Federal Practitioner

Jun Yang, MBBS, had watched as her father, who had battled hypertension for decades, ended up on four medications that still couldn’t bring his blood pressure to a healthy level. The cardiovascular endocrinologist then ran some tests, and soon thereafter her father had his blood pressure optimized on just one targeted medication.

Courtesy Dr. Jun Yang

Dr. Yang’s father was found to have a hormonal condition known as primary aldosteronism (PA) as the cause of his hypertension.

It turns out that PA is not as rare as once thought.

An eye-catching report in Annals of Internal Medicine this spring of an unexpectedly high prevalence of primary aldosteronism among a diverse cross section of U.S. patients with hypertension has raised issues that could dramatically change the way doctors in America, and elsewhere, assess and manage high blood pressure.

Foremost is the question of whether primary care physicians – the clinicians at the front line for diagnosing and initially treating most patients with hypertension – will absorb and act on this new evidence. For them, aldosteronism doesn’t automatically come to mind when they see high numbers on a BP monitor, and yet this latest research found that up to a third of all 726 patients in the study who were diagnosed with hypertension and with high urinary salt levels had PA.

That translates to a roughly three- to fivefold increase over standard prevalence estimates, and is a ”game changer” for how clinicians should approach hypertension management and PA diagnosis going forward, said John W. Funder, MD, in an editorial accompanying the Annals study.

Long considered relatively uncommon, hypertension driven by an excess of the hormone aldosterone, often because of an adenoma on the adrenal gland, is not the same as conventional “essential” hypertension. The former benefits from early diagnosis because its treatment is completely different – close to half of all PA patients can be treated definitively and quickly with surgical removal of an adenoma from one side of the adrenal gland.

For other PA patients, who have bilateral adrenal hyperplasia that is impossible to resolve surgically, treatment with drugs called mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), such as spironolactone, is needed because they target the hormonal cause of the high BP.

But what usually happens is that a patient with PA is mistakenly diagnosed with essential hypertension, in which the classic approach to treatment is to start with one regular antihypertensive drug, and add on further ones from different drug classes if blood pressure is not adequately controlled. When patients are taking three drugs, without adequate control, they are labeled as having “resistant hypertension.”

But in the case of PA, none of these conventional antihypertensives work, and the process of continuing to monitor and add different drugs wastes time, during which patients deteriorate.

“We need to change the culture of waiting for hypertension to be resistant and have patients riddled with end-organ damage,” due to years of persistently high BP and excess aldosterone “before we look for a secondary cause” like PA, declared Dr. Yang, of Hudson Institute of Medical Research and Monash University in Melbourne, during an interview.

So early diagnosis and prompt treatment of PA is key.

In addition to boosting the public health importance of early PA detection in hypertensive patients, the new up-sized PA prevalence numbers throw a spotlight on primary care physicians (PCPs) as key players who will need to apply the findings to practice on a public health scale.

These novel results create a need for “new guidelines, and a radically revised game plan with the key role of PCPs” emphasized in future management of patients with hypertension, said Dr. Funder, a professor of medicine at Monash University, in a second recent editorial in Hypertension.

“Buy-in by PCPs is essential,” agrees Robert M. Carey, MD, a cardiovascular endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, and a coauthor of the new study.

But he too acknowledges that this presents a major challenge. PCPs and internists, who diagnose a lot of hypertension, are “not used to thinking about aldosterone,” he said in an interview, encapsulating the key problem faced by proponents of earlier and more widespread PA assessment.

This dilemma looms as a “huge public health issue,” Dr. Carey warned.
 

‘We’re a long way from getting’ PCPs to buy in to PA screening

Will PCPs grow more comfortable with screening patients for PA themselves, or might they become more willing to refer hypertensive individuals for assessment at an expert center?

One skeptic is Ross D. Feldman, MD, a hypertension-management researcher and professor of medicine at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg. The finding about high PA prevalence in patients with hypertension “is brand new, [and] the message needs to get to PCPs,” he said. But, “We’re a long way from getting it” to them. “I don’t know how to do that. It will be a tough sell.”

In addition, repositioning MRAs as an earlier option for many hypertensive patients won’t be easy either, because “we’ll never have outcome-trial data for MRAs,” given that they are now generic drugs, he noted.

“No clinical trial data show [MRAs] are first-line drugs,” said Dr. Feldman, who explained that, instead, MRAs are considered “go-to drugs” for patients with treatment-resistant hypertension, a niche therapeutic area. Results from the PATHWAY-2 trial published 5 years ago in Lancet showed “spironolactone was clearly the most effective treatment for the condition,” according to the report authors.

But even among patients with resistant hypertension, screening for PA dramatically lags despite being enshrined in guidelines.

“PCPs should start checking aldosterone-to-renin ratios [a widely used PA screen] in all patients with resistant hypertension or hypertension with hypokalemia, and then refer patients to specialists for testing and management,” said Jordana B. Cohen, MD, a nephrologist and hypertension researcher at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

But recent studies of U.S. patient populations with clinical characteristics that meet existing criteria for PA screening showed that just 1%-2% of these individuals underwent an initial PA assessment, she noted, citing reports in the journals Surgery and Hypertension.

“We need to prioritize improving screening in these high-risk patients,” she stressed in an interview.

This illustrates that, in some respects, the new prevalence numbers are beside the point, because PA has been going unscreened and overlooked far too often even in the context of historical, lower prevalence rates, said Dr. Yang.

“The key point is that approximately 1 in 10 people with hypertension, and even more with resistant hypertension, have a form of the disease that is worse than essential hypertension but is routinely missed at present” and is also highly treatable.

“Evidence for the need for increased awareness of PA has been building for 2 decades,” stressed Dr. Yang, who has coauthored several commentaries and reviews that have bemoaned PA’s underappreciated status.
 

Interest in partnering with PCPs on guidance grows

One potential solution is to have endocrinologists and hypertension specialists’ partner with PCPs to come up with diagnostic and management recommendations. Both Dr. Funder and Dr. Carey are opinion leaders regarding the role of aldosterone in hypertension, and both were coauthors of the 2016 Endocrine Society guideline for PA assessment and management published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism , with Dr. Funder chairing the writing panel.

Now approaching its fifth year in effect, this guideline is “due for revision,” and “my hope is that we’ll be able to partner with one or more PCP organizations to come up with a version of the guideline targeted to PCPs,” Dr. Carey said.

He voiced interest in working on this with the American College of Physicians, which represents U.S. internal medicine physicians, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“We definitely need a partnership and educational efforts to get the word out from these organizations and not from a specialty society,” said Dr. Carey.

Dr. Funder said he has submitted a proposal to the Endocrine Society for a guidelines update he would chair with Dr. Carey’s assistance and with a diverse writing group that includes PCPs. Dr. Carey said that ideally this panel would write and release a revised guideline in 2021.

“Several of us are chomping at the bit to get this done,” he noted.

But participation by the ACP and AAFP remain uncertain as of September 2020. When approached about this, an ACP spokesperson said the organization had no comment. A spokesperson for the AAFP said, “It’s too early to tell if we will partner with any other organizations to develop guidelines specific to excess aldosterone, and how such guidelines might be received by our members.”

Recent history shows little cooperation between ACP, AAFP, and what might be termed the U.S. hypertension “establishment.” For example, when the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association released their most recent essential hypertension management guidelines in Hypertension in 2018, it was never adopted by ACP or AAFP.

The latter two organizations continue to endorse a higher BP threshold for diagnosing hypertension, and higher treatment targets set by alternative expert panels to those of the AHA/ACC.
 

Collaboration feasible, although PCPs overworked

Dr. Carey hopes that this episode will not preclude agreement over PA screening.

“I think it is still possible to partner with [the ACP and AAFP],” he observed, adding that he believes high PA prevalence among hypertensive patients and its consequences when unrecognized is “noncontentious.”

But he acknowledges that other, substantial hurdles also exist, notably the “overwhelming workload” that American PCPs already face.

David O’Gurek, MD, a family and community medicine physician at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine of Temple University in Philadelphia, agrees that a revamped approach to PA screening developed cooperatively between PCPs and specialists is an important goal and potentially feasible despite prior disagreements. “There has to be room for collaboration,” he said, but also emphasized the need for developing policies based on a systematic evidence review and a focus on patient-centered outcomes.

“We’re certainly missing patients with PA, but there needs to be greater clarity and standardization about the most appropriate screening approach and cutoff level” for flagging patients who need specialized assessment, Dr. O’Gurek said in an interview.

The current endocrinology literature also shows that experts remain divided on how best to accomplish this.

And some hypertension specialists question whether existing evidence is conclusive enough to warrant revised guidelines.

Dr. Cohen, the nephrologist and hypertension researcher, said that, while the recent prevalence report in Annals of Internal Medicine is “intriguing, hypothesis-generating information that suggests we are missing many cases of hyperaldosteronism in routine care,” she nevertheless believes that “we need additional data to be able to truly understand the breadth and implications of the findings.”

William C. Cushman, MD, a hypertension management specialist at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, agrees.

Changing existing practice guidelines “really needs randomized, controlled trials demonstrating a difference in long-term outcomes, ideally major cardiovascular outcomes,” that result from broader PA screening, he said.

Dr. Carey concurs that more evidence is needed to confirm the Annals report, but is confident this evidence will be in hand by the time a guideline-revision panel meets in 2021.
 

Australian model of PCPs screening for PA could be implemented in United States

An example of what might be possible when PCPs, endocrinologists, and hypertension specialists work together to make PA screening more accessible can be found in Melbourne, at the Endocrine Hypertension Service of Monash Health, in association with the Hudson Institute of Medical Research.

This began operating in July 2016, cofounded by Dr. Yang, whose experiences with her own father made her sensitive to the issue.

The service’s aim is to “address the underdiagnosis of PA, and to offer a streamlined diagnostic service for patients with hypertension,” with an “extensive outreach program” targeted to regional PCPs that, among other messages, encourages them to screen patients for PA when blood pressures exceed 140/90 mm Hg.

During its first 3 years of operation, the service saw 267 patients, with PA diagnosed in 135 and ruled out in 73 patients.

Notably, the proportion of these patients referred from PCPs jumped from 21% of 70 patients during the first year of operation to 47% of 70 patients during year 2, and 52% of 127 patients during the third year, ending in July 2019, said Dr. Yang, who continues to help run the service.

During the first year, a scant 3% of referred patients had recently diagnosed hypertension, but this rose to 14% during the second year, and to 19% during the most recent year with data available.

The median duration of diagnosed hypertension among referred patients fell from 11 years during year 1, to 7 years during year 3.

Service clinicians diagnosed 37 patients with unilateral adenomas, and removed them from 23 patients with four more awaiting surgery and the remaining 10 opting instead for medical management. Another 95 patients went on therapy with a MRA, and during the most recent year studied all patients who began a MRA regimen had a partial or complete clinical response.

Dr. Carey said the “creative program represents a model for implementation in U.S. practice.

Dr. Funder, Dr. Carey, Dr. Feldman, Dr. Yang, Dr. Cohen, and Dr. O’Gurek had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Cushman has been a consultant to Novartis, received personal fees from Sanofi, and research funding from Eli Lilly.

[email protected]

Jun Yang, MBBS, had watched as her father, who had battled hypertension for decades, ended up on four medications that still couldn’t bring his blood pressure to a healthy level. The cardiovascular endocrinologist then ran some tests, and soon thereafter her father had his blood pressure optimized on just one targeted medication.

Courtesy Dr. Jun Yang

Dr. Yang’s father was found to have a hormonal condition known as primary aldosteronism (PA) as the cause of his hypertension.

It turns out that PA is not as rare as once thought.

An eye-catching report in Annals of Internal Medicine this spring of an unexpectedly high prevalence of primary aldosteronism among a diverse cross section of U.S. patients with hypertension has raised issues that could dramatically change the way doctors in America, and elsewhere, assess and manage high blood pressure.

Foremost is the question of whether primary care physicians – the clinicians at the front line for diagnosing and initially treating most patients with hypertension – will absorb and act on this new evidence. For them, aldosteronism doesn’t automatically come to mind when they see high numbers on a BP monitor, and yet this latest research found that up to a third of all 726 patients in the study who were diagnosed with hypertension and with high urinary salt levels had PA.

