Federal Practitioner

Click here to read the supplement.

Author

1. Apte RS, Chen DS, Ferrara N. VEGF in signaling and disease: beyond discovery and development. Cell. 2019;176(6):1248-1264.

Click here to read the supplement.

Author

1. Apte RS, Chen DS, Ferrara N. VEGF in signaling and disease: beyond discovery and development. Cell. 2019;176(6):1248-1264.

Click here to read the supplement.

Author

1. Apte RS, Chen DS, Ferrara N. VEGF in signaling and disease: beyond discovery and development. Cell. 2019;176(6):1248-1264.

The Lancet announced today that it has retracted a highly cited study that suggested hydroxychloroquine may cause more harm than benefit in patients with COVID-19. Hours later, the New England Journal of Medicine announced that it had retracted a second article by some of the same authors, also on heart disease and COVID-19.

The Lancet article, titled “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: A multinational registry analysis” was originally published online May 22. The NEJM article, “Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19” was initially published May 1.

Three authors of the Lancet article, Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Frank Ruschitzka, MD, and Amit N. Patel, MD, wrote in a letter that the action came after concerns were raised about the integrity of the data, and about how the analysis was conducted by Chicago-based Surgisphere Corp and study coauthor Sapan Desai, MD, Surgisphere’s founder and CEO.

The authors asked for an independent third-party review of Surgisphere to evaluate the integrity of the trial elements and to replicate the analyses in the article.

“Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis, as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements,” the authors wrote.

Therefore, reviewers were not able to conduct the review and notified the authors they would withdraw from the peer-review process.

The Lancet said in a statement: “The Lancet takes issues of scientific integrity extremely seriously, and there are many outstanding questions about Surgisphere and the data that were allegedly included in this study. Following guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, institutional reviews of Surgisphere’s research collaborations are urgently needed.”

The authors wrote, “We can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards. Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources. Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted.

“We all entered this collaboration to contribute in good faith and at a time of great need during the COVID-19 pandemic. We deeply apologize to you, the editors, and the journal readership for any embarrassment or inconvenience that this may have caused.”

In a similar, if briefer, note, the authors requested that the New England Journal of Medicine retract the earlier article as well. The retraction notice on the website reads: “Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article, ‘Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19.’ We therefore request that the article be retracted. We apologize to the editors and to readers of the Journal for the difficulties that this has caused.”

Both journals had already published “Expression of Concern” notices about the articles. The expression of concern followed an open letter, endorsed by more than 200 scientists, ethicists, and clinicians and posted on May 28, questioning the data and ethics of the study.

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






 

The Lancet announced today that it has retracted a highly cited study that suggested hydroxychloroquine may cause more harm than benefit in patients with COVID-19. Hours later, the New England Journal of Medicine announced that it had retracted a second article by some of the same authors, also on heart disease and COVID-19.

The Lancet article, titled “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: A multinational registry analysis” was originally published online May 22. The NEJM article, “Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19” was initially published May 1.

Three authors of the Lancet article, Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Frank Ruschitzka, MD, and Amit N. Patel, MD, wrote in a letter that the action came after concerns were raised about the integrity of the data, and about how the analysis was conducted by Chicago-based Surgisphere Corp and study coauthor Sapan Desai, MD, Surgisphere’s founder and CEO.

The authors asked for an independent third-party review of Surgisphere to evaluate the integrity of the trial elements and to replicate the analyses in the article.

“Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis, as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements,” the authors wrote.

Therefore, reviewers were not able to conduct the review and notified the authors they would withdraw from the peer-review process.

The Lancet said in a statement: “The Lancet takes issues of scientific integrity extremely seriously, and there are many outstanding questions about Surgisphere and the data that were allegedly included in this study. Following guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, institutional reviews of Surgisphere’s research collaborations are urgently needed.”

The authors wrote, “We can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards. Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources. Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted.

“We all entered this collaboration to contribute in good faith and at a time of great need during the COVID-19 pandemic. We deeply apologize to you, the editors, and the journal readership for any embarrassment or inconvenience that this may have caused.”

In a similar, if briefer, note, the authors requested that the New England Journal of Medicine retract the earlier article as well. The retraction notice on the website reads: “Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article, ‘Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19.’ We therefore request that the article be retracted. We apologize to the editors and to readers of the Journal for the difficulties that this has caused.”

Both journals had already published “Expression of Concern” notices about the articles. The expression of concern followed an open letter, endorsed by more than 200 scientists, ethicists, and clinicians and posted on May 28, questioning the data and ethics of the study.

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






 

The Lancet announced today that it has retracted a highly cited study that suggested hydroxychloroquine may cause more harm than benefit in patients with COVID-19. Hours later, the New England Journal of Medicine announced that it had retracted a second article by some of the same authors, also on heart disease and COVID-19.

The Lancet article, titled “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: A multinational registry analysis” was originally published online May 22. The NEJM article, “Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19” was initially published May 1.

Three authors of the Lancet article, Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Frank Ruschitzka, MD, and Amit N. Patel, MD, wrote in a letter that the action came after concerns were raised about the integrity of the data, and about how the analysis was conducted by Chicago-based Surgisphere Corp and study coauthor Sapan Desai, MD, Surgisphere’s founder and CEO.

The authors asked for an independent third-party review of Surgisphere to evaluate the integrity of the trial elements and to replicate the analyses in the article.

“Our independent peer reviewers informed us that Surgisphere would not transfer the full dataset, client contracts, and the full ISO audit report to their servers for analysis, as such transfer would violate client agreements and confidentiality requirements,” the authors wrote.

Therefore, reviewers were not able to conduct the review and notified the authors they would withdraw from the peer-review process.

The Lancet said in a statement: “The Lancet takes issues of scientific integrity extremely seriously, and there are many outstanding questions about Surgisphere and the data that were allegedly included in this study. Following guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, institutional reviews of Surgisphere’s research collaborations are urgently needed.”

The authors wrote, “We can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards. Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources. Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted.

“We all entered this collaboration to contribute in good faith and at a time of great need during the COVID-19 pandemic. We deeply apologize to you, the editors, and the journal readership for any embarrassment or inconvenience that this may have caused.”

In a similar, if briefer, note, the authors requested that the New England Journal of Medicine retract the earlier article as well. The retraction notice on the website reads: “Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article, ‘Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19.’ We therefore request that the article be retracted. We apologize to the editors and to readers of the Journal for the difficulties that this has caused.”

Both journals had already published “Expression of Concern” notices about the articles. The expression of concern followed an open letter, endorsed by more than 200 scientists, ethicists, and clinicians and posted on May 28, questioning the data and ethics of the study.

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






 

Wearing a mask at home, even when everyone is feeling fine, might reduce the risk of frontline healthcare workers transmitting SARS-CoV-2 infection to their families, a recent study from China suggests. But the benefits might not outweigh the costs, according to several physicians interviewed.

“My gut reaction is that home mask use for healthcare workers would place an inordinately high burden on those healthcare workers and their families,” said Jeanne Noble, MD, an emergency care physician at the University of California, San Francisco. “Wearing a mask for a 10-hour shift already represents significant physical discomfort, causing sores across the nose and behind the ears. The emotional toll of the physical distance that comes with mask use, with limited facial expression, is also quite real.”

The suggested benefit of home mask use comes from research published online May 28 in BMJ Global Health. To assess predictors of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection, Yu Wang, MD, of the Beijing Center for Disease Prevention and Control and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 124 families in Beijing in which there was a confirmed case of COVID-19 as of February 21. The researchers surveyed family members by telephone about household hygiene and behaviors during the pandemic to examine risk factors for transmission.

During the 2 weeks following onset of the primary case, secondary transmission occurred in 41 families. Overall, 77 of 335 family members developed COVID-19.

A multivariable logistic regression analysis found that in households in which family members wore masks at home before the first person became ill, there was less likelihood of transmission of disease to a family member, compared with families in which no one wore a mask prior to illness onset.

“Facemasks were 79% effective and disinfection was 77% effective in preventing transmission,” the researchers report, “whilst close frequent contact in the household increased the risk of transmission 18 times, and diarrhea in the index patient increased the risk by four times.

However, wearing masks after symptom onset was not protective, according to the analysis. The findings support “universal face mask use, and also provides guidance on risk reduction for families living with someone in quarantine or isolation, and families of health workers, who may face ongoing risk,” the authors write.

Still, other precautions may be more important, experts say.

“I think by far the best way for healthcare professionals to protect their families is to carefully employ appropriate infection prevention measures at work,” said Mark E. Rupp, MD, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. “The combination of administrative interventions, engineering improvements, and personal protective equipment is very effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 acquisition in the workplace.”

Many physicians already wear masks at home, and this study “only reemphasized the importance of doing so,” said Raghavendra Tirupathi, MD, medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, who recently reviewed studies about masks and COVID-19.

Home mask use provides “one more layer of protection that might help mitigate the risk of transmission to family members,” Tirupathi said. But it does not obviate the need to follow other preventive measures, such as social distancing and proper hygiene.

But Rupp, whose advice on how healthcare workers can protect their families was recently highlighted by the American Medical Association, isn’t convinced. He said he won’t be adding home mask use to his list of recommendations. “It would be intrusive, cumbersome, and impractical to wear a mask in the home setting,” Rupp said in an interview.

However, when out in the community, all family members must protect one another by practicing social distancing, wearing masks, and practicing proper hand hygiene. “I also think that it is a good idea to have some masks on hand in case anyone does develop symptoms in the household and to wear them if a family member falls ill ― at least until testing can confirm COVID-19,” Rupp said. “If a family member does fall ill, masks for the ill person as well as the well persons would be indicated along with other home quarantine measures.”

