Federal Practitioner

It’s time for a large-scale phase 2 study into whether supplementary estrogen can relieve multiple sclerosis (MS) symptoms in menopausal women with the disease, a neurologist told colleagues at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

This kind of research should explore the effects of aging, including in the brain, and “focus on what is preventable – this dramatic and abrupt loss of estrogen in women with MS,” said Rhonda Voskuhl, MD, of the Brain Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“This is a call to action. There’s a huge gap that needs to be filled,” she added in an interview. “Not enough attention has been paid to menopause and cognitive issues in MS and even in healthy women.”

Research has found that many women with MS experience a decline in function during menopause, she said. “They’re having a worsening of their preexisting disabilities,” she noted, due to neurodegeneration.

Dr. Voskuhl highlighted a 2016 study, for instance, that found postmenopausal women with MS on hormone replacement therapy reported better physical function and quality of life than did their counterparts after adjustment for covariates. She also pointed to a 2019 study that concluded that “natural menopause seems to be a turning point to a more progressive phase of MS.”

Estrogen appears to play a significant role. “It’s involved in synaptic plasticity,” she said. “That’s why the disabilities are worsening.”

Dr. Voskuhl supports a year-long, randomized and controlled study of estrogen supplementation in 150-200 participants. The goal, she said, is “not just to prevent loss and bad things from happening but also make improvements.”

In healthy patients, she said, outcomes should include cognitive decline in menopause, cognitive domain outcomes, and region-specific biomarkers in the frontal cortex and hippocampus instead of global cognition and global brain volume. In patients with MS, she said, the focus should be on worsening of disability with emphasis on specific disabilities such as walking and region-specific biomarkers for the motor cortex and spinal cord.

“We need to be looking at cortical gray matter, which we know is responsive to estrogen,” Dr. Voskuhl said. She led a 2018 placebo-controlled study that found women with MS who took estrogen supplements appeared to experience localized sparing of progressive gray matter, which the researchers linked to improved results in cognitive testing. The findings, the study authors wrote, suggest “a clinically relevant, disability-specific biomarker for clinical trials of candidate neuroprotective treatments in MS.”

What about men? Does hormone loss worsen their MS? Dr. Voskuhl said there seems to be a connection between lower levels of testosterone and more disability in men with MS. But their situation is different. Loss of testosterone in men is gradual and happens over decades instead of over the short period of menopause in women, she said.

Jennifer Graves, MD, a neurologist at the University of California, San Diego, agreed that it’s time for further research into estrogen supplementation in MS. As she noted, “we don’t know the exact biological mechanism that might link perimenopause with developing a more progressive type of MS.”

She added: “An overall decrease in estrogen may be at play but there are other biological changes around menopause. We must also take care in studies to try to separate out what might be due to ovarian aging versus other types of aging processes that might be happening at the same time.”

Dr. Voskuhl disclosed that she is an inventor on university patents for use of estriol and estrogen receptor–beta ligands as treatments. Dr. Graves reports no relevant disclosures.

It’s time for a large-scale phase 2 study into whether supplementary estrogen can relieve multiple sclerosis (MS) symptoms in menopausal women with the disease, a neurologist told colleagues at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

This kind of research should explore the effects of aging, including in the brain, and “focus on what is preventable – this dramatic and abrupt loss of estrogen in women with MS,” said Rhonda Voskuhl, MD, of the Brain Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“This is a call to action. There’s a huge gap that needs to be filled,” she added in an interview. “Not enough attention has been paid to menopause and cognitive issues in MS and even in healthy women.”

Research has found that many women with MS experience a decline in function during menopause, she said. “They’re having a worsening of their preexisting disabilities,” she noted, due to neurodegeneration.

Dr. Voskuhl highlighted a 2016 study, for instance, that found postmenopausal women with MS on hormone replacement therapy reported better physical function and quality of life than did their counterparts after adjustment for covariates. She also pointed to a 2019 study that concluded that “natural menopause seems to be a turning point to a more progressive phase of MS.”

Estrogen appears to play a significant role. “It’s involved in synaptic plasticity,” she said. “That’s why the disabilities are worsening.”

Dr. Voskuhl supports a year-long, randomized and controlled study of estrogen supplementation in 150-200 participants. The goal, she said, is “not just to prevent loss and bad things from happening but also make improvements.”

In healthy patients, she said, outcomes should include cognitive decline in menopause, cognitive domain outcomes, and region-specific biomarkers in the frontal cortex and hippocampus instead of global cognition and global brain volume. In patients with MS, she said, the focus should be on worsening of disability with emphasis on specific disabilities such as walking and region-specific biomarkers for the motor cortex and spinal cord.

“We need to be looking at cortical gray matter, which we know is responsive to estrogen,” Dr. Voskuhl said. She led a 2018 placebo-controlled study that found women with MS who took estrogen supplements appeared to experience localized sparing of progressive gray matter, which the researchers linked to improved results in cognitive testing. The findings, the study authors wrote, suggest “a clinically relevant, disability-specific biomarker for clinical trials of candidate neuroprotective treatments in MS.”

What about men? Does hormone loss worsen their MS? Dr. Voskuhl said there seems to be a connection between lower levels of testosterone and more disability in men with MS. But their situation is different. Loss of testosterone in men is gradual and happens over decades instead of over the short period of menopause in women, she said.

Jennifer Graves, MD, a neurologist at the University of California, San Diego, agreed that it’s time for further research into estrogen supplementation in MS. As she noted, “we don’t know the exact biological mechanism that might link perimenopause with developing a more progressive type of MS.”

She added: “An overall decrease in estrogen may be at play but there are other biological changes around menopause. We must also take care in studies to try to separate out what might be due to ovarian aging versus other types of aging processes that might be happening at the same time.”

Dr. Voskuhl disclosed that she is an inventor on university patents for use of estriol and estrogen receptor–beta ligands as treatments. Dr. Graves reports no relevant disclosures.

It’s time for a large-scale phase 2 study into whether supplementary estrogen can relieve multiple sclerosis (MS) symptoms in menopausal women with the disease, a neurologist told colleagues at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

This kind of research should explore the effects of aging, including in the brain, and “focus on what is preventable – this dramatic and abrupt loss of estrogen in women with MS,” said Rhonda Voskuhl, MD, of the Brain Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“This is a call to action. There’s a huge gap that needs to be filled,” she added in an interview. “Not enough attention has been paid to menopause and cognitive issues in MS and even in healthy women.”

Research has found that many women with MS experience a decline in function during menopause, she said. “They’re having a worsening of their preexisting disabilities,” she noted, due to neurodegeneration.

Dr. Voskuhl highlighted a 2016 study, for instance, that found postmenopausal women with MS on hormone replacement therapy reported better physical function and quality of life than did their counterparts after adjustment for covariates. She also pointed to a 2019 study that concluded that “natural menopause seems to be a turning point to a more progressive phase of MS.”

Estrogen appears to play a significant role. “It’s involved in synaptic plasticity,” she said. “That’s why the disabilities are worsening.”

Dr. Voskuhl supports a year-long, randomized and controlled study of estrogen supplementation in 150-200 participants. The goal, she said, is “not just to prevent loss and bad things from happening but also make improvements.”

In healthy patients, she said, outcomes should include cognitive decline in menopause, cognitive domain outcomes, and region-specific biomarkers in the frontal cortex and hippocampus instead of global cognition and global brain volume. In patients with MS, she said, the focus should be on worsening of disability with emphasis on specific disabilities such as walking and region-specific biomarkers for the motor cortex and spinal cord.

“We need to be looking at cortical gray matter, which we know is responsive to estrogen,” Dr. Voskuhl said. She led a 2018 placebo-controlled study that found women with MS who took estrogen supplements appeared to experience localized sparing of progressive gray matter, which the researchers linked to improved results in cognitive testing. The findings, the study authors wrote, suggest “a clinically relevant, disability-specific biomarker for clinical trials of candidate neuroprotective treatments in MS.”

What about men? Does hormone loss worsen their MS? Dr. Voskuhl said there seems to be a connection between lower levels of testosterone and more disability in men with MS. But their situation is different. Loss of testosterone in men is gradual and happens over decades instead of over the short period of menopause in women, she said.

Jennifer Graves, MD, a neurologist at the University of California, San Diego, agreed that it’s time for further research into estrogen supplementation in MS. As she noted, “we don’t know the exact biological mechanism that might link perimenopause with developing a more progressive type of MS.”

She added: “An overall decrease in estrogen may be at play but there are other biological changes around menopause. We must also take care in studies to try to separate out what might be due to ovarian aging versus other types of aging processes that might be happening at the same time.”

Dr. Voskuhl disclosed that she is an inventor on university patents for use of estriol and estrogen receptor–beta ligands as treatments. Dr. Graves reports no relevant disclosures.

Several weeks after getting his second dose of an mRNA vaccine, Aaron Goyang thinks his long bout with COVID-19 has finally come to an end.

Geber86/Getty Images

Mr. Goyang, who is 33 and is a radiology technician in Austin, Tex., thinks he got COVID-19 from some of the coughing, gasping patients he treated last spring.

At the time, testing was scarce, and by the time he was tested – several weeks into his illness – it came back negative. He fought off the initial symptoms but experienced relapse a week later.

Mr. Goyang says that, for the next 8 or 9 months, he was on a roller coaster with extreme shortness of breath and chest tightness that could be so severe it would send him to the emergency department. He had to use an inhaler to get through his workdays.

“Even if I was just sitting around, it would come and take me,” he says. “It almost felt like someone was bear-hugging me constantly, and I just couldn’t get in a good enough breath.”

On his best days, he would walk around his neighborhood, being careful not to overdo it. He tried running once, and it nearly sent him to the hospital.

“Very honestly, I didn’t know if I would ever be able to do it again,” he says.

But Mr. Goyang says that, several weeks after getting the Pfizer vaccine, he was able to run a mile again with no problems. “I was very thankful for that,” he says.

Mr. Goyang is not alone. Some social media groups are dedicated to patients who are living with a condition that’s been known as long COVID and that was recently termed postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). These patients are sometimes referred to as long haulers.

On social media, patients with PASC are eagerly and anxiously quizzing each other about the vaccines and their effects. Some report that they’ve finally seen their symptoms resolve, giving hope that long COVID might not be a lifelong condition.

Survivor Corps, which has a public Facebook group with 159,000 members, recently took a poll to see whether there was any substance to rumors that those with long COVID were feeling better after being vaccinated.

“Out of 400 people, 36% showed an improvement in symptoms, anywhere between a mild improvement to complete resolution of symptoms,” said Diana Berrent, a long-COVID patient who founded the group. Survivor Corps has become active in patient advocacy and is a resource for researchers studying the new condition.

Ms. Berrent has become such a trusted voice during the pandemic. She interviewed Anthony Fauci, MD, head of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, last October.

“The implications are huge,” she says.

“Some of this damage is permanent damage. It’s not going to cure the scarring of your heart tissue, it’s not going to cure the irreparable damage to your lungs, but if it’s making people feel better, then that’s an indication there’s viral persistence going on,” says Ms. Berrent.

“I’ve been saying for months and months, we shouldn’t be calling this postacute anything,” she adds.
 

Patients report improvement

Daniel Griffin, MD, PhD, is equally excited. He’s an infectious disease specialist at Columbia University, New York. He says about one in five patients he treated for COVID-19 last year never got better. Many of them, such as Mr. Goyang, were health care workers.

“I don’t know if people actually catch this, but a lot of our coworkers are either permanently disabled or died,” Dr. Griffin says.

Health care workers were also among the first to be vaccinated. Dr. Griffin says many of his patients began reaching out to him about a week or two after being vaccinated “and saying, ‘You know, I actually feel better.’ And some of them were saying, ‘I feel all better,’ after being sick – a lot of them – for a year.”

Then he was getting calls and texts from other doctors, asking, “Hey, are you seeing this?”

The benefits of vaccination for some long-haulers came as a surprise. Dr. Griffin says that, before the vaccines came out, many of his patients were worried that getting vaccinated might overstimulate their immune systems and cause symptoms to get worse.

Indeed, a small percentage of people – about 3%-5%, based on informal polls on social media – report that they do experience worsening of symptoms after getting the shot. It’s not clear why.

Dr. Griffin estimates that between 30% and 50% of patients’ symptoms improve after they receive the mRNA vaccines. “I’m seeing this chunk of people – they tell me their brain fog has improved, their fatigue is gone, the fevers that wouldn’t resolve have now gone,” he says. “I’m seeing that personally, and I’m hearing it from my colleagues.”

Dr. Griffin says the observation has launched several studies and that there are several theories about how the vaccines might be affecting long COVID.
 

An immune system boost?

One possibility is that the virus continues to stimulate the immune system, which continues to fight the virus for months. If that is the case, Dr. Griffin says, the vaccine may be giving the immune system the boost it needs to finally clear the virus away.

