young patients with bipolar disorder who, just by their very age, experience lifestyle disruptions, Dr. Thase noted. Results from a previous study of the therapeutic approach in adults showed “probably half of the adults didn’t take to it.”

However, not everyone in this new study benefited either, as some dropped out, which Dr. Thase noted is not atypical.

“No form of intervention is suitable for everyone,” he said.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, AIM Youth Mental Health Foundation, Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, International Bipolar Foundation, MQ Brighter Futures Program, For the Love of Travis Foundation, and the John and Hope Furth Endowment. Dr. Blumberg and Dr. Thase reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Social rhythm therapy (SRT), which uses behavioral strategies to support healthy sleep and other routines, is linked to improved mood and reduced suicide risk in young people with bipolar disorder (BD), early research suggests.

The small study also showed SRT is both feasible and acceptable in this patient population.

Tab1962/iStockphoto.com

Results showed SRT, which was primarily delivered via telehealth sessions, began to show efficacy approximately 6 weeks into the 12-week therapeutic program, the researchers noted.

“Improving the regularity of daily rhythms like sleep, physical activity, and social activities can be really robust in improving mental health and even reducing suicide risk,” study investigator Hilary P. Blumberg, MD, the John and Hope Furth Professor of Psychiatric Neuroscience and director of the mood disorders research program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview.

The findings are published in the American Journal of Psychotherapy.
 

Trigger for depression, mania

Previous research shows unstable circadian rhythms may trigger depressive and manic symptoms – and are risk factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Although interpersonal and social rhythm therapy has shown promise in patients with mood disorders, there is little research focusing only on the social rhythm aspect of the therapy.

The researchers only examined SRT, modified to create a therapeutic program aimed at adolescents and young adults.

The study included 13 participants (mean age, 20.5 years) with BD and a score of 15 or more on the 29-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-29) and/or a score of 12 or more on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS).

Participants were enrolled in the National Institute of Mental Health Brain Emotion Circuitry Targeted Self-Monitoring and Regulation Therapy (BE-SMART) program, which requires MRI sessions at three in-person visits to assess brain changes with the therapy. All but one participant was taking mood-stabilizing medications.

“We didn’t ask them to come off medications because we didn’t want to exacerbate things,” said Dr. Blumberg. She added the therapeutic approach “could be adjunctive to further improve symptoms and reduce risk.”

SRT was delivered in 12 weekly sessions. The majority occurred on a secure video platform. Three were conducted in person.

Working with a therapist, participants were taught how to follow a daily routine. Dr. Blumberg noted this is not just a matter of going to sleep and getting up at the same time every day, but thoroughly reviewing details of all daily activities and routines, including who participants eat with and when, their exercise schedule, and social engagements.

Each week, participants completed the five-item version of the Social Rhythm Metric. At the end of the intervention, they also completed the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ). Scores on the CSQ range from 8 to 32, with scores of 26-32 indicating “excellent” satisfaction.

In addition, participants and therapists completed the Working Alliance Inventory, which assesses the client-therapist relationship by asking about such things as degree of comfort and respect.

Before and after the intervention, participants reported the regularity of their social rhythms using the Brief Social Rhythm Scale (BSRS) and risk for suicidal behavior using a subscale of the Concise Health Risk Tracking (CHRT) scale.
 

High retention, ‘excellent satisfaction’

Results showed 10 of the 13 participants (9 females) completed all study procedures, for a retention rate of 77%. Treatment satisfaction was excellent (mean CSQ, 29.4).

Both therapists and participants had high scores on all aspects of the Working Alliance Inventory scale.

“High treatment retention, excellent client satisfaction, and strong working alliance scores support the feasibility and acceptability of this intervention for adolescents and young adults with bipolar disorder,” the investigators wrote.

Participants showed significant improvement in social rhythm regularity and reductions in depression and manic symptoms as well as suicide propensity (P = .016 for BSRS; .024 for HDRS-29; .028 for YMRS; and .028 for CHRT suicide propensity). Effect sizes were in the moderate to high range.

By the midpoint of the therapy, there were significant improvements in social rhythm regularity and suicide propensity and trend-level reductions in depression, suggesting the potential for early benefits.

Dr. Blumberg noted it is difficult to find a therapy that helps with both depressive and mania symptoms. “An antidepressant may reduce depression, but sometimes can worsen manic symptoms.”
 

Impact on emotional brain circuitry?

The association between improved regularity of social rhythms and reduced suicide propensity persisted even after controlling for mood symptom changes.

“Suicide risk was reduced not just because subjects were less depressed. There’s something about regularizing rhythms that can reduce suicide risk,” said Dr. Blumberg.

The reviewers noted that SRT administered remotely improves accessibility; and this intervention “is well suited to the future of psychotherapy delivery, which will undoubtedly include remote treatment delivery.”

The absence of a comparator condition was cited as a study limitation. The investigators noted the small sample size means the findings should be interpreted cautiously and verified in an adequately powered randomized controlled trial.

The researchers now have early results from the brain scanning component of the study. “Preliminary findings suggest the intervention seems to benefit emotional brain circuitry,” Dr. Blumberg said.

The researchers are about to embark on a new study funded by a grant from the American Foundation of Suicide Prevention. It will investigate SRT in preventing suicide in adolescents and adults to age 29 years with depression or BD.

In addition, the researchers have secured support from the Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation to research prevention in youth at risk for BD – and from Women’s Health Access Matters to examine the therapy in women 50 and older with depression, a population possibly at increased risk for dementia.
 

‘Promising’ results

Commenting on the findings, Michael Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, and research psychiatrist at the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Philadelphia, praised the study.

“It’s a very, very promising initial study because even though there’s no control group, it does show that participants liked the program, most finished it, and on average, people got quite a bit better,” said Dr. Thase, who was not involved with the research.

The treatment may be especially beneficial for young patients with bipolar disorder who, just by their very age, experience lifestyle disruptions, Dr. Thase noted. Results from a previous study of the therapeutic approach in adults showed “probably half of the adults didn’t take to it.”

However, not everyone in this new study benefited either, as some dropped out, which Dr. Thase noted is not atypical.

“No form of intervention is suitable for everyone,” he said.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, AIM Youth Mental Health Foundation, Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, International Bipolar Foundation, MQ Brighter Futures Program, For the Love of Travis Foundation, and the John and Hope Furth Endowment. Dr. Blumberg and Dr. Thase reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Social rhythm therapy (SRT), which uses behavioral strategies to support healthy sleep and other routines, is linked to improved mood and reduced suicide risk in young people with bipolar disorder (BD), early research suggests.

The small study also showed SRT is both feasible and acceptable in this patient population.

Tab1962/iStockphoto.com

Results showed SRT, which was primarily delivered via telehealth sessions, began to show efficacy approximately 6 weeks into the 12-week therapeutic program, the researchers noted.