For her part, Noble, who has provided guidance about proper mask use, said that targeted use of masks at home, such as around older visiting relatives or other more vulnerable family members, may be more realistic than continuous in-home use.

When a household member becomes ill, recommendations for preventing disease spread include having a sick family member sleep in a separate bedroom, using a separate bathroom, and wearing a mask when within 6 feet of other household members. They also should avoid sharing meals. “For a household member who is a medical provider, to follow these self-isolation precautions while at home for months on end would have a significant emotional toll,” Noble said in an email. “With no end in sight for the pandemic, perpetual mask use in both the private and public sphere strikes me as overwhelming ― I write this near the end of my 10-hour shift wearing both an N95 and surgical mask and counting the minutes before I can take them off!”

A limitation of the study was its reliance on telephone interviews, which are subject to recall bias, the authors note.

The study was funded by the Beijing Science and Technology Planning Project. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Wearing a mask at home, even when everyone is feeling fine, might reduce the risk of frontline healthcare workers transmitting SARS-CoV-2 infection to their families, a recent study from China suggests. But the benefits might not outweigh the costs, according to several physicians interviewed.

“My gut reaction is that home mask use for healthcare workers would place an inordinately high burden on those healthcare workers and their families,” said Jeanne Noble, MD, an emergency care physician at the University of California, San Francisco. “Wearing a mask for a 10-hour shift already represents significant physical discomfort, causing sores across the nose and behind the ears. The emotional toll of the physical distance that comes with mask use, with limited facial expression, is also quite real.”

The suggested benefit of home mask use comes from research published online May 28 in BMJ Global Health. To assess predictors of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection, Yu Wang, MD, of the Beijing Center for Disease Prevention and Control and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 124 families in Beijing in which there was a confirmed case of COVID-19 as of February 21. The researchers surveyed family members by telephone about household hygiene and behaviors during the pandemic to examine risk factors for transmission.

During the 2 weeks following onset of the primary case, secondary transmission occurred in 41 families. Overall, 77 of 335 family members developed COVID-19.

A multivariable logistic regression analysis found that in households in which family members wore masks at home before the first person became ill, there was less likelihood of transmission of disease to a family member, compared with families in which no one wore a mask prior to illness onset.

“Facemasks were 79% effective and disinfection was 77% effective in preventing transmission,” the researchers report, “whilst close frequent contact in the household increased the risk of transmission 18 times, and diarrhea in the index patient increased the risk by four times.

However, wearing masks after symptom onset was not protective, according to the analysis. The findings support “universal face mask use, and also provides guidance on risk reduction for families living with someone in quarantine or isolation, and families of health workers, who may face ongoing risk,” the authors write.

Still, other precautions may be more important, experts say.

“I think by far the best way for healthcare professionals to protect their families is to carefully employ appropriate infection prevention measures at work,” said Mark E. Rupp, MD, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. “The combination of administrative interventions, engineering improvements, and personal protective equipment is very effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 acquisition in the workplace.”

Many physicians already wear masks at home, and this study “only reemphasized the importance of doing so,” said Raghavendra Tirupathi, MD, medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, who recently reviewed studies about masks and COVID-19.

Home mask use provides “one more layer of protection that might help mitigate the risk of transmission to family members,” Tirupathi said. But it does not obviate the need to follow other preventive measures, such as social distancing and proper hygiene.

But Rupp, whose advice on how healthcare workers can protect their families was recently highlighted by the American Medical Association, isn’t convinced. He said he won’t be adding home mask use to his list of recommendations. “It would be intrusive, cumbersome, and impractical to wear a mask in the home setting,” Rupp said in an interview.

However, when out in the community, all family members must protect one another by practicing social distancing, wearing masks, and practicing proper hand hygiene. “I also think that it is a good idea to have some masks on hand in case anyone does develop symptoms in the household and to wear them if a family member falls ill ― at least until testing can confirm COVID-19,” Rupp said. “If a family member does fall ill, masks for the ill person as well as the well persons would be indicated along with other home quarantine measures.”

For her part, Noble, who has provided guidance about proper mask use, said that targeted use of masks at home, such as around older visiting relatives or other more vulnerable family members, may be more realistic than continuous in-home use.

When a household member becomes ill, recommendations for preventing disease spread include having a sick family member sleep in a separate bedroom, using a separate bathroom, and wearing a mask when within 6 feet of other household members. They also should avoid sharing meals. “For a household member who is a medical provider, to follow these self-isolation precautions while at home for months on end would have a significant emotional toll,” Noble said in an email. “With no end in sight for the pandemic, perpetual mask use in both the private and public sphere strikes me as overwhelming ― I write this near the end of my 10-hour shift wearing both an N95 and surgical mask and counting the minutes before I can take them off!”

A limitation of the study was its reliance on telephone interviews, which are subject to recall bias, the authors note.

The study was funded by the Beijing Science and Technology Planning Project. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Wearing a mask at home, even when everyone is feeling fine, might reduce the risk of frontline healthcare workers transmitting SARS-CoV-2 infection to their families, a recent study from China suggests. But the benefits might not outweigh the costs, according to several physicians interviewed.

“My gut reaction is that home mask use for healthcare workers would place an inordinately high burden on those healthcare workers and their families,” said Jeanne Noble, MD, an emergency care physician at the University of California, San Francisco. “Wearing a mask for a 10-hour shift already represents significant physical discomfort, causing sores across the nose and behind the ears. The emotional toll of the physical distance that comes with mask use, with limited facial expression, is also quite real.”

The suggested benefit of home mask use comes from research published online May 28 in BMJ Global Health. To assess predictors of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection, Yu Wang, MD, of the Beijing Center for Disease Prevention and Control and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 124 families in Beijing in which there was a confirmed case of COVID-19 as of February 21. The researchers surveyed family members by telephone about household hygiene and behaviors during the pandemic to examine risk factors for transmission.

During the 2 weeks following onset of the primary case, secondary transmission occurred in 41 families. Overall, 77 of 335 family members developed COVID-19.

A multivariable logistic regression analysis found that in households in which family members wore masks at home before the first person became ill, there was less likelihood of transmission of disease to a family member, compared with families in which no one wore a mask prior to illness onset.

“Facemasks were 79% effective and disinfection was 77% effective in preventing transmission,” the researchers report, “whilst close frequent contact in the household increased the risk of transmission 18 times, and diarrhea in the index patient increased the risk by four times.

However, wearing masks after symptom onset was not protective, according to the analysis. The findings support “universal face mask use, and also provides guidance on risk reduction for families living with someone in quarantine or isolation, and families of health workers, who may face ongoing risk,” the authors write.

Still, other precautions may be more important, experts say.

“I think by far the best way for healthcare professionals to protect their families is to carefully employ appropriate infection prevention measures at work,” said Mark E. Rupp, MD, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. “The combination of administrative interventions, engineering improvements, and personal protective equipment is very effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 acquisition in the workplace.”

Many physicians already wear masks at home, and this study “only reemphasized the importance of doing so,” said Raghavendra Tirupathi, MD, medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, who recently reviewed studies about masks and COVID-19.

Home mask use provides “one more layer of protection that might help mitigate the risk of transmission to family members,” Tirupathi said. But it does not obviate the need to follow other preventive measures, such as social distancing and proper hygiene.

But Rupp, whose advice on how healthcare workers can protect their families was recently highlighted by the American Medical Association, isn’t convinced. He said he won’t be adding home mask use to his list of recommendations. “It would be intrusive, cumbersome, and impractical to wear a mask in the home setting,” Rupp said in an interview.

However, when out in the community, all family members must protect one another by practicing social distancing, wearing masks, and practicing proper hand hygiene. “I also think that it is a good idea to have some masks on hand in case anyone does develop symptoms in the household and to wear them if a family member falls ill ― at least until testing can confirm COVID-19,” Rupp said. “If a family member does fall ill, masks for the ill person as well as the well persons would be indicated along with other home quarantine measures.”

For her part, Noble, who has provided guidance about proper mask use, said that targeted use of masks at home, such as around older visiting relatives or other more vulnerable family members, may be more realistic than continuous in-home use.

When a household member becomes ill, recommendations for preventing disease spread include having a sick family member sleep in a separate bedroom, using a separate bathroom, and wearing a mask when within 6 feet of other household members. They also should avoid sharing meals. “For a household member who is a medical provider, to follow these self-isolation precautions while at home for months on end would have a significant emotional toll,” Noble said in an email. “With no end in sight for the pandemic, perpetual mask use in both the private and public sphere strikes me as overwhelming ― I write this near the end of my 10-hour shift wearing both an N95 and surgical mask and counting the minutes before I can take them off!”

A limitation of the study was its reliance on telephone interviews, which are subject to recall bias, the authors note.

The study was funded by the Beijing Science and Technology Planning Project. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The vast majority of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases who contract COVID-19 recover from the virus, regardless of which medication they receive for their rheumatic condition, new international research suggests.

“These results provide, for the first time, information about the outcome of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases,” said study investigator Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, from University College London. “They should provide some reassurance to patients and healthcare providers.”

Machado and his colleagues looked at 600 COVID-19 patients from 40 countries, and found that those taking TNF inhibitors for their rheumatic disease were less likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19. However, treatment with more than 10 mg of prednisone daily — considered a moderate to high dose — was associated with a higher probability of hospitalization.

In addition, hospitalization was not associated with biologics; JAK inhibitors; conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as methotrexate; antimalarials, such as hydroxychloroquine; or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) — either alone or in combination with other biologics, such as TNF-alpha inhibitors.