Donna Farber, PhD, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Columbia University, has heard the stories, too.

“It is possible that the persisting virus in long COVID-19 may be at a low level – not enough to stimulate a potent immune response to clear the virus, but enough to cause symptoms. Activating the immune response therefore is therapeutic in directing viral clearance,” she says.

Dr. Farber explains that long COVID may be a bit like Lyme disease. Some patients with Lyme disease must take antibiotics for months before their symptoms disappear.

Dr. Griffin says there’s another possibility. Several studies have now shown that people with lingering COVID-19 symptoms develop autoantibodies. There’s a theory that SARS-CoV-2 may create an autoimmune condition that leads to long-term symptoms.

If that is the case, Dr. Griffin says, the vaccine may be helping the body to reset its tolerance to itself, “so maybe now you’re getting a healthy immune response.”

More studies are needed to know for sure.

Either way, the vaccines are a much-needed bit of hope for the long-COVID community, and Dr. Griffin tells his patients who are still worried that, at the very least, they’ll be protected from another SARS-CoV-2 infection.

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

Several weeks after getting his second dose of an mRNA vaccine, Aaron Goyang thinks his long bout with COVID-19 has finally come to an end.

Geber86/Getty Images

Mr. Goyang, who is 33 and is a radiology technician in Austin, Tex., thinks he got COVID-19 from some of the coughing, gasping patients he treated last spring.

At the time, testing was scarce, and by the time he was tested – several weeks into his illness – it came back negative. He fought off the initial symptoms but experienced relapse a week later.

Mr. Goyang says that, for the next 8 or 9 months, he was on a roller coaster with extreme shortness of breath and chest tightness that could be so severe it would send him to the emergency department. He had to use an inhaler to get through his workdays.

“Even if I was just sitting around, it would come and take me,” he says. “It almost felt like someone was bear-hugging me constantly, and I just couldn’t get in a good enough breath.”

On his best days, he would walk around his neighborhood, being careful not to overdo it. He tried running once, and it nearly sent him to the hospital.

“Very honestly, I didn’t know if I would ever be able to do it again,” he says.

But Mr. Goyang says that, several weeks after getting the Pfizer vaccine, he was able to run a mile again with no problems. “I was very thankful for that,” he says.

Mr. Goyang is not alone. Some social media groups are dedicated to patients who are living with a condition that’s been known as long COVID and that was recently termed postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). These patients are sometimes referred to as long haulers.

On social media, patients with PASC are eagerly and anxiously quizzing each other about the vaccines and their effects. Some report that they’ve finally seen their symptoms resolve, giving hope that long COVID might not be a lifelong condition.

Survivor Corps, which has a public Facebook group with 159,000 members, recently took a poll to see whether there was any substance to rumors that those with long COVID were feeling better after being vaccinated.

“Out of 400 people, 36% showed an improvement in symptoms, anywhere between a mild improvement to complete resolution of symptoms,” said Diana Berrent, a long-COVID patient who founded the group. Survivor Corps has become active in patient advocacy and is a resource for researchers studying the new condition.

Ms. Berrent has become such a trusted voice during the pandemic. She interviewed Anthony Fauci, MD, head of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, last October.

“The implications are huge,” she says.

“Some of this damage is permanent damage. It’s not going to cure the scarring of your heart tissue, it’s not going to cure the irreparable damage to your lungs, but if it’s making people feel better, then that’s an indication there’s viral persistence going on,” says Ms. Berrent.

“I’ve been saying for months and months, we shouldn’t be calling this postacute anything,” she adds.
 

Patients report improvement

Daniel Griffin, MD, PhD, is equally excited. He’s an infectious disease specialist at Columbia University, New York. He says about one in five patients he treated for COVID-19 last year never got better. Many of them, such as Mr. Goyang, were health care workers.

“I don’t know if people actually catch this, but a lot of our coworkers are either permanently disabled or died,” Dr. Griffin says.

Health care workers were also among the first to be vaccinated. Dr. Griffin says many of his patients began reaching out to him about a week or two after being vaccinated “and saying, ‘You know, I actually feel better.’ And some of them were saying, ‘I feel all better,’ after being sick – a lot of them – for a year.”

Then he was getting calls and texts from other doctors, asking, “Hey, are you seeing this?”

The benefits of vaccination for some long-haulers came as a surprise. Dr. Griffin says that, before the vaccines came out, many of his patients were worried that getting vaccinated might overstimulate their immune systems and cause symptoms to get worse.

Indeed, a small percentage of people – about 3%-5%, based on informal polls on social media – report that they do experience worsening of symptoms after getting the shot. It’s not clear why.

Dr. Griffin estimates that between 30% and 50% of patients’ symptoms improve after they receive the mRNA vaccines. “I’m seeing this chunk of people – they tell me their brain fog has improved, their fatigue is gone, the fevers that wouldn’t resolve have now gone,” he says. “I’m seeing that personally, and I’m hearing it from my colleagues.”

Dr. Griffin says the observation has launched several studies and that there are several theories about how the vaccines might be affecting long COVID.
 

An immune system boost?

One possibility is that the virus continues to stimulate the immune system, which continues to fight the virus for months. If that is the case, Dr. Griffin says, the vaccine may be giving the immune system the boost it needs to finally clear the virus away.

Donna Farber, PhD, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Columbia University, has heard the stories, too.

“It is possible that the persisting virus in long COVID-19 may be at a low level – not enough to stimulate a potent immune response to clear the virus, but enough to cause symptoms. Activating the immune response therefore is therapeutic in directing viral clearance,” she says.

Dr. Farber explains that long COVID may be a bit like Lyme disease. Some patients with Lyme disease must take antibiotics for months before their symptoms disappear.

Dr. Griffin says there’s another possibility. Several studies have now shown that people with lingering COVID-19 symptoms develop autoantibodies. There’s a theory that SARS-CoV-2 may create an autoimmune condition that leads to long-term symptoms.

If that is the case, Dr. Griffin says, the vaccine may be helping the body to reset its tolerance to itself, “so maybe now you’re getting a healthy immune response.”

More studies are needed to know for sure.

Either way, the vaccines are a much-needed bit of hope for the long-COVID community, and Dr. Griffin tells his patients who are still worried that, at the very least, they’ll be protected from another SARS-CoV-2 infection.

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

Several weeks after getting his second dose of an mRNA vaccine, Aaron Goyang thinks his long bout with COVID-19 has finally come to an end.

Geber86/Getty Images

Mr. Goyang, who is 33 and is a radiology technician in Austin, Tex., thinks he got COVID-19 from some of the coughing, gasping patients he treated last spring.

At the time, testing was scarce, and by the time he was tested – several weeks into his illness – it came back negative. He fought off the initial symptoms but experienced relapse a week later.

Mr. Goyang says that, for the next 8 or 9 months, he was on a roller coaster with extreme shortness of breath and chest tightness that could be so severe it would send him to the emergency department. He had to use an inhaler to get through his workdays.

“Even if I was just sitting around, it would come and take me,” he says. “It almost felt like someone was bear-hugging me constantly, and I just couldn’t get in a good enough breath.”

On his best days, he would walk around his neighborhood, being careful not to overdo it. He tried running once, and it nearly sent him to the hospital.

“Very honestly, I didn’t know if I would ever be able to do it again,” he says.

But Mr. Goyang says that, several weeks after getting the Pfizer vaccine, he was able to run a mile again with no problems. “I was very thankful for that,” he says.

Mr. Goyang is not alone. Some social media groups are dedicated to patients who are living with a condition that’s been known as long COVID and that was recently termed postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). These patients are sometimes referred to as long haulers.

On social media, patients with PASC are eagerly and anxiously quizzing each other about the vaccines and their effects. Some report that they’ve finally seen their symptoms resolve, giving hope that long COVID might not be a lifelong condition.

Survivor Corps, which has a public Facebook group with 159,000 members, recently took a poll to see whether there was any substance to rumors that those with long COVID were feeling better after being vaccinated.

“Out of 400 people, 36% showed an improvement in symptoms, anywhere between a mild improvement to complete resolution of symptoms,” said Diana Berrent, a long-COVID patient who founded the group. Survivor Corps has become active in patient advocacy and is a resource for researchers studying the new condition.

Ms. Berrent has become such a trusted voice during the pandemic. She interviewed Anthony Fauci, MD, head of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, last October.

“The implications are huge,” she says.

“Some of this damage is permanent damage. It’s not going to cure the scarring of your heart tissue, it’s not going to cure the irreparable damage to your lungs, but if it’s making people feel better, then that’s an indication there’s viral persistence going on,” says Ms. Berrent.

“I’ve been saying for months and months, we shouldn’t be calling this postacute anything,” she adds.
 

Patients report improvement

Daniel Griffin, MD, PhD, is equally excited. He’s an infectious disease specialist at Columbia University, New York. He says about one in five patients he treated for COVID-19 last year never got better. Many of them, such as Mr. Goyang, were health care workers.

“I don’t know if people actually catch this, but a lot of our coworkers are either permanently disabled or died,” Dr. Griffin says.

Health care workers were also among the first to be vaccinated. Dr. Griffin says many of his patients began reaching out to him about a week or two after being vaccinated “and saying, ‘You know, I actually feel better.’ And some of them were saying, ‘I feel all better,’ after being sick – a lot of them – for a year.”

Then he was getting calls and texts from other doctors, asking, “Hey, are you seeing this?”

The benefits of vaccination for some long-haulers came as a surprise. Dr. Griffin says that, before the vaccines came out, many of his patients were worried that getting vaccinated might overstimulate their immune systems and cause symptoms to get worse.

Indeed, a small percentage of people – about 3%-5%, based on informal polls on social media – report that they do experience worsening of symptoms after getting the shot. It’s not clear why.

Dr. Griffin estimates that between 30% and 50% of patients’ symptoms improve after they receive the mRNA vaccines. “I’m seeing this chunk of people – they tell me their brain fog has improved, their fatigue is gone, the fevers that wouldn’t resolve have now gone,” he says. “I’m seeing that personally, and I’m hearing it from my colleagues.”

Dr. Griffin says the observation has launched several studies and that there are several theories about how the vaccines might be affecting long COVID.
 

An immune system boost?

One possibility is that the virus continues to stimulate the immune system, which continues to fight the virus for months. If that is the case, Dr. Griffin says, the vaccine may be giving the immune system the boost it needs to finally clear the virus away.

Donna Farber, PhD, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Columbia University, has heard the stories, too.

“It is possible that the persisting virus in long COVID-19 may be at a low level – not enough to stimulate a potent immune response to clear the virus, but enough to cause symptoms. Activating the immune response therefore is therapeutic in directing viral clearance,” she says.

Dr. Farber explains that long COVID may be a bit like Lyme disease. Some patients with Lyme disease must take antibiotics for months before their symptoms disappear.

Dr. Griffin says there’s another possibility. Several studies have now shown that people with lingering COVID-19 symptoms develop autoantibodies. There’s a theory that SARS-CoV-2 may create an autoimmune condition that leads to long-term symptoms.

If that is the case, Dr. Griffin says, the vaccine may be helping the body to reset its tolerance to itself, “so maybe now you’re getting a healthy immune response.”

More studies are needed to know for sure.

Either way, the vaccines are a much-needed bit of hope for the long-COVID community, and Dr. Griffin tells his patients who are still worried that, at the very least, they’ll be protected from another SARS-CoV-2 infection.

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

In a placebo-controlled randomized trial, a preprocedural dose of colchicine administered immediately before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an acute ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not reduce the no-reflow phenomenon or improve outcomes.

No-reflow, in which insufficient myocardial perfusion is present even though the coronary artery appears patent, was the primary outcome, and the proportion of patients experiencing this event was exactly the same (14.4%) in the colchicine and placebo groups, reported Yaser Jenab, MD, at CRT 2021 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

The hypothesis that colchicine would offer benefit in this setting was largely based on the Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT). In that study, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo when administered within 30 days after a myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .02).

The benefit in that trial was attributed to an anti-inflammatory effect, according to Dr. Jenab, associate professor of cardiology at Tehran (Iran) Heart Center. In particular as it relates to vascular disease, he cited experimental studies associating colchicine with a reduction in neutrophil activation and adherence to vascular endothelium.

The rationale for a preprocedural approach to colchicine was supplied by a subsequent time-to-treatment COLCOT analysis. In this study, MACE risk reduction for colchicine climbed to 48% (HR 0.52) for those treated within 3 days of the MI but largely disappeared (HR 0.96) if treatment was started at least 8 days post MI.
 

PodCAST-PCI trial

In the preprocedural study, called the PodCAST-PCI trial, 321 acute STEMI patients were randomized. Patients received a 1-mg dose of oral colchicine or placebo at the time PCI was scheduled. Another dose of colchicine (0.5 mg) or placebo was administered 1 hour after the procedure.