That translates to a roughly three- to fivefold increase over standard prevalence estimates, and is a ”game changer” for how clinicians should approach hypertension management and PA diagnosis going forward, said John W. Funder, MD, in an editorial accompanying the Annals study.

Long considered relatively uncommon, hypertension driven by an excess of the hormone aldosterone, often because of an adenoma on the adrenal gland, is not the same as conventional “essential” hypertension. The former benefits from early diagnosis because its treatment is completely different – close to half of all PA patients can be treated definitively and quickly with surgical removal of an adenoma from one side of the adrenal gland.

For other PA patients, who have bilateral adrenal hyperplasia that is impossible to resolve surgically, treatment with drugs called mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), such as spironolactone, is needed because they target the hormonal cause of the high BP.

But what usually happens is that a patient with PA is mistakenly diagnosed with essential hypertension, in which the classic approach to treatment is to start with one regular antihypertensive drug, and add on further ones from different drug classes if blood pressure is not adequately controlled. When patients are taking three drugs, without adequate control, they are labeled as having “resistant hypertension.”

But in the case of PA, none of these conventional antihypertensives work, and the process of continuing to monitor and add different drugs wastes time, during which patients deteriorate.

“We need to change the culture of waiting for hypertension to be resistant and have patients riddled with end-organ damage,” due to years of persistently high BP and excess aldosterone “before we look for a secondary cause” like PA, declared Dr. Yang, of Hudson Institute of Medical Research and Monash University in Melbourne, during an interview.

So early diagnosis and prompt treatment of PA is key.

In addition to boosting the public health importance of early PA detection in hypertensive patients, the new up-sized PA prevalence numbers throw a spotlight on primary care physicians (PCPs) as key players who will need to apply the findings to practice on a public health scale.

These novel results create a need for “new guidelines, and a radically revised game plan with the key role of PCPs” emphasized in future management of patients with hypertension, said Dr. Funder, a professor of medicine at Monash University, in a second recent editorial in Hypertension.

“Buy-in by PCPs is essential,” agrees Robert M. Carey, MD, a cardiovascular endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, and a coauthor of the new study.

But he too acknowledges that this presents a major challenge. PCPs and internists, who diagnose a lot of hypertension, are “not used to thinking about aldosterone,” he said in an interview, encapsulating the key problem faced by proponents of earlier and more widespread PA assessment.

This dilemma looms as a “huge public health issue,” Dr. Carey warned.
 

‘We’re a long way from getting’ PCPs to buy in to PA screening

Will PCPs grow more comfortable with screening patients for PA themselves, or might they become more willing to refer hypertensive individuals for assessment at an expert center?

One skeptic is Ross D. Feldman, MD, a hypertension-management researcher and professor of medicine at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg. The finding about high PA prevalence in patients with hypertension “is brand new, [and] the message needs to get to PCPs,” he said. But, “We’re a long way from getting it” to them. “I don’t know how to do that. It will be a tough sell.”

In addition, repositioning MRAs as an earlier option for many hypertensive patients won’t be easy either, because “we’ll never have outcome-trial data for MRAs,” given that they are now generic drugs, he noted.

“No clinical trial data show [MRAs] are first-line drugs,” said Dr. Feldman, who explained that, instead, MRAs are considered “go-to drugs” for patients with treatment-resistant hypertension, a niche therapeutic area. Results from the PATHWAY-2 trial published 5 years ago in Lancet showed “spironolactone was clearly the most effective treatment for the condition,” according to the report authors.

But even among patients with resistant hypertension, screening for PA dramatically lags despite being enshrined in guidelines.

“PCPs should start checking aldosterone-to-renin ratios [a widely used PA screen] in all patients with resistant hypertension or hypertension with hypokalemia, and then refer patients to specialists for testing and management,” said Jordana B. Cohen, MD, a nephrologist and hypertension researcher at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

But recent studies of U.S. patient populations with clinical characteristics that meet existing criteria for PA screening showed that just 1%-2% of these individuals underwent an initial PA assessment, she noted, citing reports in the journals Surgery and Hypertension.

“We need to prioritize improving screening in these high-risk patients,” she stressed in an interview.

This illustrates that, in some respects, the new prevalence numbers are beside the point, because PA has been going unscreened and overlooked far too often even in the context of historical, lower prevalence rates, said Dr. Yang.

“The key point is that approximately 1 in 10 people with hypertension, and even more with resistant hypertension, have a form of the disease that is worse than essential hypertension but is routinely missed at present” and is also highly treatable.

“Evidence for the need for increased awareness of PA has been building for 2 decades,” stressed Dr. Yang, who has coauthored several commentaries and reviews that have bemoaned PA’s underappreciated status.
 

Interest in partnering with PCPs on guidance grows

One potential solution is to have endocrinologists and hypertension specialists’ partner with PCPs to come up with diagnostic and management recommendations. Both Dr. Funder and Dr. Carey are opinion leaders regarding the role of aldosterone in hypertension, and both were coauthors of the 2016 Endocrine Society guideline for PA assessment and management published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism , with Dr. Funder chairing the writing panel.

Now approaching its fifth year in effect, this guideline is “due for revision,” and “my hope is that we’ll be able to partner with one or more PCP organizations to come up with a version of the guideline targeted to PCPs,” Dr. Carey said.

He voiced interest in working on this with the American College of Physicians, which represents U.S. internal medicine physicians, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“We definitely need a partnership and educational efforts to get the word out from these organizations and not from a specialty society,” said Dr. Carey.

Dr. Funder said he has submitted a proposal to the Endocrine Society for a guidelines update he would chair with Dr. Carey’s assistance and with a diverse writing group that includes PCPs. Dr. Carey said that ideally this panel would write and release a revised guideline in 2021.

“Several of us are chomping at the bit to get this done,” he noted.

But participation by the ACP and AAFP remain uncertain as of September 2020. When approached about this, an ACP spokesperson said the organization had no comment. A spokesperson for the AAFP said, “It’s too early to tell if we will partner with any other organizations to develop guidelines specific to excess aldosterone, and how such guidelines might be received by our members.”

Recent history shows little cooperation between ACP, AAFP, and what might be termed the U.S. hypertension “establishment.” For example, when the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association released their most recent essential hypertension management guidelines in Hypertension in 2018, it was never adopted by ACP or AAFP.

The latter two organizations continue to endorse a higher BP threshold for diagnosing hypertension, and higher treatment targets set by alternative expert panels to those of the AHA/ACC.
 

Collaboration feasible, although PCPs overworked

Dr. Carey hopes that this episode will not preclude agreement over PA screening.

“I think it is still possible to partner with [the ACP and AAFP],” he observed, adding that he believes high PA prevalence among hypertensive patients and its consequences when unrecognized is “noncontentious.”

But he acknowledges that other, substantial hurdles also exist, notably the “overwhelming workload” that American PCPs already face.

David O’Gurek, MD, a family and community medicine physician at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine of Temple University in Philadelphia, agrees that a revamped approach to PA screening developed cooperatively between PCPs and specialists is an important goal and potentially feasible despite prior disagreements. “There has to be room for collaboration,” he said, but also emphasized the need for developing policies based on a systematic evidence review and a focus on patient-centered outcomes.

“We’re certainly missing patients with PA, but there needs to be greater clarity and standardization about the most appropriate screening approach and cutoff level” for flagging patients who need specialized assessment, Dr. O’Gurek said in an interview.

The current endocrinology literature also shows that experts remain divided on how best to accomplish this.

And some hypertension specialists question whether existing evidence is conclusive enough to warrant revised guidelines.

Dr. Cohen, the nephrologist and hypertension researcher, said that, while the recent prevalence report in Annals of Internal Medicine is “intriguing, hypothesis-generating information that suggests we are missing many cases of hyperaldosteronism in routine care,” she nevertheless believes that “we need additional data to be able to truly understand the breadth and implications of the findings.”

William C. Cushman, MD, a hypertension management specialist at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, agrees.

Changing existing practice guidelines “really needs randomized, controlled trials demonstrating a difference in long-term outcomes, ideally major cardiovascular outcomes,” that result from broader PA screening, he said.

Dr. Carey concurs that more evidence is needed to confirm the Annals report, but is confident this evidence will be in hand by the time a guideline-revision panel meets in 2021.
 

Australian model of PCPs screening for PA could be implemented in United States

An example of what might be possible when PCPs, endocrinologists, and hypertension specialists work together to make PA screening more accessible can be found in Melbourne, at the Endocrine Hypertension Service of Monash Health, in association with the Hudson Institute of Medical Research.

This began operating in July 2016, cofounded by Dr. Yang, whose experiences with her own father made her sensitive to the issue.

The service’s aim is to “address the underdiagnosis of PA, and to offer a streamlined diagnostic service for patients with hypertension,” with an “extensive outreach program” targeted to regional PCPs that, among other messages, encourages them to screen patients for PA when blood pressures exceed 140/90 mm Hg.

During its first 3 years of operation, the service saw 267 patients, with PA diagnosed in 135 and ruled out in 73 patients.

Notably, the proportion of these patients referred from PCPs jumped from 21% of 70 patients during the first year of operation to 47% of 70 patients during year 2, and 52% of 127 patients during the third year, ending in July 2019, said Dr. Yang, who continues to help run the service.

During the first year, a scant 3% of referred patients had recently diagnosed hypertension, but this rose to 14% during the second year, and to 19% during the most recent year with data available.

The median duration of diagnosed hypertension among referred patients fell from 11 years during year 1, to 7 years during year 3.

Service clinicians diagnosed 37 patients with unilateral adenomas, and removed them from 23 patients with four more awaiting surgery and the remaining 10 opting instead for medical management. Another 95 patients went on therapy with a MRA, and during the most recent year studied all patients who began a MRA regimen had a partial or complete clinical response.

Dr. Carey said the “creative program represents a model for implementation in U.S. practice.

Dr. Funder, Dr. Carey, Dr. Feldman, Dr. Yang, Dr. Cohen, and Dr. O’Gurek had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Cushman has been a consultant to Novartis, received personal fees from Sanofi, and research funding from Eli Lilly.

[email protected]

Jun Yang, MBBS, had watched as her father, who had battled hypertension for decades, ended up on four medications that still couldn’t bring his blood pressure to a healthy level. The cardiovascular endocrinologist then ran some tests, and soon thereafter her father had his blood pressure optimized on just one targeted medication.

Courtesy Dr. Jun Yang

Dr. Yang’s father was found to have a hormonal condition known as primary aldosteronism (PA) as the cause of his hypertension.

It turns out that PA is not as rare as once thought.

An eye-catching report in Annals of Internal Medicine this spring of an unexpectedly high prevalence of primary aldosteronism among a diverse cross section of U.S. patients with hypertension has raised issues that could dramatically change the way doctors in America, and elsewhere, assess and manage high blood pressure.

Foremost is the question of whether primary care physicians – the clinicians at the front line for diagnosing and initially treating most patients with hypertension – will absorb and act on this new evidence. For them, aldosteronism doesn’t automatically come to mind when they see high numbers on a BP monitor, and yet this latest research found that up to a third of all 726 patients in the study who were diagnosed with hypertension and with high urinary salt levels had PA.

That translates to a roughly three- to fivefold increase over standard prevalence estimates, and is a ”game changer” for how clinicians should approach hypertension management and PA diagnosis going forward, said John W. Funder, MD, in an editorial accompanying the Annals study.

Long considered relatively uncommon, hypertension driven by an excess of the hormone aldosterone, often because of an adenoma on the adrenal gland, is not the same as conventional “essential” hypertension. The former benefits from early diagnosis because its treatment is completely different – close to half of all PA patients can be treated definitively and quickly with surgical removal of an adenoma from one side of the adrenal gland.

For other PA patients, who have bilateral adrenal hyperplasia that is impossible to resolve surgically, treatment with drugs called mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), such as spironolactone, is needed because they target the hormonal cause of the high BP.

But what usually happens is that a patient with PA is mistakenly diagnosed with essential hypertension, in which the classic approach to treatment is to start with one regular antihypertensive drug, and add on further ones from different drug classes if blood pressure is not adequately controlled. When patients are taking three drugs, without adequate control, they are labeled as having “resistant hypertension.”