“Improving the regularity of daily rhythms like sleep, physical activity, and social activities can be really robust in improving mental health and even reducing suicide risk,” study investigator Hilary P. Blumberg, MD, the John and Hope Furth Professor of Psychiatric Neuroscience and director of the mood disorders research program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview.

The findings are published in the American Journal of Psychotherapy.
 

Trigger for depression, mania

Previous research shows unstable circadian rhythms may trigger depressive and manic symptoms – and are risk factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Although interpersonal and social rhythm therapy has shown promise in patients with mood disorders, there is little research focusing only on the social rhythm aspect of the therapy.

The researchers only examined SRT, modified to create a therapeutic program aimed at adolescents and young adults.

The study included 13 participants (mean age, 20.5 years) with BD and a score of 15 or more on the 29-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-29) and/or a score of 12 or more on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS).

Participants were enrolled in the National Institute of Mental Health Brain Emotion Circuitry Targeted Self-Monitoring and Regulation Therapy (BE-SMART) program, which requires MRI sessions at three in-person visits to assess brain changes with the therapy. All but one participant was taking mood-stabilizing medications.

“We didn’t ask them to come off medications because we didn’t want to exacerbate things,” said Dr. Blumberg. She added the therapeutic approach “could be adjunctive to further improve symptoms and reduce risk.”

SRT was delivered in 12 weekly sessions. The majority occurred on a secure video platform. Three were conducted in person.

Working with a therapist, participants were taught how to follow a daily routine. Dr. Blumberg noted this is not just a matter of going to sleep and getting up at the same time every day, but thoroughly reviewing details of all daily activities and routines, including who participants eat with and when, their exercise schedule, and social engagements.

Each week, participants completed the five-item version of the Social Rhythm Metric. At the end of the intervention, they also completed the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ). Scores on the CSQ range from 8 to 32, with scores of 26-32 indicating “excellent” satisfaction.

In addition, participants and therapists completed the Working Alliance Inventory, which assesses the client-therapist relationship by asking about such things as degree of comfort and respect.

Before and after the intervention, participants reported the regularity of their social rhythms using the Brief Social Rhythm Scale (BSRS) and risk for suicidal behavior using a subscale of the Concise Health Risk Tracking (CHRT) scale.
 

High retention, ‘excellent satisfaction’

Results showed 10 of the 13 participants (9 females) completed all study procedures, for a retention rate of 77%. Treatment satisfaction was excellent (mean CSQ, 29.4).

Both therapists and participants had high scores on all aspects of the Working Alliance Inventory scale.

“High treatment retention, excellent client satisfaction, and strong working alliance scores support the feasibility and acceptability of this intervention for adolescents and young adults with bipolar disorder,” the investigators wrote.

Participants showed significant improvement in social rhythm regularity and reductions in depression and manic symptoms as well as suicide propensity (P = .016 for BSRS; .024 for HDRS-29; .028 for YMRS; and .028 for CHRT suicide propensity). Effect sizes were in the moderate to high range.

By the midpoint of the therapy, there were significant improvements in social rhythm regularity and suicide propensity and trend-level reductions in depression, suggesting the potential for early benefits.

Dr. Blumberg noted it is difficult to find a therapy that helps with both depressive and mania symptoms. “An antidepressant may reduce depression, but sometimes can worsen manic symptoms.”
 

Impact on emotional brain circuitry?

The association between improved regularity of social rhythms and reduced suicide propensity persisted even after controlling for mood symptom changes.

“Suicide risk was reduced not just because subjects were less depressed. There’s something about regularizing rhythms that can reduce suicide risk,” said Dr. Blumberg.

The reviewers noted that SRT administered remotely improves accessibility; and this intervention “is well suited to the future of psychotherapy delivery, which will undoubtedly include remote treatment delivery.”

The absence of a comparator condition was cited as a study limitation. The investigators noted the small sample size means the findings should be interpreted cautiously and verified in an adequately powered randomized controlled trial.

The researchers now have early results from the brain scanning component of the study. “Preliminary findings suggest the intervention seems to benefit emotional brain circuitry,” Dr. Blumberg said.

The researchers are about to embark on a new study funded by a grant from the American Foundation of Suicide Prevention. It will investigate SRT in preventing suicide in adolescents and adults to age 29 years with depression or BD.

In addition, the researchers have secured support from the Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation to research prevention in youth at risk for BD – and from Women’s Health Access Matters to examine the therapy in women 50 and older with depression, a population possibly at increased risk for dementia.
 

‘Promising’ results

Commenting on the findings, Michael Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, and research psychiatrist at the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Philadelphia, praised the study.

“It’s a very, very promising initial study because even though there’s no control group, it does show that participants liked the program, most finished it, and on average, people got quite a bit better,” said Dr. Thase, who was not involved with the research.

The treatment may be especially beneficial for young patients with bipolar disorder who, just by their very age, experience lifestyle disruptions, Dr. Thase noted. Results from a previous study of the therapeutic approach in adults showed “probably half of the adults didn’t take to it.”

However, not everyone in this new study benefited either, as some dropped out, which Dr. Thase noted is not atypical.

“No form of intervention is suitable for everyone,” he said.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, AIM Youth Mental Health Foundation, Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, International Bipolar Foundation, MQ Brighter Futures Program, For the Love of Travis Foundation, and the John and Hope Furth Endowment. Dr. Blumberg and Dr. Thase reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Routine checks of vital signs during the night often prevent hospitalized patients from getting sufficient recuperative sleep. But patients who are judged to be clinically stable by an algorithm that uses real-time data can be safely spared these checks, according to a recent study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In their study, Nader Najafi, MD, MAS, from the University of California, San Francisco, and his colleagues were able to significantly reduce the number of checks at night without increasing transfers to the intensive care ward or heart-alarm triggers.

“Sleep is crucial to health,” writes Hyung J. Cho, MD, from the New York University Grossman School of Medicine, in an accompanying editorial. “Ironically, hospitals, where people go to recover from illness, are among the most difficult places to sleep.”

Number of night-time checks successfully reduced

The mean number of night-time checks was significantly lower in the algorithm group than in the standard-care group (0.97 vs. 1.41; P < .001).

The reduction in night-time checks had no effect on patient safety. There was no increase in transfers to the intensive care unit in the algorithm or standard-care groups (5% vs 5%; P = .92), and no difference between the number of heart alarms (0.2% vs. 0.9%; P = .07).

However, the reduction also had no effect on the incidence of episodes of delirium in the algorithm or standard-care groups (11% vs. 13%; P = .32).

“The reduction in vital signs checking, although statistically significant, was relatively small,” Dr. Cho explains. But the primary endpoint might have been different had the adherence to intervention been better, he notes.

In fact, the analysis confirmed that changes to routine daily practice in a hospital are not always easy to implement. In 35% of cases, the patients’ vital signs were checked at night, despite the physician’s order to the contrary.