Of secondary outcomes, which included MACE at 1 month and 1 year, ST-segment resolution at 1 month, and change in inflammatory markers at 1 month, none were significant. Few even trended for significance.

For MACE, which included cardiac death, stroke, nonfatal MI, new hospitalization due to heart failure, or target vessel revascularization, the rates were lower in the colchicine group at 1 month (4.3% vs. 7.5%) and 1 year (9.3% vs. 11.2%), but neither approached significance.

For ST-segment resolution, the proportions were generally comparable among the colchicine and placebo groups, respectively, for the proportion below 50% (18.6% vs. 23.1%), between 50% and 70% (16.8% vs. 15.6%), and above 70% (64.6% vs. 61.3%).

The average troponin levels were nonsignificantly lower at 6 hours (1,847 vs. 2,883 ng/mL) in the colchicine group but higher at 48 hours (1,197 vs. 1,147 ng/mL). The average C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 48 hours were nonsignificantly lower on colchicine (176.5 vs. 244.5 mg/L).

There were no significant differences in postprocedural perfusion, as measured with TIMI blood flow, or in the rate of stent thrombosis, which occurred in roughly 3% of each group of patients.

The small sample size was one limitation of this study, Dr. Jenab acknowledged. For this and other reasons, he cautioned that these data are not definitive and do not preclude a benefit on clinical outcomes in a study with a larger size, a different design, or different dosing.
 

Timing might be the issue

However, even if colchicine has a potential benefit in this setting, timing might be a major obstacle, according to Binata Shah, MD, associate director of research for the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory at New York University.

“We have learned from our rheumatology colleagues that peak plasma levels of colchicine are not achieved for at least 1 hour after the full loading dose,” Dr. Shah said. “With us moving so quickly in a primary PCI setting, it is hard to imagine that colchicine would have had time to really kick in and exert its anti-inflammatory effect.”

Indeed, the problem might be worse than reaching the peak plasma level.

“Even though peak plasma levels occur as early as 1 hour after a full loading dose, we see that it takes about 24 hours to really see the effects translate downstream into more systemic inflammatory markers such as CRP and interleukin-6,” she added. If lowering these signals of inflammation is predictive of benefit, than this might be the biggest obstacle to benefit from colchicine in an urgent treatment setting.

Dr. Jenab and Dr. Shah reported no potential conflicts of interest.

In a placebo-controlled randomized trial, a preprocedural dose of colchicine administered immediately before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an acute ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not reduce the no-reflow phenomenon or improve outcomes.

No-reflow, in which insufficient myocardial perfusion is present even though the coronary artery appears patent, was the primary outcome, and the proportion of patients experiencing this event was exactly the same (14.4%) in the colchicine and placebo groups, reported Yaser Jenab, MD, at CRT 2021 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

The hypothesis that colchicine would offer benefit in this setting was largely based on the Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT). In that study, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo when administered within 30 days after a myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .02).

The benefit in that trial was attributed to an anti-inflammatory effect, according to Dr. Jenab, associate professor of cardiology at Tehran (Iran) Heart Center. In particular as it relates to vascular disease, he cited experimental studies associating colchicine with a reduction in neutrophil activation and adherence to vascular endothelium.

The rationale for a preprocedural approach to colchicine was supplied by a subsequent time-to-treatment COLCOT analysis. In this study, MACE risk reduction for colchicine climbed to 48% (HR 0.52) for those treated within 3 days of the MI but largely disappeared (HR 0.96) if treatment was started at least 8 days post MI.
 

PodCAST-PCI trial

In the preprocedural study, called the PodCAST-PCI trial, 321 acute STEMI patients were randomized. Patients received a 1-mg dose of oral colchicine or placebo at the time PCI was scheduled. Another dose of colchicine (0.5 mg) or placebo was administered 1 hour after the procedure.

Of secondary outcomes, which included MACE at 1 month and 1 year, ST-segment resolution at 1 month, and change in inflammatory markers at 1 month, none were significant. Few even trended for significance.

For MACE, which included cardiac death, stroke, nonfatal MI, new hospitalization due to heart failure, or target vessel revascularization, the rates were lower in the colchicine group at 1 month (4.3% vs. 7.5%) and 1 year (9.3% vs. 11.2%), but neither approached significance.

For ST-segment resolution, the proportions were generally comparable among the colchicine and placebo groups, respectively, for the proportion below 50% (18.6% vs. 23.1%), between 50% and 70% (16.8% vs. 15.6%), and above 70% (64.6% vs. 61.3%).

The average troponin levels were nonsignificantly lower at 6 hours (1,847 vs. 2,883 ng/mL) in the colchicine group but higher at 48 hours (1,197 vs. 1,147 ng/mL). The average C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 48 hours were nonsignificantly lower on colchicine (176.5 vs. 244.5 mg/L).

There were no significant differences in postprocedural perfusion, as measured with TIMI blood flow, or in the rate of stent thrombosis, which occurred in roughly 3% of each group of patients.

The small sample size was one limitation of this study, Dr. Jenab acknowledged. For this and other reasons, he cautioned that these data are not definitive and do not preclude a benefit on clinical outcomes in a study with a larger size, a different design, or different dosing.
 

Timing might be the issue

However, even if colchicine has a potential benefit in this setting, timing might be a major obstacle, according to Binata Shah, MD, associate director of research for the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory at New York University.

“We have learned from our rheumatology colleagues that peak plasma levels of colchicine are not achieved for at least 1 hour after the full loading dose,” Dr. Shah said. “With us moving so quickly in a primary PCI setting, it is hard to imagine that colchicine would have had time to really kick in and exert its anti-inflammatory effect.”

Indeed, the problem might be worse than reaching the peak plasma level.

“Even though peak plasma levels occur as early as 1 hour after a full loading dose, we see that it takes about 24 hours to really see the effects translate downstream into more systemic inflammatory markers such as CRP and interleukin-6,” she added. If lowering these signals of inflammation is predictive of benefit, than this might be the biggest obstacle to benefit from colchicine in an urgent treatment setting.

Dr. Jenab and Dr. Shah reported no potential conflicts of interest.

In a placebo-controlled randomized trial, a preprocedural dose of colchicine administered immediately before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an acute ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not reduce the no-reflow phenomenon or improve outcomes.

No-reflow, in which insufficient myocardial perfusion is present even though the coronary artery appears patent, was the primary outcome, and the proportion of patients experiencing this event was exactly the same (14.4%) in the colchicine and placebo groups, reported Yaser Jenab, MD, at CRT 2021 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

The hypothesis that colchicine would offer benefit in this setting was largely based on the Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT). In that study, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo when administered within 30 days after a myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .02).

The benefit in that trial was attributed to an anti-inflammatory effect, according to Dr. Jenab, associate professor of cardiology at Tehran (Iran) Heart Center. In particular as it relates to vascular disease, he cited experimental studies associating colchicine with a reduction in neutrophil activation and adherence to vascular endothelium.

The rationale for a preprocedural approach to colchicine was supplied by a subsequent time-to-treatment COLCOT analysis. In this study, MACE risk reduction for colchicine climbed to 48% (HR 0.52) for those treated within 3 days of the MI but largely disappeared (HR 0.96) if treatment was started at least 8 days post MI.
 

PodCAST-PCI trial

In the preprocedural study, called the PodCAST-PCI trial, 321 acute STEMI patients were randomized. Patients received a 1-mg dose of oral colchicine or placebo at the time PCI was scheduled. Another dose of colchicine (0.5 mg) or placebo was administered 1 hour after the procedure.

Of secondary outcomes, which included MACE at 1 month and 1 year, ST-segment resolution at 1 month, and change in inflammatory markers at 1 month, none were significant. Few even trended for significance.

For MACE, which included cardiac death, stroke, nonfatal MI, new hospitalization due to heart failure, or target vessel revascularization, the rates were lower in the colchicine group at 1 month (4.3% vs. 7.5%) and 1 year (9.3% vs. 11.2%), but neither approached significance.

For ST-segment resolution, the proportions were generally comparable among the colchicine and placebo groups, respectively, for the proportion below 50% (18.6% vs. 23.1%), between 50% and 70% (16.8% vs. 15.6%), and above 70% (64.6% vs. 61.3%).

The average troponin levels were nonsignificantly lower at 6 hours (1,847 vs. 2,883 ng/mL) in the colchicine group but higher at 48 hours (1,197 vs. 1,147 ng/mL). The average C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 48 hours were nonsignificantly lower on colchicine (176.5 vs. 244.5 mg/L).

There were no significant differences in postprocedural perfusion, as measured with TIMI blood flow, or in the rate of stent thrombosis, which occurred in roughly 3% of each group of patients.

The small sample size was one limitation of this study, Dr. Jenab acknowledged. For this and other reasons, he cautioned that these data are not definitive and do not preclude a benefit on clinical outcomes in a study with a larger size, a different design, or different dosing.
 

Timing might be the issue

However, even if colchicine has a potential benefit in this setting, timing might be a major obstacle, according to Binata Shah, MD, associate director of research for the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory at New York University.

“We have learned from our rheumatology colleagues that peak plasma levels of colchicine are not achieved for at least 1 hour after the full loading dose,” Dr. Shah said. “With us moving so quickly in a primary PCI setting, it is hard to imagine that colchicine would have had time to really kick in and exert its anti-inflammatory effect.”

Indeed, the problem might be worse than reaching the peak plasma level.

“Even though peak plasma levels occur as early as 1 hour after a full loading dose, we see that it takes about 24 hours to really see the effects translate downstream into more systemic inflammatory markers such as CRP and interleukin-6,” she added. If lowering these signals of inflammation is predictive of benefit, than this might be the biggest obstacle to benefit from colchicine in an urgent treatment setting.

Dr. Jenab and Dr. Shah reported no potential conflicts of interest.

After 10 years of follow-up, event-free survival and overall survival were similar between conventional chemotherapy treated patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma and those receiving high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), according to a report published online in the Lancet Hematology.

Michael Bonert/WikimediaCommons/CC BY-SA 3.0

The open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT00129090) was conducted across 61 centers in Germany on patients aged 18-60 years who had newly diagnosed, high-risk, aggressive B-cell lymphoma, according to Fabian Frontzek, MD, of the University Hospital Münster (Germany) and colleagues.

Between March 2003 and April 2009, patients were randomly assigned to eight cycles of conventional chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, etoposide, and prednisolone) plus rituximab (R-CHOEP-14) or four cycles of high-dose chemotherapy plus rituximab followed by autologous HSCT (R-MegaCHOEP). The intention-to-treat population comprised 130 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 132 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group. The median follow-up was 9.3 years.
 

Similar outcomes

The 10-year event-free survival was 51% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 57% in the R-CHOEP-14 group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .23). Similarly, the 10-year progression-free survival was 59% in the

R-MegaCHOEP group and 60% (P = .64). The 10-year overall survival was 66% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 72% in the R-CHOEP-14 group (P = .26). Among the 190 patients who had complete remission or unconfirmed complete remission, relapse occurred in 30 (16%); 17 (17%) of 100 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 13 (14%) of 90 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

In terms of secondary malignancies, 22 were reported in the intention-to-treat population; comprising 12 (9%) of 127 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 10 (8%) of 126 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

Patients who relapsed with aggressive histology and with CNS involvement in particular had worse outcomes and “represent a group with an unmet medical need, for which new molecular and cellular therapies should be studied,” the authors stated.

“This study shows that, in the rituximab era, high-dose therapy and autologous HSCT in first-line treatment does not improve long-term survival of younger high-risk patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma. The R-CHOEP-14 regimen led to favorable outcomes, supporting its continued use in such patients,” the researchers concluded.

In an accompanying commentary, Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues added that the issue of long-term outcomes is critical to evaluating these new regimens.

They applauded the inclusion of secondary malignancies in the long-term follow-up, but regretted the lack of the, admittedly resource-intensive, information on long-term nonneoplastic adverse events. They added that “the burden of late adverse events such as cardiotoxicity, cumulative neuropathy, delayed infections, or lasting cognitive effects, among others that might drive substantial morbidity, does matter to lymphoma survivors.”

They also commented on the importance of considering effects on fertility in these patients, noting that R-MegaCHOEP patients would be unable to conceive naturally, but that the effect of R-CHOEP-14 was less clear.

“We encourage ongoing emphasis on this type of longitudinal follow-up of secondary malignancies and other nonneoplastic late toxicities in phase 3 studies as well as in the real world in hematological malignancies, so that after prioritizing cure in the front-line setting, we do not neglect the life we have helped survivors achieve for years and decades to come,” they concluded.

The study was sponsored by the German High-Grade Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Study Group. The authors reported grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Thanarajasingam and her colleagues reported that they had no competing interests.