The findings were presented at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress and were published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“Initially, there was a huge concern that these drugs could affect the outcome of patients getting COVID-19, but what this is showing is that probably these drugs do not increase their risk of severe outcome,” Machado, who is chair of the EULAR standing committee on epidemiology and health services research, told Medscape Medical News.

As of June 1, 1061 patients from 28 participating countries had been entered into the EULAR COVID-19 database, which was launched as part of the international Global Rheumatology Alliance registry. Patient data are categorized by factors such as top rheumatology diagnosis, comorbidities, top-five COVID-19 symptoms, and DMARD therapy at the time of virus infection. Anonymized data will be shared with an international register based in the United States.

Machado’s team combined data from the EULAR and Global Rheumatology Alliance COVID-19 registries from March 24 to April 20. They looked at patient factors — such as age, sex, smoking status, rheumatic diagnosis, comorbidities, and rheumatic therapies — to examine the association of rheumatic therapies with hospitalization rates and COVID-19 disease course.

Of the 277 patients (46%) in the study cohort who required hospitalization, 55 (9%) died. But this finding shouldn’t be viewed as the true rate of hospitalization or death in patients with rheumatic disease and COVID-19, said Gerd Burmester, MD, from Charité–University Medicine Berlin.

“There’s tremendous bias in terms of more serious cases of COVID-19 being reported to the registries,” he explained, “because the mild cases won’t even show up at their rheumatologist’s office.”

“This can skew the idea that COVID-19 is much more dangerous to rheumatic patients than to the regular population,” Burmester told Medscape Medical News. “It scares the patients, obviously, but we believe this is not justified.”

It’s still unclear whether rituximab use raises the risk for severe COVID-19, he said. “It appears to be the only biologic for which the jury is still out,” he said.

“Anti-TNFs and anti-IL-6 drugs may even be beneficial, although we don’t have robust data,” he added.

The study can only highlight associations between rheumatic drugs and COVID-19 outcomes. “We cannot say there is a causal relationship between the findings,” Machado said.

Longer-term data, when available, should illuminate “more granular” aspects of COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatic patients, including their risks of requiring ventilation or developing a cytokine storm, he noted.

Burmester and Machado agree that research needs to continue as the pandemic rages on. But so far, “there are no data suggesting that, if you’re on a targeted, dedicated immunomodulator, your risk is higher to have a worse course of COVID-19 than the general population,” Burmester said.

“We simply didn’t know that when the pandemic started, and some patients even discontinued their drugs out of this fear,” he added. “It’s more reassuring than we originally thought.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The vast majority of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases who contract COVID-19 recover from the virus, regardless of which medication they receive for their rheumatic condition, new international research suggests.

“These results provide, for the first time, information about the outcome of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases,” said study investigator Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, from University College London. “They should provide some reassurance to patients and healthcare providers.”

Machado and his colleagues looked at 600 COVID-19 patients from 40 countries, and found that those taking TNF inhibitors for their rheumatic disease were less likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19. However, treatment with more than 10 mg of prednisone daily — considered a moderate to high dose — was associated with a higher probability of hospitalization.

In addition, hospitalization was not associated with biologics; JAK inhibitors; conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as methotrexate; antimalarials, such as hydroxychloroquine; or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) — either alone or in combination with other biologics, such as TNF-alpha inhibitors.

The findings were presented at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress and were published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“Initially, there was a huge concern that these drugs could affect the outcome of patients getting COVID-19, but what this is showing is that probably these drugs do not increase their risk of severe outcome,” Machado, who is chair of the EULAR standing committee on epidemiology and health services research, told Medscape Medical News.

As of June 1, 1061 patients from 28 participating countries had been entered into the EULAR COVID-19 database, which was launched as part of the international Global Rheumatology Alliance registry. Patient data are categorized by factors such as top rheumatology diagnosis, comorbidities, top-five COVID-19 symptoms, and DMARD therapy at the time of virus infection. Anonymized data will be shared with an international register based in the United States.

Machado’s team combined data from the EULAR and Global Rheumatology Alliance COVID-19 registries from March 24 to April 20. They looked at patient factors — such as age, sex, smoking status, rheumatic diagnosis, comorbidities, and rheumatic therapies — to examine the association of rheumatic therapies with hospitalization rates and COVID-19 disease course.

Of the 277 patients (46%) in the study cohort who required hospitalization, 55 (9%) died. But this finding shouldn’t be viewed as the true rate of hospitalization or death in patients with rheumatic disease and COVID-19, said Gerd Burmester, MD, from Charité–University Medicine Berlin.

“There’s tremendous bias in terms of more serious cases of COVID-19 being reported to the registries,” he explained, “because the mild cases won’t even show up at their rheumatologist’s office.”

“This can skew the idea that COVID-19 is much more dangerous to rheumatic patients than to the regular population,” Burmester told Medscape Medical News. “It scares the patients, obviously, but we believe this is not justified.”

It’s still unclear whether rituximab use raises the risk for severe COVID-19, he said. “It appears to be the only biologic for which the jury is still out,” he said.

“Anti-TNFs and anti-IL-6 drugs may even be beneficial, although we don’t have robust data,” he added.

The study can only highlight associations between rheumatic drugs and COVID-19 outcomes. “We cannot say there is a causal relationship between the findings,” Machado said.

Longer-term data, when available, should illuminate “more granular” aspects of COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatic patients, including their risks of requiring ventilation or developing a cytokine storm, he noted.

Burmester and Machado agree that research needs to continue as the pandemic rages on. But so far, “there are no data suggesting that, if you’re on a targeted, dedicated immunomodulator, your risk is higher to have a worse course of COVID-19 than the general population,” Burmester said.

“We simply didn’t know that when the pandemic started, and some patients even discontinued their drugs out of this fear,” he added. “It’s more reassuring than we originally thought.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The vast majority of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases who contract COVID-19 recover from the virus, regardless of which medication they receive for their rheumatic condition, new international research suggests.

“These results provide, for the first time, information about the outcome of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases,” said study investigator Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, from University College London. “They should provide some reassurance to patients and healthcare providers.”

Machado and his colleagues looked at 600 COVID-19 patients from 40 countries, and found that those taking TNF inhibitors for their rheumatic disease were less likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19. However, treatment with more than 10 mg of prednisone daily — considered a moderate to high dose — was associated with a higher probability of hospitalization.

In addition, hospitalization was not associated with biologics; JAK inhibitors; conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as methotrexate; antimalarials, such as hydroxychloroquine; or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) — either alone or in combination with other biologics, such as TNF-alpha inhibitors.

The findings were presented at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress and were published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“Initially, there was a huge concern that these drugs could affect the outcome of patients getting COVID-19, but what this is showing is that probably these drugs do not increase their risk of severe outcome,” Machado, who is chair of the EULAR standing committee on epidemiology and health services research, told Medscape Medical News.

As of June 1, 1061 patients from 28 participating countries had been entered into the EULAR COVID-19 database, which was launched as part of the international Global Rheumatology Alliance registry. Patient data are categorized by factors such as top rheumatology diagnosis, comorbidities, top-five COVID-19 symptoms, and DMARD therapy at the time of virus infection. Anonymized data will be shared with an international register based in the United States.

Machado’s team combined data from the EULAR and Global Rheumatology Alliance COVID-19 registries from March 24 to April 20. They looked at patient factors — such as age, sex, smoking status, rheumatic diagnosis, comorbidities, and rheumatic therapies — to examine the association of rheumatic therapies with hospitalization rates and COVID-19 disease course.

Of the 277 patients (46%) in the study cohort who required hospitalization, 55 (9%) died. But this finding shouldn’t be viewed as the true rate of hospitalization or death in patients with rheumatic disease and COVID-19, said Gerd Burmester, MD, from Charité–University Medicine Berlin.

“There’s tremendous bias in terms of more serious cases of COVID-19 being reported to the registries,” he explained, “because the mild cases won’t even show up at their rheumatologist’s office.”

“This can skew the idea that COVID-19 is much more dangerous to rheumatic patients than to the regular population,” Burmester told Medscape Medical News. “It scares the patients, obviously, but we believe this is not justified.”

It’s still unclear whether rituximab use raises the risk for severe COVID-19, he said. “It appears to be the only biologic for which the jury is still out,” he said.

“Anti-TNFs and anti-IL-6 drugs may even be beneficial, although we don’t have robust data,” he added.

The study can only highlight associations between rheumatic drugs and COVID-19 outcomes. “We cannot say there is a causal relationship between the findings,” Machado said.

Longer-term data, when available, should illuminate “more granular” aspects of COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatic patients, including their risks of requiring ventilation or developing a cytokine storm, he noted.

Burmester and Machado agree that research needs to continue as the pandemic rages on. But so far, “there are no data suggesting that, if you’re on a targeted, dedicated immunomodulator, your risk is higher to have a worse course of COVID-19 than the general population,” Burmester said.

“We simply didn’t know that when the pandemic started, and some patients even discontinued their drugs out of this fear,” he added. “It’s more reassuring than we originally thought.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding durvalumab to first-line pemetrexed and cisplatin improved survival in patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) in a phase 2 trial, compared with historical controls who received only pemetrexed and cisplatin.

The median overall survival was 20.4 months in patients who received durvalumab plus pemetrexed-cisplatin. This is significantly longer than the median overall survival of 12.1 months (P = .0014) observed with pemetrexed-cisplatin in a prior phase 3 study (J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jul 15;21[14]:2636-44).

The new phase 2 results are “promising,” said lead investigator Patrick Forde, MBBCh, director of the thoracic cancer clinical research program at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

He presented the results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Dr. Forde noted that a phase 3 trial directly comparing pemetrexed-cisplatin plus durvalumab to pemetrexed-cisplatin will begin recruiting this year. The trial is a collaboration between U.S. investigators and Australian researchers who reported their own phase 2 results with durvalumab plus pemetrexed-cisplatin in 2018 (J Thorac Oncol. 2018 Oct;13[10]:S338-339).
 