“Busy patient-care assistants and nurses may check vital signs out of habit without noticing that the order has changed for some of the patients,” Dr. Najafi and his coauthors write. Many hospitals are used to thinking that regular measurements of the vital signs are part of good practice.
 

Include nursing staff

Future projects should use an interdisciplinary approach that includes nursing staff, Dr. Cho recommends. More user-friendly displays and optimized alerts in the electronic patient records could also encourage better implementation of the orders.

Less frequent checks of the vital signs would be welcomed by frontline staff because it would lighten their already heavy workload, he adds.

Although the study didn’t meet its primary endpoint, patients subjected to fewer night-time checks because of the algorithm were able to get a good night’s sleep. Other aspects of hospital care that are based on the patient’s stability, such as cardiac monitoring, could also potentially benefit from this type of intervention, Dr. Najafi and his colleagues suggest.

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

Routine checks of vital signs during the night often prevent hospitalized patients from getting sufficient recuperative sleep. But patients who are judged to be clinically stable by an algorithm that uses real-time data can be safely spared these checks, according to a recent study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In their study, Nader Najafi, MD, MAS, from the University of California, San Francisco, and his colleagues were able to significantly reduce the number of checks at night without increasing transfers to the intensive care ward or heart-alarm triggers.

“Sleep is crucial to health,” writes Hyung J. Cho, MD, from the New York University Grossman School of Medicine, in an accompanying editorial. “Ironically, hospitals, where people go to recover from illness, are among the most difficult places to sleep.”

Number of night-time checks successfully reduced

The mean number of night-time checks was significantly lower in the algorithm group than in the standard-care group (0.97 vs. 1.41; P < .001).

The reduction in night-time checks had no effect on patient safety. There was no increase in transfers to the intensive care unit in the algorithm or standard-care groups (5% vs 5%; P = .92), and no difference between the number of heart alarms (0.2% vs. 0.9%; P = .07).

However, the reduction also had no effect on the incidence of episodes of delirium in the algorithm or standard-care groups (11% vs. 13%; P = .32).

“The reduction in vital signs checking, although statistically significant, was relatively small,” Dr. Cho explains. But the primary endpoint might have been different had the adherence to intervention been better, he notes.

In fact, the analysis confirmed that changes to routine daily practice in a hospital are not always easy to implement. In 35% of cases, the patients’ vital signs were checked at night, despite the physician’s order to the contrary.

“Busy patient-care assistants and nurses may check vital signs out of habit without noticing that the order has changed for some of the patients,” Dr. Najafi and his coauthors write. Many hospitals are used to thinking that regular measurements of the vital signs are part of good practice.
 

Include nursing staff

Future projects should use an interdisciplinary approach that includes nursing staff, Dr. Cho recommends. More user-friendly displays and optimized alerts in the electronic patient records could also encourage better implementation of the orders.

Less frequent checks of the vital signs would be welcomed by frontline staff because it would lighten their already heavy workload, he adds.

Although the study didn’t meet its primary endpoint, patients subjected to fewer night-time checks because of the algorithm were able to get a good night’s sleep. Other aspects of hospital care that are based on the patient’s stability, such as cardiac monitoring, could also potentially benefit from this type of intervention, Dr. Najafi and his colleagues suggest.

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

Routine checks of vital signs during the night often prevent hospitalized patients from getting sufficient recuperative sleep. But patients who are judged to be clinically stable by an algorithm that uses real-time data can be safely spared these checks, according to a recent study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In their study, Nader Najafi, MD, MAS, from the University of California, San Francisco, and his colleagues were able to significantly reduce the number of checks at night without increasing transfers to the intensive care ward or heart-alarm triggers.

“Sleep is crucial to health,” writes Hyung J. Cho, MD, from the New York University Grossman School of Medicine, in an accompanying editorial. “Ironically, hospitals, where people go to recover from illness, are among the most difficult places to sleep.”

Number of night-time checks successfully reduced

The mean number of night-time checks was significantly lower in the algorithm group than in the standard-care group (0.97 vs. 1.41; P < .001).

The reduction in night-time checks had no effect on patient safety. There was no increase in transfers to the intensive care unit in the algorithm or standard-care groups (5% vs 5%; P = .92), and no difference between the number of heart alarms (0.2% vs. 0.9%; P = .07).

However, the reduction also had no effect on the incidence of episodes of delirium in the algorithm or standard-care groups (11% vs. 13%; P = .32).

“The reduction in vital signs checking, although statistically significant, was relatively small,” Dr. Cho explains. But the primary endpoint might have been different had the adherence to intervention been better, he notes.

In fact, the analysis confirmed that changes to routine daily practice in a hospital are not always easy to implement. In 35% of cases, the patients’ vital signs were checked at night, despite the physician’s order to the contrary.

“Busy patient-care assistants and nurses may check vital signs out of habit without noticing that the order has changed for some of the patients,” Dr. Najafi and his coauthors write. Many hospitals are used to thinking that regular measurements of the vital signs are part of good practice.
 

Include nursing staff

Future projects should use an interdisciplinary approach that includes nursing staff, Dr. Cho recommends. More user-friendly displays and optimized alerts in the electronic patient records could also encourage better implementation of the orders.

Less frequent checks of the vital signs would be welcomed by frontline staff because it would lighten their already heavy workload, he adds.

Although the study didn’t meet its primary endpoint, patients subjected to fewer night-time checks because of the algorithm were able to get a good night’s sleep. Other aspects of hospital care that are based on the patient’s stability, such as cardiac monitoring, could also potentially benefit from this type of intervention, Dr. Najafi and his colleagues suggest.

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

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is the likely cause of multiple sclerosis (MS), new research confirms. Investigators found the risk of MS increased 32-fold following EBV infection.

This study is the first to provide compelling evidence of a causal link between EBV and MS, principal investigator Alberto Ascherio, MD, DrPH, professor of epidemiology, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, and professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

The “prevailing” view has been that MS is “an autoimmune disease of unknown etiology,” said Dr. Ascherio. “Now we know MS is a complication of a viral infection.” With this knowledge, he added, “we can redirect research” to find antiviral drugs to treat the disease.

The study was published online Jan. 13 in Science.
 

Unique dataset

A chronic disease of the central nervous system, MS involves an inflammatory attack on the myelin sheath and the axons it insulates. The disease affects 2.8 million people worldwide.

EBV is a human herpesvirus that can cause infectious mononucleosis. After infection, it persists in latent form in B-lymphocytes.

EBV is common and infects about 95% of adults. Most individuals are already infected with the virus by age 18 or 20 years, making it difficult to study uninfected populations, said Dr. Ascherio.

However, access to a “huge” database of more than 10 million active-duty U.S. service personnel made this possible, he said.

Service members are screened for HIV at the start of their service care and biennially thereafter. The investigators used stored blood samples to determine the relation between EBV infection and MS over a 20-year period from 1993 to 2013.