[email protected]

After 10 years of follow-up, event-free survival and overall survival were similar between conventional chemotherapy treated patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma and those receiving high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), according to a report published online in the Lancet Hematology.

Michael Bonert/WikimediaCommons/CC BY-SA 3.0

The open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT00129090) was conducted across 61 centers in Germany on patients aged 18-60 years who had newly diagnosed, high-risk, aggressive B-cell lymphoma, according to Fabian Frontzek, MD, of the University Hospital Münster (Germany) and colleagues.

Between March 2003 and April 2009, patients were randomly assigned to eight cycles of conventional chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, etoposide, and prednisolone) plus rituximab (R-CHOEP-14) or four cycles of high-dose chemotherapy plus rituximab followed by autologous HSCT (R-MegaCHOEP). The intention-to-treat population comprised 130 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 132 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group. The median follow-up was 9.3 years.
 

Similar outcomes

The 10-year event-free survival was 51% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 57% in the R-CHOEP-14 group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .23). Similarly, the 10-year progression-free survival was 59% in the

R-MegaCHOEP group and 60% (P = .64). The 10-year overall survival was 66% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 72% in the R-CHOEP-14 group (P = .26). Among the 190 patients who had complete remission or unconfirmed complete remission, relapse occurred in 30 (16%); 17 (17%) of 100 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 13 (14%) of 90 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

In terms of secondary malignancies, 22 were reported in the intention-to-treat population; comprising 12 (9%) of 127 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 10 (8%) of 126 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

Patients who relapsed with aggressive histology and with CNS involvement in particular had worse outcomes and “represent a group with an unmet medical need, for which new molecular and cellular therapies should be studied,” the authors stated.

“This study shows that, in the rituximab era, high-dose therapy and autologous HSCT in first-line treatment does not improve long-term survival of younger high-risk patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma. The R-CHOEP-14 regimen led to favorable outcomes, supporting its continued use in such patients,” the researchers concluded.

In an accompanying commentary, Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues added that the issue of long-term outcomes is critical to evaluating these new regimens.

They applauded the inclusion of secondary malignancies in the long-term follow-up, but regretted the lack of the, admittedly resource-intensive, information on long-term nonneoplastic adverse events. They added that “the burden of late adverse events such as cardiotoxicity, cumulative neuropathy, delayed infections, or lasting cognitive effects, among others that might drive substantial morbidity, does matter to lymphoma survivors.”

They also commented on the importance of considering effects on fertility in these patients, noting that R-MegaCHOEP patients would be unable to conceive naturally, but that the effect of R-CHOEP-14 was less clear.

“We encourage ongoing emphasis on this type of longitudinal follow-up of secondary malignancies and other nonneoplastic late toxicities in phase 3 studies as well as in the real world in hematological malignancies, so that after prioritizing cure in the front-line setting, we do not neglect the life we have helped survivors achieve for years and decades to come,” they concluded.

The study was sponsored by the German High-Grade Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Study Group. The authors reported grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Thanarajasingam and her colleagues reported that they had no competing interests.

[email protected]

After 10 years of follow-up, event-free survival and overall survival were similar between conventional chemotherapy treated patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma and those receiving high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), according to a report published online in the Lancet Hematology.

Michael Bonert/WikimediaCommons/CC BY-SA 3.0

The open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT00129090) was conducted across 61 centers in Germany on patients aged 18-60 years who had newly diagnosed, high-risk, aggressive B-cell lymphoma, according to Fabian Frontzek, MD, of the University Hospital Münster (Germany) and colleagues.

Between March 2003 and April 2009, patients were randomly assigned to eight cycles of conventional chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, etoposide, and prednisolone) plus rituximab (R-CHOEP-14) or four cycles of high-dose chemotherapy plus rituximab followed by autologous HSCT (R-MegaCHOEP). The intention-to-treat population comprised 130 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 132 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group. The median follow-up was 9.3 years.
 

Similar outcomes

The 10-year event-free survival was 51% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 57% in the R-CHOEP-14 group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .23). Similarly, the 10-year progression-free survival was 59% in the

R-MegaCHOEP group and 60% (P = .64). The 10-year overall survival was 66% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 72% in the R-CHOEP-14 group (P = .26). Among the 190 patients who had complete remission or unconfirmed complete remission, relapse occurred in 30 (16%); 17 (17%) of 100 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 13 (14%) of 90 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

In terms of secondary malignancies, 22 were reported in the intention-to-treat population; comprising 12 (9%) of 127 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 10 (8%) of 126 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

Patients who relapsed with aggressive histology and with CNS involvement in particular had worse outcomes and “represent a group with an unmet medical need, for which new molecular and cellular therapies should be studied,” the authors stated.

“This study shows that, in the rituximab era, high-dose therapy and autologous HSCT in first-line treatment does not improve long-term survival of younger high-risk patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma. The R-CHOEP-14 regimen led to favorable outcomes, supporting its continued use in such patients,” the researchers concluded.

In an accompanying commentary, Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues added that the issue of long-term outcomes is critical to evaluating these new regimens.

They applauded the inclusion of secondary malignancies in the long-term follow-up, but regretted the lack of the, admittedly resource-intensive, information on long-term nonneoplastic adverse events. They added that “the burden of late adverse events such as cardiotoxicity, cumulative neuropathy, delayed infections, or lasting cognitive effects, among others that might drive substantial morbidity, does matter to lymphoma survivors.”

They also commented on the importance of considering effects on fertility in these patients, noting that R-MegaCHOEP patients would be unable to conceive naturally, but that the effect of R-CHOEP-14 was less clear.

“We encourage ongoing emphasis on this type of longitudinal follow-up of secondary malignancies and other nonneoplastic late toxicities in phase 3 studies as well as in the real world in hematological malignancies, so that after prioritizing cure in the front-line setting, we do not neglect the life we have helped survivors achieve for years and decades to come,” they concluded.

The study was sponsored by the German High-Grade Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Study Group. The authors reported grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Thanarajasingam and her colleagues reported that they had no competing interests.

[email protected]

Medicare payments for branded neurologic drugs jumped 50% over a 5-year period, while claims for these medications increased by just 8%, new research shows. Results of the retrospective study also showed that most of the increased costs for these agents were due to rising costs for neuroimmunology drugs, mainly for those used to treat multiple sclerosis (MS).

“The same brand name medication in 2017 cost approximately 50% more than in 2013,” said Adam de Havenon, MD, assistant professor of neurology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

“An analogy would be if you bought an iPhone 5 in 2013 for $500, and then in 2017, you were asked to pay $750 for the exact same iPhone 5,” Dr. de Havenon added.

The study findings were published online March 10 in the journal Neurology.
 

$26 billion in payments

Both neurologists and patients are concerned about the high cost of prescription drugs for neurologic diseases, and Medicare Part D data indicate that these drugs are the most expensive component of neurologic care, the researchers noted. In addition, out-of-pocket costs have increased significantly for patients with neurologic disease such as Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, and MS.

To understand trends in payments for neurologic drugs, Dr. de Havenon and colleagues analyzed Medicare Part D claims filed from 2013 to 2017. The payments include costs paid by Medicare, the patient, government subsidies, and other third-party payers.

In addition to examining more current Medicare Part D data than previous studies, the current analysis examined all medications prescribed by neurologists that consistently remained branded or generic during the 5-year study period, said Dr. de Havenon. This approach resulted in a large number of claims and a large total cost.

To calculate the percentage change in annual payment claims, the researchers used 2013 prices as a reference point. They identified drugs named in 2013 claims and classified them as generic, brand-name only, or brand-name with generic equivalent. Researchers also divided the drugs by neurologic subspecialty.

The analysis included 520 drugs, all of which were available in each year of the study period. Of these drugs, 322 were generic, 61 were brand-name only, and 137 were brand-name with a generic equivalent. There were 90.7 million total claims.

Results showed total payments amounted to $26.65 billion. Yearly total payments increased from $4.05 billion in 2013 to $6.09 billion in 2017, representing a 50.4% increase, even after adjusting for inflation. Total claims increased by 7.6% – from 17.1 million in 2013 to 18.4 million in 2017.

From 2013 to 2017, claim payments increased by 0.6% for generic drugs, 42.4% for brand-name only drugs, and 45% for brand-name drugs with generic equivalents. The proportion of claims increased from 81.9% to 88% for generic drugs and from 4.9% to 6.2% for brand-name only drugs.

However, the proportion of claims for brand-name drugs with generic equivalents decreased from 13.3% to 5.8%.
 

Treatment barrier

Neuroimmunologic drugs, most of which were prescribed for MS, had exceptional cost, the researchers noted. These drugs accounted for more than 50% of payments but only 4.3% of claims. Claim payment for these drugs increased by 46.9% during the study period, from $3,337 to $4,902.

When neuroimmunologic drugs were removed from the analysis there was still significant increase in claim payments for brand-name only drugs (50.4%) and brand-name drugs with generic equivalents (45.6%).

Although neuroimmunologic medicines, including monoclonal antibodies, are more expensive to produce, this factor alone does not explain their exceptional cost, said Dr. de Havenon. “The high cost of brand-name drugs in this speciality is likely because the market bears it,” he added. “In other words, MS is a disabling disease and the medications work, so historically the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have been willing to tolerate the high cost of these primarily brand-name medications.”

Several countries have controlled drug costs by negotiating with pharmaceutical companies and through legislation, Dr. de Havenon noted.

“My intent with this article was to raise awareness on the topic, which I struggle with frequently as a clinician. I know I want my patients to have a medication, but the cost prevents it,” he said.
 

‘Unfettered’ price-setting

Commenting on the findings, Robert J. Fox, MD, vice chair for research at the Neurological Institute of the Cleveland Clinic, said the study “brings into clear light” what neurologists, particularly those who treat MS, have long suspected but did not really know. These neurologists “are typically distanced from the payment aspects of the medications they prescribe,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the research.

Although a particular strength of the study was its comprehensiveness, the researchers excluded infusion claims – which account for a large portion of total patient care costs for many disorders, he noted.

Drugs for MS historically have been expensive, ostensibly because of their high cost of development. In addition, the large and continued price increase that occurs long after these drugs have been approved remains unexplained, said Dr. Fox.

He noted that the study findings might not directly affect clinical practice because neurologists will continue prescribing medications they think are best for their patients. “Instead, I think this is a lesson to lawmakers about the massive error in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, where the federal government was prohibited from negotiating drug prices. If the seller is unfettered in setting a price, then no one should be surprised when the price rises,” Dr. Fox said.

Because many new drugs and new generic formulations for treating MS have become available during the past year, “repeating these types of economic studies for the period 2020-2025 will help us understand if generic competition – as well as new laws if they are passed – alter price,” he concluded.

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology, which publishes Neurology. Dr. de Havenon has received clinical research funding from AMAG Pharmaceuticals and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Fox receives consulting fees from many pharmaceutical companies involved in the development of therapies for MS.

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

Medicare payments for branded neurologic drugs jumped 50% over a 5-year period, while claims for these medications increased by just 8%, new research shows. Results of the retrospective study also showed that most of the increased costs for these agents were due to rising costs for neuroimmunology drugs, mainly for those used to treat multiple sclerosis (MS).

“The same brand name medication in 2017 cost approximately 50% more than in 2013,” said Adam de Havenon, MD, assistant professor of neurology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

“An analogy would be if you bought an iPhone 5 in 2013 for $500, and then in 2017, you were asked to pay $750 for the exact same iPhone 5,” Dr. de Havenon added.

The study findings were published online March 10 in the journal Neurology.
 

$26 billion in payments

Both neurologists and patients are concerned about the high cost of prescription drugs for neurologic diseases, and Medicare Part D data indicate that these drugs are the most expensive component of neurologic care, the researchers noted. In addition, out-of-pocket costs have increased significantly for patients with neurologic disease such as Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, and MS.

To understand trends in payments for neurologic drugs, Dr. de Havenon and colleagues analyzed Medicare Part D claims filed from 2013 to 2017. The payments include costs paid by Medicare, the patient, government subsidies, and other third-party payers.

In addition to examining more current Medicare Part D data than previous studies, the current analysis examined all medications prescribed by neurologists that consistently remained branded or generic during the 5-year study period, said Dr. de Havenon. This approach resulted in a large number of claims and a large total cost.

To calculate the percentage change in annual payment claims, the researchers used 2013 prices as a reference point. They identified drugs named in 2013 claims and classified them as generic, brand-name only, or brand-name with generic equivalent. Researchers also divided the drugs by neurologic subspecialty.

The analysis included 520 drugs, all of which were available in each year of the study period. Of these drugs, 322 were generic, 61 were brand-name only, and 137 were brand-name with a generic equivalent. There were 90.7 million total claims.

Results showed total payments amounted to $26.65 billion. Yearly total payments increased from $4.05 billion in 2013 to $6.09 billion in 2017, representing a 50.4% increase, even after adjusting for inflation. Total claims increased by 7.6% – from 17.1 million in 2013 to 18.4 million in 2017.

