Federal Practitioner

The more fast food restaurants a person lives near in the United States, the more likely they are to develop type 2 diabetes, new research indicates.  

The national study of more than 4 million U.S. veterans also found the opposite association with supermarkets in suburban and rural communities but not others.

“Neighborhood food environment was associated with type 2 diabetes risk among U.S. veterans in multiple community types, suggesting potential avenues for action to address the burden of type 2 diabetes,” say Rania Kanchi, MPH, of the department of population health, New York University Langone Health, and colleagues.

Restriction of fast food establishments could benefit all types of communities, while interventions to increase supermarket availability could help minimize diabetes risk in suburban and rural communities, they stress.

“These actions, combined with increasing awareness of the risk of type 2 diabetes and the importance of healthy diet intake, might be associated with a decrease in the burden of type 2 diabetes among adults in the U.S.,” the researchers add.

The data were published online Oct. 29 in JAMA Network Open.

“The more we learn about the relationship between the food environment and chronic diseases like type 2 diabetes, the more policymakers can act by improving the mix of healthy food options sold in restaurants and food outlets, or by creating better zoning laws that promote optimal food options for residents,” commented Lorna Thorpe, PhD, MPH, professor in the department of population health at NYU Langone and senior author of the study in a press release.

In an accompanying editorial, Elham Hatef, MD, MPH, of the Center for Population Health IT at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, calls the study “a great example of the capabilities of [health information technology] to provide a comprehensive assessment of a person’s health, which goes beyond just documenting clinical diseases and medical interventions.”
 

Research has large geographic breadth

The study is notable for its large geographic breadth, say the researchers.

“Most studies that examine the built food environment and its relationship to chronic diseases have been much smaller or conducted in localized areas,” Ms. Kanchi said in the press statement.

“Our study design is national in scope and allowed us to identify the types of communities that people are living in, characterize their food environment, and observe what happens to them over time. The size of our cohort allows for geographic generalizability in a way that other studies do not,” Ms. Kanchi continued.

The research included data for 4,100,650 individuals from the Veterans Affairs electronic health records (EHRs) who didn’t have type 2 diabetes at baseline, between 2008 and 2016. After a median follow-up of 5.5 person-years, 13.2% developed type 2 diabetes. Cumulative incidence was greater among those who were older, those who were non-Hispanic Black compared with other races, and those with disabilities and lower incomes.

The proportion of adults with type 2 diabetes was highest among those living in high-density urban communities (14.3%), followed by low-density urban (13.1%), rural (13.2%), and suburban (12.6%) communities.

Overall, a 10% increase in the number of fast food restaurants compared with other food establishments in a given neighborhood was associated with a 1% increased risk for incident type 2 diabetes in high-density urban, low-density urban, and rural communities and a 2% increased risk in suburban communities.

In contrast, a 10% increase in supermarket density compared with other food stores was associated with a lower risk for type 2 diabetes in suburban and rural communities, but the association wasn’t significant elsewhere.

“Taken together, our findings suggest that policies specific to fast food restaurants, such as [those] ... restricting the siting of fast food restaurants and healthy beverage default laws, may be effective in reducing type 2 diabetes risk in all community types,” say the authors.

“In urban areas where population and retail density are growing, it will be even more important to focus on these policies,” they emphasize.
 

Great example of capabilities of health information technology

In the editorial, Dr. Hatef notes that methodological advances, such as natural language processing and machine learning, have enabled health systems to use real-world data such as the free-text notes in the EHR to identify patient-level risk factors for diseases or disease complications.

Such methods could be further used to “evaluate the associations between social needs and place-based [social determinants of health] and type 2 diabetes incidence and management,” Dr. Hatef adds.

And linkage of data from the EHR to such community-level data “would help to comprehensively assess and identify patients likely to experience type 2 diabetes and its complications as a result of their risk factors or characteristics of the neighborhoods where they reside.”

“This approach could foster collaborations between the health systems and at-risk communities they serve and help to reallocate health system resources to those in most need in the community to reduce the burden of type 2 diabetes and other chronic conditions among racial minority groups and socioeconomically disadvantaged patients and to advance population health.”

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Institute of Aging, the Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement program funded by the Pennsylvania Department of Health, the Urban Health Collaborative at Drexel University, and the Built Environment and Health Research Group at Columbia University. Ms. Kanchi and Dr. Hatef have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The more fast food restaurants a person lives near in the United States, the more likely they are to develop type 2 diabetes, new research indicates.  

The national study of more than 4 million U.S. veterans also found the opposite association with supermarkets in suburban and rural communities but not others.

“Neighborhood food environment was associated with type 2 diabetes risk among U.S. veterans in multiple community types, suggesting potential avenues for action to address the burden of type 2 diabetes,” say Rania Kanchi, MPH, of the department of population health, New York University Langone Health, and colleagues.

Restriction of fast food establishments could benefit all types of communities, while interventions to increase supermarket availability could help minimize diabetes risk in suburban and rural communities, they stress.

“These actions, combined with increasing awareness of the risk of type 2 diabetes and the importance of healthy diet intake, might be associated with a decrease in the burden of type 2 diabetes among adults in the U.S.,” the researchers add.

The data were published online Oct. 29 in JAMA Network Open.

“The more we learn about the relationship between the food environment and chronic diseases like type 2 diabetes, the more policymakers can act by improving the mix of healthy food options sold in restaurants and food outlets, or by creating better zoning laws that promote optimal food options for residents,” commented Lorna Thorpe, PhD, MPH, professor in the department of population health at NYU Langone and senior author of the study in a press release.

In an accompanying editorial, Elham Hatef, MD, MPH, of the Center for Population Health IT at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, calls the study “a great example of the capabilities of [health information technology] to provide a comprehensive assessment of a person’s health, which goes beyond just documenting clinical diseases and medical interventions.”
 

Research has large geographic breadth

The study is notable for its large geographic breadth, say the researchers.

“Most studies that examine the built food environment and its relationship to chronic diseases have been much smaller or conducted in localized areas,” Ms. Kanchi said in the press statement.

“Our study design is national in scope and allowed us to identify the types of communities that people are living in, characterize their food environment, and observe what happens to them over time. The size of our cohort allows for geographic generalizability in a way that other studies do not,” Ms. Kanchi continued.

The research included data for 4,100,650 individuals from the Veterans Affairs electronic health records (EHRs) who didn’t have type 2 diabetes at baseline, between 2008 and 2016. After a median follow-up of 5.5 person-years, 13.2% developed type 2 diabetes. Cumulative incidence was greater among those who were older, those who were non-Hispanic Black compared with other races, and those with disabilities and lower incomes.

The proportion of adults with type 2 diabetes was highest among those living in high-density urban communities (14.3%), followed by low-density urban (13.1%), rural (13.2%), and suburban (12.6%) communities.

Overall, a 10% increase in the number of fast food restaurants compared with other food establishments in a given neighborhood was associated with a 1% increased risk for incident type 2 diabetes in high-density urban, low-density urban, and rural communities and a 2% increased risk in suburban communities.

In contrast, a 10% increase in supermarket density compared with other food stores was associated with a lower risk for type 2 diabetes in suburban and rural communities, but the association wasn’t significant elsewhere.

“Taken together, our findings suggest that policies specific to fast food restaurants, such as [those] ... restricting the siting of fast food restaurants and healthy beverage default laws, may be effective in reducing type 2 diabetes risk in all community types,” say the authors.

“In urban areas where population and retail density are growing, it will be even more important to focus on these policies,” they emphasize.
 

Great example of capabilities of health information technology

In the editorial, Dr. Hatef notes that methodological advances, such as natural language processing and machine learning, have enabled health systems to use real-world data such as the free-text notes in the EHR to identify patient-level risk factors for diseases or disease complications.

Such methods could be further used to “evaluate the associations between social needs and place-based [social determinants of health] and type 2 diabetes incidence and management,” Dr. Hatef adds.

And linkage of data from the EHR to such community-level data “would help to comprehensively assess and identify patients likely to experience type 2 diabetes and its complications as a result of their risk factors or characteristics of the neighborhoods where they reside.”

“This approach could foster collaborations between the health systems and at-risk communities they serve and help to reallocate health system resources to those in most need in the community to reduce the burden of type 2 diabetes and other chronic conditions among racial minority groups and socioeconomically disadvantaged patients and to advance population health.”

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Institute of Aging, the Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement program funded by the Pennsylvania Department of Health, the Urban Health Collaborative at Drexel University, and the Built Environment and Health Research Group at Columbia University. Ms. Kanchi and Dr. Hatef have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The more fast food restaurants a person lives near in the United States, the more likely they are to develop type 2 diabetes, new research indicates.  

The national study of more than 4 million U.S. veterans also found the opposite association with supermarkets in suburban and rural communities but not others.

“Neighborhood food environment was associated with type 2 diabetes risk among U.S. veterans in multiple community types, suggesting potential avenues for action to address the burden of type 2 diabetes,” say Rania Kanchi, MPH, of the department of population health, New York University Langone Health, and colleagues.

Restriction of fast food establishments could benefit all types of communities, while interventions to increase supermarket availability could help minimize diabetes risk in suburban and rural communities, they stress.

“These actions, combined with increasing awareness of the risk of type 2 diabetes and the importance of healthy diet intake, might be associated with a decrease in the burden of type 2 diabetes among adults in the U.S.,” the researchers add.

The data were published online Oct. 29 in JAMA Network Open.

“The more we learn about the relationship between the food environment and chronic diseases like type 2 diabetes, the more policymakers can act by improving the mix of healthy food options sold in restaurants and food outlets, or by creating better zoning laws that promote optimal food options for residents,” commented Lorna Thorpe, PhD, MPH, professor in the department of population health at NYU Langone and senior author of the study in a press release.

In an accompanying editorial, Elham Hatef, MD, MPH, of the Center for Population Health IT at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, calls the study “a great example of the capabilities of [health information technology] to provide a comprehensive assessment of a person’s health, which goes beyond just documenting clinical diseases and medical interventions.”
 

Research has large geographic breadth

The study is notable for its large geographic breadth, say the researchers.

“Most studies that examine the built food environment and its relationship to chronic diseases have been much smaller or conducted in localized areas,” Ms. Kanchi said in the press statement.

“Our study design is national in scope and allowed us to identify the types of communities that people are living in, characterize their food environment, and observe what happens to them over time. The size of our cohort allows for geographic generalizability in a way that other studies do not,” Ms. Kanchi continued.

The research included data for 4,100,650 individuals from the Veterans Affairs electronic health records (EHRs) who didn’t have type 2 diabetes at baseline, between 2008 and 2016. After a median follow-up of 5.5 person-years, 13.2% developed type 2 diabetes. Cumulative incidence was greater among those who were older, those who were non-Hispanic Black compared with other races, and those with disabilities and lower incomes.

The proportion of adults with type 2 diabetes was highest among those living in high-density urban communities (14.3%), followed by low-density urban (13.1%), rural (13.2%), and suburban (12.6%) communities.

Overall, a 10% increase in the number of fast food restaurants compared with other food establishments in a given neighborhood was associated with a 1% increased risk for incident type 2 diabetes in high-density urban, low-density urban, and rural communities and a 2% increased risk in suburban communities.

In contrast, a 10% increase in supermarket density compared with other food stores was associated with a lower risk for type 2 diabetes in suburban and rural communities, but the association wasn’t significant elsewhere.

“Taken together, our findings suggest that policies specific to fast food restaurants, such as [those] ... restricting the siting of fast food restaurants and healthy beverage default laws, may be effective in reducing type 2 diabetes risk in all community types,” say the authors.

“In urban areas where population and retail density are growing, it will be even more important to focus on these policies,” they emphasize.
 

Great example of capabilities of health information technology

In the editorial, Dr. Hatef notes that methodological advances, such as natural language processing and machine learning, have enabled health systems to use real-world data such as the free-text notes in the EHR to identify patient-level risk factors for diseases or disease complications.

Such methods could be further used to “evaluate the associations between social needs and place-based [social determinants of health] and type 2 diabetes incidence and management,” Dr. Hatef adds.

And linkage of data from the EHR to such community-level data “would help to comprehensively assess and identify patients likely to experience type 2 diabetes and its complications as a result of their risk factors or characteristics of the neighborhoods where they reside.”

“This approach could foster collaborations between the health systems and at-risk communities they serve and help to reallocate health system resources to those in most need in the community to reduce the burden of type 2 diabetes and other chronic conditions among racial minority groups and socioeconomically disadvantaged patients and to advance population health.”