Researchers examined 801 MS case patients and 1,566 matched controls without MS. Most individuals were under 20 at the time of their first blood collection. Symptom onset for those who developed MS was a median of 10 years after the first sample was obtained.

Only one of the 801 MS case patients had no serologic evidence of EBV. This individual may have been infected with the virus after the last blood collection, failed to seroconvert in response to infection, or was misdiagnosed, the investigators note.

The hazard ratio for MS between EBV seroconversion versus persistent EBV seronegative was 32.4 (95% CI, 4.3-245.3; P < .001).
 

An MS vaccine?

MS risk was not increased after infection with cytomegalovirus, a herpesvirus that is transmitted through saliva, as is EBV.

Researchers measured serum concentrations of neurofilament light chain (sNflL), a biomarker of neuroaxonal degeneration, in samples from EBV-negative individuals at baseline. There were no signs of neuroaxonal degeneration before EBV seroconversion in subjects who later developed MS.

This indicates that “EBV infection preceded not only symptom onset but also the time of the first detectable pathological mechanisms underlying MS,” the investigators note.

The very magnitude of increased MS risk of MS observed EBV almost completely rules out confounding by known risk factors. Smoking and vitamin D deficiency double the risk, and genetic predisposition and childhood obesity also only raise the risks of MS to a “moderate” degree, said Dr. Ascherio.

It’s not clear why only some people infected with EBV go on to develop MS, he said.

The idea that reverse causation – that immune dysregulation during the preclinical phase of MS increases susceptibility to EBV infection – is unlikely, the investigators note. For instance, EBV seroconversion occurs before elevation of sNfL levels, an early marker of preclinical MS.

Since most MS cases appear to be caused by EBV, a suitable vaccine might thwart the disease. “A vaccine could, in theory, prevent infection and prevent MS,” said Dr. Ascherio, adding that there’s ongoing work to develop such a vaccine.

Another approach is to target the virus driving MS disease progression. Developing appropriate antivirals might treat and even cure MS, said Dr. Ascherio.
 

‘Compelling data’

In an accompanying commentary, William H. Robinson, MD, PhD, professor, Division of Immunology and Rheumatology, department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University, and a colleague said the study findings “provide compelling data that implicate EBV as the trigger for the development of MS.”

The mechanism or mechanisms by which EBV leads to MS “remain elusive,” the commentary authors write.

“Possibilities include molecular mimicry, through which EBV viral protein sequences mimic human myelin proteins and other CNS proteins and thereby induce autoimmunity against myelin and CNS antigens,” they note.

As other factors, including genetic susceptibility, are important to MS, EBV infection is likely necessary but not sufficient to trigger MS, said the commentary. “Infection with EBV is the initial pathogenic step in MS, but additional fuses must be ignited for the full pathophysiology.”

The commentary authors query whether there may be “new opportunities” for therapy with vaccines or antivirals. “Now that the initial trigger for MS has been identified, perhaps MS could be eradicated.”

In a statement from the Science Media Center, an independent venture promoting views from the scientific community, two other experts offered their take on the study.

Paul Farrell, PhD, professor of tumor virology, Imperial College London, said the paper “provides very clear confirmation of a causal role for EBV in most cases of MS.”

While there’s evidence that a vaccine can prevent the EBV disease infectious mononucleosis, no vaccine candidate has yet prevented the virus from infecting and establishing long-term persistence in people, noted Dr. Farrell.

“So, at this stage it is not clear whether a vaccine of the types currently being developed would be able to prevent the long-term effects of EBV in MS,” he said.

Daniel Davis, PhD, professor of immunology, University of Manchester, United Kingdom, commented that the value of this new discovery is not an immediate medical cure or treatment but is “a major step forward” in understanding MS.

The study “sets up new research working out the precise details of how this virus can sometimes lead to an autoimmune disease,” said Dr. Davis. “There is no shortage of ideas in how this might happen in principle and hopefully the correct details will emerge soon.”

The study received funding from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, the German Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Dr. Ascherio reports no relevant financial relaitonships. Dr. Robinson is a coinventor on a patent application filed by Stanford University that includes antibodies to EBV. Dr. Farrell reports serving on an ad hoc review panel for GSK on EBV vaccines in 2019 as a one off. He has a current grant from MRC on EBV biology, including some EBV sequence variation, but the grant is not about MS. Dr. Davis reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is the likely cause of multiple sclerosis (MS), new research confirms. Investigators found the risk of MS increased 32-fold following EBV infection.

This study is the first to provide compelling evidence of a causal link between EBV and MS, principal investigator Alberto Ascherio, MD, DrPH, professor of epidemiology, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, and professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

The “prevailing” view has been that MS is “an autoimmune disease of unknown etiology,” said Dr. Ascherio. “Now we know MS is a complication of a viral infection.” With this knowledge, he added, “we can redirect research” to find antiviral drugs to treat the disease.

The study was published online Jan. 13 in Science.
 

Unique dataset

A chronic disease of the central nervous system, MS involves an inflammatory attack on the myelin sheath and the axons it insulates. The disease affects 2.8 million people worldwide.

EBV is a human herpesvirus that can cause infectious mononucleosis. After infection, it persists in latent form in B-lymphocytes.

EBV is common and infects about 95% of adults. Most individuals are already infected with the virus by age 18 or 20 years, making it difficult to study uninfected populations, said Dr. Ascherio.

However, access to a “huge” database of more than 10 million active-duty U.S. service personnel made this possible, he said.

Service members are screened for HIV at the start of their service care and biennially thereafter. The investigators used stored blood samples to determine the relation between EBV infection and MS over a 20-year period from 1993 to 2013.

Researchers examined 801 MS case patients and 1,566 matched controls without MS. Most individuals were under 20 at the time of their first blood collection. Symptom onset for those who developed MS was a median of 10 years after the first sample was obtained.

Only one of the 801 MS case patients had no serologic evidence of EBV. This individual may have been infected with the virus after the last blood collection, failed to seroconvert in response to infection, or was misdiagnosed, the investigators note.

The hazard ratio for MS between EBV seroconversion versus persistent EBV seronegative was 32.4 (95% CI, 4.3-245.3; P < .001).
 

An MS vaccine?

MS risk was not increased after infection with cytomegalovirus, a herpesvirus that is transmitted through saliva, as is EBV.

Researchers measured serum concentrations of neurofilament light chain (sNflL), a biomarker of neuroaxonal degeneration, in samples from EBV-negative individuals at baseline. There were no signs of neuroaxonal degeneration before EBV seroconversion in subjects who later developed MS.

This indicates that “EBV infection preceded not only symptom onset but also the time of the first detectable pathological mechanisms underlying MS,” the investigators note.