From 2013 to 2017, claim payments increased by 0.6% for generic drugs, 42.4% for brand-name only drugs, and 45% for brand-name drugs with generic equivalents. The proportion of claims increased from 81.9% to 88% for generic drugs and from 4.9% to 6.2% for brand-name only drugs.

However, the proportion of claims for brand-name drugs with generic equivalents decreased from 13.3% to 5.8%.
 

Treatment barrier

Neuroimmunologic drugs, most of which were prescribed for MS, had exceptional cost, the researchers noted. These drugs accounted for more than 50% of payments but only 4.3% of claims. Claim payment for these drugs increased by 46.9% during the study period, from $3,337 to $4,902.

When neuroimmunologic drugs were removed from the analysis there was still significant increase in claim payments for brand-name only drugs (50.4%) and brand-name drugs with generic equivalents (45.6%).

Although neuroimmunologic medicines, including monoclonal antibodies, are more expensive to produce, this factor alone does not explain their exceptional cost, said Dr. de Havenon. “The high cost of brand-name drugs in this speciality is likely because the market bears it,” he added. “In other words, MS is a disabling disease and the medications work, so historically the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have been willing to tolerate the high cost of these primarily brand-name medications.”

Several countries have controlled drug costs by negotiating with pharmaceutical companies and through legislation, Dr. de Havenon noted.

“My intent with this article was to raise awareness on the topic, which I struggle with frequently as a clinician. I know I want my patients to have a medication, but the cost prevents it,” he said.
 

‘Unfettered’ price-setting

Commenting on the findings, Robert J. Fox, MD, vice chair for research at the Neurological Institute of the Cleveland Clinic, said the study “brings into clear light” what neurologists, particularly those who treat MS, have long suspected but did not really know. These neurologists “are typically distanced from the payment aspects of the medications they prescribe,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the research.

Although a particular strength of the study was its comprehensiveness, the researchers excluded infusion claims – which account for a large portion of total patient care costs for many disorders, he noted.

Drugs for MS historically have been expensive, ostensibly because of their high cost of development. In addition, the large and continued price increase that occurs long after these drugs have been approved remains unexplained, said Dr. Fox.

He noted that the study findings might not directly affect clinical practice because neurologists will continue prescribing medications they think are best for their patients. “Instead, I think this is a lesson to lawmakers about the massive error in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, where the federal government was prohibited from negotiating drug prices. If the seller is unfettered in setting a price, then no one should be surprised when the price rises,” Dr. Fox said.

Because many new drugs and new generic formulations for treating MS have become available during the past year, “repeating these types of economic studies for the period 2020-2025 will help us understand if generic competition – as well as new laws if they are passed – alter price,” he concluded.

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology, which publishes Neurology. Dr. de Havenon has received clinical research funding from AMAG Pharmaceuticals and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Fox receives consulting fees from many pharmaceutical companies involved in the development of therapies for MS.

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

Medicare payments for branded neurologic drugs jumped 50% over a 5-year period, while claims for these medications increased by just 8%, new research shows. Results of the retrospective study also showed that most of the increased costs for these agents were due to rising costs for neuroimmunology drugs, mainly for those used to treat multiple sclerosis (MS).

“The same brand name medication in 2017 cost approximately 50% more than in 2013,” said Adam de Havenon, MD, assistant professor of neurology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

“An analogy would be if you bought an iPhone 5 in 2013 for $500, and then in 2017, you were asked to pay $750 for the exact same iPhone 5,” Dr. de Havenon added.

The study findings were published online March 10 in the journal Neurology.
 

$26 billion in payments

Both neurologists and patients are concerned about the high cost of prescription drugs for neurologic diseases, and Medicare Part D data indicate that these drugs are the most expensive component of neurologic care, the researchers noted. In addition, out-of-pocket costs have increased significantly for patients with neurologic disease such as Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, and MS.

To understand trends in payments for neurologic drugs, Dr. de Havenon and colleagues analyzed Medicare Part D claims filed from 2013 to 2017. The payments include costs paid by Medicare, the patient, government subsidies, and other third-party payers.

In addition to examining more current Medicare Part D data than previous studies, the current analysis examined all medications prescribed by neurologists that consistently remained branded or generic during the 5-year study period, said Dr. de Havenon. This approach resulted in a large number of claims and a large total cost.

To calculate the percentage change in annual payment claims, the researchers used 2013 prices as a reference point. They identified drugs named in 2013 claims and classified them as generic, brand-name only, or brand-name with generic equivalent. Researchers also divided the drugs by neurologic subspecialty.

The analysis included 520 drugs, all of which were available in each year of the study period. Of these drugs, 322 were generic, 61 were brand-name only, and 137 were brand-name with a generic equivalent. There were 90.7 million total claims.

Results showed total payments amounted to $26.65 billion. Yearly total payments increased from $4.05 billion in 2013 to $6.09 billion in 2017, representing a 50.4% increase, even after adjusting for inflation. Total claims increased by 7.6% – from 17.1 million in 2013 to 18.4 million in 2017.

From 2013 to 2017, claim payments increased by 0.6% for generic drugs, 42.4% for brand-name only drugs, and 45% for brand-name drugs with generic equivalents. The proportion of claims increased from 81.9% to 88% for generic drugs and from 4.9% to 6.2% for brand-name only drugs.

However, the proportion of claims for brand-name drugs with generic equivalents decreased from 13.3% to 5.8%.
 

Treatment barrier

Neuroimmunologic drugs, most of which were prescribed for MS, had exceptional cost, the researchers noted. These drugs accounted for more than 50% of payments but only 4.3% of claims. Claim payment for these drugs increased by 46.9% during the study period, from $3,337 to $4,902.

When neuroimmunologic drugs were removed from the analysis there was still significant increase in claim payments for brand-name only drugs (50.4%) and brand-name drugs with generic equivalents (45.6%).

Although neuroimmunologic medicines, including monoclonal antibodies, are more expensive to produce, this factor alone does not explain their exceptional cost, said Dr. de Havenon. “The high cost of brand-name drugs in this speciality is likely because the market bears it,” he added. “In other words, MS is a disabling disease and the medications work, so historically the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have been willing to tolerate the high cost of these primarily brand-name medications.”

Several countries have controlled drug costs by negotiating with pharmaceutical companies and through legislation, Dr. de Havenon noted.

“My intent with this article was to raise awareness on the topic, which I struggle with frequently as a clinician. I know I want my patients to have a medication, but the cost prevents it,” he said.
 

‘Unfettered’ price-setting

Commenting on the findings, Robert J. Fox, MD, vice chair for research at the Neurological Institute of the Cleveland Clinic, said the study “brings into clear light” what neurologists, particularly those who treat MS, have long suspected but did not really know. These neurologists “are typically distanced from the payment aspects of the medications they prescribe,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the research.

Although a particular strength of the study was its comprehensiveness, the researchers excluded infusion claims – which account for a large portion of total patient care costs for many disorders, he noted.

Drugs for MS historically have been expensive, ostensibly because of their high cost of development. In addition, the large and continued price increase that occurs long after these drugs have been approved remains unexplained, said Dr. Fox.

He noted that the study findings might not directly affect clinical practice because neurologists will continue prescribing medications they think are best for their patients. “Instead, I think this is a lesson to lawmakers about the massive error in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, where the federal government was prohibited from negotiating drug prices. If the seller is unfettered in setting a price, then no one should be surprised when the price rises,” Dr. Fox said.

Because many new drugs and new generic formulations for treating MS have become available during the past year, “repeating these types of economic studies for the period 2020-2025 will help us understand if generic competition – as well as new laws if they are passed – alter price,” he concluded.

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology, which publishes Neurology. Dr. de Havenon has received clinical research funding from AMAG Pharmaceuticals and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Fox receives consulting fees from many pharmaceutical companies involved in the development of therapies for MS.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently issued five recommendations for the most common dermatologic problems in primary care pediatrics.

Topics include diagnostic and management strategies for a variety of conditions, including atopic dermatitis, fungal infections, and autoimmune conditions.

The AAP Section on Dermatology created the recommendations, which were then reviewed and approved by “more than a dozen relevant AAP committees, councils, and sections,” before final approval by the AAP executive committee and board of directors.

The final list represents a collaborative effort with the Choosing Wisely initiative of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation, which aims “to promote conversations between clinicians and patients by helping patients choose care that is supported by evidence, not duplicative of other tests or procedures already received, free from harm, [and] truly necessary.”

Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, said that the recommendations are “a fine set of suggestions to help health care providers with some of their pediatric dermatology issues.”

• To begin, the AAP recommended against use of combination topical steroid antifungals for candida skin infections, diaper dermatitis, and tinea corporis, despite approvals for these indications.

“Many providers are unaware that the combination products contain a relatively high-potency topical steroid,” the AAP wrote, noting that “combination products are also often expensive and not covered by pharmacy plans.”

Diaper dermatitis responds best to barrier creams and ointments alone, according to the AAP. If needed, a topical, low-potency steroid may be used no more than twice a day, and tapered with improvement. Similarly, the AAP recommended a separate, low-potency steroid for tinea corporis if pruritus is severe.

• In contrast with this call for minimal treatment intensity, the AAP recommended a more intensive approach to tinea capitis, advising against topical medications alone.

“Topical treatments cannot penetrate the hair shaft itself, which is where the infection lies; thus, monotherapy with topical medications is insufficient to effectively treat the infection,” the AAP wrote. “This insufficient treatment can lead to increased health care costs resulting from multiple visits and the prescribing of ineffective medications.”

While medicated shampoos may still be used as adjunctive treatments for tinea capitis, the AAP recommended primary therapy with either griseofulvin or terbinafine, slightly favoring terbinafine because of adequate efficacy, lesser expense, and shorter regimen.

According to Dr. Eichenfield, a more thorough workup should also be considered.

“Consider culturing possible tinea capitis, so that oral antifungals can be used judiciously and not used for other scaling scalp diagnoses,” he said.

• For most cases of atopic dermatitis, the AAP advised against oral or injected corticosteroids, despite rapid efficacy, because of potential for adverse events, such as adrenal suppression, growth retardation, and disease worsening upon discontinuation. Instead, they recommended topical therapies, “good skin care practices,” and if necessary, “phototherapy and/or steroid-sparing systemic agents.”

“Systemic corticosteroids should only be prescribed for severe flares once all other treatment options have been exhausted and should be limited to a short course for the purpose of bridging to a steroid-sparing agent,” the AAP wrote.

Dr. Eichenfield emphasized this point, noting that new therapies have expanded treatment options.

“Be aware of the advances in atopic dermatitis,” he said, “with newer topical medications and with a new systemic biologic agent approved for moderate to severe refractory atopic dermatitis for ages 6 and older.”

• Turning to diagnostic strategies, the AAP recommended against routine laboratory testing for associated autoimmune diseases among patients with vitiligo, unless clinical signs and/or symptoms of such diseases are present.

“There is no convincing evidence that extensive workups in the absence of specific clinical suspicion improves outcomes for patients and may in fact beget additional costs and harms,” the AAP wrote. “Although many studies suggest ordering these tests, it is based largely on the increased cosegregation of vitiligo and thyroid disease and not on improved outcomes from having identified an abnormal laboratory test result.”

• Similarly, the AAP advised practitioners to avoid routinely testing patients with alopecia areata for other diseases if relevant symptoms and signs aren’t present.

“As in the case of vitiligo, it is more common to find thyroid autoantibodies or subclinical hypothyroidism than overt thyroid disease, unless there are clinically suspicious findings,” the AAP wrote. “Patients identified as having subclinical hypothyroidism are not currently treated and may even have resolution of the abnormal TSH.”

Before drawing blood, Dr. Eichenfield suggested that clinicians first ask the right questions.

“Be comfortable with screening questions about growth, weight, or activity changes to assist with decisions for thyroid screening in a patient with vitiligo or alopecia areata,” he said.

Choosing Wisely is an initiative of the American Board of Internal Medicine. The AAP and Dr. Eichenfield reported no conflicts of interest.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently issued five recommendations for the most common dermatologic problems in primary care pediatrics.

Topics include diagnostic and management strategies for a variety of conditions, including atopic dermatitis, fungal infections, and autoimmune conditions.

The AAP Section on Dermatology created the recommendations, which were then reviewed and approved by “more than a dozen relevant AAP committees, councils, and sections,” before final approval by the AAP executive committee and board of directors.

The final list represents a collaborative effort with the Choosing Wisely initiative of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation, which aims “to promote conversations between clinicians and patients by helping patients choose care that is supported by evidence, not duplicative of other tests or procedures already received, free from harm, [and] truly necessary.”

Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, said that the recommendations are “a fine set of suggestions to help health care providers with some of their pediatric dermatology issues.”