Study details

Dr. Forde’s phase 2 study enrolled 55 patients with treatment-naive, unresectable MPM. Their median age was 68 years (range, 35-83 years), and 45 (82%) were men. All had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1.

Epithelioid mesothelioma was the histologic subtype in three-quarters of patients. “It was a fairly typical mesothelioma population,” Dr. Forde said.

The patients received durvalumab at 1,120 mg plus pemetrexed at 500 mg/m² and cisplatin at 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. Carboplatin was substituted when cisplatin was contraindicated or patients developed toxicities.

All but one patient had stable or responding disease on radiography and went on to durvalumab maintenance, also given at 1,120 mg every 3 weeks, for up to 1 year from study entry.
 

Results

Dr. Forde said this study had 90% power to detect a 58% improvement in median overall survival, from the 12.1 months seen in historical controls to 19 months, which was the goal of this study.

It was a positive study, he said, as the median overall survival was 20.4 months (P = .0014).

The overall survival rate was 87.2% at 6 months, 70.4% at 12 months, and 44.2% at 24 months. The progression-free survival rate was 69.1% at 6 months, 16.4% at 12 months, and 10.9% at 24 months.

The overall response rate was 56.4%, which comprised 31 partial responses. Forty percent of patients (n = 22) had stable disease. One patient had progressive disease, and one was not evaluable (1.8% each).

To help with future patient selection, the researchers looked for baseline biomarkers that predicted response. Tumor PD-L1 expression, tumor mutation burden, and other potential candidates haven’t worked out so far, but the work continues, Dr. Forde said.

He noted that many of the adverse events in this trial are those typically seen with platinum-based chemotherapy.

Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events included anemia (n = 14), fatigue (n = 4), decreased appetite (n = 1), and hypomagnesemia (n = 1).

The most common grade 1/2 adverse events of special interest were hypothyroidism (n = 7), rash (n = 5), pruritus (n = 3), AST elevation (n = 3), and hyperthyroidism (n = 3).
 

Putting the results in context

Given the role of inflammation in MPM, durvalumab is among several immunotherapies under investigation for the disease.

A phase 3 French trial showed MPM patients had a median overall survival of 18.8 months with pemetrexed-cisplatin plus bevacizumab versus 16.1 months with pemetrexed-cisplatin only (Lancet. 2016 Apr 2;387[10026]:1405-1414).

The higher overall survival in the French study’s pemetrexed-cisplatin arm, compared with the 2003 trial results, is likely due to the use of modern second-line options, said Marjorie Zauderer, MD, codirector of the mesothelioma program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was the discussant for Dr. Forde’s presentation.

“I think the improvement in overall survival presented by Dr. Forde is potentially clinically meaningful,” she said, but it was “well within the 95% confidence interval” of the bevacizumab trial. Even so, “I look forward” to the phase 3 results, she said.

Dr. Zauderer also pointed out an April press release from Bristol Myers Squibb that reported improved survival over pemetrexed-cisplatin with two of the company’s immunotherapies, nivolumab and ipilimumab, not as additions but as replacement first-line therapy. However, the randomized trial data haven’t been released yet. “We are all eager to evaluate this option further,” she said.

AstraZeneca, maker of durvalumab, funded the current study. Dr. Forde is an adviser for the company and reported research funding. Dr. Zauderer reported a relationship with Roche, which markets bevacizumab through its subsidiary, Genentech. She also disclosed research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Forde PM et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9003.

Adding durvalumab to first-line pemetrexed and cisplatin improved survival in patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) in a phase 2 trial, compared with historical controls who received only pemetrexed and cisplatin.

The median overall survival was 20.4 months in patients who received durvalumab plus pemetrexed-cisplatin. This is significantly longer than the median overall survival of 12.1 months (P = .0014) observed with pemetrexed-cisplatin in a prior phase 3 study (J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jul 15;21[14]:2636-44).

The new phase 2 results are “promising,” said lead investigator Patrick Forde, MBBCh, director of the thoracic cancer clinical research program at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

He presented the results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Dr. Forde noted that a phase 3 trial directly comparing pemetrexed-cisplatin plus durvalumab to pemetrexed-cisplatin will begin recruiting this year. The trial is a collaboration between U.S. investigators and Australian researchers who reported their own phase 2 results with durvalumab plus pemetrexed-cisplatin in 2018 (J Thorac Oncol. 2018 Oct;13[10]:S338-339).
 

Study details

Dr. Forde’s phase 2 study enrolled 55 patients with treatment-naive, unresectable MPM. Their median age was 68 years (range, 35-83 years), and 45 (82%) were men. All had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1.

Epithelioid mesothelioma was the histologic subtype in three-quarters of patients. “It was a fairly typical mesothelioma population,” Dr. Forde said.

The patients received durvalumab at 1,120 mg plus pemetrexed at 500 mg/m² and cisplatin at 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. Carboplatin was substituted when cisplatin was contraindicated or patients developed toxicities.

All but one patient had stable or responding disease on radiography and went on to durvalumab maintenance, also given at 1,120 mg every 3 weeks, for up to 1 year from study entry.
 

Results

Dr. Forde said this study had 90% power to detect a 58% improvement in median overall survival, from the 12.1 months seen in historical controls to 19 months, which was the goal of this study.

It was a positive study, he said, as the median overall survival was 20.4 months (P = .0014).

The overall survival rate was 87.2% at 6 months, 70.4% at 12 months, and 44.2% at 24 months. The progression-free survival rate was 69.1% at 6 months, 16.4% at 12 months, and 10.9% at 24 months.

The overall response rate was 56.4%, which comprised 31 partial responses. Forty percent of patients (n = 22) had stable disease. One patient had progressive disease, and one was not evaluable (1.8% each).

To help with future patient selection, the researchers looked for baseline biomarkers that predicted response. Tumor PD-L1 expression, tumor mutation burden, and other potential candidates haven’t worked out so far, but the work continues, Dr. Forde said.

He noted that many of the adverse events in this trial are those typically seen with platinum-based chemotherapy.

Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events included anemia (n = 14), fatigue (n = 4), decreased appetite (n = 1), and hypomagnesemia (n = 1).

The most common grade 1/2 adverse events of special interest were hypothyroidism (n = 7), rash (n = 5), pruritus (n = 3), AST elevation (n = 3), and hyperthyroidism (n = 3).
 

Putting the results in context

Given the role of inflammation in MPM, durvalumab is among several immunotherapies under investigation for the disease.

A phase 3 French trial showed MPM patients had a median overall survival of 18.8 months with pemetrexed-cisplatin plus bevacizumab versus 16.1 months with pemetrexed-cisplatin only (Lancet. 2016 Apr 2;387[10026]:1405-1414).

The higher overall survival in the French study’s pemetrexed-cisplatin arm, compared with the 2003 trial results, is likely due to the use of modern second-line options, said Marjorie Zauderer, MD, codirector of the mesothelioma program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was the discussant for Dr. Forde’s presentation.

“I think the improvement in overall survival presented by Dr. Forde is potentially clinically meaningful,” she said, but it was “well within the 95% confidence interval” of the bevacizumab trial. Even so, “I look forward” to the phase 3 results, she said.

Dr. Zauderer also pointed out an April press release from Bristol Myers Squibb that reported improved survival over pemetrexed-cisplatin with two of the company’s immunotherapies, nivolumab and ipilimumab, not as additions but as replacement first-line therapy. However, the randomized trial data haven’t been released yet. “We are all eager to evaluate this option further,” she said.

AstraZeneca, maker of durvalumab, funded the current study. Dr. Forde is an adviser for the company and reported research funding. Dr. Zauderer reported a relationship with Roche, which markets bevacizumab through its subsidiary, Genentech. She also disclosed research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Forde PM et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9003.

Adding durvalumab to first-line pemetrexed and cisplatin improved survival in patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) in a phase 2 trial, compared with historical controls who received only pemetrexed and cisplatin.

The median overall survival was 20.4 months in patients who received durvalumab plus pemetrexed-cisplatin. This is significantly longer than the median overall survival of 12.1 months (P = .0014) observed with pemetrexed-cisplatin in a prior phase 3 study (J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jul 15;21[14]:2636-44).

The new phase 2 results are “promising,” said lead investigator Patrick Forde, MBBCh, director of the thoracic cancer clinical research program at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

He presented the results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Dr. Forde noted that a phase 3 trial directly comparing pemetrexed-cisplatin plus durvalumab to pemetrexed-cisplatin will begin recruiting this year. The trial is a collaboration between U.S. investigators and Australian researchers who reported their own phase 2 results with durvalumab plus pemetrexed-cisplatin in 2018 (J Thorac Oncol. 2018 Oct;13[10]:S338-339).
 

Study details

Dr. Forde’s phase 2 study enrolled 55 patients with treatment-naive, unresectable MPM. Their median age was 68 years (range, 35-83 years), and 45 (82%) were men. All had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1.

Epithelioid mesothelioma was the histologic subtype in three-quarters of patients. “It was a fairly typical mesothelioma population,” Dr. Forde said.

The patients received durvalumab at 1,120 mg plus pemetrexed at 500 mg/m² and cisplatin at 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. Carboplatin was substituted when cisplatin was contraindicated or patients developed toxicities.

All but one patient had stable or responding disease on radiography and went on to durvalumab maintenance, also given at 1,120 mg every 3 weeks, for up to 1 year from study entry.
 

Results

Dr. Forde said this study had 90% power to detect a 58% improvement in median overall survival, from the 12.1 months seen in historical controls to 19 months, which was the goal of this study.