But in the case of PA, none of these conventional antihypertensives work, and the process of continuing to monitor and add different drugs wastes time, during which patients deteriorate.

“We need to change the culture of waiting for hypertension to be resistant and have patients riddled with end-organ damage,” due to years of persistently high BP and excess aldosterone “before we look for a secondary cause” like PA, declared Dr. Yang, of Hudson Institute of Medical Research and Monash University in Melbourne, during an interview.

So early diagnosis and prompt treatment of PA is key.

In addition to boosting the public health importance of early PA detection in hypertensive patients, the new up-sized PA prevalence numbers throw a spotlight on primary care physicians (PCPs) as key players who will need to apply the findings to practice on a public health scale.

These novel results create a need for “new guidelines, and a radically revised game plan with the key role of PCPs” emphasized in future management of patients with hypertension, said Dr. Funder, a professor of medicine at Monash University, in a second recent editorial in Hypertension.

“Buy-in by PCPs is essential,” agrees Robert M. Carey, MD, a cardiovascular endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, and a coauthor of the new study.

But he too acknowledges that this presents a major challenge. PCPs and internists, who diagnose a lot of hypertension, are “not used to thinking about aldosterone,” he said in an interview, encapsulating the key problem faced by proponents of earlier and more widespread PA assessment.

This dilemma looms as a “huge public health issue,” Dr. Carey warned.
 

‘We’re a long way from getting’ PCPs to buy in to PA screening

Will PCPs grow more comfortable with screening patients for PA themselves, or might they become more willing to refer hypertensive individuals for assessment at an expert center?

One skeptic is Ross D. Feldman, MD, a hypertension-management researcher and professor of medicine at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg. The finding about high PA prevalence in patients with hypertension “is brand new, [and] the message needs to get to PCPs,” he said. But, “We’re a long way from getting it” to them. “I don’t know how to do that. It will be a tough sell.”

In addition, repositioning MRAs as an earlier option for many hypertensive patients won’t be easy either, because “we’ll never have outcome-trial data for MRAs,” given that they are now generic drugs, he noted.

“No clinical trial data show [MRAs] are first-line drugs,” said Dr. Feldman, who explained that, instead, MRAs are considered “go-to drugs” for patients with treatment-resistant hypertension, a niche therapeutic area. Results from the PATHWAY-2 trial published 5 years ago in Lancet showed “spironolactone was clearly the most effective treatment for the condition,” according to the report authors.

But even among patients with resistant hypertension, screening for PA dramatically lags despite being enshrined in guidelines.

“PCPs should start checking aldosterone-to-renin ratios [a widely used PA screen] in all patients with resistant hypertension or hypertension with hypokalemia, and then refer patients to specialists for testing and management,” said Jordana B. Cohen, MD, a nephrologist and hypertension researcher at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

But recent studies of U.S. patient populations with clinical characteristics that meet existing criteria for PA screening showed that just 1%-2% of these individuals underwent an initial PA assessment, she noted, citing reports in the journals Surgery and Hypertension.

“We need to prioritize improving screening in these high-risk patients,” she stressed in an interview.

This illustrates that, in some respects, the new prevalence numbers are beside the point, because PA has been going unscreened and overlooked far too often even in the context of historical, lower prevalence rates, said Dr. Yang.

“The key point is that approximately 1 in 10 people with hypertension, and even more with resistant hypertension, have a form of the disease that is worse than essential hypertension but is routinely missed at present” and is also highly treatable.

“Evidence for the need for increased awareness of PA has been building for 2 decades,” stressed Dr. Yang, who has coauthored several commentaries and reviews that have bemoaned PA’s underappreciated status.
 

Interest in partnering with PCPs on guidance grows

One potential solution is to have endocrinologists and hypertension specialists’ partner with PCPs to come up with diagnostic and management recommendations. Both Dr. Funder and Dr. Carey are opinion leaders regarding the role of aldosterone in hypertension, and both were coauthors of the 2016 Endocrine Society guideline for PA assessment and management published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism , with Dr. Funder chairing the writing panel.

Now approaching its fifth year in effect, this guideline is “due for revision,” and “my hope is that we’ll be able to partner with one or more PCP organizations to come up with a version of the guideline targeted to PCPs,” Dr. Carey said.

He voiced interest in working on this with the American College of Physicians, which represents U.S. internal medicine physicians, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“We definitely need a partnership and educational efforts to get the word out from these organizations and not from a specialty society,” said Dr. Carey.

Dr. Funder said he has submitted a proposal to the Endocrine Society for a guidelines update he would chair with Dr. Carey’s assistance and with a diverse writing group that includes PCPs. Dr. Carey said that ideally this panel would write and release a revised guideline in 2021.

“Several of us are chomping at the bit to get this done,” he noted.

But participation by the ACP and AAFP remain uncertain as of September 2020. When approached about this, an ACP spokesperson said the organization had no comment. A spokesperson for the AAFP said, “It’s too early to tell if we will partner with any other organizations to develop guidelines specific to excess aldosterone, and how such guidelines might be received by our members.”

Recent history shows little cooperation between ACP, AAFP, and what might be termed the U.S. hypertension “establishment.” For example, when the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association released their most recent essential hypertension management guidelines in Hypertension in 2018, it was never adopted by ACP or AAFP.

The latter two organizations continue to endorse a higher BP threshold for diagnosing hypertension, and higher treatment targets set by alternative expert panels to those of the AHA/ACC.
 

Collaboration feasible, although PCPs overworked

Dr. Carey hopes that this episode will not preclude agreement over PA screening.

“I think it is still possible to partner with [the ACP and AAFP],” he observed, adding that he believes high PA prevalence among hypertensive patients and its consequences when unrecognized is “noncontentious.”

But he acknowledges that other, substantial hurdles also exist, notably the “overwhelming workload” that American PCPs already face.

David O’Gurek, MD, a family and community medicine physician at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine of Temple University in Philadelphia, agrees that a revamped approach to PA screening developed cooperatively between PCPs and specialists is an important goal and potentially feasible despite prior disagreements. “There has to be room for collaboration,” he said, but also emphasized the need for developing policies based on a systematic evidence review and a focus on patient-centered outcomes.

“We’re certainly missing patients with PA, but there needs to be greater clarity and standardization about the most appropriate screening approach and cutoff level” for flagging patients who need specialized assessment, Dr. O’Gurek said in an interview.

The current endocrinology literature also shows that experts remain divided on how best to accomplish this.

And some hypertension specialists question whether existing evidence is conclusive enough to warrant revised guidelines.

Dr. Cohen, the nephrologist and hypertension researcher, said that, while the recent prevalence report in Annals of Internal Medicine is “intriguing, hypothesis-generating information that suggests we are missing many cases of hyperaldosteronism in routine care,” she nevertheless believes that “we need additional data to be able to truly understand the breadth and implications of the findings.”

William C. Cushman, MD, a hypertension management specialist at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, agrees.

Changing existing practice guidelines “really needs randomized, controlled trials demonstrating a difference in long-term outcomes, ideally major cardiovascular outcomes,” that result from broader PA screening, he said.

Dr. Carey concurs that more evidence is needed to confirm the Annals report, but is confident this evidence will be in hand by the time a guideline-revision panel meets in 2021.
 

Australian model of PCPs screening for PA could be implemented in United States

An example of what might be possible when PCPs, endocrinologists, and hypertension specialists work together to make PA screening more accessible can be found in Melbourne, at the Endocrine Hypertension Service of Monash Health, in association with the Hudson Institute of Medical Research.

This began operating in July 2016, cofounded by Dr. Yang, whose experiences with her own father made her sensitive to the issue.

The service’s aim is to “address the underdiagnosis of PA, and to offer a streamlined diagnostic service for patients with hypertension,” with an “extensive outreach program” targeted to regional PCPs that, among other messages, encourages them to screen patients for PA when blood pressures exceed 140/90 mm Hg.

During its first 3 years of operation, the service saw 267 patients, with PA diagnosed in 135 and ruled out in 73 patients.

Notably, the proportion of these patients referred from PCPs jumped from 21% of 70 patients during the first year of operation to 47% of 70 patients during year 2, and 52% of 127 patients during the third year, ending in July 2019, said Dr. Yang, who continues to help run the service.

During the first year, a scant 3% of referred patients had recently diagnosed hypertension, but this rose to 14% during the second year, and to 19% during the most recent year with data available.

The median duration of diagnosed hypertension among referred patients fell from 11 years during year 1, to 7 years during year 3.

Service clinicians diagnosed 37 patients with unilateral adenomas, and removed them from 23 patients with four more awaiting surgery and the remaining 10 opting instead for medical management. Another 95 patients went on therapy with a MRA, and during the most recent year studied all patients who began a MRA regimen had a partial or complete clinical response.

Dr. Carey said the “creative program represents a model for implementation in U.S. practice.

Dr. Funder, Dr. Carey, Dr. Feldman, Dr. Yang, Dr. Cohen, and Dr. O’Gurek had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Cushman has been a consultant to Novartis, received personal fees from Sanofi, and research funding from Eli Lilly.

[email protected]

Despite the ongoing epidemic of misuse, overuse, and diversion of opioids, the Food and Drug Administration has set a low bar for approval of these medications over the past 20 years, new research suggests.

Results of a cross-sectional study reveal that between 1997 and 2018, the majority of approvals of opioids for the treatment of chronic pain were based on pivotal trials that lacked critical safety and efficacy data.

The study results also show that the FDA did not require manufacturers to collect safety data on tolerance, withdrawal, overdose, misuse, and diversion in any rigorous fashion.

In addition, during the study period, 17 of the 39 new drug applications (NDAs) (only one was an innovator product, known as a new molecular entity) for chronic pain were approved with an “enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal” (EERW) trial design. Such a design, in this case, allowed manufacturers to exclude 32%-43% of the initially enrolled patients from the double-blind treatment phase.

“The question for regulators, policy makers, and others is: How did we get to a point where these approvals took place based on trials that were by design unlikely to yield some of the most important information about safety and efficacy that patients and clinicians would care about?” study investigator G. Caleb Alexander, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

The study was published online Sept. 29 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

‘Cooking the books’

Little is known about the evidence required by the FDA for new approvals of opioid analgesics.

To characterize the quality of safety and efficacy data in NDAs for opioid analgesics approved by the FDA between 1997 and 2018, the investigators conducted the cross-sectional analysis using data from ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA reviews, and peer-reviewed publications regarding phase 3 pivotal trials.

The investigators examined the key characteristics of each NDA, including the number, size, and duration of pivotal trials, trial control groups, use of EERW, and systematically measured safety outcomes.

Results showed that most of the 48 NDAs evaluated were for new dosage forms (52.1%) or new formulations (18.8%). Only one (2.1%) was for a new molecular entity.

Of 39 NDAs approved for the treatment of chronic pain, only 21 products were supported by at least one pivotal trial. The mean duration of these 28 trials was 84 days, and they enrolled a median of 299 patients.

Results showed that, for 17 of the 39 opioids approved for chronic pain, pivotal trials had an EERW design. For the latest period – 2012-2018 – trials of all eight of the approved opioids used the EERW method.

This EERW design allows the manufacturer to assess efficacy “among a subset of patients most likely to respond and least likely to have adverse effects, reducing generalizability to real-world settings,” the investigators noted.

They called on the FDA to stop relying on this type of trial to assess opioid efficacy.

In an August 2020 article, Andrew Kolodny, MD, pointed out the pitfalls of the EERW approach. In such a study, all participants are made physiologically dependent on the opioid in a 4- to 6-week open-label phase. Only those who tolerate the drug and find it helpful are included in the randomized study. Dr. Kolodny is codirector of opioid policy research at Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass.

“Critics of EERW have correctly described this methodology as ‘cooking the books,’ ” Dr. Kolodny writes.

He noted that the agency’s decision to rely on EERW trials for opioids was “based on discussions at private meetings between FDA officials and pharmaceutical company executives hosted by an organization called Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials.” The 2013 meetings were reported in an article published in the Washington Post.

Little sign of change

Among NDAs for chronic pain, the investigators found that eight (20.5%) included pooled safety reviews that reported systematic assessment of diversion. Seven (17.9%) reported systematic measurement of nonmedical use, and 15 (38.5%) assessed incident tolerance.