The very magnitude of increased MS risk of MS observed EBV almost completely rules out confounding by known risk factors. Smoking and vitamin D deficiency double the risk, and genetic predisposition and childhood obesity also only raise the risks of MS to a “moderate” degree, said Dr. Ascherio.

It’s not clear why only some people infected with EBV go on to develop MS, he said.

The idea that reverse causation – that immune dysregulation during the preclinical phase of MS increases susceptibility to EBV infection – is unlikely, the investigators note. For instance, EBV seroconversion occurs before elevation of sNfL levels, an early marker of preclinical MS.

Since most MS cases appear to be caused by EBV, a suitable vaccine might thwart the disease. “A vaccine could, in theory, prevent infection and prevent MS,” said Dr. Ascherio, adding that there’s ongoing work to develop such a vaccine.

Another approach is to target the virus driving MS disease progression. Developing appropriate antivirals might treat and even cure MS, said Dr. Ascherio.
 

‘Compelling data’

In an accompanying commentary, William H. Robinson, MD, PhD, professor, Division of Immunology and Rheumatology, department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University, and a colleague said the study findings “provide compelling data that implicate EBV as the trigger for the development of MS.”

The mechanism or mechanisms by which EBV leads to MS “remain elusive,” the commentary authors write.

“Possibilities include molecular mimicry, through which EBV viral protein sequences mimic human myelin proteins and other CNS proteins and thereby induce autoimmunity against myelin and CNS antigens,” they note.

As other factors, including genetic susceptibility, are important to MS, EBV infection is likely necessary but not sufficient to trigger MS, said the commentary. “Infection with EBV is the initial pathogenic step in MS, but additional fuses must be ignited for the full pathophysiology.”

The commentary authors query whether there may be “new opportunities” for therapy with vaccines or antivirals. “Now that the initial trigger for MS has been identified, perhaps MS could be eradicated.”

In a statement from the Science Media Center, an independent venture promoting views from the scientific community, two other experts offered their take on the study.

Paul Farrell, PhD, professor of tumor virology, Imperial College London, said the paper “provides very clear confirmation of a causal role for EBV in most cases of MS.”

While there’s evidence that a vaccine can prevent the EBV disease infectious mononucleosis, no vaccine candidate has yet prevented the virus from infecting and establishing long-term persistence in people, noted Dr. Farrell.

“So, at this stage it is not clear whether a vaccine of the types currently being developed would be able to prevent the long-term effects of EBV in MS,” he said.

Daniel Davis, PhD, professor of immunology, University of Manchester, United Kingdom, commented that the value of this new discovery is not an immediate medical cure or treatment but is “a major step forward” in understanding MS.

The study “sets up new research working out the precise details of how this virus can sometimes lead to an autoimmune disease,” said Dr. Davis. “There is no shortage of ideas in how this might happen in principle and hopefully the correct details will emerge soon.”

The study received funding from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, the German Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Dr. Ascherio reports no relevant financial relaitonships. Dr. Robinson is a coinventor on a patent application filed by Stanford University that includes antibodies to EBV. Dr. Farrell reports serving on an ad hoc review panel for GSK on EBV vaccines in 2019 as a one off. He has a current grant from MRC on EBV biology, including some EBV sequence variation, but the grant is not about MS. Dr. Davis reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is the likely cause of multiple sclerosis (MS), new research confirms. Investigators found the risk of MS increased 32-fold following EBV infection.

This study is the first to provide compelling evidence of a causal link between EBV and MS, principal investigator Alberto Ascherio, MD, DrPH, professor of epidemiology, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, and professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

The “prevailing” view has been that MS is “an autoimmune disease of unknown etiology,” said Dr. Ascherio. “Now we know MS is a complication of a viral infection.” With this knowledge, he added, “we can redirect research” to find antiviral drugs to treat the disease.

The study was published online Jan. 13 in Science.
 

Unique dataset

A chronic disease of the central nervous system, MS involves an inflammatory attack on the myelin sheath and the axons it insulates. The disease affects 2.8 million people worldwide.

EBV is a human herpesvirus that can cause infectious mononucleosis. After infection, it persists in latent form in B-lymphocytes.

EBV is common and infects about 95% of adults. Most individuals are already infected with the virus by age 18 or 20 years, making it difficult to study uninfected populations, said Dr. Ascherio.

However, access to a “huge” database of more than 10 million active-duty U.S. service personnel made this possible, he said.

Service members are screened for HIV at the start of their service care and biennially thereafter. The investigators used stored blood samples to determine the relation between EBV infection and MS over a 20-year period from 1993 to 2013.

Researchers examined 801 MS case patients and 1,566 matched controls without MS. Most individuals were under 20 at the time of their first blood collection. Symptom onset for those who developed MS was a median of 10 years after the first sample was obtained.

Only one of the 801 MS case patients had no serologic evidence of EBV. This individual may have been infected with the virus after the last blood collection, failed to seroconvert in response to infection, or was misdiagnosed, the investigators note.

The hazard ratio for MS between EBV seroconversion versus persistent EBV seronegative was 32.4 (95% CI, 4.3-245.3; P < .001).
 

An MS vaccine?

MS risk was not increased after infection with cytomegalovirus, a herpesvirus that is transmitted through saliva, as is EBV.

Researchers measured serum concentrations of neurofilament light chain (sNflL), a biomarker of neuroaxonal degeneration, in samples from EBV-negative individuals at baseline. There were no signs of neuroaxonal degeneration before EBV seroconversion in subjects who later developed MS.

This indicates that “EBV infection preceded not only symptom onset but also the time of the first detectable pathological mechanisms underlying MS,” the investigators note.

The very magnitude of increased MS risk of MS observed EBV almost completely rules out confounding by known risk factors. Smoking and vitamin D deficiency double the risk, and genetic predisposition and childhood obesity also only raise the risks of MS to a “moderate” degree, said Dr. Ascherio.

It’s not clear why only some people infected with EBV go on to develop MS, he said.

The idea that reverse causation – that immune dysregulation during the preclinical phase of MS increases susceptibility to EBV infection – is unlikely, the investigators note. For instance, EBV seroconversion occurs before elevation of sNfL levels, an early marker of preclinical MS.

Since most MS cases appear to be caused by EBV, a suitable vaccine might thwart the disease. “A vaccine could, in theory, prevent infection and prevent MS,” said Dr. Ascherio, adding that there’s ongoing work to develop such a vaccine.

Another approach is to target the virus driving MS disease progression. Developing appropriate antivirals might treat and even cure MS, said Dr. Ascherio.
 

‘Compelling data’

In an accompanying commentary, William H. Robinson, MD, PhD, professor, Division of Immunology and Rheumatology, department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University, and a colleague said the study findings “provide compelling data that implicate EBV as the trigger for the development of MS.”

The mechanism or mechanisms by which EBV leads to MS “remain elusive,” the commentary authors write.