It was a positive study, he said, as the median overall survival was 20.4 months (P = .0014).

The overall survival rate was 87.2% at 6 months, 70.4% at 12 months, and 44.2% at 24 months. The progression-free survival rate was 69.1% at 6 months, 16.4% at 12 months, and 10.9% at 24 months.

The overall response rate was 56.4%, which comprised 31 partial responses. Forty percent of patients (n = 22) had stable disease. One patient had progressive disease, and one was not evaluable (1.8% each).

To help with future patient selection, the researchers looked for baseline biomarkers that predicted response. Tumor PD-L1 expression, tumor mutation burden, and other potential candidates haven’t worked out so far, but the work continues, Dr. Forde said.

He noted that many of the adverse events in this trial are those typically seen with platinum-based chemotherapy.

Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events included anemia (n = 14), fatigue (n = 4), decreased appetite (n = 1), and hypomagnesemia (n = 1).

The most common grade 1/2 adverse events of special interest were hypothyroidism (n = 7), rash (n = 5), pruritus (n = 3), AST elevation (n = 3), and hyperthyroidism (n = 3).
 

Putting the results in context

Given the role of inflammation in MPM, durvalumab is among several immunotherapies under investigation for the disease.

A phase 3 French trial showed MPM patients had a median overall survival of 18.8 months with pemetrexed-cisplatin plus bevacizumab versus 16.1 months with pemetrexed-cisplatin only (Lancet. 2016 Apr 2;387[10026]:1405-1414).

The higher overall survival in the French study’s pemetrexed-cisplatin arm, compared with the 2003 trial results, is likely due to the use of modern second-line options, said Marjorie Zauderer, MD, codirector of the mesothelioma program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was the discussant for Dr. Forde’s presentation.

“I think the improvement in overall survival presented by Dr. Forde is potentially clinically meaningful,” she said, but it was “well within the 95% confidence interval” of the bevacizumab trial. Even so, “I look forward” to the phase 3 results, she said.

Dr. Zauderer also pointed out an April press release from Bristol Myers Squibb that reported improved survival over pemetrexed-cisplatin with two of the company’s immunotherapies, nivolumab and ipilimumab, not as additions but as replacement first-line therapy. However, the randomized trial data haven’t been released yet. “We are all eager to evaluate this option further,” she said.

AstraZeneca, maker of durvalumab, funded the current study. Dr. Forde is an adviser for the company and reported research funding. Dr. Zauderer reported a relationship with Roche, which markets bevacizumab through its subsidiary, Genentech. She also disclosed research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Forde PM et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9003.

Addressing local supply constraints may be insufficient to improve poorer outcomes among women who need a liver transplant, based on a large retrospective analysis.

Sex-based disparities in liver allocation were more strongly associated with liver size mismatch and MELD (Model for End-stage Liver Disease) score than geographic factors, reported lead author Jayme E. Locke, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues.

“Currently, the transplant community is considering geographic redistribution ... to redefine local organ supply by replacing donor service areas with fixed concentric circles around donor hospitals,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Surgery. “However, newly proposed geographic models rely on the same metric for medical urgency, the MELD score, and offer no solution for candidates with small body stature who may appear at the top of the match run yet are routinely skipped secondary to discrepancies in donor-recipient size.”

To further investigate the driving forces behind sex-based disparities, the investigators conducted the first national study of its kind, involving 81,357 adults who were wait-listed for liver transplant. Primary outcomes included deceased donor liver transplant and wait list mortality. Using multivariate regression models and inverse odds ratio weighting, the investigators determined proportions of disparity shared across MELD score, candidate anthropometric and liver measurements, and geographic location.

Compared with men, women were 14.4% less likely to receive a transplant, and 8.6% more likely to die on the wait list.

The only geographic factor significantly associated with the increased disparity between female sex and wait list mortality was organ procurement organization, which was associated with a 22% increase. The disparity between rates of transplant receipt was not linked with any geographic factors.

In contrast, MELD score accounted for increases in disparity of 10.3% and 50.1% for organ receipt and wait list mortality, respectively. Candidate anthropometric and liver measurements played an even greater role, raising disparity by 49.0% for organ receipt and 125.8% for wait list mortality.

“Size mismatch between the donor and intended recipient and incorrect assessments of liver disease severity were more strongly associated with the observed sex disparity in wait list mortality than local supply of organs,” the investigators wrote.

Dr. Locke and colleagues noted that ongoing debates about geographic disparity hinge upon the assumption that the MELD score accurately measures disease severity, despite known shortcomings, including reliance upon serum creatinine level, which is influenced by muscle mass and therefore overestimates kidney function in women, and sex-based differences in size, which the MELD score does not incorporate whatsoever.

As such, the investigators suggested that addressing issues with the MELD score and organ size mismatch should be part of a more comprehensive approach to fixing sex-based disparities among candidates for liver transplant.

“Although geographic factors matter, examining geographic access alone may be insufficient,” they concluded.

James F. Markmann, MD, PhD, chief of the division of transplantation at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who has previously published research in support of geographic redistribution, said in an interview that the study by Dr. Locke and colleagues “highlights a well-known problem in the liver transplant field.”

“The cause of this disparity is nicely illustrated by Dr. Locke’s work, which shows multiple contributing factors,” Dr. Markmann said.

While Dr. Markmann agreed with Dr. Locke and colleagues’ proposal that estimated glomerular filtration rate, instead of creatinine, could be used to more accurately measure renal function across sexes, he suggested that the disparities uncovered by their analysis are more likely driven by body size than sex.

“A more impactful factor and one obvious to those performing transplants is that on average the smaller body habitus of females makes more organs unsuitable due to size mismatch,” Dr. Markmann said. “In general, it is technically much less of a barrier to put a small liver into a large patient, than a large liver in a small patient. But, the same disparity in access almost certainly applies to small males; unfortunately, the authors did not examine this point. If allocation changes are envisioned to gain greater fairness in organ access, at least for the recipient size issue, it should be a size issue and not a sex issue.”

Dr. Markmann went on to explain that steps are currently being taken to make liver access more equitable.

“As of February 4th of this year, a broader sharing program for deceased donor livers was implemented,” he said. “This will make more organs available to those in greatest need. It will also potentially increase the number of liver offers to sick patients with a small body habitus and will hopefully reduce the excess morbidity and mortality they suffer.”

According to Willscott E. Naugler, MD and Susan L. Orloff, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, novel clinical strategies need to be reinforced with a broader mindset in order to close the gap between men and women.

“A change in the MELD score is unlikely to fix this problem,” they wrote in an accompanying JAMA Surgery editorial, “but it is not hard to think of solutions; one could imagine, for example, allowing women of small stature to access pediatric livers while ramping up liver splits to increase contributions to the pediatric pool.”

Dr. Naugler and Dr. Orloff went on to suggest that barriers to equity may be culturally insidious.

“It is likely that the same unconscious biases that lead us to pay women surgeons less account for the lack of will to make these simple changes,” they wrote. “Not mentioned are multiple sociocultural elements that favor men over women in organ transplant. ... These realities cannot be fixed with changes to the MELD score, and we must be mindful not to let such notions distract from the essential hard work of creating long-lasting cultural changes that underpin a true path forward.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Sanofi, Hansa Medical, Natera, and others.

SOURCE: Locke JE et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 May 20. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.1129.

Addressing local supply constraints may be insufficient to improve poorer outcomes among women who need a liver transplant, based on a large retrospective analysis.

Sex-based disparities in liver allocation were more strongly associated with liver size mismatch and MELD (Model for End-stage Liver Disease) score than geographic factors, reported lead author Jayme E. Locke, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues.

“Currently, the transplant community is considering geographic redistribution ... to redefine local organ supply by replacing donor service areas with fixed concentric circles around donor hospitals,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Surgery. “However, newly proposed geographic models rely on the same metric for medical urgency, the MELD score, and offer no solution for candidates with small body stature who may appear at the top of the match run yet are routinely skipped secondary to discrepancies in donor-recipient size.”

To further investigate the driving forces behind sex-based disparities, the investigators conducted the first national study of its kind, involving 81,357 adults who were wait-listed for liver transplant. Primary outcomes included deceased donor liver transplant and wait list mortality. Using multivariate regression models and inverse odds ratio weighting, the investigators determined proportions of disparity shared across MELD score, candidate anthropometric and liver measurements, and geographic location.

Compared with men, women were 14.4% less likely to receive a transplant, and 8.6% more likely to die on the wait list.

The only geographic factor significantly associated with the increased disparity between female sex and wait list mortality was organ procurement organization, which was associated with a 22% increase. The disparity between rates of transplant receipt was not linked with any geographic factors.

In contrast, MELD score accounted for increases in disparity of 10.3% and 50.1% for organ receipt and wait list mortality, respectively. Candidate anthropometric and liver measurements played an even greater role, raising disparity by 49.0% for organ receipt and 125.8% for wait list mortality.

“Size mismatch between the donor and intended recipient and incorrect assessments of liver disease severity were more strongly associated with the observed sex disparity in wait list mortality than local supply of organs,” the investigators wrote.

Dr. Locke and colleagues noted that ongoing debates about geographic disparity hinge upon the assumption that the MELD score accurately measures disease severity, despite known shortcomings, including reliance upon serum creatinine level, which is influenced by muscle mass and therefore overestimates kidney function in women, and sex-based differences in size, which the MELD score does not incorporate whatsoever.

As such, the investigators suggested that addressing issues with the MELD score and organ size mismatch should be part of a more comprehensive approach to fixing sex-based disparities among candidates for liver transplant.

“Although geographic factors matter, examining geographic access alone may be insufficient,” they concluded.