The study revealed that eight of nine products that were approved for acute pain were supported by at least one pivotal trial. The median duration of these 19 trials was 1 day, and they enrolled a median of 329 patients.

The investigators noted that the findings “underscore the evidence gaps that have limited clinicians’ and patients’ understanding and appreciation of the inherent risks of prescription opioid analgesics.”

Dr. Alexander, who has been an FDA advisory committee chairman and currently serves as a consultant to plaintiffs who are suing opioid manufacturers in federal multidistrict litigation, said the study “is a story about missed opportunities to improve the safety and to improve the regulatory review of these products.”

Coinvestigator Peter Lurie, MD, who was an official at the FDA from 2009 to 2017, said that “there’s not a lot of signs that things are changing” at the agency.

The study shows that the FDA has “accepted what the companies have been presenting,” said Dr. Lurie, who is president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

The FDA “absolutely has the authority” to require manufacturers to undertake more rigorous trials, but agency culture keeps it from making such demands, especially if doing so means a new applicant might have to conduct trials that weren’t previously required, Dr. Lurie said in an interview.

“FDA is pretty rigorous about trying to establish a level playing field. That’s a virtuous thing, but it becomes problematic when that prevents change,” said Dr. Lurie.

The most recent FDA guidance to manufacturers, issued in 2019, does not provide advice on criteria for endpoints, study duration, or which populations are most likely to benefit from opioid treatment. The agency also does not require drug manufacturers to formally collect data on safety, tolerance, overdose symptoms, or constipation.

The guidance does suggest that the agency would likely take into account public health considerations when evaluating opioids, such as the risk to the overall population for overdose and diversion.
 

‘Overwhelming evidence’

Dr. Kolodny said that, as far as he is aware, “this is the first scientific publication in a peer-reviewed journal demonstrating clearly the problems with FDA’s opioid approval process.”

The article offers “overwhelming evidence that they are improperly approving the most dangerous medications – medications that killed more people than any other medication on the market,” added Dr. Kolodny, who is also president of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing.

Asked to respond to the study findings, FDA spokesperson Charles Kohler said the agency “does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

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

Despite the ongoing epidemic of misuse, overuse, and diversion of opioids, the Food and Drug Administration has set a low bar for approval of these medications over the past 20 years, new research suggests.

Results of a cross-sectional study reveal that between 1997 and 2018, the majority of approvals of opioids for the treatment of chronic pain were based on pivotal trials that lacked critical safety and efficacy data.

The study results also show that the FDA did not require manufacturers to collect safety data on tolerance, withdrawal, overdose, misuse, and diversion in any rigorous fashion.

In addition, during the study period, 17 of the 39 new drug applications (NDAs) (only one was an innovator product, known as a new molecular entity) for chronic pain were approved with an “enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal” (EERW) trial design. Such a design, in this case, allowed manufacturers to exclude 32%-43% of the initially enrolled patients from the double-blind treatment phase.

“The question for regulators, policy makers, and others is: How did we get to a point where these approvals took place based on trials that were by design unlikely to yield some of the most important information about safety and efficacy that patients and clinicians would care about?” study investigator G. Caleb Alexander, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

The study was published online Sept. 29 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

‘Cooking the books’

Little is known about the evidence required by the FDA for new approvals of opioid analgesics.

To characterize the quality of safety and efficacy data in NDAs for opioid analgesics approved by the FDA between 1997 and 2018, the investigators conducted the cross-sectional analysis using data from ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA reviews, and peer-reviewed publications regarding phase 3 pivotal trials.

The investigators examined the key characteristics of each NDA, including the number, size, and duration of pivotal trials, trial control groups, use of EERW, and systematically measured safety outcomes.

Results showed that most of the 48 NDAs evaluated were for new dosage forms (52.1%) or new formulations (18.8%). Only one (2.1%) was for a new molecular entity.

Of 39 NDAs approved for the treatment of chronic pain, only 21 products were supported by at least one pivotal trial. The mean duration of these 28 trials was 84 days, and they enrolled a median of 299 patients.

Results showed that, for 17 of the 39 opioids approved for chronic pain, pivotal trials had an EERW design. For the latest period – 2012-2018 – trials of all eight of the approved opioids used the EERW method.

This EERW design allows the manufacturer to assess efficacy “among a subset of patients most likely to respond and least likely to have adverse effects, reducing generalizability to real-world settings,” the investigators noted.

They called on the FDA to stop relying on this type of trial to assess opioid efficacy.

In an August 2020 article, Andrew Kolodny, MD, pointed out the pitfalls of the EERW approach. In such a study, all participants are made physiologically dependent on the opioid in a 4- to 6-week open-label phase. Only those who tolerate the drug and find it helpful are included in the randomized study. Dr. Kolodny is codirector of opioid policy research at Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass.

“Critics of EERW have correctly described this methodology as ‘cooking the books,’ ” Dr. Kolodny writes.

He noted that the agency’s decision to rely on EERW trials for opioids was “based on discussions at private meetings between FDA officials and pharmaceutical company executives hosted by an organization called Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials.” The 2013 meetings were reported in an article published in the Washington Post.

Little sign of change

Among NDAs for chronic pain, the investigators found that eight (20.5%) included pooled safety reviews that reported systematic assessment of diversion. Seven (17.9%) reported systematic measurement of nonmedical use, and 15 (38.5%) assessed incident tolerance.

The study revealed that eight of nine products that were approved for acute pain were supported by at least one pivotal trial. The median duration of these 19 trials was 1 day, and they enrolled a median of 329 patients.

The investigators noted that the findings “underscore the evidence gaps that have limited clinicians’ and patients’ understanding and appreciation of the inherent risks of prescription opioid analgesics.”

Dr. Alexander, who has been an FDA advisory committee chairman and currently serves as a consultant to plaintiffs who are suing opioid manufacturers in federal multidistrict litigation, said the study “is a story about missed opportunities to improve the safety and to improve the regulatory review of these products.”

Coinvestigator Peter Lurie, MD, who was an official at the FDA from 2009 to 2017, said that “there’s not a lot of signs that things are changing” at the agency.

The study shows that the FDA has “accepted what the companies have been presenting,” said Dr. Lurie, who is president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

The FDA “absolutely has the authority” to require manufacturers to undertake more rigorous trials, but agency culture keeps it from making such demands, especially if doing so means a new applicant might have to conduct trials that weren’t previously required, Dr. Lurie said in an interview.

“FDA is pretty rigorous about trying to establish a level playing field. That’s a virtuous thing, but it becomes problematic when that prevents change,” said Dr. Lurie.

The most recent FDA guidance to manufacturers, issued in 2019, does not provide advice on criteria for endpoints, study duration, or which populations are most likely to benefit from opioid treatment. The agency also does not require drug manufacturers to formally collect data on safety, tolerance, overdose symptoms, or constipation.

The guidance does suggest that the agency would likely take into account public health considerations when evaluating opioids, such as the risk to the overall population for overdose and diversion.
 

‘Overwhelming evidence’

Dr. Kolodny said that, as far as he is aware, “this is the first scientific publication in a peer-reviewed journal demonstrating clearly the problems with FDA’s opioid approval process.”

The article offers “overwhelming evidence that they are improperly approving the most dangerous medications – medications that killed more people than any other medication on the market,” added Dr. Kolodny, who is also president of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing.

Asked to respond to the study findings, FDA spokesperson Charles Kohler said the agency “does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

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

Despite the ongoing epidemic of misuse, overuse, and diversion of opioids, the Food and Drug Administration has set a low bar for approval of these medications over the past 20 years, new research suggests.

Results of a cross-sectional study reveal that between 1997 and 2018, the majority of approvals of opioids for the treatment of chronic pain were based on pivotal trials that lacked critical safety and efficacy data.

The study results also show that the FDA did not require manufacturers to collect safety data on tolerance, withdrawal, overdose, misuse, and diversion in any rigorous fashion.

In addition, during the study period, 17 of the 39 new drug applications (NDAs) (only one was an innovator product, known as a new molecular entity) for chronic pain were approved with an “enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal” (EERW) trial design. Such a design, in this case, allowed manufacturers to exclude 32%-43% of the initially enrolled patients from the double-blind treatment phase.

“The question for regulators, policy makers, and others is: How did we get to a point where these approvals took place based on trials that were by design unlikely to yield some of the most important information about safety and efficacy that patients and clinicians would care about?” study investigator G. Caleb Alexander, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

The study was published online Sept. 29 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

‘Cooking the books’

Little is known about the evidence required by the FDA for new approvals of opioid analgesics.

To characterize the quality of safety and efficacy data in NDAs for opioid analgesics approved by the FDA between 1997 and 2018, the investigators conducted the cross-sectional analysis using data from ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA reviews, and peer-reviewed publications regarding phase 3 pivotal trials.

The investigators examined the key characteristics of each NDA, including the number, size, and duration of pivotal trials, trial control groups, use of EERW, and systematically measured safety outcomes.

Results showed that most of the 48 NDAs evaluated were for new dosage forms (52.1%) or new formulations (18.8%). Only one (2.1%) was for a new molecular entity.

Of 39 NDAs approved for the treatment of chronic pain, only 21 products were supported by at least one pivotal trial. The mean duration of these 28 trials was 84 days, and they enrolled a median of 299 patients.

Results showed that, for 17 of the 39 opioids approved for chronic pain, pivotal trials had an EERW design. For the latest period – 2012-2018 – trials of all eight of the approved opioids used the EERW method.

This EERW design allows the manufacturer to assess efficacy “among a subset of patients most likely to respond and least likely to have adverse effects, reducing generalizability to real-world settings,” the investigators noted.

They called on the FDA to stop relying on this type of trial to assess opioid efficacy.

In an August 2020 article, Andrew Kolodny, MD, pointed out the pitfalls of the EERW approach. In such a study, all participants are made physiologically dependent on the opioid in a 4- to 6-week open-label phase. Only those who tolerate the drug and find it helpful are included in the randomized study. Dr. Kolodny is codirector of opioid policy research at Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass.

“Critics of EERW have correctly described this methodology as ‘cooking the books,’ ” Dr. Kolodny writes.

He noted that the agency’s decision to rely on EERW trials for opioids was “based on discussions at private meetings between FDA officials and pharmaceutical company executives hosted by an organization called Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials.” The 2013 meetings were reported in an article published in the Washington Post.

Little sign of change

Among NDAs for chronic pain, the investigators found that eight (20.5%) included pooled safety reviews that reported systematic assessment of diversion. Seven (17.9%) reported systematic measurement of nonmedical use, and 15 (38.5%) assessed incident tolerance.

The study revealed that eight of nine products that were approved for acute pain were supported by at least one pivotal trial. The median duration of these 19 trials was 1 day, and they enrolled a median of 329 patients.

The investigators noted that the findings “underscore the evidence gaps that have limited clinicians’ and patients’ understanding and appreciation of the inherent risks of prescription opioid analgesics.”

Dr. Alexander, who has been an FDA advisory committee chairman and currently serves as a consultant to plaintiffs who are suing opioid manufacturers in federal multidistrict litigation, said the study “is a story about missed opportunities to improve the safety and to improve the regulatory review of these products.”

Coinvestigator Peter Lurie, MD, who was an official at the FDA from 2009 to 2017, said that “there’s not a lot of signs that things are changing” at the agency.

The study shows that the FDA has “accepted what the companies have been presenting,” said Dr. Lurie, who is president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

The FDA “absolutely has the authority” to require manufacturers to undertake more rigorous trials, but agency culture keeps it from making such demands, especially if doing so means a new applicant might have to conduct trials that weren’t previously required, Dr. Lurie said in an interview.

“FDA is pretty rigorous about trying to establish a level playing field. That’s a virtuous thing, but it becomes problematic when that prevents change,” said Dr. Lurie.

The most recent FDA guidance to manufacturers, issued in 2019, does not provide advice on criteria for endpoints, study duration, or which populations are most likely to benefit from opioid treatment. The agency also does not require drug manufacturers to formally collect data on safety, tolerance, overdose symptoms, or constipation.

The guidance does suggest that the agency would likely take into account public health considerations when evaluating opioids, such as the risk to the overall population for overdose and diversion.
 

‘Overwhelming evidence’

Dr. Kolodny said that, as far as he is aware, “this is the first scientific publication in a peer-reviewed journal demonstrating clearly the problems with FDA’s opioid approval process.”