• To begin, the AAP recommended against use of combination topical steroid antifungals for candida skin infections, diaper dermatitis, and tinea corporis, despite approvals for these indications.

“Many providers are unaware that the combination products contain a relatively high-potency topical steroid,” the AAP wrote, noting that “combination products are also often expensive and not covered by pharmacy plans.”

Diaper dermatitis responds best to barrier creams and ointments alone, according to the AAP. If needed, a topical, low-potency steroid may be used no more than twice a day, and tapered with improvement. Similarly, the AAP recommended a separate, low-potency steroid for tinea corporis if pruritus is severe.

• In contrast with this call for minimal treatment intensity, the AAP recommended a more intensive approach to tinea capitis, advising against topical medications alone.

“Topical treatments cannot penetrate the hair shaft itself, which is where the infection lies; thus, monotherapy with topical medications is insufficient to effectively treat the infection,” the AAP wrote. “This insufficient treatment can lead to increased health care costs resulting from multiple visits and the prescribing of ineffective medications.”

While medicated shampoos may still be used as adjunctive treatments for tinea capitis, the AAP recommended primary therapy with either griseofulvin or terbinafine, slightly favoring terbinafine because of adequate efficacy, lesser expense, and shorter regimen.

According to Dr. Eichenfield, a more thorough workup should also be considered.

“Consider culturing possible tinea capitis, so that oral antifungals can be used judiciously and not used for other scaling scalp diagnoses,” he said.

• For most cases of atopic dermatitis, the AAP advised against oral or injected corticosteroids, despite rapid efficacy, because of potential for adverse events, such as adrenal suppression, growth retardation, and disease worsening upon discontinuation. Instead, they recommended topical therapies, “good skin care practices,” and if necessary, “phototherapy and/or steroid-sparing systemic agents.”

“Systemic corticosteroids should only be prescribed for severe flares once all other treatment options have been exhausted and should be limited to a short course for the purpose of bridging to a steroid-sparing agent,” the AAP wrote.

Dr. Eichenfield emphasized this point, noting that new therapies have expanded treatment options.

“Be aware of the advances in atopic dermatitis,” he said, “with newer topical medications and with a new systemic biologic agent approved for moderate to severe refractory atopic dermatitis for ages 6 and older.”

• Turning to diagnostic strategies, the AAP recommended against routine laboratory testing for associated autoimmune diseases among patients with vitiligo, unless clinical signs and/or symptoms of such diseases are present.

“There is no convincing evidence that extensive workups in the absence of specific clinical suspicion improves outcomes for patients and may in fact beget additional costs and harms,” the AAP wrote. “Although many studies suggest ordering these tests, it is based largely on the increased cosegregation of vitiligo and thyroid disease and not on improved outcomes from having identified an abnormal laboratory test result.”

• Similarly, the AAP advised practitioners to avoid routinely testing patients with alopecia areata for other diseases if relevant symptoms and signs aren’t present.

“As in the case of vitiligo, it is more common to find thyroid autoantibodies or subclinical hypothyroidism than overt thyroid disease, unless there are clinically suspicious findings,” the AAP wrote. “Patients identified as having subclinical hypothyroidism are not currently treated and may even have resolution of the abnormal TSH.”

Before drawing blood, Dr. Eichenfield suggested that clinicians first ask the right questions.

“Be comfortable with screening questions about growth, weight, or activity changes to assist with decisions for thyroid screening in a patient with vitiligo or alopecia areata,” he said.

Choosing Wisely is an initiative of the American Board of Internal Medicine. The AAP and Dr. Eichenfield reported no conflicts of interest.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently issued five recommendations for the most common dermatologic problems in primary care pediatrics.

Topics include diagnostic and management strategies for a variety of conditions, including atopic dermatitis, fungal infections, and autoimmune conditions.

The AAP Section on Dermatology created the recommendations, which were then reviewed and approved by “more than a dozen relevant AAP committees, councils, and sections,” before final approval by the AAP executive committee and board of directors.

The final list represents a collaborative effort with the Choosing Wisely initiative of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation, which aims “to promote conversations between clinicians and patients by helping patients choose care that is supported by evidence, not duplicative of other tests or procedures already received, free from harm, [and] truly necessary.”

Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, said that the recommendations are “a fine set of suggestions to help health care providers with some of their pediatric dermatology issues.”

• To begin, the AAP recommended against use of combination topical steroid antifungals for candida skin infections, diaper dermatitis, and tinea corporis, despite approvals for these indications.

“Many providers are unaware that the combination products contain a relatively high-potency topical steroid,” the AAP wrote, noting that “combination products are also often expensive and not covered by pharmacy plans.”

Diaper dermatitis responds best to barrier creams and ointments alone, according to the AAP. If needed, a topical, low-potency steroid may be used no more than twice a day, and tapered with improvement. Similarly, the AAP recommended a separate, low-potency steroid for tinea corporis if pruritus is severe.

• In contrast with this call for minimal treatment intensity, the AAP recommended a more intensive approach to tinea capitis, advising against topical medications alone.

“Topical treatments cannot penetrate the hair shaft itself, which is where the infection lies; thus, monotherapy with topical medications is insufficient to effectively treat the infection,” the AAP wrote. “This insufficient treatment can lead to increased health care costs resulting from multiple visits and the prescribing of ineffective medications.”

While medicated shampoos may still be used as adjunctive treatments for tinea capitis, the AAP recommended primary therapy with either griseofulvin or terbinafine, slightly favoring terbinafine because of adequate efficacy, lesser expense, and shorter regimen.

According to Dr. Eichenfield, a more thorough workup should also be considered.

“Consider culturing possible tinea capitis, so that oral antifungals can be used judiciously and not used for other scaling scalp diagnoses,” he said.

• For most cases of atopic dermatitis, the AAP advised against oral or injected corticosteroids, despite rapid efficacy, because of potential for adverse events, such as adrenal suppression, growth retardation, and disease worsening upon discontinuation. Instead, they recommended topical therapies, “good skin care practices,” and if necessary, “phototherapy and/or steroid-sparing systemic agents.”

“Systemic corticosteroids should only be prescribed for severe flares once all other treatment options have been exhausted and should be limited to a short course for the purpose of bridging to a steroid-sparing agent,” the AAP wrote.

Dr. Eichenfield emphasized this point, noting that new therapies have expanded treatment options.

“Be aware of the advances in atopic dermatitis,” he said, “with newer topical medications and with a new systemic biologic agent approved for moderate to severe refractory atopic dermatitis for ages 6 and older.”

• Turning to diagnostic strategies, the AAP recommended against routine laboratory testing for associated autoimmune diseases among patients with vitiligo, unless clinical signs and/or symptoms of such diseases are present.

“There is no convincing evidence that extensive workups in the absence of specific clinical suspicion improves outcomes for patients and may in fact beget additional costs and harms,” the AAP wrote. “Although many studies suggest ordering these tests, it is based largely on the increased cosegregation of vitiligo and thyroid disease and not on improved outcomes from having identified an abnormal laboratory test result.”

• Similarly, the AAP advised practitioners to avoid routinely testing patients with alopecia areata for other diseases if relevant symptoms and signs aren’t present.

“As in the case of vitiligo, it is more common to find thyroid autoantibodies or subclinical hypothyroidism than overt thyroid disease, unless there are clinically suspicious findings,” the AAP wrote. “Patients identified as having subclinical hypothyroidism are not currently treated and may even have resolution of the abnormal TSH.”

Before drawing blood, Dr. Eichenfield suggested that clinicians first ask the right questions.

“Be comfortable with screening questions about growth, weight, or activity changes to assist with decisions for thyroid screening in a patient with vitiligo or alopecia areata,” he said.

Choosing Wisely is an initiative of the American Board of Internal Medicine. The AAP and Dr. Eichenfield reported no conflicts of interest.

Anthony Fauci, MD, says he’s concerned about how Americans will react once the coronavirus pandemic is brought under control, CBS News reports.

Courtesy American College of Chest Physicians

Noting that an American Psychological Association survey showed people reporting high stress levels because of the pandemic, CBS’s Norah O’Donnell asked if Dr. Fauci was concerned about a possible “mental health pandemic.”

“Very much so,” Dr. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a top White House coronavirus adviser, replied.

“That’s the reason why I want to get the virological aspect of this pandemic behind us as quickly as we possibly can because the long-term ravages of this are so multifaceted,” Dr. Fauci said.

Some of the problems could include prolonged physical symptoms and the economic effects of the pandemic, he said.

“And then the other things: Not only the mental health effects, but many people have put off routine types of medical examinations that they normally would have done,” Dr. Fauci said.

“I hope we don’t see an increase in some preventable situations that would not have happened if people had the normal access to medical care, which clearly was interrupted by the shutdown associated with COVID-19,” he added.

The American Psychological Association released the survey results March 11 in what many people consider the 1-year anniversary of the start of the coronavirus pandemic.

“The prolonged stress experienced by adults, especially the high levels of stress reported by Americans directly linked to the pandemic, is seriously affecting mental and physical health, including changes to weight, sleep and alcohol use,” the APA said in a news release.

Some of the key findings of the survey include:
 

• 61% of respondents reported experiencing undesired weight changes since the start of the pandemic.
• 67% said their sleep habits changed, with 35% saying they slept more and 31% less.
• 23% reported drinking more alcohol to cope with stress.
• 47% said they delayed or canceled health care services because of the pandemic.
• 48% said their stress levels had increased.

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

Anthony Fauci, MD, says he’s concerned about how Americans will react once the coronavirus pandemic is brought under control, CBS News reports.

Courtesy American College of Chest Physicians

Noting that an American Psychological Association survey showed people reporting high stress levels because of the pandemic, CBS’s Norah O’Donnell asked if Dr. Fauci was concerned about a possible “mental health pandemic.”

“Very much so,” Dr. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a top White House coronavirus adviser, replied.

“That’s the reason why I want to get the virological aspect of this pandemic behind us as quickly as we possibly can because the long-term ravages of this are so multifaceted,” Dr. Fauci said.

Some of the problems could include prolonged physical symptoms and the economic effects of the pandemic, he said.

“And then the other things: Not only the mental health effects, but many people have put off routine types of medical examinations that they normally would have done,” Dr. Fauci said.

“I hope we don’t see an increase in some preventable situations that would not have happened if people had the normal access to medical care, which clearly was interrupted by the shutdown associated with COVID-19,” he added.

The American Psychological Association released the survey results March 11 in what many people consider the 1-year anniversary of the start of the coronavirus pandemic.

“The prolonged stress experienced by adults, especially the high levels of stress reported by Americans directly linked to the pandemic, is seriously affecting mental and physical health, including changes to weight, sleep and alcohol use,” the APA said in a news release.

Some of the key findings of the survey include:
 

• 61% of respondents reported experiencing undesired weight changes since the start of the pandemic.
• 67% said their sleep habits changed, with 35% saying they slept more and 31% less.
• 23% reported drinking more alcohol to cope with stress.
• 47% said they delayed or canceled health care services because of the pandemic.
• 48% said their stress levels had increased.

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

Anthony Fauci, MD, says he’s concerned about how Americans will react once the coronavirus pandemic is brought under control, CBS News reports.

Courtesy American College of Chest Physicians

Noting that an American Psychological Association survey showed people reporting high stress levels because of the pandemic, CBS’s Norah O’Donnell asked if Dr. Fauci was concerned about a possible “mental health pandemic.”

“Very much so,” Dr. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a top White House coronavirus adviser, replied.

“That’s the reason why I want to get the virological aspect of this pandemic behind us as quickly as we possibly can because the long-term ravages of this are so multifaceted,” Dr. Fauci said.

Some of the problems could include prolonged physical symptoms and the economic effects of the pandemic, he said.

“And then the other things: Not only the mental health effects, but many people have put off routine types of medical examinations that they normally would have done,” Dr. Fauci said.

“I hope we don’t see an increase in some preventable situations that would not have happened if people had the normal access to medical care, which clearly was interrupted by the shutdown associated with COVID-19,” he added.

The American Psychological Association released the survey results March 11 in what many people consider the 1-year anniversary of the start of the coronavirus pandemic.

“The prolonged stress experienced by adults, especially the high levels of stress reported by Americans directly linked to the pandemic, is seriously affecting mental and physical health, including changes to weight, sleep and alcohol use,” the APA said in a news release.

Some of the key findings of the survey include:
 

• 61% of respondents reported experiencing undesired weight changes since the start of the pandemic.
• 67% said their sleep habits changed, with 35% saying they slept more and 31% less.
• 23% reported drinking more alcohol to cope with stress.
• 47% said they delayed or canceled health care services because of the pandemic.
• 48% said their stress levels had increased.