James F. Markmann, MD, PhD, chief of the division of transplantation at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who has previously published research in support of geographic redistribution, said in an interview that the study by Dr. Locke and colleagues “highlights a well-known problem in the liver transplant field.”

“The cause of this disparity is nicely illustrated by Dr. Locke’s work, which shows multiple contributing factors,” Dr. Markmann said.

While Dr. Markmann agreed with Dr. Locke and colleagues’ proposal that estimated glomerular filtration rate, instead of creatinine, could be used to more accurately measure renal function across sexes, he suggested that the disparities uncovered by their analysis are more likely driven by body size than sex.

“A more impactful factor and one obvious to those performing transplants is that on average the smaller body habitus of females makes more organs unsuitable due to size mismatch,” Dr. Markmann said. “In general, it is technically much less of a barrier to put a small liver into a large patient, than a large liver in a small patient. But, the same disparity in access almost certainly applies to small males; unfortunately, the authors did not examine this point. If allocation changes are envisioned to gain greater fairness in organ access, at least for the recipient size issue, it should be a size issue and not a sex issue.”

Dr. Markmann went on to explain that steps are currently being taken to make liver access more equitable.

“As of February 4th of this year, a broader sharing program for deceased donor livers was implemented,” he said. “This will make more organs available to those in greatest need. It will also potentially increase the number of liver offers to sick patients with a small body habitus and will hopefully reduce the excess morbidity and mortality they suffer.”

According to Willscott E. Naugler, MD and Susan L. Orloff, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, novel clinical strategies need to be reinforced with a broader mindset in order to close the gap between men and women.

“A change in the MELD score is unlikely to fix this problem,” they wrote in an accompanying JAMA Surgery editorial, “but it is not hard to think of solutions; one could imagine, for example, allowing women of small stature to access pediatric livers while ramping up liver splits to increase contributions to the pediatric pool.”

Dr. Naugler and Dr. Orloff went on to suggest that barriers to equity may be culturally insidious.

“It is likely that the same unconscious biases that lead us to pay women surgeons less account for the lack of will to make these simple changes,” they wrote. “Not mentioned are multiple sociocultural elements that favor men over women in organ transplant. ... These realities cannot be fixed with changes to the MELD score, and we must be mindful not to let such notions distract from the essential hard work of creating long-lasting cultural changes that underpin a true path forward.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Sanofi, Hansa Medical, Natera, and others.

SOURCE: Locke JE et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 May 20. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.1129.

Addressing local supply constraints may be insufficient to improve poorer outcomes among women who need a liver transplant, based on a large retrospective analysis.

Sex-based disparities in liver allocation were more strongly associated with liver size mismatch and MELD (Model for End-stage Liver Disease) score than geographic factors, reported lead author Jayme E. Locke, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues.

“Currently, the transplant community is considering geographic redistribution ... to redefine local organ supply by replacing donor service areas with fixed concentric circles around donor hospitals,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Surgery. “However, newly proposed geographic models rely on the same metric for medical urgency, the MELD score, and offer no solution for candidates with small body stature who may appear at the top of the match run yet are routinely skipped secondary to discrepancies in donor-recipient size.”

To further investigate the driving forces behind sex-based disparities, the investigators conducted the first national study of its kind, involving 81,357 adults who were wait-listed for liver transplant. Primary outcomes included deceased donor liver transplant and wait list mortality. Using multivariate regression models and inverse odds ratio weighting, the investigators determined proportions of disparity shared across MELD score, candidate anthropometric and liver measurements, and geographic location.

Compared with men, women were 14.4% less likely to receive a transplant, and 8.6% more likely to die on the wait list.

The only geographic factor significantly associated with the increased disparity between female sex and wait list mortality was organ procurement organization, which was associated with a 22% increase. The disparity between rates of transplant receipt was not linked with any geographic factors.

In contrast, MELD score accounted for increases in disparity of 10.3% and 50.1% for organ receipt and wait list mortality, respectively. Candidate anthropometric and liver measurements played an even greater role, raising disparity by 49.0% for organ receipt and 125.8% for wait list mortality.

“Size mismatch between the donor and intended recipient and incorrect assessments of liver disease severity were more strongly associated with the observed sex disparity in wait list mortality than local supply of organs,” the investigators wrote.

Dr. Locke and colleagues noted that ongoing debates about geographic disparity hinge upon the assumption that the MELD score accurately measures disease severity, despite known shortcomings, including reliance upon serum creatinine level, which is influenced by muscle mass and therefore overestimates kidney function in women, and sex-based differences in size, which the MELD score does not incorporate whatsoever.

As such, the investigators suggested that addressing issues with the MELD score and organ size mismatch should be part of a more comprehensive approach to fixing sex-based disparities among candidates for liver transplant.

“Although geographic factors matter, examining geographic access alone may be insufficient,” they concluded.

James F. Markmann, MD, PhD, chief of the division of transplantation at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who has previously published research in support of geographic redistribution, said in an interview that the study by Dr. Locke and colleagues “highlights a well-known problem in the liver transplant field.”

“The cause of this disparity is nicely illustrated by Dr. Locke’s work, which shows multiple contributing factors,” Dr. Markmann said.

While Dr. Markmann agreed with Dr. Locke and colleagues’ proposal that estimated glomerular filtration rate, instead of creatinine, could be used to more accurately measure renal function across sexes, he suggested that the disparities uncovered by their analysis are more likely driven by body size than sex.

“A more impactful factor and one obvious to those performing transplants is that on average the smaller body habitus of females makes more organs unsuitable due to size mismatch,” Dr. Markmann said. “In general, it is technically much less of a barrier to put a small liver into a large patient, than a large liver in a small patient. But, the same disparity in access almost certainly applies to small males; unfortunately, the authors did not examine this point. If allocation changes are envisioned to gain greater fairness in organ access, at least for the recipient size issue, it should be a size issue and not a sex issue.”

Dr. Markmann went on to explain that steps are currently being taken to make liver access more equitable.

“As of February 4th of this year, a broader sharing program for deceased donor livers was implemented,” he said. “This will make more organs available to those in greatest need. It will also potentially increase the number of liver offers to sick patients with a small body habitus and will hopefully reduce the excess morbidity and mortality they suffer.”

According to Willscott E. Naugler, MD and Susan L. Orloff, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, novel clinical strategies need to be reinforced with a broader mindset in order to close the gap between men and women.

“A change in the MELD score is unlikely to fix this problem,” they wrote in an accompanying JAMA Surgery editorial, “but it is not hard to think of solutions; one could imagine, for example, allowing women of small stature to access pediatric livers while ramping up liver splits to increase contributions to the pediatric pool.”

Dr. Naugler and Dr. Orloff went on to suggest that barriers to equity may be culturally insidious.

“It is likely that the same unconscious biases that lead us to pay women surgeons less account for the lack of will to make these simple changes,” they wrote. “Not mentioned are multiple sociocultural elements that favor men over women in organ transplant. ... These realities cannot be fixed with changes to the MELD score, and we must be mindful not to let such notions distract from the essential hard work of creating long-lasting cultural changes that underpin a true path forward.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Sanofi, Hansa Medical, Natera, and others.

SOURCE: Locke JE et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 May 20. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.1129.

During a 4-week period early in the COVID-19 pandemic, visits to U.S. emergency departments were down by 42%, compared with the corresponding period in 2019, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The striking decline in ED visits nationwide … suggests that the pandemic has altered the use of the ED by the public,” Kathleen P. Hartnett, PhD, and associates at the CDC said June 3 in the Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report.

The weekly mean was just over 1.2 million ED visits for the 4 weeks from March 29 to April 25, 2020, compared with the nearly 2.2 million visits per week recorded from March 31 to April 27, 2019 – a drop of 42%, based on an analysis of data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program.

Despite that drop, ED visits for infectious disease–related reasons, taken as a proportion of all 1.2 ED visits during the early pandemic period, were 3.8 times higher than the comparison period in 2019, the investigators reported.

ED visits also were higher in 2020 for specified and unspecified lower respiratory disease not including influenza, pneumonia, asthma, or bronchitis (prevalence ratio of 1.99, compared with 2019), cardiac arrest and ventricular fibrillation (PR, 1.98), and pneumonia not caused by tuberculosis (PR, 1.91), Dr. Hartnett and associates said.

Prevalence ratios for the early pandemic period were down for most other conditions, with some of the largest decreases seen for influenza (PR, 0.16), otitis media (PR, 0.35), and neoplasm-related encounters (PR, 0.40), they said.

Visits have increased each week since reaching their lowest point during April 12-18, but the number for the most recent full week, May 24-30, which was not included in the analysis, was still 26% lower than the corresponding week in 2019, the CDC team pointed out.

“Some persons could be delaying care for conditions that might result in additional mortality if left untreated,” the investigators noted, and those “who use the ED as a safety net because they lack access to primary care and telemedicine might be disproportionately affected if they avoid seeking care because of concerns about the infection risk in the ED.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hartnett KP et al. MMWR. 2020 Jun 3. 69:1-6.

During a 4-week period early in the COVID-19 pandemic, visits to U.S. emergency departments were down by 42%, compared with the corresponding period in 2019, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The striking decline in ED visits nationwide … suggests that the pandemic has altered the use of the ED by the public,” Kathleen P. Hartnett, PhD, and associates at the CDC said June 3 in the Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report.

The weekly mean was just over 1.2 million ED visits for the 4 weeks from March 29 to April 25, 2020, compared with the nearly 2.2 million visits per week recorded from March 31 to April 27, 2019 – a drop of 42%, based on an analysis of data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program.