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Institute of Aging, the Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement program funded by the Pennsylvania Department of Health, the Urban Health Collaborative at Drexel University, and the Built Environment and Health Research Group at Columbia University. Ms. Kanchi and Dr. Hatef have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study has found that physical therapy may lead to a reduced risk of long-term opioid use in patients who have undergone total knee replacement (TKR).

ChooChin/Getty Images

“Greater number of PT intervention sessions and earlier initiation of outpatient PT care after TKR were associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use,” authors from Boston University wrote in their report on the study, which was published online Oct. 27 in JAMA Network Open.

“In previous large studies, we’ve seen that physical therapy can reduce pain in people with knee osteoarthritis, which is usually the primary indication for TKR,” study coauthor Deepak Kumar, PT, PhD, said in an interview. “But the association of physical therapy with opioid use in people with knee replacement has not yet been explored.

“The reason we focused on opioid use in these patients is because the number of knee replacement surgeries is going up exponentially,” Dr. Kumar said. “And, depending on which data you look at, from one-third to up to half of people who undergo knee replacement and have used opioids before end up becoming long-term users. Even in people who have not used them before, 5%-8% become long-term users after the surgery.

“Given how many surgeries are happening – and that number is expected to keep going up – the number of people who are becoming long-term opioid users is not trivial,” he said.
 

Study details

To assess the value of PT in reducing opioid use in this subset of patients, the authors reviewed records from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse insurance claims database to identify 67,322 eligible participants aged 40 or older who underwent TKR from Jan. 1, 2001, to Dec. 31, 2016. Of those patients, 38,408 were opioid naive and 28,914 had taken opioids before. The authors evaluated long-term opioid use – defined as 90 days or more of filled prescriptions – during a 12-month outcome assessment period that varied depending on differences in post-TKR PT start date and duration.

The researchers found a significantly lower likelihood of long-term opioid use associated with receipt of any PT before TKR among patients who had not taken opioids before (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.95) and those who had taken opioids in the past (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70-0.80).

Investigators found that 2.2% of participants in the opioid-naive group and 32.5% of those in the opioid-experienced group used opioids long-term after TKR. Approximately 76% of participants overall received outpatient PT within the 90 days after surgery, and the receipt of post-TKR PT at any point was associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use in the opioid-experienced group (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70-0.79).

Among the opioid-experienced group, receiving between 6 and 12 PT sessions (aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.75-0.90) or ≥ 13 sessions (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77) were both associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use, compared with those who received 1-5 sessions. Beginning PT 31-60 days or 61-90 days after surgery was associated with greater odds of long-term opioid use across both cohorts, compared with those who initiated therapy within 30 days of TKR.
 

Physical therapy: Underexplored option for pain in knee replacement

One finding caught the researchers slightly off guard: There was no association between active physical therapy and reduced odds of long-term opioid use. “From prior studies, at least in people with knee osteoarthritis, we know that active interventions were more useful than passive interventions,” Dr. Kumar said.

That said, he added that there is still some professional uncertainty regarding “the right type or the right components of physical therapy for managing pain in this population.” Regardless, he believes their study emphasizes the benefits of PT as a pain alleviator in these patients, especially those who have previously used opioids.

“Pharmaceuticals have side effects. Injections are not super effective,” he said. “The idea behind focusing on physical therapy interventions is that it’s widely available, it does you no harm, and it could potentially be lower cost to both the payers and the providers.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including not adjusting for opioid use within the 90 days after surgery as well as the different outcome assessment periods for pre-TKR and post-TKR PT exposures. In addition, they admitted that some of the patients who received PT could have been among those less likely to be treated with opioids, and vice versa. “A randomized clinical trial,” they wrote, “would be required to disentangle these issues.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Kumar reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study and grants from Pfizer for unrelated projects outside the submitted work. The full list of author disclosures can be found with the original article.

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

A new study has found that physical therapy may lead to a reduced risk of long-term opioid use in patients who have undergone total knee replacement (TKR).

ChooChin/Getty Images

“Greater number of PT intervention sessions and earlier initiation of outpatient PT care after TKR were associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use,” authors from Boston University wrote in their report on the study, which was published online Oct. 27 in JAMA Network Open.

“In previous large studies, we’ve seen that physical therapy can reduce pain in people with knee osteoarthritis, which is usually the primary indication for TKR,” study coauthor Deepak Kumar, PT, PhD, said in an interview. “But the association of physical therapy with opioid use in people with knee replacement has not yet been explored.

“The reason we focused on opioid use in these patients is because the number of knee replacement surgeries is going up exponentially,” Dr. Kumar said. “And, depending on which data you look at, from one-third to up to half of people who undergo knee replacement and have used opioids before end up becoming long-term users. Even in people who have not used them before, 5%-8% become long-term users after the surgery.

“Given how many surgeries are happening – and that number is expected to keep going up – the number of people who are becoming long-term opioid users is not trivial,” he said.
 

Study details

To assess the value of PT in reducing opioid use in this subset of patients, the authors reviewed records from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse insurance claims database to identify 67,322 eligible participants aged 40 or older who underwent TKR from Jan. 1, 2001, to Dec. 31, 2016. Of those patients, 38,408 were opioid naive and 28,914 had taken opioids before. The authors evaluated long-term opioid use – defined as 90 days or more of filled prescriptions – during a 12-month outcome assessment period that varied depending on differences in post-TKR PT start date and duration.

The researchers found a significantly lower likelihood of long-term opioid use associated with receipt of any PT before TKR among patients who had not taken opioids before (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.95) and those who had taken opioids in the past (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70-0.80).

Investigators found that 2.2% of participants in the opioid-naive group and 32.5% of those in the opioid-experienced group used opioids long-term after TKR. Approximately 76% of participants overall received outpatient PT within the 90 days after surgery, and the receipt of post-TKR PT at any point was associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use in the opioid-experienced group (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70-0.79).

Among the opioid-experienced group, receiving between 6 and 12 PT sessions (aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.75-0.90) or ≥ 13 sessions (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77) were both associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use, compared with those who received 1-5 sessions. Beginning PT 31-60 days or 61-90 days after surgery was associated with greater odds of long-term opioid use across both cohorts, compared with those who initiated therapy within 30 days of TKR.
 

Physical therapy: Underexplored option for pain in knee replacement

One finding caught the researchers slightly off guard: There was no association between active physical therapy and reduced odds of long-term opioid use. “From prior studies, at least in people with knee osteoarthritis, we know that active interventions were more useful than passive interventions,” Dr. Kumar said.

That said, he added that there is still some professional uncertainty regarding “the right type or the right components of physical therapy for managing pain in this population.” Regardless, he believes their study emphasizes the benefits of PT as a pain alleviator in these patients, especially those who have previously used opioids.

“Pharmaceuticals have side effects. Injections are not super effective,” he said. “The idea behind focusing on physical therapy interventions is that it’s widely available, it does you no harm, and it could potentially be lower cost to both the payers and the providers.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including not adjusting for opioid use within the 90 days after surgery as well as the different outcome assessment periods for pre-TKR and post-TKR PT exposures. In addition, they admitted that some of the patients who received PT could have been among those less likely to be treated with opioids, and vice versa. “A randomized clinical trial,” they wrote, “would be required to disentangle these issues.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Kumar reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study and grants from Pfizer for unrelated projects outside the submitted work. The full list of author disclosures can be found with the original article.

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

A new study has found that physical therapy may lead to a reduced risk of long-term opioid use in patients who have undergone total knee replacement (TKR).

ChooChin/Getty Images

“Greater number of PT intervention sessions and earlier initiation of outpatient PT care after TKR were associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use,” authors from Boston University wrote in their report on the study, which was published online Oct. 27 in JAMA Network Open.

“In previous large studies, we’ve seen that physical therapy can reduce pain in people with knee osteoarthritis, which is usually the primary indication for TKR,” study coauthor Deepak Kumar, PT, PhD, said in an interview. “But the association of physical therapy with opioid use in people with knee replacement has not yet been explored.

“The reason we focused on opioid use in these patients is because the number of knee replacement surgeries is going up exponentially,” Dr. Kumar said. “And, depending on which data you look at, from one-third to up to half of people who undergo knee replacement and have used opioids before end up becoming long-term users. Even in people who have not used them before, 5%-8% become long-term users after the surgery.

“Given how many surgeries are happening – and that number is expected to keep going up – the number of people who are becoming long-term opioid users is not trivial,” he said.
 

Study details

To assess the value of PT in reducing opioid use in this subset of patients, the authors reviewed records from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse insurance claims database to identify 67,322 eligible participants aged 40 or older who underwent TKR from Jan. 1, 2001, to Dec. 31, 2016. Of those patients, 38,408 were opioid naive and 28,914 had taken opioids before. The authors evaluated long-term opioid use – defined as 90 days or more of filled prescriptions – during a 12-month outcome assessment period that varied depending on differences in post-TKR PT start date and duration.

The researchers found a significantly lower likelihood of long-term opioid use associated with receipt of any PT before TKR among patients who had not taken opioids before (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.95) and those who had taken opioids in the past (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70-0.80).

Investigators found that 2.2% of participants in the opioid-naive group and 32.5% of those in the opioid-experienced group used opioids long-term after TKR. Approximately 76% of participants overall received outpatient PT within the 90 days after surgery, and the receipt of post-TKR PT at any point was associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use in the opioid-experienced group (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70-0.79).

Among the opioid-experienced group, receiving between 6 and 12 PT sessions (aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.75-0.90) or ≥ 13 sessions (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77) were both associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use, compared with those who received 1-5 sessions. Beginning PT 31-60 days or 61-90 days after surgery was associated with greater odds of long-term opioid use across both cohorts, compared with those who initiated therapy within 30 days of TKR.
 

Physical therapy: Underexplored option for pain in knee replacement

One finding caught the researchers slightly off guard: There was no association between active physical therapy and reduced odds of long-term opioid use. “From prior studies, at least in people with knee osteoarthritis, we know that active interventions were more useful than passive interventions,” Dr. Kumar said.

That said, he added that there is still some professional uncertainty regarding “the right type or the right components of physical therapy for managing pain in this population.” Regardless, he believes their study emphasizes the benefits of PT as a pain alleviator in these patients, especially those who have previously used opioids.

“Pharmaceuticals have side effects. Injections are not super effective,” he said. “The idea behind focusing on physical therapy interventions is that it’s widely available, it does you no harm, and it could potentially be lower cost to both the payers and the providers.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including not adjusting for opioid use within the 90 days after surgery as well as the different outcome assessment periods for pre-TKR and post-TKR PT exposures. In addition, they admitted that some of the patients who received PT could have been among those less likely to be treated with opioids, and vice versa. “A randomized clinical trial,” they wrote, “would be required to disentangle these issues.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Kumar reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study and grants from Pfizer for unrelated projects outside the submitted work. The full list of author disclosures can be found with the original article.

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

Almost all physicians write prescriptions, and each prescription requires a physician to assess the risks and benefits of the drug. If an adverse drug reaction occurs, physicians may be called on to defend their risk-benefit assessment in court.

The assessment of risk is complicated when there is a boxed warning that describes potentially serious and life-threatening adverse reactions associated with a drug. Some of our most commonly prescribed drugs have boxed warnings, and drugs that were initially approved by the Food and Drug Administration without boxed warnings may have them added years later.

One serious problem with boxed warnings is that there are no reliable mechanisms for making sure that physicians are aware of them. The warnings are typically not seen by physicians as printed product labels, just as physicians often don’t see the pills and capsules that they prescribe. Pharmacists who receive packaged drugs from manufacturers may be the only ones to see an actual printed boxed warning, but even those pharmacists have little reason to read each label and note changes when handling many bulk packages.

This problem is aggravated by misperceptions that many physicians have about boxed warnings and the increasingly intense scrutiny given to them by mass media and the courts. Lawyers can use boxed warnings to make a drug look dangerous, even when it’s not, and to make physicians look reckless when prescribing it. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand what boxed warnings are, what they are not, the problems they cause, and how to minimize these problems.
 

What is a ‘boxed warning’?

The marketing and sale of drugs in the United States requires approval by the FDA. Approval requires manufacturers to prepare a document containing “Full Prescribing Information” for the drug and to include a printed copy in every package of the drug that is sold. This document is commonly called a “package insert,” but the FDA designates this document as the manufacturer’s product “label.”

In 1979, the FDA began requiring some labels to appear within thick, black rectangular borders; these have come to be known as boxed warnings. Boxed warnings are usually placed at the beginning of a label. They may be added to the label of a previously approved drug already on the market or included in the product label when first approved and marketed.