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

Results from a phase 2 placebo-controlled trial of the investigational antiamyloid drug donanemab show that the novel agent met the primary outcome of slowing cognitive decline in patients with early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 

Results from the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial were presented at the 2021 International Conference on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Diseases (AD/PD) and were simultaneously published online March 13 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, topline results showed that donanemab slowed cognitive decline by 32% on the Integrated AD Rating Scale (iADRS) from baseline to 76 weeks relative to placebo.

The newly released detailed findings showed that “the use of donanemab resulted in a better composite score for cognition and for the ability to perform activities of daily living than placebo at 76 weeks, although results for secondary outcomes were mixed,” the investigators, with first author Mark A. Mintun, MD, an employee of Eli Lilly, reported.   

Results revealed improvement in scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) and the 13-item cognitive subscale of the AD Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog13), but the differences between the two treatment groups were not significant. In addition, score changes on the AD Cooperative Study–Instrumental Activities of Daily Inventory (ADCS-iADL) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were not “substantial.”

However, the donanemab group did show an 85-centiloid greater reduction in amyloid plaque level at 76 weeks, as shown on PET, compared with the placebo group.
 

Proof of concept?

The humanized antibody donanemab, which was previously known as LY3002813, targets a modified form of deposited amyloid-beta (A-beta) peptide called N3pG.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial, which was described as a “phase 2 proof of concept trial” in the AD/PD program, was conducted at 56 sites in the United States and Canada and included 257 patients between the ages of 60 and 85 years (52% were women). PET confirmed tau and amyloid deposition in all participants.

The active treatment group (n = 131) was randomly assigned to receive donanemab 700 mg for three doses; after that, treatment was bumped up to 1,400 mg. Both the donanemab and placebo groups (n = 126) received treatment intravenously every 4 weeks for up to 72 weeks.

Participants also underwent F-florbetapir and F-flortaucipir PET scans at various timepoints and completed a slew of cognitive tests.

The study’s primary outcome measure was change between baseline and 76 weeks post treatment on composite score for cognition, as measured by the iADRS. The iADRS combines the ADAS-Cog13 and the ADCS-iADL.

This measure ranges from 0 to 144, with lower scores associated with greater cognitive impairment. Both treatment groups had an iADRS score of 106 at baseline.
 

More research needed

Results showed that the score change from baseline on the iADRS was –6.86 for the active treatment group vs –10.06 for the placebo group (group difference, 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-6.27; P = .04). Although significant, “the trial was powered to show a 6-point difference,” which was not met, the investigators note.

Differences in score changes from baseline to 76 weeks for the treatment vs. placebo groups on the following secondary outcome measures were:

• CDR-SB: –0.36 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.12).
• ADAS-Cog13: –1.86 (95% CI, –3.63 to –0.09).
• ADCS-iADL: 1.21 (95% CI, –0.77 to 3.2).
• MMSE: 0.64 (95% CI, –0.4 to 1.67).

The CDR-SB was designated as the first secondary outcome, and because it did not show a significant between-group difference, “the hierarchy failed and no definite conclusions can be drawn from data regarding the differences between groups in the change in the ADAS-Cog13,” the investigators wrote.

In addition, the differences in scores on the latter two secondary outcomes were not “substantial,” they reported.

However, at 76 weeks, the donanemab group showed a reduction of 84.13 centiloids in amyloid plaque level vs. an increase of 0.93 centiloids in the placebo group (between-group difference, 85.06 centiloids). At 24 weeks, the active-treatment group had a 67.83-centiloids greater reduction vs. the placebo group.

In addition, 40%, 59.8%, and 67.8% of the donanemab group achieved “amyloid-negative status” at 24, 52, and 76 weeks, respectively. Amyloid-negative status was defined as an amyloid plaque level of less than 24.1 centiloids.

Total incidence of death or serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. However, the donanemab group had significantly more reports of ARIA-E compared with the placebo group (26.7% vs. 0.8%).

Overall, the researchers noted that more trials of longer duration with larger patient numbers are warranted “to further determine the efficacy and safety of donanemab” in AD.
 

Positive signal?

In a statement, Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said the organization “is encouraged by this promising data.

“It is the first phase 2 Alzheimer’s trial to show positive results on a primary outcome measure related to memory and thinking,” Dr. Carrillo said. However, “more work needs to be done on this experimental drug therapy.”

Dr. Carrillo noted that because the trial was moderately sized and only 180 participants completed the study, “we look forward to the results of a second, larger phase 2 trial of this drug.”

Still, she added, there were several “novel and innovative aspects” in the way the study was conducted noting that it showcases the evolution of AD research.

“I’m hopeful for the future,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Also commenting on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, neuroscientist and founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study showed “the pharmacology works” and that the drug did what it was supposed to do in terms of removing A-beta plaque.

“It also gave us a signal in a relatively small phase 2 study that there might be a modest cognitive benefit,” said Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that although the rate of decline slowing was statistically significant it remains to be seen whether this is clinically meaningful, particularly in light of the fact that the secondary outcome results were mixed.  

“Basically, it was a positive study that probably needs to be followed by another, much larger study to get us to really see the benefit,” Dr. Fillit said.

Dr. Mintun is an employee of Eli Lilly, which funded the study. Dr. Carrillo and Dr. Fillit have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Results from a phase 2 placebo-controlled trial of the investigational antiamyloid drug donanemab show that the novel agent met the primary outcome of slowing cognitive decline in patients with early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 

Results from the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial were presented at the 2021 International Conference on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Diseases (AD/PD) and were simultaneously published online March 13 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, topline results showed that donanemab slowed cognitive decline by 32% on the Integrated AD Rating Scale (iADRS) from baseline to 76 weeks relative to placebo.

The newly released detailed findings showed that “the use of donanemab resulted in a better composite score for cognition and for the ability to perform activities of daily living than placebo at 76 weeks, although results for secondary outcomes were mixed,” the investigators, with first author Mark A. Mintun, MD, an employee of Eli Lilly, reported.   

Results revealed improvement in scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) and the 13-item cognitive subscale of the AD Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog13), but the differences between the two treatment groups were not significant. In addition, score changes on the AD Cooperative Study–Instrumental Activities of Daily Inventory (ADCS-iADL) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were not “substantial.”

However, the donanemab group did show an 85-centiloid greater reduction in amyloid plaque level at 76 weeks, as shown on PET, compared with the placebo group.
 

Proof of concept?

The humanized antibody donanemab, which was previously known as LY3002813, targets a modified form of deposited amyloid-beta (A-beta) peptide called N3pG.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial, which was described as a “phase 2 proof of concept trial” in the AD/PD program, was conducted at 56 sites in the United States and Canada and included 257 patients between the ages of 60 and 85 years (52% were women). PET confirmed tau and amyloid deposition in all participants.

The active treatment group (n = 131) was randomly assigned to receive donanemab 700 mg for three doses; after that, treatment was bumped up to 1,400 mg. Both the donanemab and placebo groups (n = 126) received treatment intravenously every 4 weeks for up to 72 weeks.

Participants also underwent F-florbetapir and F-flortaucipir PET scans at various timepoints and completed a slew of cognitive tests.

The study’s primary outcome measure was change between baseline and 76 weeks post treatment on composite score for cognition, as measured by the iADRS. The iADRS combines the ADAS-Cog13 and the ADCS-iADL.

This measure ranges from 0 to 144, with lower scores associated with greater cognitive impairment. Both treatment groups had an iADRS score of 106 at baseline.
 

More research needed

Results showed that the score change from baseline on the iADRS was –6.86 for the active treatment group vs –10.06 for the placebo group (group difference, 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-6.27; P = .04). Although significant, “the trial was powered to show a 6-point difference,” which was not met, the investigators note.

Differences in score changes from baseline to 76 weeks for the treatment vs. placebo groups on the following secondary outcome measures were:

• CDR-SB: –0.36 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.12).
• ADAS-Cog13: –1.86 (95% CI, –3.63 to –0.09).
• ADCS-iADL: 1.21 (95% CI, –0.77 to 3.2).
• MMSE: 0.64 (95% CI, –0.4 to 1.67).

The CDR-SB was designated as the first secondary outcome, and because it did not show a significant between-group difference, “the hierarchy failed and no definite conclusions can be drawn from data regarding the differences between groups in the change in the ADAS-Cog13,” the investigators wrote.

In addition, the differences in scores on the latter two secondary outcomes were not “substantial,” they reported.

However, at 76 weeks, the donanemab group showed a reduction of 84.13 centiloids in amyloid plaque level vs. an increase of 0.93 centiloids in the placebo group (between-group difference, 85.06 centiloids). At 24 weeks, the active-treatment group had a 67.83-centiloids greater reduction vs. the placebo group.

In addition, 40%, 59.8%, and 67.8% of the donanemab group achieved “amyloid-negative status” at 24, 52, and 76 weeks, respectively. Amyloid-negative status was defined as an amyloid plaque level of less than 24.1 centiloids.

Total incidence of death or serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. However, the donanemab group had significantly more reports of ARIA-E compared with the placebo group (26.7% vs. 0.8%).

Overall, the researchers noted that more trials of longer duration with larger patient numbers are warranted “to further determine the efficacy and safety of donanemab” in AD.
 

Positive signal?

In a statement, Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said the organization “is encouraged by this promising data.

“It is the first phase 2 Alzheimer’s trial to show positive results on a primary outcome measure related to memory and thinking,” Dr. Carrillo said. However, “more work needs to be done on this experimental drug therapy.”

Dr. Carrillo noted that because the trial was moderately sized and only 180 participants completed the study, “we look forward to the results of a second, larger phase 2 trial of this drug.”

Still, she added, there were several “novel and innovative aspects” in the way the study was conducted noting that it showcases the evolution of AD research.

“I’m hopeful for the future,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Also commenting on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, neuroscientist and founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study showed “the pharmacology works” and that the drug did what it was supposed to do in terms of removing A-beta plaque.

“It also gave us a signal in a relatively small phase 2 study that there might be a modest cognitive benefit,” said Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that although the rate of decline slowing was statistically significant it remains to be seen whether this is clinically meaningful, particularly in light of the fact that the secondary outcome results were mixed.  

“Basically, it was a positive study that probably needs to be followed by another, much larger study to get us to really see the benefit,” Dr. Fillit said.

Dr. Mintun is an employee of Eli Lilly, which funded the study. Dr. Carrillo and Dr. Fillit have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Results from a phase 2 placebo-controlled trial of the investigational antiamyloid drug donanemab show that the novel agent met the primary outcome of slowing cognitive decline in patients with early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 

Results from the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial were presented at the 2021 International Conference on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Diseases (AD/PD) and were simultaneously published online March 13 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, topline results showed that donanemab slowed cognitive decline by 32% on the Integrated AD Rating Scale (iADRS) from baseline to 76 weeks relative to placebo.

The newly released detailed findings showed that “the use of donanemab resulted in a better composite score for cognition and for the ability to perform activities of daily living than placebo at 76 weeks, although results for secondary outcomes were mixed,” the investigators, with first author Mark A. Mintun, MD, an employee of Eli Lilly, reported.   

Results revealed improvement in scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) and the 13-item cognitive subscale of the AD Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog13), but the differences between the two treatment groups were not significant. In addition, score changes on the AD Cooperative Study–Instrumental Activities of Daily Inventory (ADCS-iADL) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were not “substantial.”

However, the donanemab group did show an 85-centiloid greater reduction in amyloid plaque level at 76 weeks, as shown on PET, compared with the placebo group.
 

Proof of concept?

The humanized antibody donanemab, which was previously known as LY3002813, targets a modified form of deposited amyloid-beta (A-beta) peptide called N3pG.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial, which was described as a “phase 2 proof of concept trial” in the AD/PD program, was conducted at 56 sites in the United States and Canada and included 257 patients between the ages of 60 and 85 years (52% were women). PET confirmed tau and amyloid deposition in all participants.

The active treatment group (n = 131) was randomly assigned to receive donanemab 700 mg for three doses; after that, treatment was bumped up to 1,400 mg. Both the donanemab and placebo groups (n = 126) received treatment intravenously every 4 weeks for up to 72 weeks.

Participants also underwent F-florbetapir and F-flortaucipir PET scans at various timepoints and completed a slew of cognitive tests.

The study’s primary outcome measure was change between baseline and 76 weeks post treatment on composite score for cognition, as measured by the iADRS. The iADRS combines the ADAS-Cog13 and the ADCS-iADL.

This measure ranges from 0 to 144, with lower scores associated with greater cognitive impairment. Both treatment groups had an iADRS score of 106 at baseline.
 

More research needed

Results showed that the score change from baseline on the iADRS was –6.86 for the active treatment group vs –10.06 for the placebo group (group difference, 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-6.27; P = .04). Although significant, “the trial was powered to show a 6-point difference,” which was not met, the investigators note.