The article offers “overwhelming evidence that they are improperly approving the most dangerous medications – medications that killed more people than any other medication on the market,” added Dr. Kolodny, who is also president of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing.

Asked to respond to the study findings, FDA spokesperson Charles Kohler said the agency “does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

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

During normal times, the U.K.-based charity No Panic offers itself as an easily accessible service to those with anxiety disorders and phobias. Visitors to the website who can receive immediate, remote support from trained volunteers. But this spring was anything but normal, as the reality of COVID-19’s worldwide spread became terrifyingly clear.

COVID-19 cases peaked in the United Kingdom in early April. Nationwide lockdown efforts contributed to a gradual but ultimately substantial decline in cases, yet, despite the favorable trend lines, No Panic has remained busier than ever.

Beyond the physical symptoms associated with COVID-19, the psychological outcomes are vast and, it seems, prolonged. Researchers have now formalized a definition of the long-term mental maladies associated with the pandemic, collectively deeming them “coronaphobia.”

The term is a catch-all phrase for the fear and the emotional and social strain experienced by the general public in response to COVID-19. Obsessive behaviors, distress, avoidance reaction, panic, anxiety, hoarding, paranoia, and depression are some of the responses associated with coronaphobia. On the surface, these appear to be normal, somewhat fitting reactions to this surreal and frightening moment in time. However, for those experiencing coronaphobia, they are distinctly maladaptive and harmful.

“We had a serious rise in the use of our services, notably the helpline and email enquiries,” explained Sarah Floyd, No Panic’s volunteer advisor and social media coordinator. “It has been up and down all along, but more of an up since lockdown is easing.”

The group’s experience offers yet more evidence that the anxieties and fears caused by this global pandemic don’t flatten alongside the curve but instead linger as chronic problems requiring ongoing care.

“Every week in my clinic, I’m seeing people who are experiencing more anxiety and hopelessness and having an emotional response that is perhaps out of proportion to what one would expect, which is directly related to what is going on in the world right now with coronavirus,” said Gregory Scott Brown, MD, founder and director of the Center for Green Psychiatry in West Lake Hills, Tex. “Simply put, I think what we are looking at is adjustment disorder. That is probably how the DSM would define it.”

Adjustment disorder is one of the most frequently diagnosed mental health conditions, although it is also relatively understudied. It is really a set of disorders that follow in the wake of a significant stressor, which can vary from serious illness or the death of a loved one to relocating or experiencing work problems. The resulting dysfunction and distress that the person experiences are considered out of proportion in duration or scale with what would normally be expected. Diagnosing an adjustment disorder is made difficult by the lack of a valid and reliable screening measure.

Recent literature suggests that coronaphobia may be likely to occur in those who feel vulnerable to disease, are predisposed to anxiety, or are intolerant of uncertainty. Preexisting mental health conditions can also be exacerbated by periods of quarantine, self-isolation, and lockdown, which can lead to panic attacks, chronophobia (fear of passing time), and suicidality.

Although imperfect comparisons, findings from earlier 21st century disease outbreaks, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and the Ebola virus, signal that containment efforts themselves play a role in deteriorating mental health. A recent rapid review found that, in studies comparing persons who had previously undergone quarantines and those who had not, the former were significantly more likely to experience acute stress disorder, posttraumatic stress symptoms, and depression. Quarantine was found to result in long-term behavioral changes, such as avoiding crowds, among the general public and health care practitioners.

That tremendous psychological morbidity should accompany a global pandemic of this scale is not surprising, according to Amit Anand, MD, vice chair for research for the Center for Behavioral Health and director of the Mood and Emotional Disorders Across the Life Span program at the Cleveland Clinic.

“The technical definition of anxiety is an impending sense of doom, and I think all of us are living with that,” Dr. Anand said. “The basic question then becomes, what is normal and when does it become abnormal?”

He added that most classifications of psychiatric disorders are set during periods of relative stability, which the current moment is most certainly not.

“This is such an unusual situation, so I think it will depend on case-by-case basis, keeping the whole context in mind as whether the patient is thinking or behaving with an abnormal amount of anxiety,” Dr. Anand said.

Investigators are currently trying to give clinicians the tools to better make that determination. In the first scientific study of this clinical condition, Sherman Lee, MD, reported that five symptoms – dizziness, sleep disturbances, tonic immobility, appetite loss, and nausea/abdominal distress – were strong factors for distinguishing coronaphobia from otherwise normal concerns about COVID-19 that did not result in functional impairment. Dr. Lee and colleagues have since published further evidence that coronaphobia “is a unique predictor of psychological distress during the COVID-19 crisis.” They are working on validating a self-reported mental health screener for this condition.

Having the tools to identify patients struggling with coronaphobia may go some ways toward addressing another area of declining health. At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a question as to whether doctors would be beset by a surge of the “worried well” – persons mistakenly believing themselves to be infected. Now months into the pandemic, the converse phenomenon – a fear of contracting COVID-19 that is driving patients away from practitioners – appears to be the more valid concern.

In early spring, the pandemic’s first surge was accompanied by reports of approximately 40% and 60% drops in visits to EDs and ambulatory centers, respectively. Stories of acute stroke patients avoiding treatment began to appear in the press. Major U.S. cities saw noteworthy declines in 911 calls, indicating a hesitancy to be taken to a hospital. That COVID-19 has been accompanied by mass unemployment and subsequent loss of insurance complicates the notion that fear alone is keeping people from treatment. In other countries, it has been explicitly linked. Investigators in Singapore noted that coronaphobia played a role in reducing willingness to attend in-person visits among adolescents with eating disorders. Similarly, case reports in Israel suggest that coronaphobia has contributed to delays in diagnoses of common pediatric diseases.

There is also a concern, colloquially termed “reentry anxiety,” that mental health problems caused by the pandemic, the accompanying lockdown, self-isolation, and quarantine practices will prove alarmingly durable. Even after this challenging moment in history draws to a close, many people may face substantial stress in returning to the normal activities of life – social, professional, familial – once taken for granted.

“We are in the beginning phase of that now,” said Dr. Anand. “Lots of people are decompensating, getting depressed, and needing treatment. I think the longer it goes on for, the more difficult it will be.”

In the United States, that day may seem far away. Nonetheless, it is important to begin laying the therapeutic groundwork now, according to Dr. Brown.

“I am recommending unconventional therapies like meet-up groups, online forums,” he said. “Everything has shifted online, and so there are a lot of support groups that patients can participate to learn coping skills and really hear what other people are going through.”

Before reaching that stage, Dr. Brown recommends that clinicians first simply discuss such anxieties with their patients in order to normalize them.

“Realize that everyone essentially is going through some degree of this right now. The coronavirus pandemic is literally impacting every person on the face of the planet. Sometimes just pointing that out to people can really help,” he said.

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

During normal times, the U.K.-based charity No Panic offers itself as an easily accessible service to those with anxiety disorders and phobias. Visitors to the website who can receive immediate, remote support from trained volunteers. But this spring was anything but normal, as the reality of COVID-19’s worldwide spread became terrifyingly clear.

COVID-19 cases peaked in the United Kingdom in early April. Nationwide lockdown efforts contributed to a gradual but ultimately substantial decline in cases, yet, despite the favorable trend lines, No Panic has remained busier than ever.

Beyond the physical symptoms associated with COVID-19, the psychological outcomes are vast and, it seems, prolonged. Researchers have now formalized a definition of the long-term mental maladies associated with the pandemic, collectively deeming them “coronaphobia.”

The term is a catch-all phrase for the fear and the emotional and social strain experienced by the general public in response to COVID-19. Obsessive behaviors, distress, avoidance reaction, panic, anxiety, hoarding, paranoia, and depression are some of the responses associated with coronaphobia. On the surface, these appear to be normal, somewhat fitting reactions to this surreal and frightening moment in time. However, for those experiencing coronaphobia, they are distinctly maladaptive and harmful.

“We had a serious rise in the use of our services, notably the helpline and email enquiries,” explained Sarah Floyd, No Panic’s volunteer advisor and social media coordinator. “It has been up and down all along, but more of an up since lockdown is easing.”

The group’s experience offers yet more evidence that the anxieties and fears caused by this global pandemic don’t flatten alongside the curve but instead linger as chronic problems requiring ongoing care.

“Every week in my clinic, I’m seeing people who are experiencing more anxiety and hopelessness and having an emotional response that is perhaps out of proportion to what one would expect, which is directly related to what is going on in the world right now with coronavirus,” said Gregory Scott Brown, MD, founder and director of the Center for Green Psychiatry in West Lake Hills, Tex. “Simply put, I think what we are looking at is adjustment disorder. That is probably how the DSM would define it.”

Adjustment disorder is one of the most frequently diagnosed mental health conditions, although it is also relatively understudied. It is really a set of disorders that follow in the wake of a significant stressor, which can vary from serious illness or the death of a loved one to relocating or experiencing work problems. The resulting dysfunction and distress that the person experiences are considered out of proportion in duration or scale with what would normally be expected. Diagnosing an adjustment disorder is made difficult by the lack of a valid and reliable screening measure.

Recent literature suggests that coronaphobia may be likely to occur in those who feel vulnerable to disease, are predisposed to anxiety, or are intolerant of uncertainty. Preexisting mental health conditions can also be exacerbated by periods of quarantine, self-isolation, and lockdown, which can lead to panic attacks, chronophobia (fear of passing time), and suicidality.

Although imperfect comparisons, findings from earlier 21st century disease outbreaks, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and the Ebola virus, signal that containment efforts themselves play a role in deteriorating mental health. A recent rapid review found that, in studies comparing persons who had previously undergone quarantines and those who had not, the former were significantly more likely to experience acute stress disorder, posttraumatic stress symptoms, and depression. Quarantine was found to result in long-term behavioral changes, such as avoiding crowds, among the general public and health care practitioners.

That tremendous psychological morbidity should accompany a global pandemic of this scale is not surprising, according to Amit Anand, MD, vice chair for research for the Center for Behavioral Health and director of the Mood and Emotional Disorders Across the Life Span program at the Cleveland Clinic.

“The technical definition of anxiety is an impending sense of doom, and I think all of us are living with that,” Dr. Anand said. “The basic question then becomes, what is normal and when does it become abnormal?”

He added that most classifications of psychiatric disorders are set during periods of relative stability, which the current moment is most certainly not.

“This is such an unusual situation, so I think it will depend on case-by-case basis, keeping the whole context in mind as whether the patient is thinking or behaving with an abnormal amount of anxiety,” Dr. Anand said.

Investigators are currently trying to give clinicians the tools to better make that determination. In the first scientific study of this clinical condition, Sherman Lee, MD, reported that five symptoms – dizziness, sleep disturbances, tonic immobility, appetite loss, and nausea/abdominal distress – were strong factors for distinguishing coronaphobia from otherwise normal concerns about COVID-19 that did not result in functional impairment. Dr. Lee and colleagues have since published further evidence that coronaphobia “is a unique predictor of psychological distress during the COVID-19 crisis.” They are working on validating a self-reported mental health screener for this condition.

Having the tools to identify patients struggling with coronaphobia may go some ways toward addressing another area of declining health. At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a question as to whether doctors would be beset by a surge of the “worried well” – persons mistakenly believing themselves to be infected. Now months into the pandemic, the converse phenomenon – a fear of contracting COVID-19 that is driving patients away from practitioners – appears to be the more valid concern.

In early spring, the pandemic’s first surge was accompanied by reports of approximately 40% and 60% drops in visits to EDs and ambulatory centers, respectively. Stories of acute stroke patients avoiding treatment began to appear in the press. Major U.S. cities saw noteworthy declines in 911 calls, indicating a hesitancy to be taken to a hospital. That COVID-19 has been accompanied by mass unemployment and subsequent loss of insurance complicates the notion that fear alone is keeping people from treatment. In other countries, it has been explicitly linked. Investigators in Singapore noted that coronaphobia played a role in reducing willingness to attend in-person visits among adolescents with eating disorders. Similarly, case reports in Israel suggest that coronaphobia has contributed to delays in diagnoses of common pediatric diseases.