The requirement for a boxed warning most often arises when a signal appears during review of postmarketing surveillance data suggesting a possible and plausible association between a drug and an adverse reaction. Warnings may also be initiated in response to petitions from public interest groups, or upon the discovery of serious toxicity in animals. Regardless of their origin, the intent of a boxed warning is to highlight information that may have important therapeutic consequences and warrants heightened awareness among physicians.
 

What a boxed warning is not

A boxed warning is not “issued” by the FDA; it is merely required by the FDA. Specific wording or a template may be suggested by the FDA, but product labels and boxed warnings are written and issued by the manufacturer. This distinction may seem minor, but extensive litigation has occurred over whether manufacturers have met their duty to warn consumers about possible risks when using their products, and this duty cannot be shifted to the FDA.

A boxed warning may not be added to a product label at the option of a manufacturer. The FDA allows a boxed warning only if it requires the warning, to preserve its impact. It should be noted that some medical information sources (e.g., PDR.net) may include a “BOXED WARNING” in their drug monographs, but monographs not written by a manufacturer are not regulated by the FDA, and the text of their boxed warnings do not always correspond to the boxed warning that was approved by the FDA.

A boxed warning is not an indication that revocation of FDA approval is being considered or that it is likely to be revoked. FDA approval is subject to ongoing review and may be revoked at any time, without a prior boxed warning.

A boxed warning is not the highest level of warning. The FDA may require a manufacturer to send out a “Dear Health Care Provider” (DHCP) letter when an even higher or more urgent level of warning is deemed necessary. DHCP letters are usually accompanied by revisions of the product label, but most label revisions – and even most boxed warnings – are not accompanied by DHCP letters.

A boxed warning is not a statement about causation. Most warnings describe an “association” between a drug and an adverse effect, or “increased risk,” or instances of a particular adverse effect that “have been reported” in persons taking a drug. The words in a boxed warning are carefully chosen and require careful reading; in most cases they refrain from stating that a drug actually causes an adverse effect. The postmarketing surveillance data on which most warnings are based generally cannot provide the kind of evidence required to establish causation, and an association may be nothing more than an uncommon manifestation of the disorder for which the drug has been prescribed.

A boxed warning is not a statement about the probability of an adverse reaction occurring. The requirement for a boxed warning correlates better to the new recognition of a possible association than to the probability of an association. For example, penicillin has long been known to cause fatal anaphylaxis in 1/100,000 first-time administrations, but it does not have a boxed warning. The adverse consequences described in boxed warnings are often far less frequent – so much so that most physicians will never see them.

A boxed warning does not define the standard of care. The warning is a requirement imposed on the manufacturer, not on the practice of medicine. For legal purposes, the “standard of care” for the practice of medicine is defined state by state and is typically cast in terms such as “what most physicians would do in similar circumstances.” Physicians often prescribe drugs in spite of boxed warnings, just as they often prescribe drugs for “off label” indications, always balancing risk versus benefit.

A boxed warning does not constitute a contraindication to the use of a medication. Some warnings state that a drug is contraindicated in some situations, but product labels have another mandated section for listing contraindications, and most boxed warnings have no corresponding entry in that section.

A boxed warning does not necessarily constitute current information, nor is it always updated when new or contrary information becomes available. Revisions to boxed warnings, and to product labels in general, are made only after detailed review at the FDA, and the process of deciding whether an existing boxed warning continues to be appropriate may divert limited regulatory resources from more urgent priorities. Consequently, revisions to a boxed warning may lag behind the data that justify a revision by months or years. Revisions may never occur if softening or eliminating a boxed warning is deemed to be not worth the cost by a manufacturer.
 

Boxed warning problems for physicians

There is no reliable mechanism for manufacturers or the FDA to communicate boxed warnings directly to physicians, so it’s not clear how physicians are expected to stay informed about the issuance or revision of boxed warnings. They may first learn about new or revised warnings in the mass media, which is paying ever-increasing attention to press releases from the FDA. However, it can be difficult for the media to accurately convey the subtle and complex nature of a boxed warning in nontechnical terms.

Many physicians subscribe to various medical news alerts and attend continuing medical education (CME) programs, which often do an excellent job of highlighting new warnings, while hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies may broadcast news about boxed warnings in newsletters or other notices. But these notifications are ephemeral and may be missed by physicians who are overwhelmed by email, notices, newsletters, and CME programs.

The warnings that pop up in electronic medical records systems are often so numerous that physicians become trained to ignore them. Printed advertisements in professional journals must include mandated boxed warnings, but their visibility is waning as physicians increasingly read journals online.

Another conundrum is how to inform the public about boxed warnings.

Manufacturers are prohibited from direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs with boxed warnings, although the warnings are easily found on the Internet. Some patients expect and welcome detailed information from their physicians, so it’s a good policy to always and repeatedly review this information with them, especially if they are members of an identified risk group. However, that policy may be counterproductive if it dissuades anxious patients from needed therapy despite risk-benefit considerations that strongly favor it. Boxed warnings are well known to have “spillover effects” in which the aspersions cast by a boxed warning for a relatively small subgroup of patients causes use of a drug to decline among all patients.

Compounding this conundrum is that physicians rarely have sufficient information to gauge the magnitude of a risk, given that boxed warnings are often based on information from surveillance systems that cannot accurately quantify the risk or even establish a causal relationship. The text of a boxed warning generally does not provide the information needed for evidence-based clinical practice such as a quantitative estimate of effect, information about source and trustworthiness of the evidence, and guidance on implementation. For these and other reasons, FDA policies about various boxed warnings have been the target of significant criticism.

Medication guides are one mechanism to address the challenge of informing patients about the risks of drugs they are taking. FDA-approved medication guides are available for most drugs dispensed as outpatient prescriptions, they’re written in plain language for the consumer, and they include paraphrased versions of any boxed warning. Ideally, patients review these guides with their physicians or pharmacists, but the guides may be lengthy and raise questions that may not be answerable (e.g., about incidence rates). Patients may decline to review this information when a drug is prescribed or dispensed, and they may discard printed copies given to them without reading.
 

What can physicians do to minimize boxed warning problems?

Physicians should periodically review the product labels for drugs they commonly prescribe, including drugs they’ve prescribed for a long time. Prescription renewal requests can be used as a prompt to check for changes in a patient’s condition or other medications that might place a patient in the target population of a boxed warning. Physicians can subscribe to newsletters that announce and discuss significant product label changes, including alerts directly from the FDA. Physicians may also enlist their office staff to find and review boxed warnings for drugs being prescribed, noting which ones should require a conversation with any patient who has been or will be receiving this drug. They may want to make explicit mention in their encounter record that a boxed warning, medication guide, or overall risk-benefit assessment has been discussed.

Summary

The nature of boxed warnings, the means by which they are disseminated, and their role in clinical practice are all in great need of improvement. Until that occurs, boxed warnings offer some, but only very limited, help to patients and physicians who struggle to understand the risks of medications.

Dr. Axelsen is professor in the departments of pharmacology, biochemistry, and biophysics, and of medicine, infectious diseases section, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Almost all physicians write prescriptions, and each prescription requires a physician to assess the risks and benefits of the drug. If an adverse drug reaction occurs, physicians may be called on to defend their risk-benefit assessment in court.

The assessment of risk is complicated when there is a boxed warning that describes potentially serious and life-threatening adverse reactions associated with a drug. Some of our most commonly prescribed drugs have boxed warnings, and drugs that were initially approved by the Food and Drug Administration without boxed warnings may have them added years later.

One serious problem with boxed warnings is that there are no reliable mechanisms for making sure that physicians are aware of them. The warnings are typically not seen by physicians as printed product labels, just as physicians often don’t see the pills and capsules that they prescribe. Pharmacists who receive packaged drugs from manufacturers may be the only ones to see an actual printed boxed warning, but even those pharmacists have little reason to read each label and note changes when handling many bulk packages.

This problem is aggravated by misperceptions that many physicians have about boxed warnings and the increasingly intense scrutiny given to them by mass media and the courts. Lawyers can use boxed warnings to make a drug look dangerous, even when it’s not, and to make physicians look reckless when prescribing it. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand what boxed warnings are, what they are not, the problems they cause, and how to minimize these problems.
 

What is a ‘boxed warning’?

The marketing and sale of drugs in the United States requires approval by the FDA. Approval requires manufacturers to prepare a document containing “Full Prescribing Information” for the drug and to include a printed copy in every package of the drug that is sold. This document is commonly called a “package insert,” but the FDA designates this document as the manufacturer’s product “label.”

In 1979, the FDA began requiring some labels to appear within thick, black rectangular borders; these have come to be known as boxed warnings. Boxed warnings are usually placed at the beginning of a label. They may be added to the label of a previously approved drug already on the market or included in the product label when first approved and marketed.

The requirement for a boxed warning most often arises when a signal appears during review of postmarketing surveillance data suggesting a possible and plausible association between a drug and an adverse reaction. Warnings may also be initiated in response to petitions from public interest groups, or upon the discovery of serious toxicity in animals. Regardless of their origin, the intent of a boxed warning is to highlight information that may have important therapeutic consequences and warrants heightened awareness among physicians.
 

What a boxed warning is not

A boxed warning is not “issued” by the FDA; it is merely required by the FDA. Specific wording or a template may be suggested by the FDA, but product labels and boxed warnings are written and issued by the manufacturer. This distinction may seem minor, but extensive litigation has occurred over whether manufacturers have met their duty to warn consumers about possible risks when using their products, and this duty cannot be shifted to the FDA.

A boxed warning may not be added to a product label at the option of a manufacturer. The FDA allows a boxed warning only if it requires the warning, to preserve its impact. It should be noted that some medical information sources (e.g., PDR.net) may include a “BOXED WARNING” in their drug monographs, but monographs not written by a manufacturer are not regulated by the FDA, and the text of their boxed warnings do not always correspond to the boxed warning that was approved by the FDA.

A boxed warning is not an indication that revocation of FDA approval is being considered or that it is likely to be revoked. FDA approval is subject to ongoing review and may be revoked at any time, without a prior boxed warning.

A boxed warning is not the highest level of warning. The FDA may require a manufacturer to send out a “Dear Health Care Provider” (DHCP) letter when an even higher or more urgent level of warning is deemed necessary. DHCP letters are usually accompanied by revisions of the product label, but most label revisions – and even most boxed warnings – are not accompanied by DHCP letters.

A boxed warning is not a statement about causation. Most warnings describe an “association” between a drug and an adverse effect, or “increased risk,” or instances of a particular adverse effect that “have been reported” in persons taking a drug. The words in a boxed warning are carefully chosen and require careful reading; in most cases they refrain from stating that a drug actually causes an adverse effect. The postmarketing surveillance data on which most warnings are based generally cannot provide the kind of evidence required to establish causation, and an association may be nothing more than an uncommon manifestation of the disorder for which the drug has been prescribed.

A boxed warning is not a statement about the probability of an adverse reaction occurring. The requirement for a boxed warning correlates better to the new recognition of a possible association than to the probability of an association. For example, penicillin has long been known to cause fatal anaphylaxis in 1/100,000 first-time administrations, but it does not have a boxed warning. The adverse consequences described in boxed warnings are often far less frequent – so much so that most physicians will never see them.

A boxed warning does not define the standard of care. The warning is a requirement imposed on the manufacturer, not on the practice of medicine. For legal purposes, the “standard of care” for the practice of medicine is defined state by state and is typically cast in terms such as “what most physicians would do in similar circumstances.” Physicians often prescribe drugs in spite of boxed warnings, just as they often prescribe drugs for “off label” indications, always balancing risk versus benefit.

A boxed warning does not constitute a contraindication to the use of a medication. Some warnings state that a drug is contraindicated in some situations, but product labels have another mandated section for listing contraindications, and most boxed warnings have no corresponding entry in that section.

A boxed warning does not necessarily constitute current information, nor is it always updated when new or contrary information becomes available. Revisions to boxed warnings, and to product labels in general, are made only after detailed review at the FDA, and the process of deciding whether an existing boxed warning continues to be appropriate may divert limited regulatory resources from more urgent priorities. Consequently, revisions to a boxed warning may lag behind the data that justify a revision by months or years. Revisions may never occur if softening or eliminating a boxed warning is deemed to be not worth the cost by a manufacturer.
 

Boxed warning problems for physicians

There is no reliable mechanism for manufacturers or the FDA to communicate boxed warnings directly to physicians, so it’s not clear how physicians are expected to stay informed about the issuance or revision of boxed warnings. They may first learn about new or revised warnings in the mass media, which is paying ever-increasing attention to press releases from the FDA. However, it can be difficult for the media to accurately convey the subtle and complex nature of a boxed warning in nontechnical terms.