“Possibilities include molecular mimicry, through which EBV viral protein sequences mimic human myelin proteins and other CNS proteins and thereby induce autoimmunity against myelin and CNS antigens,” they note.

As other factors, including genetic susceptibility, are important to MS, EBV infection is likely necessary but not sufficient to trigger MS, said the commentary. “Infection with EBV is the initial pathogenic step in MS, but additional fuses must be ignited for the full pathophysiology.”

The commentary authors query whether there may be “new opportunities” for therapy with vaccines or antivirals. “Now that the initial trigger for MS has been identified, perhaps MS could be eradicated.”

In a statement from the Science Media Center, an independent venture promoting views from the scientific community, two other experts offered their take on the study.

Paul Farrell, PhD, professor of tumor virology, Imperial College London, said the paper “provides very clear confirmation of a causal role for EBV in most cases of MS.”

While there’s evidence that a vaccine can prevent the EBV disease infectious mononucleosis, no vaccine candidate has yet prevented the virus from infecting and establishing long-term persistence in people, noted Dr. Farrell.

“So, at this stage it is not clear whether a vaccine of the types currently being developed would be able to prevent the long-term effects of EBV in MS,” he said.

Daniel Davis, PhD, professor of immunology, University of Manchester, United Kingdom, commented that the value of this new discovery is not an immediate medical cure or treatment but is “a major step forward” in understanding MS.

The study “sets up new research working out the precise details of how this virus can sometimes lead to an autoimmune disease,” said Dr. Davis. “There is no shortage of ideas in how this might happen in principle and hopefully the correct details will emerge soon.”

The study received funding from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, the German Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Dr. Ascherio reports no relevant financial relaitonships. Dr. Robinson is a coinventor on a patent application filed by Stanford University that includes antibodies to EBV. Dr. Farrell reports serving on an ad hoc review panel for GSK on EBV vaccines in 2019 as a one off. He has a current grant from MRC on EBV biology, including some EBV sequence variation, but the grant is not about MS. Dr. Davis reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The recently published “Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Tick-Borne Illness,” from the Wilderness Medical Society, are a good compilation of treatment suggestions but are not, in fact, new recommendations, lead author Benjamin Ho, MD, of Southern Wisconsin Emergency Associates in Janesville, acknowledged in an interview.

Dr. Ho emphasized that the focus of the report was on “practitioners who practice in resource-limited settings” and are “the group’s way of solidifying a ... standard of practice” for such physicians. Dr. Ho also said that, while “a lot of the recommendations aren’t well supported, the risk-benefit ratio, we believe, supports the recommendations.”

The article first reviewed the different types of ticks and their distribution in the United States, the specific pathogen associated with each, the disease it causes, and comments about seasonal variations in biting behavior. Another table outlines the most common clinical syndromes, typical lab findings, recommended diagnostic testing, and antibiotic treatments. A third section contains images of different types of ticks and photos of ticks in various life-cycle stages and different levels of engorgement.

The authors were careful to note: “Several tick species are able to carry multiple pathogens. In one study, nearly 25% of Ixodes were coinfected with some combination of the bacteria or parasites causing Lyme disease, anaplasmosis, or babesiosis. Although TBI [tick-borne illness] diagnosis is not the focus of this [clinical practice guideline], providers should be aware of high rates of coinfection; the presence of one TBI should in many instances prompt testing for others.”

In terms of recommendations for preventing TBIs, the authors challenge the suggestion of wearing light-colored clothing. For repellents, they recommend DEET, picaridin, and permethrin. And they also give instructions for laundering clothing and removing ticks.

One recommendation is controversial: that of providing single-dose doxycycline as prophylaxis against Lyme disease. Dr. Ho stresses that this was only for “high-risk” tick bites, defined as a tick bite from an identified Ixodes vector species in which the tick was attached for at least 36 hours and that occurred in an endemic area.

The recommendation for prophylactic doxycycline originated with an article by Robert Nadelman and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine and has been strongly challenged by ILADS (International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society) physicians, including Daniel Cameron, MD, and others.

Sam Donta, MD, a recent member of the Department of Health & Human Services Tick-borne Working Group and a member of the Infectious Disease Society of America, said in an interview: “The problem with the one-dose doxycycline is you may not begin to develop symptoms until 2 months later.” It might mask the early symptoms of Lyme. “My impression is that the doxycycline – even the single dose – might have abrogated the ability to see an immune response. The idea, though, if you’ve had a tick bite, is to do nothing and to wait for symptoms to develop. That becomes a little bit more complex. But even then, you could choose to follow the patient and see the patient in 2 weeks and then get blood testing.”

Dr. Donta added: “I think the screening test is inadequate. So you have to go directly to the Western blot. And you have to do both the IgM and IgG” and look for specific bands.

Dr. Donta emphasized that patients should be encouraged to save any ticks that were attached and that, if at all possible, ticks should be sent to a reference lab for testing before committing a patient to a course of antibiotics. There is no harm in that brief delay, he said, and most labs can identify an array of pathogens.

The Wilderness Society guidelines on TBIs provide a good overview for clinicians practicing in limited resource settings and mirror those from the IDSA.

Dr. Ho and Dr. Donta reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The recently published “Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Tick-Borne Illness,” from the Wilderness Medical Society, are a good compilation of treatment suggestions but are not, in fact, new recommendations, lead author Benjamin Ho, MD, of Southern Wisconsin Emergency Associates in Janesville, acknowledged in an interview.

Dr. Ho emphasized that the focus of the report was on “practitioners who practice in resource-limited settings” and are “the group’s way of solidifying a ... standard of practice” for such physicians. Dr. Ho also said that, while “a lot of the recommendations aren’t well supported, the risk-benefit ratio, we believe, supports the recommendations.”

The article first reviewed the different types of ticks and their distribution in the United States, the specific pathogen associated with each, the disease it causes, and comments about seasonal variations in biting behavior. Another table outlines the most common clinical syndromes, typical lab findings, recommended diagnostic testing, and antibiotic treatments. A third section contains images of different types of ticks and photos of ticks in various life-cycle stages and different levels of engorgement.

The authors were careful to note: “Several tick species are able to carry multiple pathogens. In one study, nearly 25% of Ixodes were coinfected with some combination of the bacteria or parasites causing Lyme disease, anaplasmosis, or babesiosis. Although TBI [tick-borne illness] diagnosis is not the focus of this [clinical practice guideline], providers should be aware of high rates of coinfection; the presence of one TBI should in many instances prompt testing for others.”

In terms of recommendations for preventing TBIs, the authors challenge the suggestion of wearing light-colored clothing. For repellents, they recommend DEET, picaridin, and permethrin. And they also give instructions for laundering clothing and removing ticks.

One recommendation is controversial: that of providing single-dose doxycycline as prophylaxis against Lyme disease. Dr. Ho stresses that this was only for “high-risk” tick bites, defined as a tick bite from an identified Ixodes vector species in which the tick was attached for at least 36 hours and that occurred in an endemic area.