There is also a concern, colloquially termed “reentry anxiety,” that mental health problems caused by the pandemic, the accompanying lockdown, self-isolation, and quarantine practices will prove alarmingly durable. Even after this challenging moment in history draws to a close, many people may face substantial stress in returning to the normal activities of life – social, professional, familial – once taken for granted.

“We are in the beginning phase of that now,” said Dr. Anand. “Lots of people are decompensating, getting depressed, and needing treatment. I think the longer it goes on for, the more difficult it will be.”

In the United States, that day may seem far away. Nonetheless, it is important to begin laying the therapeutic groundwork now, according to Dr. Brown.

“I am recommending unconventional therapies like meet-up groups, online forums,” he said. “Everything has shifted online, and so there are a lot of support groups that patients can participate to learn coping skills and really hear what other people are going through.”

Before reaching that stage, Dr. Brown recommends that clinicians first simply discuss such anxieties with their patients in order to normalize them.

“Realize that everyone essentially is going through some degree of this right now. The coronavirus pandemic is literally impacting every person on the face of the planet. Sometimes just pointing that out to people can really help,” he said.

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

During normal times, the U.K.-based charity No Panic offers itself as an easily accessible service to those with anxiety disorders and phobias. Visitors to the website who can receive immediate, remote support from trained volunteers. But this spring was anything but normal, as the reality of COVID-19’s worldwide spread became terrifyingly clear.

COVID-19 cases peaked in the United Kingdom in early April. Nationwide lockdown efforts contributed to a gradual but ultimately substantial decline in cases, yet, despite the favorable trend lines, No Panic has remained busier than ever.

Beyond the physical symptoms associated with COVID-19, the psychological outcomes are vast and, it seems, prolonged. Researchers have now formalized a definition of the long-term mental maladies associated with the pandemic, collectively deeming them “coronaphobia.”

The term is a catch-all phrase for the fear and the emotional and social strain experienced by the general public in response to COVID-19. Obsessive behaviors, distress, avoidance reaction, panic, anxiety, hoarding, paranoia, and depression are some of the responses associated with coronaphobia. On the surface, these appear to be normal, somewhat fitting reactions to this surreal and frightening moment in time. However, for those experiencing coronaphobia, they are distinctly maladaptive and harmful.

“We had a serious rise in the use of our services, notably the helpline and email enquiries,” explained Sarah Floyd, No Panic’s volunteer advisor and social media coordinator. “It has been up and down all along, but more of an up since lockdown is easing.”

The group’s experience offers yet more evidence that the anxieties and fears caused by this global pandemic don’t flatten alongside the curve but instead linger as chronic problems requiring ongoing care.

“Every week in my clinic, I’m seeing people who are experiencing more anxiety and hopelessness and having an emotional response that is perhaps out of proportion to what one would expect, which is directly related to what is going on in the world right now with coronavirus,” said Gregory Scott Brown, MD, founder and director of the Center for Green Psychiatry in West Lake Hills, Tex. “Simply put, I think what we are looking at is adjustment disorder. That is probably how the DSM would define it.”

Adjustment disorder is one of the most frequently diagnosed mental health conditions, although it is also relatively understudied. It is really a set of disorders that follow in the wake of a significant stressor, which can vary from serious illness or the death of a loved one to relocating or experiencing work problems. The resulting dysfunction and distress that the person experiences are considered out of proportion in duration or scale with what would normally be expected. Diagnosing an adjustment disorder is made difficult by the lack of a valid and reliable screening measure.

Recent literature suggests that coronaphobia may be likely to occur in those who feel vulnerable to disease, are predisposed to anxiety, or are intolerant of uncertainty. Preexisting mental health conditions can also be exacerbated by periods of quarantine, self-isolation, and lockdown, which can lead to panic attacks, chronophobia (fear of passing time), and suicidality.

Although imperfect comparisons, findings from earlier 21st century disease outbreaks, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and the Ebola virus, signal that containment efforts themselves play a role in deteriorating mental health. A recent rapid review found that, in studies comparing persons who had previously undergone quarantines and those who had not, the former were significantly more likely to experience acute stress disorder, posttraumatic stress symptoms, and depression. Quarantine was found to result in long-term behavioral changes, such as avoiding crowds, among the general public and health care practitioners.

That tremendous psychological morbidity should accompany a global pandemic of this scale is not surprising, according to Amit Anand, MD, vice chair for research for the Center for Behavioral Health and director of the Mood and Emotional Disorders Across the Life Span program at the Cleveland Clinic.

“The technical definition of anxiety is an impending sense of doom, and I think all of us are living with that,” Dr. Anand said. “The basic question then becomes, what is normal and when does it become abnormal?”

He added that most classifications of psychiatric disorders are set during periods of relative stability, which the current moment is most certainly not.

“This is such an unusual situation, so I think it will depend on case-by-case basis, keeping the whole context in mind as whether the patient is thinking or behaving with an abnormal amount of anxiety,” Dr. Anand said.

Investigators are currently trying to give clinicians the tools to better make that determination. In the first scientific study of this clinical condition, Sherman Lee, MD, reported that five symptoms – dizziness, sleep disturbances, tonic immobility, appetite loss, and nausea/abdominal distress – were strong factors for distinguishing coronaphobia from otherwise normal concerns about COVID-19 that did not result in functional impairment. Dr. Lee and colleagues have since published further evidence that coronaphobia “is a unique predictor of psychological distress during the COVID-19 crisis.” They are working on validating a self-reported mental health screener for this condition.

Having the tools to identify patients struggling with coronaphobia may go some ways toward addressing another area of declining health. At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a question as to whether doctors would be beset by a surge of the “worried well” – persons mistakenly believing themselves to be infected. Now months into the pandemic, the converse phenomenon – a fear of contracting COVID-19 that is driving patients away from practitioners – appears to be the more valid concern.

In early spring, the pandemic’s first surge was accompanied by reports of approximately 40% and 60% drops in visits to EDs and ambulatory centers, respectively. Stories of acute stroke patients avoiding treatment began to appear in the press. Major U.S. cities saw noteworthy declines in 911 calls, indicating a hesitancy to be taken to a hospital. That COVID-19 has been accompanied by mass unemployment and subsequent loss of insurance complicates the notion that fear alone is keeping people from treatment. In other countries, it has been explicitly linked. Investigators in Singapore noted that coronaphobia played a role in reducing willingness to attend in-person visits among adolescents with eating disorders. Similarly, case reports in Israel suggest that coronaphobia has contributed to delays in diagnoses of common pediatric diseases.

There is also a concern, colloquially termed “reentry anxiety,” that mental health problems caused by the pandemic, the accompanying lockdown, self-isolation, and quarantine practices will prove alarmingly durable. Even after this challenging moment in history draws to a close, many people may face substantial stress in returning to the normal activities of life – social, professional, familial – once taken for granted.

“We are in the beginning phase of that now,” said Dr. Anand. “Lots of people are decompensating, getting depressed, and needing treatment. I think the longer it goes on for, the more difficult it will be.”

In the United States, that day may seem far away. Nonetheless, it is important to begin laying the therapeutic groundwork now, according to Dr. Brown.

“I am recommending unconventional therapies like meet-up groups, online forums,” he said. “Everything has shifted online, and so there are a lot of support groups that patients can participate to learn coping skills and really hear what other people are going through.”

Before reaching that stage, Dr. Brown recommends that clinicians first simply discuss such anxieties with their patients in order to normalize them.

“Realize that everyone essentially is going through some degree of this right now. The coronavirus pandemic is literally impacting every person on the face of the planet. Sometimes just pointing that out to people can really help,” he said.

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

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.

Listening to Mozart’s piano music improves epilepsy, according to a meta-analysis presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

The results of the meta-analysis of 12 published studies of the so-called Mozart Effect that met rigorous Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines demonstrate that listening to Mozart results in significant reductions in both epileptic seizure frequency and interictal epileptiform discharges (IED), compared with baseline.

The benefits were apparent during and after even a single listening session, although the effect was greater with regular daily listening sessions, according to Gianluca Sesso, MD, a resident in child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of Pisa (Italy.)

“Obviously other music may have similar effects, but it may be that Mozart’s sonatas have distinctive rhythmic structures which are particularly suited to working on epilepsy,” he speculated, adding that the mechanism involved in the Mozart Effect on brain systems remains unclear.

“The highly consistent results of our meta-analysis strongly suggest that music-based neurostimulation may improve the clinical outcome in epilepsy by reducing seizures and IED, and thus deserves to be included in the set of nonpharmacologic complementary approaches for treating epilepsy,” Dr. Sesso added.

Four studies examined the effects of listening to Mozart’s Sonata for Two Pianos in D, K.448, the most-studied piece of music as a treatment for epilepsy. The data documented a 31% reduction in seizure frequency and 28% decrease in IED during a single listen, and a 79% reduction in IED after long-term Mozart music therapy. Similarly, studies demonstrated that listening to a set of Mozart’s compositions resulted in a 36% reduction in IED during and 38% decrease after a single listen, while regular listening in a prolonged treatment period resulted in a 66% reduction in seizure frequency from baseline.

Several studies compared the benefits of listening to K. 488 with those accrued through listening to Piano Sonata No. 16 in C major, K. 545. There was no significant difference between the two, according to Dr. Sesso.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his meta-analysis, carried out free of commercial support.

The full details of the meta-analysis were recently published in Clinical Neurophysiology.

[email protected]

Listening to Mozart’s piano music improves epilepsy, according to a meta-analysis presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

The results of the meta-analysis of 12 published studies of the so-called Mozart Effect that met rigorous Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines demonstrate that listening to Mozart results in significant reductions in both epileptic seizure frequency and interictal epileptiform discharges (IED), compared with baseline.

The benefits were apparent during and after even a single listening session, although the effect was greater with regular daily listening sessions, according to Gianluca Sesso, MD, a resident in child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of Pisa (Italy.)

“Obviously other music may have similar effects, but it may be that Mozart’s sonatas have distinctive rhythmic structures which are particularly suited to working on epilepsy,” he speculated, adding that the mechanism involved in the Mozart Effect on brain systems remains unclear.

“The highly consistent results of our meta-analysis strongly suggest that music-based neurostimulation may improve the clinical outcome in epilepsy by reducing seizures and IED, and thus deserves to be included in the set of nonpharmacologic complementary approaches for treating epilepsy,” Dr. Sesso added.

Four studies examined the effects of listening to Mozart’s Sonata for Two Pianos in D, K.448, the most-studied piece of music as a treatment for epilepsy. The data documented a 31% reduction in seizure frequency and 28% decrease in IED during a single listen, and a 79% reduction in IED after long-term Mozart music therapy. Similarly, studies demonstrated that listening to a set of Mozart’s compositions resulted in a 36% reduction in IED during and 38% decrease after a single listen, while regular listening in a prolonged treatment period resulted in a 66% reduction in seizure frequency from baseline.

Several studies compared the benefits of listening to K. 488 with those accrued through listening to Piano Sonata No. 16 in C major, K. 545. There was no significant difference between the two, according to Dr. Sesso.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his meta-analysis, carried out free of commercial support.

The full details of the meta-analysis were recently published in Clinical Neurophysiology.

[email protected]

Listening to Mozart’s piano music improves epilepsy, according to a meta-analysis presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

The results of the meta-analysis of 12 published studies of the so-called Mozart Effect that met rigorous Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines demonstrate that listening to Mozart results in significant reductions in both epileptic seizure frequency and interictal epileptiform discharges (IED), compared with baseline.

The benefits were apparent during and after even a single listening session, although the effect was greater with regular daily listening sessions, according to Gianluca Sesso, MD, a resident in child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of Pisa (Italy.)

“Obviously other music may have similar effects, but it may be that Mozart’s sonatas have distinctive rhythmic structures which are particularly suited to working on epilepsy,” he speculated, adding that the mechanism involved in the Mozart Effect on brain systems remains unclear.

“The highly consistent results of our meta-analysis strongly suggest that music-based neurostimulation may improve the clinical outcome in epilepsy by reducing seizures and IED, and thus deserves to be included in the set of nonpharmacologic complementary approaches for treating epilepsy,” Dr. Sesso added.