Many physicians subscribe to various medical news alerts and attend continuing medical education (CME) programs, which often do an excellent job of highlighting new warnings, while hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies may broadcast news about boxed warnings in newsletters or other notices. But these notifications are ephemeral and may be missed by physicians who are overwhelmed by email, notices, newsletters, and CME programs.

The warnings that pop up in electronic medical records systems are often so numerous that physicians become trained to ignore them. Printed advertisements in professional journals must include mandated boxed warnings, but their visibility is waning as physicians increasingly read journals online.

Another conundrum is how to inform the public about boxed warnings.

Manufacturers are prohibited from direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs with boxed warnings, although the warnings are easily found on the Internet. Some patients expect and welcome detailed information from their physicians, so it’s a good policy to always and repeatedly review this information with them, especially if they are members of an identified risk group. However, that policy may be counterproductive if it dissuades anxious patients from needed therapy despite risk-benefit considerations that strongly favor it. Boxed warnings are well known to have “spillover effects” in which the aspersions cast by a boxed warning for a relatively small subgroup of patients causes use of a drug to decline among all patients.

Compounding this conundrum is that physicians rarely have sufficient information to gauge the magnitude of a risk, given that boxed warnings are often based on information from surveillance systems that cannot accurately quantify the risk or even establish a causal relationship. The text of a boxed warning generally does not provide the information needed for evidence-based clinical practice such as a quantitative estimate of effect, information about source and trustworthiness of the evidence, and guidance on implementation. For these and other reasons, FDA policies about various boxed warnings have been the target of significant criticism.

Medication guides are one mechanism to address the challenge of informing patients about the risks of drugs they are taking. FDA-approved medication guides are available for most drugs dispensed as outpatient prescriptions, they’re written in plain language for the consumer, and they include paraphrased versions of any boxed warning. Ideally, patients review these guides with their physicians or pharmacists, but the guides may be lengthy and raise questions that may not be answerable (e.g., about incidence rates). Patients may decline to review this information when a drug is prescribed or dispensed, and they may discard printed copies given to them without reading.
 

What can physicians do to minimize boxed warning problems?

Physicians should periodically review the product labels for drugs they commonly prescribe, including drugs they’ve prescribed for a long time. Prescription renewal requests can be used as a prompt to check for changes in a patient’s condition or other medications that might place a patient in the target population of a boxed warning. Physicians can subscribe to newsletters that announce and discuss significant product label changes, including alerts directly from the FDA. Physicians may also enlist their office staff to find and review boxed warnings for drugs being prescribed, noting which ones should require a conversation with any patient who has been or will be receiving this drug. They may want to make explicit mention in their encounter record that a boxed warning, medication guide, or overall risk-benefit assessment has been discussed.

Summary

The nature of boxed warnings, the means by which they are disseminated, and their role in clinical practice are all in great need of improvement. Until that occurs, boxed warnings offer some, but only very limited, help to patients and physicians who struggle to understand the risks of medications.

Dr. Axelsen is professor in the departments of pharmacology, biochemistry, and biophysics, and of medicine, infectious diseases section, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Almost all physicians write prescriptions, and each prescription requires a physician to assess the risks and benefits of the drug. If an adverse drug reaction occurs, physicians may be called on to defend their risk-benefit assessment in court.

The assessment of risk is complicated when there is a boxed warning that describes potentially serious and life-threatening adverse reactions associated with a drug. Some of our most commonly prescribed drugs have boxed warnings, and drugs that were initially approved by the Food and Drug Administration without boxed warnings may have them added years later.

One serious problem with boxed warnings is that there are no reliable mechanisms for making sure that physicians are aware of them. The warnings are typically not seen by physicians as printed product labels, just as physicians often don’t see the pills and capsules that they prescribe. Pharmacists who receive packaged drugs from manufacturers may be the only ones to see an actual printed boxed warning, but even those pharmacists have little reason to read each label and note changes when handling many bulk packages.

This problem is aggravated by misperceptions that many physicians have about boxed warnings and the increasingly intense scrutiny given to them by mass media and the courts. Lawyers can use boxed warnings to make a drug look dangerous, even when it’s not, and to make physicians look reckless when prescribing it. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand what boxed warnings are, what they are not, the problems they cause, and how to minimize these problems.
 

What is a ‘boxed warning’?

The marketing and sale of drugs in the United States requires approval by the FDA. Approval requires manufacturers to prepare a document containing “Full Prescribing Information” for the drug and to include a printed copy in every package of the drug that is sold. This document is commonly called a “package insert,” but the FDA designates this document as the manufacturer’s product “label.”

In 1979, the FDA began requiring some labels to appear within thick, black rectangular borders; these have come to be known as boxed warnings. Boxed warnings are usually placed at the beginning of a label. They may be added to the label of a previously approved drug already on the market or included in the product label when first approved and marketed.

The requirement for a boxed warning most often arises when a signal appears during review of postmarketing surveillance data suggesting a possible and plausible association between a drug and an adverse reaction. Warnings may also be initiated in response to petitions from public interest groups, or upon the discovery of serious toxicity in animals. Regardless of their origin, the intent of a boxed warning is to highlight information that may have important therapeutic consequences and warrants heightened awareness among physicians.
 

What a boxed warning is not

A boxed warning is not “issued” by the FDA; it is merely required by the FDA. Specific wording or a template may be suggested by the FDA, but product labels and boxed warnings are written and issued by the manufacturer. This distinction may seem minor, but extensive litigation has occurred over whether manufacturers have met their duty to warn consumers about possible risks when using their products, and this duty cannot be shifted to the FDA.

A boxed warning may not be added to a product label at the option of a manufacturer. The FDA allows a boxed warning only if it requires the warning, to preserve its impact. It should be noted that some medical information sources (e.g., PDR.net) may include a “BOXED WARNING” in their drug monographs, but monographs not written by a manufacturer are not regulated by the FDA, and the text of their boxed warnings do not always correspond to the boxed warning that was approved by the FDA.

A boxed warning is not an indication that revocation of FDA approval is being considered or that it is likely to be revoked. FDA approval is subject to ongoing review and may be revoked at any time, without a prior boxed warning.

A boxed warning is not the highest level of warning. The FDA may require a manufacturer to send out a “Dear Health Care Provider” (DHCP) letter when an even higher or more urgent level of warning is deemed necessary. DHCP letters are usually accompanied by revisions of the product label, but most label revisions – and even most boxed warnings – are not accompanied by DHCP letters.

A boxed warning is not a statement about causation. Most warnings describe an “association” between a drug and an adverse effect, or “increased risk,” or instances of a particular adverse effect that “have been reported” in persons taking a drug. The words in a boxed warning are carefully chosen and require careful reading; in most cases they refrain from stating that a drug actually causes an adverse effect. The postmarketing surveillance data on which most warnings are based generally cannot provide the kind of evidence required to establish causation, and an association may be nothing more than an uncommon manifestation of the disorder for which the drug has been prescribed.

A boxed warning is not a statement about the probability of an adverse reaction occurring. The requirement for a boxed warning correlates better to the new recognition of a possible association than to the probability of an association. For example, penicillin has long been known to cause fatal anaphylaxis in 1/100,000 first-time administrations, but it does not have a boxed warning. The adverse consequences described in boxed warnings are often far less frequent – so much so that most physicians will never see them.

A boxed warning does not define the standard of care. The warning is a requirement imposed on the manufacturer, not on the practice of medicine. For legal purposes, the “standard of care” for the practice of medicine is defined state by state and is typically cast in terms such as “what most physicians would do in similar circumstances.” Physicians often prescribe drugs in spite of boxed warnings, just as they often prescribe drugs for “off label” indications, always balancing risk versus benefit.

A boxed warning does not constitute a contraindication to the use of a medication. Some warnings state that a drug is contraindicated in some situations, but product labels have another mandated section for listing contraindications, and most boxed warnings have no corresponding entry in that section.

A boxed warning does not necessarily constitute current information, nor is it always updated when new or contrary information becomes available. Revisions to boxed warnings, and to product labels in general, are made only after detailed review at the FDA, and the process of deciding whether an existing boxed warning continues to be appropriate may divert limited regulatory resources from more urgent priorities. Consequently, revisions to a boxed warning may lag behind the data that justify a revision by months or years. Revisions may never occur if softening or eliminating a boxed warning is deemed to be not worth the cost by a manufacturer.
 

Boxed warning problems for physicians

There is no reliable mechanism for manufacturers or the FDA to communicate boxed warnings directly to physicians, so it’s not clear how physicians are expected to stay informed about the issuance or revision of boxed warnings. They may first learn about new or revised warnings in the mass media, which is paying ever-increasing attention to press releases from the FDA. However, it can be difficult for the media to accurately convey the subtle and complex nature of a boxed warning in nontechnical terms.

Many physicians subscribe to various medical news alerts and attend continuing medical education (CME) programs, which often do an excellent job of highlighting new warnings, while hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies may broadcast news about boxed warnings in newsletters or other notices. But these notifications are ephemeral and may be missed by physicians who are overwhelmed by email, notices, newsletters, and CME programs.

The warnings that pop up in electronic medical records systems are often so numerous that physicians become trained to ignore them. Printed advertisements in professional journals must include mandated boxed warnings, but their visibility is waning as physicians increasingly read journals online.

Another conundrum is how to inform the public about boxed warnings.

Manufacturers are prohibited from direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs with boxed warnings, although the warnings are easily found on the Internet. Some patients expect and welcome detailed information from their physicians, so it’s a good policy to always and repeatedly review this information with them, especially if they are members of an identified risk group. However, that policy may be counterproductive if it dissuades anxious patients from needed therapy despite risk-benefit considerations that strongly favor it. Boxed warnings are well known to have “spillover effects” in which the aspersions cast by a boxed warning for a relatively small subgroup of patients causes use of a drug to decline among all patients.

Compounding this conundrum is that physicians rarely have sufficient information to gauge the magnitude of a risk, given that boxed warnings are often based on information from surveillance systems that cannot accurately quantify the risk or even establish a causal relationship. The text of a boxed warning generally does not provide the information needed for evidence-based clinical practice such as a quantitative estimate of effect, information about source and trustworthiness of the evidence, and guidance on implementation. For these and other reasons, FDA policies about various boxed warnings have been the target of significant criticism.

Medication guides are one mechanism to address the challenge of informing patients about the risks of drugs they are taking. FDA-approved medication guides are available for most drugs dispensed as outpatient prescriptions, they’re written in plain language for the consumer, and they include paraphrased versions of any boxed warning. Ideally, patients review these guides with their physicians or pharmacists, but the guides may be lengthy and raise questions that may not be answerable (e.g., about incidence rates). Patients may decline to review this information when a drug is prescribed or dispensed, and they may discard printed copies given to them without reading.
 

What can physicians do to minimize boxed warning problems?

Physicians should periodically review the product labels for drugs they commonly prescribe, including drugs they’ve prescribed for a long time. Prescription renewal requests can be used as a prompt to check for changes in a patient’s condition or other medications that might place a patient in the target population of a boxed warning. Physicians can subscribe to newsletters that announce and discuss significant product label changes, including alerts directly from the FDA. Physicians may also enlist their office staff to find and review boxed warnings for drugs being prescribed, noting which ones should require a conversation with any patient who has been or will be receiving this drug. They may want to make explicit mention in their encounter record that a boxed warning, medication guide, or overall risk-benefit assessment has been discussed.

Summary

The nature of boxed warnings, the means by which they are disseminated, and their role in clinical practice are all in great need of improvement. Until that occurs, boxed warnings offer some, but only very limited, help to patients and physicians who struggle to understand the risks of medications.

Dr. Axelsen is professor in the departments of pharmacology, biochemistry, and biophysics, and of medicine, infectious diseases section, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans are not confident that they understood their doctor’s recommendations and the health information they discussed with their doctor after a visit, according to a new survey.

Confusion over health information and doctor advice is even higher among people who care for patients than among those who don’t provide care to their loved ones, the nationally representative survey from the AHIMA Foundation found.

The survey also shows that 80% of Americans – and an even higher portion of caregivers – are likely to research medical recommendations online after a doctor’s visit. But 1 in 4 people don’t know how to access their own medical records or find it difficult to do so.

The findings reflect the same low level of health literacy in the U.S. population that earlier surveys did. The results also indicate that little has changed since the Department of Health and Human Services released a National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy in 2010.

That plan emphasized the need to develop and share accurate health information that helps people make decisions; to promote changes in the health care system that improve health information, communication, informed decision-making, and access to health services; and to increase the sharing and use of evidence-based health literacy practices.