The recommendation for prophylactic doxycycline originated with an article by Robert Nadelman and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine and has been strongly challenged by ILADS (International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society) physicians, including Daniel Cameron, MD, and others.

Sam Donta, MD, a recent member of the Department of Health & Human Services Tick-borne Working Group and a member of the Infectious Disease Society of America, said in an interview: “The problem with the one-dose doxycycline is you may not begin to develop symptoms until 2 months later.” It might mask the early symptoms of Lyme. “My impression is that the doxycycline – even the single dose – might have abrogated the ability to see an immune response. The idea, though, if you’ve had a tick bite, is to do nothing and to wait for symptoms to develop. That becomes a little bit more complex. But even then, you could choose to follow the patient and see the patient in 2 weeks and then get blood testing.”

Dr. Donta added: “I think the screening test is inadequate. So you have to go directly to the Western blot. And you have to do both the IgM and IgG” and look for specific bands.

Dr. Donta emphasized that patients should be encouraged to save any ticks that were attached and that, if at all possible, ticks should be sent to a reference lab for testing before committing a patient to a course of antibiotics. There is no harm in that brief delay, he said, and most labs can identify an array of pathogens.

The Wilderness Society guidelines on TBIs provide a good overview for clinicians practicing in limited resource settings and mirror those from the IDSA.

Dr. Ho and Dr. Donta reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The recently published “Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Tick-Borne Illness,” from the Wilderness Medical Society, are a good compilation of treatment suggestions but are not, in fact, new recommendations, lead author Benjamin Ho, MD, of Southern Wisconsin Emergency Associates in Janesville, acknowledged in an interview.

Dr. Ho emphasized that the focus of the report was on “practitioners who practice in resource-limited settings” and are “the group’s way of solidifying a ... standard of practice” for such physicians. Dr. Ho also said that, while “a lot of the recommendations aren’t well supported, the risk-benefit ratio, we believe, supports the recommendations.”

The article first reviewed the different types of ticks and their distribution in the United States, the specific pathogen associated with each, the disease it causes, and comments about seasonal variations in biting behavior. Another table outlines the most common clinical syndromes, typical lab findings, recommended diagnostic testing, and antibiotic treatments. A third section contains images of different types of ticks and photos of ticks in various life-cycle stages and different levels of engorgement.

The authors were careful to note: “Several tick species are able to carry multiple pathogens. In one study, nearly 25% of Ixodes were coinfected with some combination of the bacteria or parasites causing Lyme disease, anaplasmosis, or babesiosis. Although TBI [tick-borne illness] diagnosis is not the focus of this [clinical practice guideline], providers should be aware of high rates of coinfection; the presence of one TBI should in many instances prompt testing for others.”

In terms of recommendations for preventing TBIs, the authors challenge the suggestion of wearing light-colored clothing. For repellents, they recommend DEET, picaridin, and permethrin. And they also give instructions for laundering clothing and removing ticks.

One recommendation is controversial: that of providing single-dose doxycycline as prophylaxis against Lyme disease. Dr. Ho stresses that this was only for “high-risk” tick bites, defined as a tick bite from an identified Ixodes vector species in which the tick was attached for at least 36 hours and that occurred in an endemic area.

The recommendation for prophylactic doxycycline originated with an article by Robert Nadelman and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine and has been strongly challenged by ILADS (International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society) physicians, including Daniel Cameron, MD, and others.

Sam Donta, MD, a recent member of the Department of Health & Human Services Tick-borne Working Group and a member of the Infectious Disease Society of America, said in an interview: “The problem with the one-dose doxycycline is you may not begin to develop symptoms until 2 months later.” It might mask the early symptoms of Lyme. “My impression is that the doxycycline – even the single dose – might have abrogated the ability to see an immune response. The idea, though, if you’ve had a tick bite, is to do nothing and to wait for symptoms to develop. That becomes a little bit more complex. But even then, you could choose to follow the patient and see the patient in 2 weeks and then get blood testing.”

Dr. Donta added: “I think the screening test is inadequate. So you have to go directly to the Western blot. And you have to do both the IgM and IgG” and look for specific bands.

Dr. Donta emphasized that patients should be encouraged to save any ticks that were attached and that, if at all possible, ticks should be sent to a reference lab for testing before committing a patient to a course of antibiotics. There is no harm in that brief delay, he said, and most labs can identify an array of pathogens.

The Wilderness Society guidelines on TBIs provide a good overview for clinicians practicing in limited resource settings and mirror those from the IDSA.

Dr. Ho and Dr. Donta reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Orally dissolving medications containing buprenorphine are linked to severe dental problems, including total tooth loss, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warns in a safety communication.

The oral side effects of these medications, which are used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) and pain, include cavities/tooth decay, including rampant caries; dental abscesses/infection; tooth erosion; fillings falling out; and, in some cases, total tooth loss.

More than 300 reported cases

Buprenorphine was approved in 2002 as a sublingual tablet, and in 2015 as a film to be placed inside the cheek to treat pain. Both delivery methods have been associated with dental problems.

Since buprenorphine was approved, the FDA has identified 305 cases of dental problems associated with orally dissolving buprenorphine, including 131 classified as serious.

There may be other cases, the FDA says, as this represents only cases reported to the FDA or published in the medical literature.

The average age of the patients who developed dental problems while taking buprenorphine is 42 years, but those as young as 18 years old were also affected.

Most cases occurred in patients using the medicines for OUD; however, 28 cases of dental problems occurred in patients using it to treat pain.

In 26 cases, patients had no prior history of dental problems. Some dental problems developed as soon as 2 weeks after treatment began; the median time to diagnosis was about 2 years after starting treatment.

Among all 305 cases reported, 113 involved two or more teeth.

The most common treatment for the dental problems was tooth extraction/removal, which was reported in 71 cases. Other cases required root canals, dental surgery, and other procedures such as crowns and implants.
 

Recommendations

The FDA says health care providers should counsel patients that severe and extensive tooth decay, tooth loss, and tooth fracture have been reported with the use of transmucosal buprenorphine-containing medicines and emphasize the importance of visiting their dentist to closely monitor their teeth.

Patients should be counseled to continue taking buprenorphine medications as prescribed and not stop suddenly without first talking to their health care provider, as this could lead to serious consequences, including relapse, misuse or abuse of other opioids, overdose, and death.

Patients are also being advised to take extra steps to help lessen the risk of serious dental problems.

Patients should also be educated on strategies to maintain or improve oral health while taking transmucosal buprenorphine medicines.

Counsel them that after the medicine is completely dissolved, the patient should take a large sip of water, swish it gently around the teeth and gums, swallow, and wait at least 1 hour before brushing their teeth, as the FDA advises. This will allow time for the mouth to gradually return to oral homeostasis and avoid any mechanical damage that may occur due to brushing.