Four studies examined the effects of listening to Mozart’s Sonata for Two Pianos in D, K.448, the most-studied piece of music as a treatment for epilepsy. The data documented a 31% reduction in seizure frequency and 28% decrease in IED during a single listen, and a 79% reduction in IED after long-term Mozart music therapy. Similarly, studies demonstrated that listening to a set of Mozart’s compositions resulted in a 36% reduction in IED during and 38% decrease after a single listen, while regular listening in a prolonged treatment period resulted in a 66% reduction in seizure frequency from baseline.

Several studies compared the benefits of listening to K. 488 with those accrued through listening to Piano Sonata No. 16 in C major, K. 545. There was no significant difference between the two, according to Dr. Sesso.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his meta-analysis, carried out free of commercial support.

The full details of the meta-analysis were recently published in Clinical Neurophysiology.

[email protected]

The gap in suicide rates between rural and urban areas has widened since 2000 for both males and females, according to a recent report from the National Center for Health Statistics.

After remaining stable from 2000 to 2007, the suicide rate for rural males rose 34% from 2007 to 2018, versus 17% among urban males over the same period. Suicide rates for females were significantly lower than those of men, but the changes were larger. For rural females, the rate increased 91% from 2000 to 2018, compared with 51% for urban females, Kristen Pettrone, MD, MPH, and Sally C. Curtin, MA, said in an NCHS Data Brief.

For 2018, the last year with available data, the age-adjusted rates look like this: 21.5 per 100,000 population for urban males, 30.7 for rural males, 5.9 per 100,000 for urban females, and 8.0 for rural females. The overall rate for the United States was 14.2 per 100,000, with combined male/female rates of 13.4 in urban areas and 19.4 in rural areas, the researchers said.

Methods of suicide also varied by sex and urban-rural status. Firearms were the leading method for males in both rural and urban areas, but females split between firearms in rural areas and suffocation (including hangings) in urban areas, said Dr. Pettrone of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Ms. Curtin of the NCHS.

Suffocation, however, was the fastest-growing method from 2000 to 2018, regardless of sex or location. Suffocation-related suicide rates more than quadrupled for rural females, and more than doubled for urban females and rural males, while rates rose 85% among males in urban areas, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.

“Suicide has remained the 10th leading cause of death in the United States since 2008,” they wrote, and “sex and urban-rural disparities in methods of suicide may inform targeted suicide prevention strategies.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pettrone K, Curtin SC. 2020 Aug. NCHS Data Brief, No 373.

The gap in suicide rates between rural and urban areas has widened since 2000 for both males and females, according to a recent report from the National Center for Health Statistics.

After remaining stable from 2000 to 2007, the suicide rate for rural males rose 34% from 2007 to 2018, versus 17% among urban males over the same period. Suicide rates for females were significantly lower than those of men, but the changes were larger. For rural females, the rate increased 91% from 2000 to 2018, compared with 51% for urban females, Kristen Pettrone, MD, MPH, and Sally C. Curtin, MA, said in an NCHS Data Brief.

For 2018, the last year with available data, the age-adjusted rates look like this: 21.5 per 100,000 population for urban males, 30.7 for rural males, 5.9 per 100,000 for urban females, and 8.0 for rural females. The overall rate for the United States was 14.2 per 100,000, with combined male/female rates of 13.4 in urban areas and 19.4 in rural areas, the researchers said.

Methods of suicide also varied by sex and urban-rural status. Firearms were the leading method for males in both rural and urban areas, but females split between firearms in rural areas and suffocation (including hangings) in urban areas, said Dr. Pettrone of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Ms. Curtin of the NCHS.

Suffocation, however, was the fastest-growing method from 2000 to 2018, regardless of sex or location. Suffocation-related suicide rates more than quadrupled for rural females, and more than doubled for urban females and rural males, while rates rose 85% among males in urban areas, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.

“Suicide has remained the 10th leading cause of death in the United States since 2008,” they wrote, and “sex and urban-rural disparities in methods of suicide may inform targeted suicide prevention strategies.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pettrone K, Curtin SC. 2020 Aug. NCHS Data Brief, No 373.

The gap in suicide rates between rural and urban areas has widened since 2000 for both males and females, according to a recent report from the National Center for Health Statistics.

After remaining stable from 2000 to 2007, the suicide rate for rural males rose 34% from 2007 to 2018, versus 17% among urban males over the same period. Suicide rates for females were significantly lower than those of men, but the changes were larger. For rural females, the rate increased 91% from 2000 to 2018, compared with 51% for urban females, Kristen Pettrone, MD, MPH, and Sally C. Curtin, MA, said in an NCHS Data Brief.

For 2018, the last year with available data, the age-adjusted rates look like this: 21.5 per 100,000 population for urban males, 30.7 for rural males, 5.9 per 100,000 for urban females, and 8.0 for rural females. The overall rate for the United States was 14.2 per 100,000, with combined male/female rates of 13.4 in urban areas and 19.4 in rural areas, the researchers said.

Methods of suicide also varied by sex and urban-rural status. Firearms were the leading method for males in both rural and urban areas, but females split between firearms in rural areas and suffocation (including hangings) in urban areas, said Dr. Pettrone of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Ms. Curtin of the NCHS.

Suffocation, however, was the fastest-growing method from 2000 to 2018, regardless of sex or location. Suffocation-related suicide rates more than quadrupled for rural females, and more than doubled for urban females and rural males, while rates rose 85% among males in urban areas, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.

“Suicide has remained the 10th leading cause of death in the United States since 2008,” they wrote, and “sex and urban-rural disparities in methods of suicide may inform targeted suicide prevention strategies.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pettrone K, Curtin SC. 2020 Aug. NCHS Data Brief, No 373.

Machine-based learning of genetic and epigenetic characteristics of patients with rheumatoid arthritis could help to predict who is likely to benefit from the biologic drugs adalimumab and etanercept, according to results from a longitudinal, observational cohort study.

In the study, machine learning models created by researchers from Utrecht University in the Netherlands using different parameters predicted true-positive rates for response to adalimumab ranging from 76% to 90% and true-negative rates ranging from 70% to 89%, while for etanercept true-positive rates ranged from about 60% to 80% and true-negative rates ranged from about 82% to 98%.

“These results suggest that we can accurately predict the clinical response before adalimumab and etanercept treatment using molecular signatures-based machine learning models, although the prediction accuracy of these molecular signatures differs between cell types and treatments, underlining the need to study more than one drug, cell type, or epigenetic layers,” first author Weiyang Tao and colleagues wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The ability to predict which tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) is the first choice for treatment would be highly beneficial in reducing the time to effective treatment, which has been extensively proven to be a paramount factor for achieving long-sustained disease remission, they noted.

The researchers analyzed gene expression and epigenetic signatures in 80 patients with rheumatoid arthritis prior to treatment with adalimumab or etanercept and then examined patients’ response to treatment at 6 months. They then used that information to build a machine learning model to try to predict treatment response.

Overall, 47.5% of patients were treated with adalimumab, and 52.5% were treated with etanercept. Among the adalimumab group, 53% had a good or moderate response to treatment at 6 months, and among those treated with etanercept, 45% had a good or moderate response.

While there were no differences in baseline clinical parameters between responders and nonresponders, the study found significant genetic and epigenetic differences between patients.

They identified 549 genes that showed significantly different levels of expression between responders and nonresponders treated with adalimumab – in particular, genes involved in DNA and nucleotide binding – and 460 genes that were differentially expressed between etanercept responders and nonresponders, including genes involved in TNF-receptor signaling. However, only 2% of these differentially expressed genes were common in both the adalimumab and etanercept groups, suggesting treatment responses for these two medications have distinct gene signatures.

Looking at DNA methylation, researchers found 16,141 CpG positions – sites of DNA methylation – that were differentially methylated between adalimumab responders and nonresponders, 46% of which were hypermethylated among responders but not nonresponders. In the etanercept group, there were 17,026 differentially methylated sites in responders and nonresponders, 76.3% of which were hypermethylated among responders.

The researchers also noted that among the adalimumab responders, the hypermethylated sites were more likely to be found in the upstream and promoter regions of genes, and on CpG islands.

“Thus, on epigenetic level, we observed a distinct hypermethylation pattern between adalimumab and etanercept responders, suggesting the role of epigenetics in defining response towards adalimumab and to etanercept in PBMCs [peripheral blood mononuclear cells],” the authors wrote.

Given the differences in gene signatures seen in the adalimumab responders and etanercept responders, researchers speculated that different cell types might be involved in the responses to these two treatments. They undertook RNA sequencing on the variety of immune cell types known to be involved in rheumatoid arthritis, which revealed gene-expression differences between adalimumab responders and nonresponders in their CD4+ T cells but not in monocytes. However, the gene-expression differences between etanercept responders and nonresponders were seen in both CD4+ T cells and monocytes.

The study was supported by AbbVie, which manufactures adalimumab, and two authors were supported by the China Scholarship Council and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Tao W et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1002/art.41516.

Machine-based learning of genetic and epigenetic characteristics of patients with rheumatoid arthritis could help to predict who is likely to benefit from the biologic drugs adalimumab and etanercept, according to results from a longitudinal, observational cohort study.

In the study, machine learning models created by researchers from Utrecht University in the Netherlands using different parameters predicted true-positive rates for response to adalimumab ranging from 76% to 90% and true-negative rates ranging from 70% to 89%, while for etanercept true-positive rates ranged from about 60% to 80% and true-negative rates ranged from about 82% to 98%.

“These results suggest that we can accurately predict the clinical response before adalimumab and etanercept treatment using molecular signatures-based machine learning models, although the prediction accuracy of these molecular signatures differs between cell types and treatments, underlining the need to study more than one drug, cell type, or epigenetic layers,” first author Weiyang Tao and colleagues wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The ability to predict which tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) is the first choice for treatment would be highly beneficial in reducing the time to effective treatment, which has been extensively proven to be a paramount factor for achieving long-sustained disease remission, they noted.

The researchers analyzed gene expression and epigenetic signatures in 80 patients with rheumatoid arthritis prior to treatment with adalimumab or etanercept and then examined patients’ response to treatment at 6 months. They then used that information to build a machine learning model to try to predict treatment response.

Overall, 47.5% of patients were treated with adalimumab, and 52.5% were treated with etanercept. Among the adalimumab group, 53% had a good or moderate response to treatment at 6 months, and among those treated with etanercept, 45% had a good or moderate response.

While there were no differences in baseline clinical parameters between responders and nonresponders, the study found significant genetic and epigenetic differences between patients.

They identified 549 genes that showed significantly different levels of expression between responders and nonresponders treated with adalimumab – in particular, genes involved in DNA and nucleotide binding – and 460 genes that were differentially expressed between etanercept responders and nonresponders, including genes involved in TNF-receptor signaling. However, only 2% of these differentially expressed genes were common in both the adalimumab and etanercept groups, suggesting treatment responses for these two medications have distinct gene signatures.

Looking at DNA methylation, researchers found 16,141 CpG positions – sites of DNA methylation – that were differentially methylated between adalimumab responders and nonresponders, 46% of which were hypermethylated among responders but not nonresponders. In the etanercept group, there were 17,026 differentially methylated sites in responders and nonresponders, 76.3% of which were hypermethylated among responders.

The researchers also noted that among the adalimumab responders, the hypermethylated sites were more likely to be found in the upstream and promoter regions of genes, and on CpG islands.

“Thus, on epigenetic level, we observed a distinct hypermethylation pattern between adalimumab and etanercept responders, suggesting the role of epigenetics in defining response towards adalimumab and to etanercept in PBMCs [peripheral blood mononuclear cells],” the authors wrote.

Given the differences in gene signatures seen in the adalimumab responders and etanercept responders, researchers speculated that different cell types might be involved in the responses to these two treatments. They undertook RNA sequencing on the variety of immune cell types known to be involved in rheumatoid arthritis, which revealed gene-expression differences between adalimumab responders and nonresponders in their CD4+ T cells but not in monocytes. However, the gene-expression differences between etanercept responders and nonresponders were seen in both CD4+ T cells and monocytes.

The study was supported by AbbVie, which manufactures adalimumab, and two authors were supported by the China Scholarship Council and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Tao W et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1002/art.41516.

Machine-based learning of genetic and epigenetic characteristics of patients with rheumatoid arthritis could help to predict who is likely to benefit from the biologic drugs adalimumab and etanercept, according to results from a longitudinal, observational cohort study.