According to the AHIMA Foundation report, 62% of Americans are not sure they understand their doctor’s advice and the health information discussed during a visit. Twenty-four percent say they don’t comprehend any of it, and 31% can’t remember what was said during the visit. Fifteen percent of those surveyed said they were more confused about their health than they were before the encounter with their doctor.
 

Caregivers have special issues

Forty-three percent of Americans are caregivers, the report notes, and 91% of those play an active role in managing someone else’s health. Millennials (65%) and Gen Xers (50%) are significantly more likely than Gen Zers (39%) and Boomers (20%) to be a caregiver.

Most caregivers have concerns about their loved ones’ ability to manage their own health. Most of them believe that doctors provide enough information, but 38% don’t believe a doctor can communicate effectively with the patient if the caregiver is not present.

Forty-three percent of caretakers don’t think their loved ones can understand medical information on their own. On the other hand, caregivers are more likely than people who don’t provide care to say the doctor confused them and to research the doctor’s advice after an appointment.

For many patients and caregivers, communications break down when they are with their health care provider. Twenty-two percent of Americans say they do not feel comfortable asking their doctor certain health questions. This inability to have a satisfactory dialogue with their doctor means that many patients leave their appointments without getting clear answers to their questions (24%) or without having an opportunity to ask any questions at all (17%).

This is not surprising, considering that a 2018 study found that doctors spend only 11 seconds, on average, listening to patients before interrupting them.
 

Depending on the internet

Overall, the AHIMA survey found, 42% of Americans research their doctor’s recommendations after an appointment. A higher percentage of caregivers than noncaregiver peers do so (47% vs. 38%). Eighty percent of respondents say they are “likely” to research their doctor’s advice online after a visit.

When they have a medical problem or a question about their condition, just as many Americans (59%) turn to the internet for an answer as contact their doctor directly, the survey found. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents consult friends, family, or colleagues; 23% look up medical records if they’re easily accessible; 19% ask pharmacists for advice; and 6% call an unspecified 800 number.

Americans feel secure in the health information they find on the internet. Among those who go online to look up information, 86% are confident that it is credible. And 42% report feeling relieved that they can find a lot of information about their health concerns. Respondents also say that the information they gather allows them to feel more confident in their doctor’s recommendations (35%) and that they feel better after having learned more on the internet than their doctor had told them (39%). Men are more likely than women to say that their confidence in their doctor’s recommendations increased after doing online research (40% vs. 30%).
 

Access to health records

Access to medical records would help people better understand their condition or diagnosis. But nearly half of Americans (48%) admit they don’t usually review their medical records until long after an appointment, and 52% say they rarely access their records at all.

One in four Americans say that they don’t know where to go to access their health information or that they didn’t find the process easy. More than half of those who have never had to find their records think the process would be difficult if they had to try.

Eighty-one percent of Americans use an online platform or portal to access their medical records or health information. Two-thirds of Americans who use an online portal trust that their medical information is kept safe and not shared with other people or organizations.

Four in five respondents agree that if they had access to all of their health information, including medical records, recommendations, conditions, and test results, they’d see an improvement in their health management. Fifty-nine percent of them believe they’d also be more confident about understanding their health, and 47% say they’d have greater trust in their doctor’s recommendations. Higher percentages of caregivers than noncaregivers say the same.

Younger people, those with a high school degree or less, and those who earn less than $50,000 are less likely than older, better educated, and more affluent people to understand their doctor’s health information and to ask questions of their providers.

People of color struggle with their relationships with doctors, are less satisfied than white people with the information they receive during visits, and are more likely than white peers to feel that if they had access to all their health information, they’d manage their health better and be more confident in their doctors’ recommendations, the survey found.

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

Nearly two-thirds of Americans are not confident that they understood their doctor’s recommendations and the health information they discussed with their doctor after a visit, according to a new survey.

Confusion over health information and doctor advice is even higher among people who care for patients than among those who don’t provide care to their loved ones, the nationally representative survey from the AHIMA Foundation found.

The survey also shows that 80% of Americans – and an even higher portion of caregivers – are likely to research medical recommendations online after a doctor’s visit. But 1 in 4 people don’t know how to access their own medical records or find it difficult to do so.

The findings reflect the same low level of health literacy in the U.S. population that earlier surveys did. The results also indicate that little has changed since the Department of Health and Human Services released a National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy in 2010.

That plan emphasized the need to develop and share accurate health information that helps people make decisions; to promote changes in the health care system that improve health information, communication, informed decision-making, and access to health services; and to increase the sharing and use of evidence-based health literacy practices.

According to the AHIMA Foundation report, 62% of Americans are not sure they understand their doctor’s advice and the health information discussed during a visit. Twenty-four percent say they don’t comprehend any of it, and 31% can’t remember what was said during the visit. Fifteen percent of those surveyed said they were more confused about their health than they were before the encounter with their doctor.
 

Caregivers have special issues

Forty-three percent of Americans are caregivers, the report notes, and 91% of those play an active role in managing someone else’s health. Millennials (65%) and Gen Xers (50%) are significantly more likely than Gen Zers (39%) and Boomers (20%) to be a caregiver.

Most caregivers have concerns about their loved ones’ ability to manage their own health. Most of them believe that doctors provide enough information, but 38% don’t believe a doctor can communicate effectively with the patient if the caregiver is not present.

Forty-three percent of caretakers don’t think their loved ones can understand medical information on their own. On the other hand, caregivers are more likely than people who don’t provide care to say the doctor confused them and to research the doctor’s advice after an appointment.

For many patients and caregivers, communications break down when they are with their health care provider. Twenty-two percent of Americans say they do not feel comfortable asking their doctor certain health questions. This inability to have a satisfactory dialogue with their doctor means that many patients leave their appointments without getting clear answers to their questions (24%) or without having an opportunity to ask any questions at all (17%).

This is not surprising, considering that a 2018 study found that doctors spend only 11 seconds, on average, listening to patients before interrupting them.
 

Depending on the internet

Overall, the AHIMA survey found, 42% of Americans research their doctor’s recommendations after an appointment. A higher percentage of caregivers than noncaregiver peers do so (47% vs. 38%). Eighty percent of respondents say they are “likely” to research their doctor’s advice online after a visit.

When they have a medical problem or a question about their condition, just as many Americans (59%) turn to the internet for an answer as contact their doctor directly, the survey found. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents consult friends, family, or colleagues; 23% look up medical records if they’re easily accessible; 19% ask pharmacists for advice; and 6% call an unspecified 800 number.

Americans feel secure in the health information they find on the internet. Among those who go online to look up information, 86% are confident that it is credible. And 42% report feeling relieved that they can find a lot of information about their health concerns. Respondents also say that the information they gather allows them to feel more confident in their doctor’s recommendations (35%) and that they feel better after having learned more on the internet than their doctor had told them (39%). Men are more likely than women to say that their confidence in their doctor’s recommendations increased after doing online research (40% vs. 30%).
 

Access to health records

Access to medical records would help people better understand their condition or diagnosis. But nearly half of Americans (48%) admit they don’t usually review their medical records until long after an appointment, and 52% say they rarely access their records at all.

One in four Americans say that they don’t know where to go to access their health information or that they didn’t find the process easy. More than half of those who have never had to find their records think the process would be difficult if they had to try.

Eighty-one percent of Americans use an online platform or portal to access their medical records or health information. Two-thirds of Americans who use an online portal trust that their medical information is kept safe and not shared with other people or organizations.

Four in five respondents agree that if they had access to all of their health information, including medical records, recommendations, conditions, and test results, they’d see an improvement in their health management. Fifty-nine percent of them believe they’d also be more confident about understanding their health, and 47% say they’d have greater trust in their doctor’s recommendations. Higher percentages of caregivers than noncaregivers say the same.

Younger people, those with a high school degree or less, and those who earn less than $50,000 are less likely than older, better educated, and more affluent people to understand their doctor’s health information and to ask questions of their providers.

People of color struggle with their relationships with doctors, are less satisfied than white people with the information they receive during visits, and are more likely than white peers to feel that if they had access to all their health information, they’d manage their health better and be more confident in their doctors’ recommendations, the survey found.

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

Nearly two-thirds of Americans are not confident that they understood their doctor’s recommendations and the health information they discussed with their doctor after a visit, according to a new survey.

Confusion over health information and doctor advice is even higher among people who care for patients than among those who don’t provide care to their loved ones, the nationally representative survey from the AHIMA Foundation found.

The survey also shows that 80% of Americans – and an even higher portion of caregivers – are likely to research medical recommendations online after a doctor’s visit. But 1 in 4 people don’t know how to access their own medical records or find it difficult to do so.

The findings reflect the same low level of health literacy in the U.S. population that earlier surveys did. The results also indicate that little has changed since the Department of Health and Human Services released a National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy in 2010.

That plan emphasized the need to develop and share accurate health information that helps people make decisions; to promote changes in the health care system that improve health information, communication, informed decision-making, and access to health services; and to increase the sharing and use of evidence-based health literacy practices.

According to the AHIMA Foundation report, 62% of Americans are not sure they understand their doctor’s advice and the health information discussed during a visit. Twenty-four percent say they don’t comprehend any of it, and 31% can’t remember what was said during the visit. Fifteen percent of those surveyed said they were more confused about their health than they were before the encounter with their doctor.
 

Caregivers have special issues

Forty-three percent of Americans are caregivers, the report notes, and 91% of those play an active role in managing someone else’s health. Millennials (65%) and Gen Xers (50%) are significantly more likely than Gen Zers (39%) and Boomers (20%) to be a caregiver.

Most caregivers have concerns about their loved ones’ ability to manage their own health. Most of them believe that doctors provide enough information, but 38% don’t believe a doctor can communicate effectively with the patient if the caregiver is not present.

Forty-three percent of caretakers don’t think their loved ones can understand medical information on their own. On the other hand, caregivers are more likely than people who don’t provide care to say the doctor confused them and to research the doctor’s advice after an appointment.

For many patients and caregivers, communications break down when they are with their health care provider. Twenty-two percent of Americans say they do not feel comfortable asking their doctor certain health questions. This inability to have a satisfactory dialogue with their doctor means that many patients leave their appointments without getting clear answers to their questions (24%) or without having an opportunity to ask any questions at all (17%).

This is not surprising, considering that a 2018 study found that doctors spend only 11 seconds, on average, listening to patients before interrupting them.
 

Depending on the internet

Overall, the AHIMA survey found, 42% of Americans research their doctor’s recommendations after an appointment. A higher percentage of caregivers than noncaregiver peers do so (47% vs. 38%). Eighty percent of respondents say they are “likely” to research their doctor’s advice online after a visit.

When they have a medical problem or a question about their condition, just as many Americans (59%) turn to the internet for an answer as contact their doctor directly, the survey found. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents consult friends, family, or colleagues; 23% look up medical records if they’re easily accessible; 19% ask pharmacists for advice; and 6% call an unspecified 800 number.

Americans feel secure in the health information they find on the internet. Among those who go online to look up information, 86% are confident that it is credible. And 42% report feeling relieved that they can find a lot of information about their health concerns. Respondents also say that the information they gather allows them to feel more confident in their doctor’s recommendations (35%) and that they feel better after having learned more on the internet than their doctor had told them (39%). Men are more likely than women to say that their confidence in their doctor’s recommendations increased after doing online research (40% vs. 30%).
 

Access to health records

Access to medical records would help people better understand their condition or diagnosis. But nearly half of Americans (48%) admit they don’t usually review their medical records until long after an appointment, and 52% say they rarely access their records at all.

One in four Americans say that they don’t know where to go to access their health information or that they didn’t find the process easy. More than half of those who have never had to find their records think the process would be difficult if they had to try.

Eighty-one percent of Americans use an online platform or portal to access their medical records or health information. Two-thirds of Americans who use an online portal trust that their medical information is kept safe and not shared with other people or organizations.

Four in five respondents agree that if they had access to all of their health information, including medical records, recommendations, conditions, and test results, they’d see an improvement in their health management. Fifty-nine percent of them believe they’d also be more confident about understanding their health, and 47% say they’d have greater trust in their doctor’s recommendations. Higher percentages of caregivers than noncaregivers say the same.

Younger people, those with a high school degree or less, and those who earn less than $50,000 are less likely than older, better educated, and more affluent people to understand their doctor’s health information and to ask questions of their providers.

People of color struggle with their relationships with doctors, are less satisfied than white people with the information they receive during visits, and are more likely than white peers to feel that if they had access to all their health information, they’d manage their health better and be more confident in their doctors’ recommendations, the survey found.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 to 11, which means vaccines could be available to school-aged children starting next week.