Despite that drop, ED visits for infectious disease–related reasons, taken as a proportion of all 1.2 ED visits during the early pandemic period, were 3.8 times higher than the comparison period in 2019, the investigators reported.

ED visits also were higher in 2020 for specified and unspecified lower respiratory disease not including influenza, pneumonia, asthma, or bronchitis (prevalence ratio of 1.99, compared with 2019), cardiac arrest and ventricular fibrillation (PR, 1.98), and pneumonia not caused by tuberculosis (PR, 1.91), Dr. Hartnett and associates said.

Prevalence ratios for the early pandemic period were down for most other conditions, with some of the largest decreases seen for influenza (PR, 0.16), otitis media (PR, 0.35), and neoplasm-related encounters (PR, 0.40), they said.

Visits have increased each week since reaching their lowest point during April 12-18, but the number for the most recent full week, May 24-30, which was not included in the analysis, was still 26% lower than the corresponding week in 2019, the CDC team pointed out.

“Some persons could be delaying care for conditions that might result in additional mortality if left untreated,” the investigators noted, and those “who use the ED as a safety net because they lack access to primary care and telemedicine might be disproportionately affected if they avoid seeking care because of concerns about the infection risk in the ED.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hartnett KP et al. MMWR. 2020 Jun 3. 69:1-6.

During a 4-week period early in the COVID-19 pandemic, visits to U.S. emergency departments were down by 42%, compared with the corresponding period in 2019, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The striking decline in ED visits nationwide … suggests that the pandemic has altered the use of the ED by the public,” Kathleen P. Hartnett, PhD, and associates at the CDC said June 3 in the Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report.

The weekly mean was just over 1.2 million ED visits for the 4 weeks from March 29 to April 25, 2020, compared with the nearly 2.2 million visits per week recorded from March 31 to April 27, 2019 – a drop of 42%, based on an analysis of data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program.

Despite that drop, ED visits for infectious disease–related reasons, taken as a proportion of all 1.2 ED visits during the early pandemic period, were 3.8 times higher than the comparison period in 2019, the investigators reported.

ED visits also were higher in 2020 for specified and unspecified lower respiratory disease not including influenza, pneumonia, asthma, or bronchitis (prevalence ratio of 1.99, compared with 2019), cardiac arrest and ventricular fibrillation (PR, 1.98), and pneumonia not caused by tuberculosis (PR, 1.91), Dr. Hartnett and associates said.

Prevalence ratios for the early pandemic period were down for most other conditions, with some of the largest decreases seen for influenza (PR, 0.16), otitis media (PR, 0.35), and neoplasm-related encounters (PR, 0.40), they said.

Visits have increased each week since reaching their lowest point during April 12-18, but the number for the most recent full week, May 24-30, which was not included in the analysis, was still 26% lower than the corresponding week in 2019, the CDC team pointed out.

“Some persons could be delaying care for conditions that might result in additional mortality if left untreated,” the investigators noted, and those “who use the ED as a safety net because they lack access to primary care and telemedicine might be disproportionately affected if they avoid seeking care because of concerns about the infection risk in the ED.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hartnett KP et al. MMWR. 2020 Jun 3. 69:1-6.

Experts may be moving toward accepting cannabis as a useful tool to treat neuropathic pain, a recent debate on the topic suggests. During the debate, one expert argued for, and another against, there being sufficient evidence for the use of cannabis to treat neuropathic pain, but in the end, they agreed that some patients do benefit.

Anatoliy Sizov/Getty Images

The discussion took place at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) 2020, which transitioned to a virtual online meeting because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The cannabis plant has 460 constituents. The two main components are tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). It can be consumed by swallowing oil extracts, by the sublingual route, or by smoking or eating the plant. Cannabis medications already in use include oral THC (nabilone, dronabinol) and an oral mucosal spray, nabiximols (Sativex).

Arguing that therapeutic cannabis is helpful for neuropathic pain, Elon Eisenberg, MD, professor of neurology and pain medicine, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, cited a number of encouraging randomized, controlled trials and meta-analyses of studies on the subject.
 

Opioid substitute

Dr. Eisenberg discussed three relevant articles. One was a 2016 viewpoint article published in JAMA that concluded that “cannabis seems to be a substitute, a rather good one, for opioids,” said Dr. Eisenberg.

A “comprehensive” 440-page review, published by the National Academies Press in 2017, evaluated the evidence to that point and “came to the conclusion there is substantial evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults,” said Dr. Eisenberg.

And a 2018 position paper from the European Pain Federation determined that “the quantity and quality of evidence is such that cannabis-based medicines may be reasonably considered for chronic neuropathic pain,” he said.

He noted that the most recent results from an Israeli prospective cohort registry study that is following more than 851 patients who are taking cannabis over 1 year are positive. Analyses show a steady reduction in pain intensity and improvements in catastrophizing and disability. Importantly, he said, participants are using fewer opioids. However, about 40% of patients in that registry study experienced some adverse event, although most were not serious, said Dr. Eisenberg.
 

Not convinced

Arguing on the other side – that therapeutic cannabis is not helpful for neuropathic pain – was Nadine Attal, MD, PhD, professor of therapeutics and pain at the University Versailles Saint Quentin, France. She questioned the quality of some of the research to date and stressed that studies should consider neuropathic pain as a primary outcome – not spasticity or pain in general. They should also be double-blind, randomized, and placebo controlled, she said.

In addition, she said these studies should enroll at least 10 patients per group and should continue for 3 weeks or longer.

Dr. Attal wondered which of the many plant derivatives (phytocannabinoids) are used in cannabis studies.

She discussed four meta-analyses or reviews on the topic, some of which she said are “heterogeneous” and don’t provide convincing evidence for cannabis use in neuropathic pain.

For example, one review examined only marijuana, and all studies in it were short term. One of the studies in this review was of spasticity. Another review included two studies of cancer pain, and the most positive study in NP used short-term inhaled THC.

“There is no evidence to date that cannabinoids, including nabiximols or oral THC, administered for at least 3 weeks are more effective than placebo in neuropathic pain,” she concluded.
 

Some responders

However, Dr. Attal acknowledged that cannabis might be effective for some patients. In her experience, which has been borne out by some observational studies, patients with paroxysmal pain, or sudden stabbing pain, seem to get more relief from cannabis. “It’s absolutely possible that there’s a subgroup of symptoms or a subgroup of patients with specific symptoms who are much better responders to cannabis than others,” she said.

Asked if patients experience increased pain after withdrawing from cannabis, Dr. Eisenberg said he has observed that many patients stop taking cannabis when they start feeling better, but he hasn’t seen severe withdrawal symptoms.

However, there are other concerns related to cannabis use, said Dr. Eisenberg. A major concern regards driving a vehicle. In Israel, getting behind the wheel is prohibited within 6 hours of using cannabis.

But Dr. Eisenberg pointed out that published data on the safety of cannabis and driving were based on recreational users. “We need to keep in mind that recreational users typically use other substances, so we’re not sure the data is accurate,” he said.

There are increasing reports of stroke, transient ischemic attack, and MI among cannabis users. This is especially concerning because many of these cases involve young male adults who have no risk factors, said Dr. Eisenberg.

One conference delegate asked whether legal issues make it difficult to properly investigate cannabis in large studies. Dr. Eisenberg noted that legal concerns may help explain why there have not been any new randomized, controlled trials for about 2 years. “In the U.S., you can’t do clinical trials; cannabis is still regarded as schedule I substance,” he said.

Some physicians “are reluctant to deal with cannabis unless they get better data,” he said. “Doing research on cannabis seems to be somehow out of the mainstream.” Moreover, the research is difficult to carry out, owing to the complexity of the cannabis plant, which has many constituents. Perhaps it’s a matter of identifying and adding particular components to better demonstrate reduced pain, said Dr. Eisenberg.

Another complicating factor is that bioavailability differs considerably from one patient to another, “sometimes even by 10-fold,” he said.

Dr. Attal’s group will be starting a study next January that will enroll a large sample of patients with neuropathic pain or spasticity. In that study, cannabis will be dispensed through pharmacies and primary care. The aim of the study is “to see how it works in a real-life setting,” she said

Those participating in the virtual session were asked to vote on which side they agreed with. About 57% voted in favor of cannabis use, 14% voted against, and 28% had no opinion.

Dr. Eisenberg has received research grants from Rafa Laboratories, Saga Medical Ltd., Israel Pain Association, and Teva Israel. Dr. Attal has received support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi, Ipsen, Novartis, Aptinyx, Air Liquide, Lilly, and Grunenthal.

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

Experts may be moving toward accepting cannabis as a useful tool to treat neuropathic pain, a recent debate on the topic suggests. During the debate, one expert argued for, and another against, there being sufficient evidence for the use of cannabis to treat neuropathic pain, but in the end, they agreed that some patients do benefit.

Anatoliy Sizov/Getty Images

The discussion took place at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) 2020, which transitioned to a virtual online meeting because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The cannabis plant has 460 constituents. The two main components are tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). It can be consumed by swallowing oil extracts, by the sublingual route, or by smoking or eating the plant. Cannabis medications already in use include oral THC (nabilone, dronabinol) and an oral mucosal spray, nabiximols (Sativex).

Arguing that therapeutic cannabis is helpful for neuropathic pain, Elon Eisenberg, MD, professor of neurology and pain medicine, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, cited a number of encouraging randomized, controlled trials and meta-analyses of studies on the subject.
 

Opioid substitute

Dr. Eisenberg discussed three relevant articles. One was a 2016 viewpoint article published in JAMA that concluded that “cannabis seems to be a substitute, a rather good one, for opioids,” said Dr. Eisenberg.