In the study, machine learning models created by researchers from Utrecht University in the Netherlands using different parameters predicted true-positive rates for response to adalimumab ranging from 76% to 90% and true-negative rates ranging from 70% to 89%, while for etanercept true-positive rates ranged from about 60% to 80% and true-negative rates ranged from about 82% to 98%.

“These results suggest that we can accurately predict the clinical response before adalimumab and etanercept treatment using molecular signatures-based machine learning models, although the prediction accuracy of these molecular signatures differs between cell types and treatments, underlining the need to study more than one drug, cell type, or epigenetic layers,” first author Weiyang Tao and colleagues wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The ability to predict which tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) is the first choice for treatment would be highly beneficial in reducing the time to effective treatment, which has been extensively proven to be a paramount factor for achieving long-sustained disease remission, they noted.

The researchers analyzed gene expression and epigenetic signatures in 80 patients with rheumatoid arthritis prior to treatment with adalimumab or etanercept and then examined patients’ response to treatment at 6 months. They then used that information to build a machine learning model to try to predict treatment response.

Overall, 47.5% of patients were treated with adalimumab, and 52.5% were treated with etanercept. Among the adalimumab group, 53% had a good or moderate response to treatment at 6 months, and among those treated with etanercept, 45% had a good or moderate response.

While there were no differences in baseline clinical parameters between responders and nonresponders, the study found significant genetic and epigenetic differences between patients.

They identified 549 genes that showed significantly different levels of expression between responders and nonresponders treated with adalimumab – in particular, genes involved in DNA and nucleotide binding – and 460 genes that were differentially expressed between etanercept responders and nonresponders, including genes involved in TNF-receptor signaling. However, only 2% of these differentially expressed genes were common in both the adalimumab and etanercept groups, suggesting treatment responses for these two medications have distinct gene signatures.

Looking at DNA methylation, researchers found 16,141 CpG positions – sites of DNA methylation – that were differentially methylated between adalimumab responders and nonresponders, 46% of which were hypermethylated among responders but not nonresponders. In the etanercept group, there were 17,026 differentially methylated sites in responders and nonresponders, 76.3% of which were hypermethylated among responders.

The researchers also noted that among the adalimumab responders, the hypermethylated sites were more likely to be found in the upstream and promoter regions of genes, and on CpG islands.

“Thus, on epigenetic level, we observed a distinct hypermethylation pattern between adalimumab and etanercept responders, suggesting the role of epigenetics in defining response towards adalimumab and to etanercept in PBMCs [peripheral blood mononuclear cells],” the authors wrote.

Given the differences in gene signatures seen in the adalimumab responders and etanercept responders, researchers speculated that different cell types might be involved in the responses to these two treatments. They undertook RNA sequencing on the variety of immune cell types known to be involved in rheumatoid arthritis, which revealed gene-expression differences between adalimumab responders and nonresponders in their CD4+ T cells but not in monocytes. However, the gene-expression differences between etanercept responders and nonresponders were seen in both CD4+ T cells and monocytes.

The study was supported by AbbVie, which manufactures adalimumab, and two authors were supported by the China Scholarship Council and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Tao W et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1002/art.41516.

The cumulative percentage of COVID-19 cases reported in children continues to climb, but “the history behind that cumulative number shows substantial change,” according to a new analysis of state health department data.

As of Sept. 10, the 549,432 cases in children represented 10.0% of all reported COVID-19 cases in the United States following a substantial rise over the course of the pandemic – the figure was 7.7% on July 16 and 3.2% on May 7, Blake Sisk, PhD, of the American Academy of Pediatrics and associates reported Sept. 29 in Pediatrics.

Unlike the cumulative number, the weekly proportion of cases in children fell early in the summer but then started climbing again in late July. “In the last 8 weeks, children represented between 12%-15.9% of new weekly reported cases,” Dr. Sisk and associates wrote.

Despite the increase, however, the proportion of pediatric COVID-19 cases is still well below children’s share of the overall population (22.6%). Also, “it is unclear how much of the increase in child cases is due to increased testing capacity, although CDC data from public and commercial laboratories show the share of all tests administered to children ages 0-17 has remained stable at 5%-7% since late April,” they said.

Data for the current report were drawn from 49 state health department websites (New York state does not report ages for COVID-19 cases), along with New York City, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Alabama changed its definition of a child case in August and was not included in the trend analysis (see graph), the investigators explained.

Those data show “substantial variation in case growth by region: in April, a preponderance of cases was in the Northeast. In June, cases surged in the South and West, followed by mid-July increases in the Midwest,” Dr. Sisk and associates said.

The increase among children in Midwest states is ongoing with the number of new cases reaching its highest level yet during the week ending Sept. 10, they reported.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sisk B et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 29. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-027425.

The cumulative percentage of COVID-19 cases reported in children continues to climb, but “the history behind that cumulative number shows substantial change,” according to a new analysis of state health department data.

As of Sept. 10, the 549,432 cases in children represented 10.0% of all reported COVID-19 cases in the United States following a substantial rise over the course of the pandemic – the figure was 7.7% on July 16 and 3.2% on May 7, Blake Sisk, PhD, of the American Academy of Pediatrics and associates reported Sept. 29 in Pediatrics.

Unlike the cumulative number, the weekly proportion of cases in children fell early in the summer but then started climbing again in late July. “In the last 8 weeks, children represented between 12%-15.9% of new weekly reported cases,” Dr. Sisk and associates wrote.

Despite the increase, however, the proportion of pediatric COVID-19 cases is still well below children’s share of the overall population (22.6%). Also, “it is unclear how much of the increase in child cases is due to increased testing capacity, although CDC data from public and commercial laboratories show the share of all tests administered to children ages 0-17 has remained stable at 5%-7% since late April,” they said.

Data for the current report were drawn from 49 state health department websites (New York state does not report ages for COVID-19 cases), along with New York City, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Alabama changed its definition of a child case in August and was not included in the trend analysis (see graph), the investigators explained.

Those data show “substantial variation in case growth by region: in April, a preponderance of cases was in the Northeast. In June, cases surged in the South and West, followed by mid-July increases in the Midwest,” Dr. Sisk and associates said.

The increase among children in Midwest states is ongoing with the number of new cases reaching its highest level yet during the week ending Sept. 10, they reported.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sisk B et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 29. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-027425.

The cumulative percentage of COVID-19 cases reported in children continues to climb, but “the history behind that cumulative number shows substantial change,” according to a new analysis of state health department data.

As of Sept. 10, the 549,432 cases in children represented 10.0% of all reported COVID-19 cases in the United States following a substantial rise over the course of the pandemic – the figure was 7.7% on July 16 and 3.2% on May 7, Blake Sisk, PhD, of the American Academy of Pediatrics and associates reported Sept. 29 in Pediatrics.

Unlike the cumulative number, the weekly proportion of cases in children fell early in the summer but then started climbing again in late July. “In the last 8 weeks, children represented between 12%-15.9% of new weekly reported cases,” Dr. Sisk and associates wrote.

Despite the increase, however, the proportion of pediatric COVID-19 cases is still well below children’s share of the overall population (22.6%). Also, “it is unclear how much of the increase in child cases is due to increased testing capacity, although CDC data from public and commercial laboratories show the share of all tests administered to children ages 0-17 has remained stable at 5%-7% since late April,” they said.

Data for the current report were drawn from 49 state health department websites (New York state does not report ages for COVID-19 cases), along with New York City, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Alabama changed its definition of a child case in August and was not included in the trend analysis (see graph), the investigators explained.

Those data show “substantial variation in case growth by region: in April, a preponderance of cases was in the Northeast. In June, cases surged in the South and West, followed by mid-July increases in the Midwest,” Dr. Sisk and associates said.

The increase among children in Midwest states is ongoing with the number of new cases reaching its highest level yet during the week ending Sept. 10, they reported.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sisk B et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 29. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-027425.

Requests for self-managed abortion via a telemedicine service increased by 27% from March 20, 2020, to April 11, 2020, in the United States in the wake of widespread lockdowns and shelter-in-place directives because of the COVID-19 pandemic, based on data from a provider of such services.

nortonrsx/Getty Images

Access to abortion care is challenging in many areas under ordinary circumstances, but the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic led to many states suspending or limiting in-clinic services, wrote Abigail R.A. Aiken, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin and colleagues.

“As a result, people may increasingly be seeking self-managed abortion outside the formal health care system,” they said.

In a research letter published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the investigators reviewed request data from Aid Access, a telemedicine service that provides medication for abortion at up to 10 weeks’ gestation for users who complete an online consultation form. They also collected data on the implementation and scope of COVID-19–related abortion restrictions by state.

The analysis included all 49,935 requests made between January 1, 2019, and April 11, 2020.

Overall, the rate of requests for self-managed medical abortions increased significantly, by 27%, during the period from March 20, 2020, to April 11, 2020, which reflected the average period after clinic restrictions or closures at the state level. A total of 11 states showed individually significant increases in requests for self-managed medical abortions, with the highest of 94% in Texas and the lowest of 22% in Ohio. In these 11 states, the median time spent at home was 5% higher than in states without significant increases in requests for self-managed medical abortions during the same period. These states also had “particularly high COVID-19 rates or more severe COVID-19–related restrictions on in-clinic abortion access,” the researchers noted.

Patients want alternatives to in-person care

“Our results may reflect two distinct phenomena,” Dr. Aiken and associates wrote. “First, more people may be seeking abortion through all channels, whether due to COVID-19 risks during pregnancy, reduced access to prenatal care, or the pandemic-related economic downturn. Second, there may be shift in demand from in-clinic to self-managed abortion during the pandemic, possibly owing to fear of infection during in-person care or inability to get to a clinic because of childcare and transit disruptions,” they explained.

The study findings were limited by the inability to measure all options for women to achieve self-managed abortions and a lack of power to detect changes in states with low request numbers or where restrictions were implemented at later dates, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that telemedicine services for medication abortion should be a policy priority because patients may continue to seek alternatives while in-clinic services remain restricted, they said.

In fact, “the World Health Organization recommends telemedicine and self-management abortion-care models during the pandemic, and the United Kingdom has temporarily implemented fully remote provision of abortion medications,” the researchers wrote. However, similar strategies in the United States “would depend on sustained changes to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, which requires patients to collect mifepristone at a hospital or medical facility, as well as changes to state-specific laws that prohibit remote provider consultation,” Dr. Aiken and associates concluded.

Lift barriers to protect patients

“This important and timely article assesses the association between the disruptions of the coronavirus pandemic and online requests for telemedicine abortion,” Eve Espey, MD, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

“As background, state abortion restrictions have increased exponentially over the last decade, while research over the same time period has demonstrated the safety of telemedicine abortion – a form of self-managed abortion – with no in-person visit for appropriate candidates,” she said.

“Enter the coronavirus pandemic with safety concerns related to in-person medical visits and certain states leveraging the opportunity to enact even more stringent abortion restrictions. Unsurprisingly, the result, as documented in this excellent research report, is a significant increase in requests for telemedicine abortion in many states, particularly the most restrictive, from the single online service in the United States, Aid Access,” said Dr. Espey.

“Barriers to self-managed abortion include the [FDA] Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for mifepristone, a set of unnecessary restrictions requiring that providers meet certain qualifications and dispense the medication only in a clinic, office, or hospital,” she said. “The REMS precludes the use of telemedicine abortion; Aid Access and the FDA are in legal proceedings,” she noted.

“Most recently, the [American Civil Liberties Union] sued the FDA on behalf of a coalition of medical experts led by [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists] to suspend the REMS for mifepristone during the COVID public health emergency, to allow patients to receive the medications for early abortion without a visit to a health care provider,” Dr. Espey said. “Fortunately, a federal district court required the temporary suspension of the in-person dispensing restriction. Although this is a great step to improve abortion access during the pandemic, a permanent removal of the REMS would pave the way for ongoing safe, effective, and patient-centered early abortion care,” noted Dr. Espey, who was asked to comment on the research letter.

Dr. Aiken disclosed serving as a consultant for Agile Therapeutics, and a coauthor is the founder and director of Aid Access. Dr. Espey had no financial conflicts to disclose. She is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News Editorial Advisory Board.

SOURCE: Aiken ARA et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jul 21. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004081.