The move brings families with young children a step closer to resuming their normal activities, and it should help further slow transmission of the coronavirus virus in the United States.

States have already placed their orders for initial doses of the vaccines. The Oct. 29 FDA authorization triggers the shipment of millions of doses to pediatricians, family practice doctors, children’s hospitals, community health centers, and pharmacies.

Next, a panel of experts known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, will meet Nov. 2 to vote on recommendations for use of the vaccine.

As soon as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director signs off on those recommendations, children can get the shots, perhaps as early as Nov. 3.

Pfizer’s vaccine for children is 10 micrograms, or one-third of the dose given to teens and adults. Kids get two doses of the vaccine 3 weeks apart. In clinical trials, the most common side effects were pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. These side effects were mild and disappeared quickly. There were no serious adverse events detected in the studies, which included about 3,100 children. In one study, the vaccine was 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 infections with symptoms in younger children.

There are about 28 million children in the United States between the ages of 5 and 12.

“As a mother and a physician, I know that parents, caregivers, school staff, and children have been waiting for today’s authorization. Vaccinating younger children against COVID-19 will bring us closer to returning to a sense of normalcy,” Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in an FDA news release.

“Our comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the data pertaining to the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness should help assure parents and guardians that this vaccine meets our high standards,” she said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 to 11, which means vaccines could be available to school-aged children starting next week.

The move brings families with young children a step closer to resuming their normal activities, and it should help further slow transmission of the coronavirus virus in the United States.

States have already placed their orders for initial doses of the vaccines. The Oct. 29 FDA authorization triggers the shipment of millions of doses to pediatricians, family practice doctors, children’s hospitals, community health centers, and pharmacies.

Next, a panel of experts known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, will meet Nov. 2 to vote on recommendations for use of the vaccine.

As soon as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director signs off on those recommendations, children can get the shots, perhaps as early as Nov. 3.

Pfizer’s vaccine for children is 10 micrograms, or one-third of the dose given to teens and adults. Kids get two doses of the vaccine 3 weeks apart. In clinical trials, the most common side effects were pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. These side effects were mild and disappeared quickly. There were no serious adverse events detected in the studies, which included about 3,100 children. In one study, the vaccine was 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 infections with symptoms in younger children.

There are about 28 million children in the United States between the ages of 5 and 12.

“As a mother and a physician, I know that parents, caregivers, school staff, and children have been waiting for today’s authorization. Vaccinating younger children against COVID-19 will bring us closer to returning to a sense of normalcy,” Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in an FDA news release.

“Our comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the data pertaining to the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness should help assure parents and guardians that this vaccine meets our high standards,” she said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 to 11, which means vaccines could be available to school-aged children starting next week.

The move brings families with young children a step closer to resuming their normal activities, and it should help further slow transmission of the coronavirus virus in the United States.

States have already placed their orders for initial doses of the vaccines. The Oct. 29 FDA authorization triggers the shipment of millions of doses to pediatricians, family practice doctors, children’s hospitals, community health centers, and pharmacies.

Next, a panel of experts known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, will meet Nov. 2 to vote on recommendations for use of the vaccine.

As soon as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director signs off on those recommendations, children can get the shots, perhaps as early as Nov. 3.

Pfizer’s vaccine for children is 10 micrograms, or one-third of the dose given to teens and adults. Kids get two doses of the vaccine 3 weeks apart. In clinical trials, the most common side effects were pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. These side effects were mild and disappeared quickly. There were no serious adverse events detected in the studies, which included about 3,100 children. In one study, the vaccine was 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 infections with symptoms in younger children.

There are about 28 million children in the United States between the ages of 5 and 12.

“As a mother and a physician, I know that parents, caregivers, school staff, and children have been waiting for today’s authorization. Vaccinating younger children against COVID-19 will bring us closer to returning to a sense of normalcy,” Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in an FDA news release.

“Our comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the data pertaining to the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness should help assure parents and guardians that this vaccine meets our high standards,” she said.

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

U.S. regulators have made it easier for physicians, patients, and researchers to determine the status of cancer medicines cleared for sale based on limited evidence, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.

On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:

• Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals 
• Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
• Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals

The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.

There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.

Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.

In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.

This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.

“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
 

Excel files, regular updates

For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.

For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.

The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.

The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.

Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.

“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.

The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.

More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.

“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.

However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals. 

These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”

This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.

A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.

Six of these withdrawals happened this year.

There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.

Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.

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

U.S. regulators have made it easier for physicians, patients, and researchers to determine the status of cancer medicines cleared for sale based on limited evidence, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.

On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:

• Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals 
• Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
• Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals

The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.

There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.

Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.

In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.

This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.

“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
 

Excel files, regular updates

For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.

For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.

The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.

The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.

Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.

“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.

The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.

More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.

“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.

However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals. 

These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”

This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.

A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.

Six of these withdrawals happened this year.

There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.

Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.

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

U.S. regulators have made it easier for physicians, patients, and researchers to determine the status of cancer medicines cleared for sale based on limited evidence, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.

On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:

• Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals 
• Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
• Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals

The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.

There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.

Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.

In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.

This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.

“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
 

Excel files, regular updates

For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.

For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.

The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.

The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.

Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.

“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.

The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.

More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.

“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.

However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals. 

These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”

This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.

A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.

Six of these withdrawals happened this year.

There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.

Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.

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

The antidepressant fluvoxamine (Luvox) may prevent hospitalization and death in outpatients with COVID-19, new research suggests.

HconQ/ThinkStock

Results from the placebo-controlled, multisite, phase 3 TOGETHER trial showed that in COVID-19 outpatients at high risk for complications, hospitalizations were cut by 66% and deaths were reduced by 91% in those who tolerated fluvoxamine.

“Our trial has found that fluvoxamine, an inexpensive existing drug, reduces the need for advanced disease care in this high-risk population,” wrote the investigators, led by Gilmar Reis, MD, PhD, research division, Cardresearch, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

The findings were published online Oct. 27 in The Lancet Global Health.
 

Alternative mechanisms

Fluvoxamine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), is an antidepressant commonly prescribed for obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Besides its known effects on serotonin, the drug acts in other molecular pathways to dampen the production of inflammatory cytokines. Those alternative mechanisms are the ones believed to help patients with COVID-19, said coinvestigator Angela Reiersen, MD, child psychiatrist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Based on cell culture and mouse studies showing effects of the molecule’s binding to the sigma-1 receptor in the endoplasmic reticulum, Dr. Reiersen came up with the idea of testing if fluvoxamine could keep COVID-19 from progressing in newly infected patients.

Dr. Reiersen and psychiatrist Eric Lenze, MD, also from Washington University, led the phase 2 trial that initially suggested fluvoxamine’s promise as an outpatient medication. They are coinvestigators on the new phase 3 adaptive platform trial called TOGETHER, which was conducted by an international team of investigators in Brazil, Canada, and the United States.

For this latest study, researchers at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., partnered with the research clinic Cardresearch in Brazil to recruit unvaccinated, high-risk adults within 7 days of developing flu-like symptoms from COVID-19. They analyzed 1,497 newly symptomatic COVID-19 patients at 11 clinical sites in Brazil.

Patients entered the trial between January and August 2021 and were assigned to receive 100 mg fluvoxamine or placebo pills twice a day for 10 days. Investigators monitored participants through 28 days post treatment, noting whether complications developed requiring hospitalization or more than 6 hours of emergency care.

In the placebo group, 119 of 756 patients (15.7%) worsened to this extent. In comparison, 79 of 741 (10.7%) fluvoxamine-treated patients met these primary criteria. This represented a 32% reduction in hospitalizations and emergency visits.
 

Additional analysis requested

As Lancet Global Health reviewed these findings from the submitted manuscript, journal reviewers requested an additional “pre-protocol analysis” that was not specified in the trial’s original protocol. The request was to examine the subgroup of patients with good adherence (74% of treated group, 82% of placebo group).

Among these three quarters of patients who took at least 80% of their doses, benefits were better.

Fluvoxamine cut serious complications in this group by 66% and reduced mortality by 91%. In the placebo group, 12 people died compared with one who received the study drug.

Based on accumulating data, Dr. Reiersen said, some experts are recommending fluvoxamine for COVID-19 patients at high risk for morbidity and mortality from complications of the infection.

However, clinicians should note that the drug can cause side effects such as nausea, dizziness, and insomnia, she added. In addition, because it prevents the body from metabolizing caffeine, patients should limit their daily intake to half of a small cup of coffee or one can of soda or one tea while taking the drug.

Previous research has shown that fluvoxamine affects the metabolism of some drugs, such as theophylline, clozapine, olanzapine, and tizanidine.

Despite huge challenges with studying generic drugs as early COVID-19 treatment, the TOGETHER trial shows it is possible to produce quality evidence during a pandemic on a shoestring budget, noted co-principal investigator Edward Mills, PhD, professor in the department of health research methods, evidence, and impact at McMaster University.

To screen more than 12,000 patients and enroll 4,000 to test nine interventions, “our total budget was less than $8 million,” Dr. Mills said. The trial was funded by Fast Grants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation.
 

‘A $10 medicine’

Commenting on the findings, David Boulware, MD, MPH, an infectious disease physician-researcher at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, noted fluvoxamine is “a $10 medicine that’s available and has a very good safety record.”

By comparison, a 5-day course of Merck’s antiviral molnupiravir, another oral drug that the company says can cut hospitalizations in COVID-19 outpatients, costs $700. However, the data have not been peer reviewed – and molnupiravir is not currently available and has unknown long-term safety implications, Dr. Boulware said.

Pharmaceutical companies typically spend tens of thousands of dollars on a trial evaluating a single drug, he noted.

In addition, the National Institutes of Health’s ACTIV-6 study, a nationwide trial on the effect of fluvoxamine and other repurposed generic drugs on thousands of COVID-19 outpatients, is a $110 million effort, according to Dr. Boulware, who cochairs its steering committee.

ACTIV-6 is currently enrolling outpatients with COVID-19 to test a lower dose of fluvoxamine, at 50 mg twice daily instead of the 100-mg dose used in the TOGETHER trial, as well as ivermectin and inhaled fluticasone. The COVID-OUT trial is also recruiting newly diagnosed COVID-19 patients to test various combinations of fluvoxamine, ivermectin, and the diabetes drug metformin.

Unanswered safety, efficacy questions

In an accompanying editorial in The Lancet Global Health, Otavio Berwanger, MD, cardiologist and clinical trialist, Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil, commends the investigators for rapidly generating evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, despite the important findings, “some questions related to efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine for patients with COVID-19 remain open,” Dr. Berwanger wrote.

The effects of the drug on reducing both mortality and hospitalizations also “still need addressing,” he noted.

“In addition, it remains to be established whether fluvoxamine has an additive effect to other therapies such as monoclonal antibodies and budesonide, and what is the optimal fluvoxamine therapeutic scheme,” wrote Dr. Berwanger.

In an interview, he noted that 74% of the Brazil population have currently received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and 52% have received two doses. In addition, deaths have gone down from 4,000 per day during the March-April second wave to about 400 per day. “That is still unfortunate and far from ideal,” he said. In total, they have had about 600,000 deaths because of COVID-19.

Asked whether public health authorities are now recommending fluvoxamine as an early treatment for COVID-19 based on the TOGETHER trial data, Dr. Berwanger answered, “Not yet.

“I believe medical and scientific societies will need to critically appraise the manuscript in order to inform their decisions and recommendations. This interesting trial adds another important piece of information in this regard,” he said.

Dr. Reiersen and Dr. Lenze are inventors on a patent application related to methods for treating COVID-19, which was filed by Washington University. Dr. Mills reports no relevant financial relationships, as does Dr. Boulware – except that the TOGETHER trial funders are also funding the University of Minnesota COVID-OUT trial. Dr. Berwanger reports having received research grants outside of the submitted work that were paid to his institution by AstraZeneca, Bayer, Amgen, Servier, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

The antidepressant fluvoxamine (Luvox) may prevent hospitalization and death in outpatients with COVID-19, new research suggests.

HconQ/ThinkStock

Results from the placebo-controlled, multisite, phase 3 TOGETHER trial showed that in COVID-19 outpatients at high risk for complications, hospitalizations were cut by 66% and deaths were reduced by 91% in those who tolerated fluvoxamine.

“Our trial has found that fluvoxamine, an inexpensive existing drug, reduces the need for advanced disease care in this high-risk population,” wrote the investigators, led by Gilmar Reis, MD, PhD, research division, Cardresearch, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

The findings were published online Oct. 27 in The Lancet Global Health.
 