The FDA also advises that patients tell their provider about any history of tooth problems, including cavities, and schedule a dentist visit soon after starting the medicine.

Dental problems related to transmucosal buprenorphine-containing medicines should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

Orally dissolving medications containing buprenorphine are linked to severe dental problems, including total tooth loss, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warns in a safety communication.

The oral side effects of these medications, which are used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) and pain, include cavities/tooth decay, including rampant caries; dental abscesses/infection; tooth erosion; fillings falling out; and, in some cases, total tooth loss.

More than 300 reported cases

Buprenorphine was approved in 2002 as a sublingual tablet, and in 2015 as a film to be placed inside the cheek to treat pain. Both delivery methods have been associated with dental problems.

Since buprenorphine was approved, the FDA has identified 305 cases of dental problems associated with orally dissolving buprenorphine, including 131 classified as serious.

There may be other cases, the FDA says, as this represents only cases reported to the FDA or published in the medical literature.

The average age of the patients who developed dental problems while taking buprenorphine is 42 years, but those as young as 18 years old were also affected.

Most cases occurred in patients using the medicines for OUD; however, 28 cases of dental problems occurred in patients using it to treat pain.

In 26 cases, patients had no prior history of dental problems. Some dental problems developed as soon as 2 weeks after treatment began; the median time to diagnosis was about 2 years after starting treatment.

Among all 305 cases reported, 113 involved two or more teeth.

The most common treatment for the dental problems was tooth extraction/removal, which was reported in 71 cases. Other cases required root canals, dental surgery, and other procedures such as crowns and implants.
 

Recommendations

The FDA says health care providers should counsel patients that severe and extensive tooth decay, tooth loss, and tooth fracture have been reported with the use of transmucosal buprenorphine-containing medicines and emphasize the importance of visiting their dentist to closely monitor their teeth.

Patients should be counseled to continue taking buprenorphine medications as prescribed and not stop suddenly without first talking to their health care provider, as this could lead to serious consequences, including relapse, misuse or abuse of other opioids, overdose, and death.

Patients are also being advised to take extra steps to help lessen the risk of serious dental problems.

Patients should also be educated on strategies to maintain or improve oral health while taking transmucosal buprenorphine medicines.

Counsel them that after the medicine is completely dissolved, the patient should take a large sip of water, swish it gently around the teeth and gums, swallow, and wait at least 1 hour before brushing their teeth, as the FDA advises. This will allow time for the mouth to gradually return to oral homeostasis and avoid any mechanical damage that may occur due to brushing.

The FDA also advises that patients tell their provider about any history of tooth problems, including cavities, and schedule a dentist visit soon after starting the medicine.

Dental problems related to transmucosal buprenorphine-containing medicines should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

Orally dissolving medications containing buprenorphine are linked to severe dental problems, including total tooth loss, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warns in a safety communication.

The oral side effects of these medications, which are used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) and pain, include cavities/tooth decay, including rampant caries; dental abscesses/infection; tooth erosion; fillings falling out; and, in some cases, total tooth loss.

More than 300 reported cases

Buprenorphine was approved in 2002 as a sublingual tablet, and in 2015 as a film to be placed inside the cheek to treat pain. Both delivery methods have been associated with dental problems.

Since buprenorphine was approved, the FDA has identified 305 cases of dental problems associated with orally dissolving buprenorphine, including 131 classified as serious.

There may be other cases, the FDA says, as this represents only cases reported to the FDA or published in the medical literature.

The average age of the patients who developed dental problems while taking buprenorphine is 42 years, but those as young as 18 years old were also affected.

Most cases occurred in patients using the medicines for OUD; however, 28 cases of dental problems occurred in patients using it to treat pain.

In 26 cases, patients had no prior history of dental problems. Some dental problems developed as soon as 2 weeks after treatment began; the median time to diagnosis was about 2 years after starting treatment.

Among all 305 cases reported, 113 involved two or more teeth.

The most common treatment for the dental problems was tooth extraction/removal, which was reported in 71 cases. Other cases required root canals, dental surgery, and other procedures such as crowns and implants.
 

Recommendations

The FDA says health care providers should counsel patients that severe and extensive tooth decay, tooth loss, and tooth fracture have been reported with the use of transmucosal buprenorphine-containing medicines and emphasize the importance of visiting their dentist to closely monitor their teeth.

Patients should be counseled to continue taking buprenorphine medications as prescribed and not stop suddenly without first talking to their health care provider, as this could lead to serious consequences, including relapse, misuse or abuse of other opioids, overdose, and death.

Patients are also being advised to take extra steps to help lessen the risk of serious dental problems.

Patients should also be educated on strategies to maintain or improve oral health while taking transmucosal buprenorphine medicines.

Counsel them that after the medicine is completely dissolved, the patient should take a large sip of water, swish it gently around the teeth and gums, swallow, and wait at least 1 hour before brushing their teeth, as the FDA advises. This will allow time for the mouth to gradually return to oral homeostasis and avoid any mechanical damage that may occur due to brushing.

The FDA also advises that patients tell their provider about any history of tooth problems, including cavities, and schedule a dentist visit soon after starting the medicine.

Dental problems related to transmucosal buprenorphine-containing medicines should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has now recommended using Sanofi’s dengue vaccine, Dengvaxia, in the United States, with specific restrictions. The vaccine is only to be used for children aged 9-16 who live in endemic areas and who have evidence with a specific diagnostic test of prior dengue infection.

Dengue is a mosquito-borne virus found throughout the world, primarily in tropical or subtropical climates. Cases had steadily been increasing to 5.2 million in 2019, and the geographic distribution of cases is broadening with climate change and urbanization. About half of the world’s population is now at risk.

The dengue virus has four serotypes. The first infection may be mild or asymptomatic, but the second one can be life-threatening because of a phenomenon called antibody-dependent enhancement.

The lead author of the new recommendations is Gabriela Paz-Bailey, MD, PhD, division of vector-borne diseases, dengue branch, CDC. She told this news organization that, during the second infection, when there are “low levels of antibodies from that first infection, the antibodies help the virus get inside the cells. There the virus is not killed, and that results in increased viral load, and then that can result in more severe disease and the plasma leakage” syndrome, which can lead to shock, severe bleeding, and organ failure. The death rate for severe dengue is up to 13%.

Previous infection with Zika virus, common in the same areas where dengue is endemic, can also increase the risk for symptomatic and severe dengue for subsequent infections.

In the United States, Puerto Rico is the main focus of control efforts because 95% of domestic dengue cases originate there – almost 30,000 cases between 2010 and 2020, with 11,000 cases and 4,000 hospitalizations occurring in children between the ages of 10 and 19.

Because Aedes aegypti, the primary mosquito vector transmitting dengue, is resistant to all commonly used insecticides in Puerto Rico, preventive efforts have shifted from insecticides to vaccination.