Differences in score changes from baseline to 76 weeks for the treatment vs. placebo groups on the following secondary outcome measures were:

• CDR-SB: –0.36 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.12).
• ADAS-Cog13: –1.86 (95% CI, –3.63 to –0.09).
• ADCS-iADL: 1.21 (95% CI, –0.77 to 3.2).
• MMSE: 0.64 (95% CI, –0.4 to 1.67).

The CDR-SB was designated as the first secondary outcome, and because it did not show a significant between-group difference, “the hierarchy failed and no definite conclusions can be drawn from data regarding the differences between groups in the change in the ADAS-Cog13,” the investigators wrote.

In addition, the differences in scores on the latter two secondary outcomes were not “substantial,” they reported.

However, at 76 weeks, the donanemab group showed a reduction of 84.13 centiloids in amyloid plaque level vs. an increase of 0.93 centiloids in the placebo group (between-group difference, 85.06 centiloids). At 24 weeks, the active-treatment group had a 67.83-centiloids greater reduction vs. the placebo group.

In addition, 40%, 59.8%, and 67.8% of the donanemab group achieved “amyloid-negative status” at 24, 52, and 76 weeks, respectively. Amyloid-negative status was defined as an amyloid plaque level of less than 24.1 centiloids.

Total incidence of death or serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. However, the donanemab group had significantly more reports of ARIA-E compared with the placebo group (26.7% vs. 0.8%).

Overall, the researchers noted that more trials of longer duration with larger patient numbers are warranted “to further determine the efficacy and safety of donanemab” in AD.
 

Positive signal?

In a statement, Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said the organization “is encouraged by this promising data.

“It is the first phase 2 Alzheimer’s trial to show positive results on a primary outcome measure related to memory and thinking,” Dr. Carrillo said. However, “more work needs to be done on this experimental drug therapy.”

Dr. Carrillo noted that because the trial was moderately sized and only 180 participants completed the study, “we look forward to the results of a second, larger phase 2 trial of this drug.”

Still, she added, there were several “novel and innovative aspects” in the way the study was conducted noting that it showcases the evolution of AD research.

“I’m hopeful for the future,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Also commenting on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, neuroscientist and founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study showed “the pharmacology works” and that the drug did what it was supposed to do in terms of removing A-beta plaque.

“It also gave us a signal in a relatively small phase 2 study that there might be a modest cognitive benefit,” said Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that although the rate of decline slowing was statistically significant it remains to be seen whether this is clinically meaningful, particularly in light of the fact that the secondary outcome results were mixed.  

“Basically, it was a positive study that probably needs to be followed by another, much larger study to get us to really see the benefit,” Dr. Fillit said.

Dr. Mintun is an employee of Eli Lilly, which funded the study. Dr. Carrillo and Dr. Fillit have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The new 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for blood pressure management for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not receiving dialysis advises treating to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, provided measurements are “standardized” and that blood pressure is “measured properly.”

This blood pressure target – largely based on evidence from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) – represents “a major update” from the 2012 KDIGO guideline, which advised clinicians to treat to a target blood pressure of less than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria or less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.

The new goal is also lower than the less than 130/80 mm Hg target in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.

In a study of the public health implications of the guideline, Kathryn Foti, PhD, and colleagues determined that 70% of U.S. adults with CKD would now be eligible for treatment to lower blood pressure, as opposed to 50% under the previous KDIGO guideline and 56% under the ACC/AHA guideline.

“This is a major update of an influential set of guidelines for chronic kidney disease patients” at a time when blood pressure control is worsening in the United States, Dr. Foti, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in a statement from her institution.

The 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline and executive summary and the public health implications study are published online in Kidney International.
 

First, ‘take blood pressure well’

The cochair of the new KDIGO guidelines, Alfred K. Cheung, MD, from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that the guideline has “two important points.”

First, “take that blood pressure well,” he said. “That has a lot to do with patient preparation rather than any fancy instrument,” he emphasized.

Second, the guideline proposes a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg for most people with CKD not receiving dialysis, except for children and kidney transplant recipients. This target is “contingent on ‘standardized’ blood pressure measurement.”

The document provides a checklist for obtaining a standardized blood pressure measurement, adapted from the 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines. It starts with the patient relaxed and sitting on a chair for more than 5 minutes.

In contrast to this measurement, a “routine” or “casual” office blood pressure measurement could be off by plus or minus 10 mm Hg, Dr. Cheung noted.

In a typical scenario, he continued, a patient cannot find a place to park, rushes into the clinic, and has his or her blood pressure checked right away, which would provide a “totally unreliable” reading. Adding a “fudge factor” (correction factor) would not provide an accurate reading.

Clinicians “would not settle for a potassium measurement that is 5.0 mmol/L plus or minus a few decimal points” to guide treatment, he pointed out.
 

Second, target 120, properly measured

“The very first chapter of the guidelines is devoted to blood pressure measurement, because we recognize if we’re going to do 120 [mm Hg] – the emphasis is on 120 measured properly – so we try to drive that point home,” Tara I. Chang, MD, guideline second author and a coauthor of the public health implications study, pointed out in an interview.

“There are a lot of other things that we base clinical decisions on where we really require some degree of precision, and blood pressure is important enough that to us it’s kind of in the same boat,” said Dr. Chang, from Stanford (Calif.) University.

“In SPRINT, people were randomized to less than less than 120 vs. less than 140 (they weren’t randomized to <130),” she noted.

“The recommendation should be widely adopted in clinical practice,” the guideline authors write, “since accurate measurements will ensure that proper guidance is being applied to the management of BP, as it is to the management of other risk factors.”
 

Still need individual treatment

Nevertheless, patients still need individualized treatment, the document stresses. “Not every patient with CKD will be appropriate to target to less than 120,” Dr. Chang said. However, “we want people to at least consider less than 120,” she added, to avoid therapeutic inertia.

“If you take the blood pressure in a standardized manner – such as in the ACCORD trial and in the SPRINT trial – even patients over 75 years old, or people over 80 years old, they have very little side effects,” Dr. Cheung noted.

“In the overall cohort,” he continued, “they do not have a significant increase in serious adverse events, do not have adverse events of postural hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, injurious falls – so people are worried about it, but it’s not borne out by the data.

“That said, I have two cautions,” Dr. Cheung noted. “One. If you drop somebody’s blood pressure rapidly over a week, you may be more likely to get in trouble. If you drop the blood pressure gradually over several weeks, several months, you’re much less likely to get into trouble.”

“Two. If the patient is old, you know the patient has carotid stenosis and already has postural dizziness, you may not want to try on that patient – but just because the patient is old is not the reason not to target 120.”
 

ACE inhibitors and ARBs beneficial in albuminuria, underused

“How do you get to less than 120? The short answer is, use whatever medications you need to – there is no necessarily right cocktail,” Dr. Chang said.

“We’ve known that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] are beneficial in patients with CKD and in particular those with heavier albuminuria,” she continued. “We’ve known this for over 20 years.”

Yet, the study identified underutilization – “a persistent gap, just like blood pressure control and awareness,” she noted. “We’re just not making much headway.

“We are not recommending ACE inhibitors or ARBs for all the patients,” Dr. Cheung clarified. “If you are diabetic and have heavy proteinuria, that’s when the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs are most indicated.”
 

Public health implications

SPRINT showed that treating to a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease by 25% and all-cause mortality by 27% for participants with and those without CKD, Dr. Foti and colleagues stress.

They aimed to estimate how the new guideline would affect (1) the number of U.S. patients with CKD who would be eligible for blood pressure lowering treatment, and (2) the proportion of those with albuminuria who would be eligible for an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,699 adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m² or a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of ≥30 mg/g) who participated in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Both the 2021 and 2012 KDIGO guidelines recommend that patients with albuminuria and blood pressure higher than the target value who are not kidney transplant recipients should be treated with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

On the basis of the new target, 78% of patients with CKD and albuminuria were eligible for ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment by the 2021 KDIGO guideline, compared with 71% by the 2012 KDIGO guideline. However, only 39% were taking one of these drugs.

These findings show that “with the new guideline and with the lower blood pressure target, you potentially have an even larger pool of people who have blood pressure that’s not under control, and a potential larger group of people who may benefit from ACE inhibitors and ARBs,” Dr. Chang said.

“Our paper is not the only one to show that we haven’t made a whole lot of progress,” she said, “and now that the bar has been lowered, there [have] to be some renewed efforts on controlling blood pressure, because we know that blood pressure control is such an important risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes.”

Dr. Foti is supported by an NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant. Dr. Cheung has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Bard, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calliditas, Tricida, and UpToDate, and grant/research support from the National Institutes of Health for SPRINT (monies paid to institution). Dr. Chang has received consultancy fees from Bayer, Gilead, Janssen Research and Development, Novo Nordisk, Tricida, and Vascular Dynamics; grant/research support from AstraZeneca and Satellite Healthcare (monies paid to institution), the NIH, and the American Heart Association; is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Fresenius Medical Care Renal Therapies Group; and has received workshop honoraria from Fresenius. Disclosures of relevant financial relationships of the other authors are listed in the original articles.

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

The new 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for blood pressure management for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not receiving dialysis advises treating to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, provided measurements are “standardized” and that blood pressure is “measured properly.”

This blood pressure target – largely based on evidence from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) – represents “a major update” from the 2012 KDIGO guideline, which advised clinicians to treat to a target blood pressure of less than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria or less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.

The new goal is also lower than the less than 130/80 mm Hg target in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.

In a study of the public health implications of the guideline, Kathryn Foti, PhD, and colleagues determined that 70% of U.S. adults with CKD would now be eligible for treatment to lower blood pressure, as opposed to 50% under the previous KDIGO guideline and 56% under the ACC/AHA guideline.

“This is a major update of an influential set of guidelines for chronic kidney disease patients” at a time when blood pressure control is worsening in the United States, Dr. Foti, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in a statement from her institution.

The 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline and executive summary and the public health implications study are published online in Kidney International.
 

First, ‘take blood pressure well’

The cochair of the new KDIGO guidelines, Alfred K. Cheung, MD, from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that the guideline has “two important points.”

First, “take that blood pressure well,” he said. “That has a lot to do with patient preparation rather than any fancy instrument,” he emphasized.

Second, the guideline proposes a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg for most people with CKD not receiving dialysis, except for children and kidney transplant recipients. This target is “contingent on ‘standardized’ blood pressure measurement.”

The document provides a checklist for obtaining a standardized blood pressure measurement, adapted from the 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines. It starts with the patient relaxed and sitting on a chair for more than 5 minutes.

In contrast to this measurement, a “routine” or “casual” office blood pressure measurement could be off by plus or minus 10 mm Hg, Dr. Cheung noted.

In a typical scenario, he continued, a patient cannot find a place to park, rushes into the clinic, and has his or her blood pressure checked right away, which would provide a “totally unreliable” reading. Adding a “fudge factor” (correction factor) would not provide an accurate reading.

Clinicians “would not settle for a potassium measurement that is 5.0 mmol/L plus or minus a few decimal points” to guide treatment, he pointed out.
 

Second, target 120, properly measured

“The very first chapter of the guidelines is devoted to blood pressure measurement, because we recognize if we’re going to do 120 [mm Hg] – the emphasis is on 120 measured properly – so we try to drive that point home,” Tara I. Chang, MD, guideline second author and a coauthor of the public health implications study, pointed out in an interview.

“There are a lot of other things that we base clinical decisions on where we really require some degree of precision, and blood pressure is important enough that to us it’s kind of in the same boat,” said Dr. Chang, from Stanford (Calif.) University.

“In SPRINT, people were randomized to less than less than 120 vs. less than 140 (they weren’t randomized to <130),” she noted.

“The recommendation should be widely adopted in clinical practice,” the guideline authors write, “since accurate measurements will ensure that proper guidance is being applied to the management of BP, as it is to the management of other risk factors.”
 

Still need individual treatment

Nevertheless, patients still need individualized treatment, the document stresses. “Not every patient with CKD will be appropriate to target to less than 120,” Dr. Chang said. However, “we want people to at least consider less than 120,” she added, to avoid therapeutic inertia.

“If you take the blood pressure in a standardized manner – such as in the ACCORD trial and in the SPRINT trial – even patients over 75 years old, or people over 80 years old, they have very little side effects,” Dr. Cheung noted.

“In the overall cohort,” he continued, “they do not have a significant increase in serious adverse events, do not have adverse events of postural hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, injurious falls – so people are worried about it, but it’s not borne out by the data.

“That said, I have two cautions,” Dr. Cheung noted. “One. If you drop somebody’s blood pressure rapidly over a week, you may be more likely to get in trouble. If you drop the blood pressure gradually over several weeks, several months, you’re much less likely to get into trouble.”

“Two. If the patient is old, you know the patient has carotid stenosis and already has postural dizziness, you may not want to try on that patient – but just because the patient is old is not the reason not to target 120.”