Alternative mechanisms

Fluvoxamine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), is an antidepressant commonly prescribed for obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Besides its known effects on serotonin, the drug acts in other molecular pathways to dampen the production of inflammatory cytokines. Those alternative mechanisms are the ones believed to help patients with COVID-19, said coinvestigator Angela Reiersen, MD, child psychiatrist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Based on cell culture and mouse studies showing effects of the molecule’s binding to the sigma-1 receptor in the endoplasmic reticulum, Dr. Reiersen came up with the idea of testing if fluvoxamine could keep COVID-19 from progressing in newly infected patients.

Dr. Reiersen and psychiatrist Eric Lenze, MD, also from Washington University, led the phase 2 trial that initially suggested fluvoxamine’s promise as an outpatient medication. They are coinvestigators on the new phase 3 adaptive platform trial called TOGETHER, which was conducted by an international team of investigators in Brazil, Canada, and the United States.

For this latest study, researchers at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., partnered with the research clinic Cardresearch in Brazil to recruit unvaccinated, high-risk adults within 7 days of developing flu-like symptoms from COVID-19. They analyzed 1,497 newly symptomatic COVID-19 patients at 11 clinical sites in Brazil.

Patients entered the trial between January and August 2021 and were assigned to receive 100 mg fluvoxamine or placebo pills twice a day for 10 days. Investigators monitored participants through 28 days post treatment, noting whether complications developed requiring hospitalization or more than 6 hours of emergency care.

In the placebo group, 119 of 756 patients (15.7%) worsened to this extent. In comparison, 79 of 741 (10.7%) fluvoxamine-treated patients met these primary criteria. This represented a 32% reduction in hospitalizations and emergency visits.
 

Additional analysis requested

As Lancet Global Health reviewed these findings from the submitted manuscript, journal reviewers requested an additional “pre-protocol analysis” that was not specified in the trial’s original protocol. The request was to examine the subgroup of patients with good adherence (74% of treated group, 82% of placebo group).

Among these three quarters of patients who took at least 80% of their doses, benefits were better.

Fluvoxamine cut serious complications in this group by 66% and reduced mortality by 91%. In the placebo group, 12 people died compared with one who received the study drug.

Based on accumulating data, Dr. Reiersen said, some experts are recommending fluvoxamine for COVID-19 patients at high risk for morbidity and mortality from complications of the infection.

However, clinicians should note that the drug can cause side effects such as nausea, dizziness, and insomnia, she added. In addition, because it prevents the body from metabolizing caffeine, patients should limit their daily intake to half of a small cup of coffee or one can of soda or one tea while taking the drug.

Previous research has shown that fluvoxamine affects the metabolism of some drugs, such as theophylline, clozapine, olanzapine, and tizanidine.

Despite huge challenges with studying generic drugs as early COVID-19 treatment, the TOGETHER trial shows it is possible to produce quality evidence during a pandemic on a shoestring budget, noted co-principal investigator Edward Mills, PhD, professor in the department of health research methods, evidence, and impact at McMaster University.

To screen more than 12,000 patients and enroll 4,000 to test nine interventions, “our total budget was less than $8 million,” Dr. Mills said. The trial was funded by Fast Grants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation.
 

‘A $10 medicine’

Commenting on the findings, David Boulware, MD, MPH, an infectious disease physician-researcher at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, noted fluvoxamine is “a $10 medicine that’s available and has a very good safety record.”

By comparison, a 5-day course of Merck’s antiviral molnupiravir, another oral drug that the company says can cut hospitalizations in COVID-19 outpatients, costs $700. However, the data have not been peer reviewed – and molnupiravir is not currently available and has unknown long-term safety implications, Dr. Boulware said.

Pharmaceutical companies typically spend tens of thousands of dollars on a trial evaluating a single drug, he noted.

In addition, the National Institutes of Health’s ACTIV-6 study, a nationwide trial on the effect of fluvoxamine and other repurposed generic drugs on thousands of COVID-19 outpatients, is a $110 million effort, according to Dr. Boulware, who cochairs its steering committee.

ACTIV-6 is currently enrolling outpatients with COVID-19 to test a lower dose of fluvoxamine, at 50 mg twice daily instead of the 100-mg dose used in the TOGETHER trial, as well as ivermectin and inhaled fluticasone. The COVID-OUT trial is also recruiting newly diagnosed COVID-19 patients to test various combinations of fluvoxamine, ivermectin, and the diabetes drug metformin.

Unanswered safety, efficacy questions

In an accompanying editorial in The Lancet Global Health, Otavio Berwanger, MD, cardiologist and clinical trialist, Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil, commends the investigators for rapidly generating evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, despite the important findings, “some questions related to efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine for patients with COVID-19 remain open,” Dr. Berwanger wrote.

The effects of the drug on reducing both mortality and hospitalizations also “still need addressing,” he noted.

“In addition, it remains to be established whether fluvoxamine has an additive effect to other therapies such as monoclonal antibodies and budesonide, and what is the optimal fluvoxamine therapeutic scheme,” wrote Dr. Berwanger.

In an interview, he noted that 74% of the Brazil population have currently received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and 52% have received two doses. In addition, deaths have gone down from 4,000 per day during the March-April second wave to about 400 per day. “That is still unfortunate and far from ideal,” he said. In total, they have had about 600,000 deaths because of COVID-19.

Asked whether public health authorities are now recommending fluvoxamine as an early treatment for COVID-19 based on the TOGETHER trial data, Dr. Berwanger answered, “Not yet.

“I believe medical and scientific societies will need to critically appraise the manuscript in order to inform their decisions and recommendations. This interesting trial adds another important piece of information in this regard,” he said.

Dr. Reiersen and Dr. Lenze are inventors on a patent application related to methods for treating COVID-19, which was filed by Washington University. Dr. Mills reports no relevant financial relationships, as does Dr. Boulware – except that the TOGETHER trial funders are also funding the University of Minnesota COVID-OUT trial. Dr. Berwanger reports having received research grants outside of the submitted work that were paid to his institution by AstraZeneca, Bayer, Amgen, Servier, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

The antidepressant fluvoxamine (Luvox) may prevent hospitalization and death in outpatients with COVID-19, new research suggests.

HconQ/ThinkStock

Results from the placebo-controlled, multisite, phase 3 TOGETHER trial showed that in COVID-19 outpatients at high risk for complications, hospitalizations were cut by 66% and deaths were reduced by 91% in those who tolerated fluvoxamine.

“Our trial has found that fluvoxamine, an inexpensive existing drug, reduces the need for advanced disease care in this high-risk population,” wrote the investigators, led by Gilmar Reis, MD, PhD, research division, Cardresearch, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

The findings were published online Oct. 27 in The Lancet Global Health.
 

Alternative mechanisms

Fluvoxamine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), is an antidepressant commonly prescribed for obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Besides its known effects on serotonin, the drug acts in other molecular pathways to dampen the production of inflammatory cytokines. Those alternative mechanisms are the ones believed to help patients with COVID-19, said coinvestigator Angela Reiersen, MD, child psychiatrist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Based on cell culture and mouse studies showing effects of the molecule’s binding to the sigma-1 receptor in the endoplasmic reticulum, Dr. Reiersen came up with the idea of testing if fluvoxamine could keep COVID-19 from progressing in newly infected patients.

Dr. Reiersen and psychiatrist Eric Lenze, MD, also from Washington University, led the phase 2 trial that initially suggested fluvoxamine’s promise as an outpatient medication. They are coinvestigators on the new phase 3 adaptive platform trial called TOGETHER, which was conducted by an international team of investigators in Brazil, Canada, and the United States.

For this latest study, researchers at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., partnered with the research clinic Cardresearch in Brazil to recruit unvaccinated, high-risk adults within 7 days of developing flu-like symptoms from COVID-19. They analyzed 1,497 newly symptomatic COVID-19 patients at 11 clinical sites in Brazil.

Patients entered the trial between January and August 2021 and were assigned to receive 100 mg fluvoxamine or placebo pills twice a day for 10 days. Investigators monitored participants through 28 days post treatment, noting whether complications developed requiring hospitalization or more than 6 hours of emergency care.

In the placebo group, 119 of 756 patients (15.7%) worsened to this extent. In comparison, 79 of 741 (10.7%) fluvoxamine-treated patients met these primary criteria. This represented a 32% reduction in hospitalizations and emergency visits.
 

Additional analysis requested

As Lancet Global Health reviewed these findings from the submitted manuscript, journal reviewers requested an additional “pre-protocol analysis” that was not specified in the trial’s original protocol. The request was to examine the subgroup of patients with good adherence (74% of treated group, 82% of placebo group).

Among these three quarters of patients who took at least 80% of their doses, benefits were better.

Fluvoxamine cut serious complications in this group by 66% and reduced mortality by 91%. In the placebo group, 12 people died compared with one who received the study drug.

Based on accumulating data, Dr. Reiersen said, some experts are recommending fluvoxamine for COVID-19 patients at high risk for morbidity and mortality from complications of the infection.

However, clinicians should note that the drug can cause side effects such as nausea, dizziness, and insomnia, she added. In addition, because it prevents the body from metabolizing caffeine, patients should limit their daily intake to half of a small cup of coffee or one can of soda or one tea while taking the drug.

Previous research has shown that fluvoxamine affects the metabolism of some drugs, such as theophylline, clozapine, olanzapine, and tizanidine.

Despite huge challenges with studying generic drugs as early COVID-19 treatment, the TOGETHER trial shows it is possible to produce quality evidence during a pandemic on a shoestring budget, noted co-principal investigator Edward Mills, PhD, professor in the department of health research methods, evidence, and impact at McMaster University.

To screen more than 12,000 patients and enroll 4,000 to test nine interventions, “our total budget was less than $8 million,” Dr. Mills said. The trial was funded by Fast Grants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation.
 

‘A $10 medicine’

Commenting on the findings, David Boulware, MD, MPH, an infectious disease physician-researcher at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, noted fluvoxamine is “a $10 medicine that’s available and has a very good safety record.”

By comparison, a 5-day course of Merck’s antiviral molnupiravir, another oral drug that the company says can cut hospitalizations in COVID-19 outpatients, costs $700. However, the data have not been peer reviewed – and molnupiravir is not currently available and has unknown long-term safety implications, Dr. Boulware said.

Pharmaceutical companies typically spend tens of thousands of dollars on a trial evaluating a single drug, he noted.

In addition, the National Institutes of Health’s ACTIV-6 study, a nationwide trial on the effect of fluvoxamine and other repurposed generic drugs on thousands of COVID-19 outpatients, is a $110 million effort, according to Dr. Boulware, who cochairs its steering committee.

ACTIV-6 is currently enrolling outpatients with COVID-19 to test a lower dose of fluvoxamine, at 50 mg twice daily instead of the 100-mg dose used in the TOGETHER trial, as well as ivermectin and inhaled fluticasone. The COVID-OUT trial is also recruiting newly diagnosed COVID-19 patients to test various combinations of fluvoxamine, ivermectin, and the diabetes drug metformin.

Unanswered safety, efficacy questions

In an accompanying editorial in The Lancet Global Health, Otavio Berwanger, MD, cardiologist and clinical trialist, Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil, commends the investigators for rapidly generating evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, despite the important findings, “some questions related to efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine for patients with COVID-19 remain open,” Dr. Berwanger wrote.

The effects of the drug on reducing both mortality and hospitalizations also “still need addressing,” he noted.

“In addition, it remains to be established whether fluvoxamine has an additive effect to other therapies such as monoclonal antibodies and budesonide, and what is the optimal fluvoxamine therapeutic scheme,” wrote Dr. Berwanger.

In an interview, he noted that 74% of the Brazil population have currently received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and 52% have received two doses. In addition, deaths have gone down from 4,000 per day during the March-April second wave to about 400 per day. “That is still unfortunate and far from ideal,” he said. In total, they have had about 600,000 deaths because of COVID-19.

Asked whether public health authorities are now recommending fluvoxamine as an early treatment for COVID-19 based on the TOGETHER trial data, Dr. Berwanger answered, “Not yet.

“I believe medical and scientific societies will need to critically appraise the manuscript in order to inform their decisions and recommendations. This interesting trial adds another important piece of information in this regard,” he said.