A “comprehensive” 440-page review, published by the National Academies Press in 2017, evaluated the evidence to that point and “came to the conclusion there is substantial evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults,” said Dr. Eisenberg.

And a 2018 position paper from the European Pain Federation determined that “the quantity and quality of evidence is such that cannabis-based medicines may be reasonably considered for chronic neuropathic pain,” he said.

He noted that the most recent results from an Israeli prospective cohort registry study that is following more than 851 patients who are taking cannabis over 1 year are positive. Analyses show a steady reduction in pain intensity and improvements in catastrophizing and disability. Importantly, he said, participants are using fewer opioids. However, about 40% of patients in that registry study experienced some adverse event, although most were not serious, said Dr. Eisenberg.
 

Not convinced

Arguing on the other side – that therapeutic cannabis is not helpful for neuropathic pain – was Nadine Attal, MD, PhD, professor of therapeutics and pain at the University Versailles Saint Quentin, France. She questioned the quality of some of the research to date and stressed that studies should consider neuropathic pain as a primary outcome – not spasticity or pain in general. They should also be double-blind, randomized, and placebo controlled, she said.

In addition, she said these studies should enroll at least 10 patients per group and should continue for 3 weeks or longer.

Dr. Attal wondered which of the many plant derivatives (phytocannabinoids) are used in cannabis studies.

She discussed four meta-analyses or reviews on the topic, some of which she said are “heterogeneous” and don’t provide convincing evidence for cannabis use in neuropathic pain.

For example, one review examined only marijuana, and all studies in it were short term. One of the studies in this review was of spasticity. Another review included two studies of cancer pain, and the most positive study in NP used short-term inhaled THC.

“There is no evidence to date that cannabinoids, including nabiximols or oral THC, administered for at least 3 weeks are more effective than placebo in neuropathic pain,” she concluded.
 

Some responders

However, Dr. Attal acknowledged that cannabis might be effective for some patients. In her experience, which has been borne out by some observational studies, patients with paroxysmal pain, or sudden stabbing pain, seem to get more relief from cannabis. “It’s absolutely possible that there’s a subgroup of symptoms or a subgroup of patients with specific symptoms who are much better responders to cannabis than others,” she said.

Asked if patients experience increased pain after withdrawing from cannabis, Dr. Eisenberg said he has observed that many patients stop taking cannabis when they start feeling better, but he hasn’t seen severe withdrawal symptoms.

However, there are other concerns related to cannabis use, said Dr. Eisenberg. A major concern regards driving a vehicle. In Israel, getting behind the wheel is prohibited within 6 hours of using cannabis.

But Dr. Eisenberg pointed out that published data on the safety of cannabis and driving were based on recreational users. “We need to keep in mind that recreational users typically use other substances, so we’re not sure the data is accurate,” he said.

There are increasing reports of stroke, transient ischemic attack, and MI among cannabis users. This is especially concerning because many of these cases involve young male adults who have no risk factors, said Dr. Eisenberg.

One conference delegate asked whether legal issues make it difficult to properly investigate cannabis in large studies. Dr. Eisenberg noted that legal concerns may help explain why there have not been any new randomized, controlled trials for about 2 years. “In the U.S., you can’t do clinical trials; cannabis is still regarded as schedule I substance,” he said.

Some physicians “are reluctant to deal with cannabis unless they get better data,” he said. “Doing research on cannabis seems to be somehow out of the mainstream.” Moreover, the research is difficult to carry out, owing to the complexity of the cannabis plant, which has many constituents. Perhaps it’s a matter of identifying and adding particular components to better demonstrate reduced pain, said Dr. Eisenberg.

Another complicating factor is that bioavailability differs considerably from one patient to another, “sometimes even by 10-fold,” he said.

Dr. Attal’s group will be starting a study next January that will enroll a large sample of patients with neuropathic pain or spasticity. In that study, cannabis will be dispensed through pharmacies and primary care. The aim of the study is “to see how it works in a real-life setting,” she said

Those participating in the virtual session were asked to vote on which side they agreed with. About 57% voted in favor of cannabis use, 14% voted against, and 28% had no opinion.

Dr. Eisenberg has received research grants from Rafa Laboratories, Saga Medical Ltd., Israel Pain Association, and Teva Israel. Dr. Attal has received support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi, Ipsen, Novartis, Aptinyx, Air Liquide, Lilly, and Grunenthal.

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

Experts may be moving toward accepting cannabis as a useful tool to treat neuropathic pain, a recent debate on the topic suggests. During the debate, one expert argued for, and another against, there being sufficient evidence for the use of cannabis to treat neuropathic pain, but in the end, they agreed that some patients do benefit.

Anatoliy Sizov/Getty Images

The discussion took place at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) 2020, which transitioned to a virtual online meeting because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The cannabis plant has 460 constituents. The two main components are tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). It can be consumed by swallowing oil extracts, by the sublingual route, or by smoking or eating the plant. Cannabis medications already in use include oral THC (nabilone, dronabinol) and an oral mucosal spray, nabiximols (Sativex).

Arguing that therapeutic cannabis is helpful for neuropathic pain, Elon Eisenberg, MD, professor of neurology and pain medicine, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, cited a number of encouraging randomized, controlled trials and meta-analyses of studies on the subject.
 

Opioid substitute

Dr. Eisenberg discussed three relevant articles. One was a 2016 viewpoint article published in JAMA that concluded that “cannabis seems to be a substitute, a rather good one, for opioids,” said Dr. Eisenberg.

A “comprehensive” 440-page review, published by the National Academies Press in 2017, evaluated the evidence to that point and “came to the conclusion there is substantial evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults,” said Dr. Eisenberg.

And a 2018 position paper from the European Pain Federation determined that “the quantity and quality of evidence is such that cannabis-based medicines may be reasonably considered for chronic neuropathic pain,” he said.

He noted that the most recent results from an Israeli prospective cohort registry study that is following more than 851 patients who are taking cannabis over 1 year are positive. Analyses show a steady reduction in pain intensity and improvements in catastrophizing and disability. Importantly, he said, participants are using fewer opioids. However, about 40% of patients in that registry study experienced some adverse event, although most were not serious, said Dr. Eisenberg.
 

Not convinced

Arguing on the other side – that therapeutic cannabis is not helpful for neuropathic pain – was Nadine Attal, MD, PhD, professor of therapeutics and pain at the University Versailles Saint Quentin, France. She questioned the quality of some of the research to date and stressed that studies should consider neuropathic pain as a primary outcome – not spasticity or pain in general. They should also be double-blind, randomized, and placebo controlled, she said.

In addition, she said these studies should enroll at least 10 patients per group and should continue for 3 weeks or longer.

Dr. Attal wondered which of the many plant derivatives (phytocannabinoids) are used in cannabis studies.

She discussed four meta-analyses or reviews on the topic, some of which she said are “heterogeneous” and don’t provide convincing evidence for cannabis use in neuropathic pain.

For example, one review examined only marijuana, and all studies in it were short term. One of the studies in this review was of spasticity. Another review included two studies of cancer pain, and the most positive study in NP used short-term inhaled THC.

“There is no evidence to date that cannabinoids, including nabiximols or oral THC, administered for at least 3 weeks are more effective than placebo in neuropathic pain,” she concluded.
 

Some responders

However, Dr. Attal acknowledged that cannabis might be effective for some patients. In her experience, which has been borne out by some observational studies, patients with paroxysmal pain, or sudden stabbing pain, seem to get more relief from cannabis. “It’s absolutely possible that there’s a subgroup of symptoms or a subgroup of patients with specific symptoms who are much better responders to cannabis than others,” she said.

Asked if patients experience increased pain after withdrawing from cannabis, Dr. Eisenberg said he has observed that many patients stop taking cannabis when they start feeling better, but he hasn’t seen severe withdrawal symptoms.

However, there are other concerns related to cannabis use, said Dr. Eisenberg. A major concern regards driving a vehicle. In Israel, getting behind the wheel is prohibited within 6 hours of using cannabis.

But Dr. Eisenberg pointed out that published data on the safety of cannabis and driving were based on recreational users. “We need to keep in mind that recreational users typically use other substances, so we’re not sure the data is accurate,” he said.

There are increasing reports of stroke, transient ischemic attack, and MI among cannabis users. This is especially concerning because many of these cases involve young male adults who have no risk factors, said Dr. Eisenberg.

One conference delegate asked whether legal issues make it difficult to properly investigate cannabis in large studies. Dr. Eisenberg noted that legal concerns may help explain why there have not been any new randomized, controlled trials for about 2 years. “In the U.S., you can’t do clinical trials; cannabis is still regarded as schedule I substance,” he said.

Some physicians “are reluctant to deal with cannabis unless they get better data,” he said. “Doing research on cannabis seems to be somehow out of the mainstream.” Moreover, the research is difficult to carry out, owing to the complexity of the cannabis plant, which has many constituents. Perhaps it’s a matter of identifying and adding particular components to better demonstrate reduced pain, said Dr. Eisenberg.

Another complicating factor is that bioavailability differs considerably from one patient to another, “sometimes even by 10-fold,” he said.

Dr. Attal’s group will be starting a study next January that will enroll a large sample of patients with neuropathic pain or spasticity. In that study, cannabis will be dispensed through pharmacies and primary care. The aim of the study is “to see how it works in a real-life setting,” she said

Those participating in the virtual session were asked to vote on which side they agreed with. About 57% voted in favor of cannabis use, 14% voted against, and 28% had no opinion.

Dr. Eisenberg has received research grants from Rafa Laboratories, Saga Medical Ltd., Israel Pain Association, and Teva Israel. Dr. Attal has received support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi, Ipsen, Novartis, Aptinyx, Air Liquide, Lilly, and Grunenthal.

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