Dr. Reiersen and Dr. Lenze are inventors on a patent application related to methods for treating COVID-19, which was filed by Washington University. Dr. Mills reports no relevant financial relationships, as does Dr. Boulware – except that the TOGETHER trial funders are also funding the University of Minnesota COVID-OUT trial. Dr. Berwanger reports having received research grants outside of the submitted work that were paid to his institution by AstraZeneca, Bayer, Amgen, Servier, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

Using sunscreen and following other sun-protective behaviors such as wearing long sleeves or staying in the shade do not decrease bone mineral density overall or increase the risk of osteoporotic fracture, according to a new study that included more than 3,000 men and women.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

“We have objective data for the first time, and in a large-scale representative population of the U.S. adults, to indicate sun protection is not associated with negative bone-related outcomes,” said study lead author Mohsen Afarideh, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the autoimmune skin diseases unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, goes a step further than previous research by others that has found sunscreen use does not compromise vitamin D synthesis and has little effect on circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.

In the new study, researchers looked at three sun-protective behaviors – sunscreen use, staying in the shade, wearing long sleeves – and their effects on bone mineral density and the risk of fractures.

While the effects of sun-protective habits on blood levels of vitamin D and BMD scores are important, ‘’what we are more interested to know is if the sun-protective behaviors actually cause or increase the risk of fracture,” Dr. Afarideh said in an interview. “The answer to that is a firm ‘No.’ These data are very reassuring and will help clinicians to keep recommending sun protection to the public.”

Study details

Dr. Afarideh and his colleagues from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., looked at data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2017 to 2018, obtaining final information on 3,403 men and women, ages 20-59, who completed a dermatology questionnaire The men and women reported on the three sun-protective habits, and noted whether they followed these practices always or most of the time, sometimes, or never or rarely.

The frequency of the three behaviors was not widespread. Frequent staying in the shade was reported by 31.6% of the sample, wearing long sleeves by 11.8%, and sunscreen use by 26.1%.

The researchers also had data on the participants’ bone mineral density (BMD) scores along with dietary information such as milk consumption, vitamin D supplement use, taking steroid drugs, and exercise activity.

“Moderate sunscreen use was linked with a slightly lower lumbar BMD score,” Dr. Afarideh said, which was “the only significant association that could be interpreted as concerning.” And this was more likely to be seen in older respondents, he said.

However, otherwise they found the practice of the three behaviors was not associated with lower total or site-specific BMD z scores, nor was it linked with an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures. (The BMD z score compares an individual’s bone density to the average bone density of someone their same age and gender.)

The focus on fracture risk is the more important outcome, Dr. Afarideh said. And they found no increased risk overall of osteoporotic fractures in those who practiced sun-protective behaviors.

Moderate to frequent staying in the shade was actually linked with a reduced prevalence of spine fractures in the multivariate model (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.86, P = .02). The researchers say that may be attributable to these respondents also being careful in other areas of life, such as avoiding falls and not participating in high-risk activities that would increase the chance of fractures. “However, this is just an assumption,” Dr. Afarideh said.

Expert perspectives

Other dermatologists not involved in the new research said the study results provide some “real-world” information that’s valuable for clinicians to share with patients.

“I think this is an important study on multiple levels,” said Henry W. Lim, MD, a former president of the American Academy of Dermatology who is a member of the department of dermatology and senior vice president of academic affairs at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit. “It is a well-done study, involving a large number. It is a real-life situation, asking people their photo protective behaviors and then looking at their bone mineral density.” The bottom line, he said: “Bone health is not affected by photo protection habits in real life.”

The findings are important but not surprising, said Antony R. Young, PhD, emeritus professor of experimental photobiology at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, King’s College, London, who has researched sunscreens and vitamin D status. “My study showed that correct sunscreen use, albeit with a relatively low SPF of 15, did prevent sunburn in a high UVR [ultraviolet radiation] environment but did allow very good vitamin D synthesis. I think this is because the necessary dose of UVB is very low.”

Michele Green, MD, a New York dermatologist and clinical staff member at Lenox Hill Hospital there, said she often hears concerns about bone health from patients. “Every week, patients ask, ‘Why would I wear sunblock? Don’t I need sun for bone health? Don’t I need it for vitamin D?’’’

Now, she said, ‘’Dermatologists can point to the study and say ‘Don’t worry.’ It clarifies that using sunscreen won’t cause you to have osteoporosis.’’

Dr. Afarideh, who was a postdoctoral research fellow at the Mayo Clinic, and his coauthors, Megha M. Tollefson, MD, and Julio C. Sartori-Valinotti, of the Mayo Clinic, and Dr. Green had no disclosures. Dr. Lim and Dr. Young consult for the sunscreen industry.

Using sunscreen and following other sun-protective behaviors such as wearing long sleeves or staying in the shade do not decrease bone mineral density overall or increase the risk of osteoporotic fracture, according to a new study that included more than 3,000 men and women.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

“We have objective data for the first time, and in a large-scale representative population of the U.S. adults, to indicate sun protection is not associated with negative bone-related outcomes,” said study lead author Mohsen Afarideh, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the autoimmune skin diseases unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, goes a step further than previous research by others that has found sunscreen use does not compromise vitamin D synthesis and has little effect on circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.

In the new study, researchers looked at three sun-protective behaviors – sunscreen use, staying in the shade, wearing long sleeves – and their effects on bone mineral density and the risk of fractures.

While the effects of sun-protective habits on blood levels of vitamin D and BMD scores are important, ‘’what we are more interested to know is if the sun-protective behaviors actually cause or increase the risk of fracture,” Dr. Afarideh said in an interview. “The answer to that is a firm ‘No.’ These data are very reassuring and will help clinicians to keep recommending sun protection to the public.”

Study details

Dr. Afarideh and his colleagues from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., looked at data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2017 to 2018, obtaining final information on 3,403 men and women, ages 20-59, who completed a dermatology questionnaire The men and women reported on the three sun-protective habits, and noted whether they followed these practices always or most of the time, sometimes, or never or rarely.

The frequency of the three behaviors was not widespread. Frequent staying in the shade was reported by 31.6% of the sample, wearing long sleeves by 11.8%, and sunscreen use by 26.1%.

The researchers also had data on the participants’ bone mineral density (BMD) scores along with dietary information such as milk consumption, vitamin D supplement use, taking steroid drugs, and exercise activity.

“Moderate sunscreen use was linked with a slightly lower lumbar BMD score,” Dr. Afarideh said, which was “the only significant association that could be interpreted as concerning.” And this was more likely to be seen in older respondents, he said.

However, otherwise they found the practice of the three behaviors was not associated with lower total or site-specific BMD z scores, nor was it linked with an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures. (The BMD z score compares an individual’s bone density to the average bone density of someone their same age and gender.)

The focus on fracture risk is the more important outcome, Dr. Afarideh said. And they found no increased risk overall of osteoporotic fractures in those who practiced sun-protective behaviors.

Moderate to frequent staying in the shade was actually linked with a reduced prevalence of spine fractures in the multivariate model (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.86, P = .02). The researchers say that may be attributable to these respondents also being careful in other areas of life, such as avoiding falls and not participating in high-risk activities that would increase the chance of fractures. “However, this is just an assumption,” Dr. Afarideh said.

Expert perspectives

Other dermatologists not involved in the new research said the study results provide some “real-world” information that’s valuable for clinicians to share with patients.

“I think this is an important study on multiple levels,” said Henry W. Lim, MD, a former president of the American Academy of Dermatology who is a member of the department of dermatology and senior vice president of academic affairs at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit. “It is a well-done study, involving a large number. It is a real-life situation, asking people their photo protective behaviors and then looking at their bone mineral density.” The bottom line, he said: “Bone health is not affected by photo protection habits in real life.”

The findings are important but not surprising, said Antony R. Young, PhD, emeritus professor of experimental photobiology at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, King’s College, London, who has researched sunscreens and vitamin D status. “My study showed that correct sunscreen use, albeit with a relatively low SPF of 15, did prevent sunburn in a high UVR [ultraviolet radiation] environment but did allow very good vitamin D synthesis. I think this is because the necessary dose of UVB is very low.”

Michele Green, MD, a New York dermatologist and clinical staff member at Lenox Hill Hospital there, said she often hears concerns about bone health from patients. “Every week, patients ask, ‘Why would I wear sunblock? Don’t I need sun for bone health? Don’t I need it for vitamin D?’’’

Now, she said, ‘’Dermatologists can point to the study and say ‘Don’t worry.’ It clarifies that using sunscreen won’t cause you to have osteoporosis.’’

Dr. Afarideh, who was a postdoctoral research fellow at the Mayo Clinic, and his coauthors, Megha M. Tollefson, MD, and Julio C. Sartori-Valinotti, of the Mayo Clinic, and Dr. Green had no disclosures. Dr. Lim and Dr. Young consult for the sunscreen industry.

Using sunscreen and following other sun-protective behaviors such as wearing long sleeves or staying in the shade do not decrease bone mineral density overall or increase the risk of osteoporotic fracture, according to a new study that included more than 3,000 men and women.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

“We have objective data for the first time, and in a large-scale representative population of the U.S. adults, to indicate sun protection is not associated with negative bone-related outcomes,” said study lead author Mohsen Afarideh, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the autoimmune skin diseases unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, goes a step further than previous research by others that has found sunscreen use does not compromise vitamin D synthesis and has little effect on circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.

In the new study, researchers looked at three sun-protective behaviors – sunscreen use, staying in the shade, wearing long sleeves – and their effects on bone mineral density and the risk of fractures.

While the effects of sun-protective habits on blood levels of vitamin D and BMD scores are important, ‘’what we are more interested to know is if the sun-protective behaviors actually cause or increase the risk of fracture,” Dr. Afarideh said in an interview. “The answer to that is a firm ‘No.’ These data are very reassuring and will help clinicians to keep recommending sun protection to the public.”

Study details

Dr. Afarideh and his colleagues from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., looked at data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2017 to 2018, obtaining final information on 3,403 men and women, ages 20-59, who completed a dermatology questionnaire The men and women reported on the three sun-protective habits, and noted whether they followed these practices always or most of the time, sometimes, or never or rarely.

The frequency of the three behaviors was not widespread. Frequent staying in the shade was reported by 31.6% of the sample, wearing long sleeves by 11.8%, and sunscreen use by 26.1%.

The researchers also had data on the participants’ bone mineral density (BMD) scores along with dietary information such as milk consumption, vitamin D supplement use, taking steroid drugs, and exercise activity.

“Moderate sunscreen use was linked with a slightly lower lumbar BMD score,” Dr. Afarideh said, which was “the only significant association that could be interpreted as concerning.” And this was more likely to be seen in older respondents, he said.

However, otherwise they found the practice of the three behaviors was not associated with lower total or site-specific BMD z scores, nor was it linked with an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures. (The BMD z score compares an individual’s bone density to the average bone density of someone their same age and gender.)

The focus on fracture risk is the more important outcome, Dr. Afarideh said. And they found no increased risk overall of osteoporotic fractures in those who practiced sun-protective behaviors.

Moderate to frequent staying in the shade was actually linked with a reduced prevalence of spine fractures in the multivariate model (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.86, P = .02). The researchers say that may be attributable to these respondents also being careful in other areas of life, such as avoiding falls and not participating in high-risk activities that would increase the chance of fractures. “However, this is just an assumption,” Dr. Afarideh said.

Expert perspectives

Other dermatologists not involved in the new research said the study results provide some “real-world” information that’s valuable for clinicians to share with patients.

“I think this is an important study on multiple levels,” said Henry W. Lim, MD, a former president of the American Academy of Dermatology who is a member of the department of dermatology and senior vice president of academic affairs at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit. “It is a well-done study, involving a large number. It is a real-life situation, asking people their photo protective behaviors and then looking at their bone mineral density.” The bottom line, he said: “Bone health is not affected by photo protection habits in real life.”

The findings are important but not surprising, said Antony R. Young, PhD, emeritus professor of experimental photobiology at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, King’s College, London, who has researched sunscreens and vitamin D status. “My study showed that correct sunscreen use, albeit with a relatively low SPF of 15, did prevent sunburn in a high UVR [ultraviolet radiation] environment but did allow very good vitamin D synthesis. I think this is because the necessary dose of UVB is very low.”

Michele Green, MD, a New York dermatologist and clinical staff member at Lenox Hill Hospital there, said she often hears concerns about bone health from patients. “Every week, patients ask, ‘Why would I wear sunblock? Don’t I need sun for bone health? Don’t I need it for vitamin D?’’’

Now, she said, ‘’Dermatologists can point to the study and say ‘Don’t worry.’ It clarifies that using sunscreen won’t cause you to have osteoporosis.’’

Dr. Afarideh, who was a postdoctoral research fellow at the Mayo Clinic, and his coauthors, Megha M. Tollefson, MD, and Julio C. Sartori-Valinotti, of the Mayo Clinic, and Dr. Green had no disclosures. Dr. Lim and Dr. Young consult for the sunscreen industry.