Hematology News

Hematology-oncology patients who receive treatment in the intensive care unit often develop delirium, and according to new findings, mechanical ventilation, high-dose corticosteroid use, and brain metastases were identified as independent risk factors.

Roughly half of all hematology-oncology patients who were admitted to the ICU experienced delirium, explained lead author Rachel Klosko, PharmD, PGY-2 cardiology pharmacy resident at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

“Delirium was associated with increased mortality, an increase in hospital length of stay, and increased length of stay in the ICU,” she said.

Dr. Klosko presented the study results at the at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), which was held virtually this year.

Delirium is an acute and fluctuating disturbance of consciousness and cognition and fluctuates in severity. Critically ill patients are subject to numerous risk factors for delirium. “It can occur in independently of any known neurological disorder,” said Dr. Klosko, adding that its occurrence has been associated with poorer outcomes in ICU patients.

In this study, Dr. Klosko and colleagues sought to determine the incidence of delirium in cancer patients who were admitted to the ICU, as well as identify the associated risk factors and recognize potential consequences of the development of delirium in this patient population.

They conducted a single center, retrospective, cohort study that evaluated patients between the ages of 18 and 89 years who were admitted to the hematology-oncology medical or surgical ICU between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019.

The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of delirium within 7 days of ICU admission, defined as two positive Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) assessments within 24 hours. Patients identified with delirium were compared to those without it, for the evaluation of secondary endpoints that included hospital mortality and ICU and hospital length of stay. The researchers also sought to identify independent risk factors for delirium in this population.

A total of 244 patients were included in the final analysis. Of this group, 125 (51.2%) experienced delirium during their stay in the ICU, and 119 (48.8%) did not.

Mortality in the delirium group was significantly higher at 32.8% vs. 15.1% (P = .001). In addition, the delirium group was associated with significantly higher ICU length of stay (6 days vs. 3 days, P < .001) and hospital length of stay (21 days vs. 12 days, P < .001).

“When comparing the baseline characteristics between the two groups, the delirium group had a longer hospital length prior to ICU admission, a higher SOFA score, a higher rate of brain metastases, a higher rate of shock, and higher receipt of high-dose steroids, benzodiazepines, and immunotherapy,” said Dr. Klosko.

After multivariable regression, four variables were included in the final model. Among patients with delirium, the SOFA score increased by 25% (odds ratio[OR] 1.25, P < .001), while the odds of delirium were almost four times higher among those treated with high-dose corticosteroids (OR 3.79, P = .004). Delirium was also eight times higher (OR 8.48, P < .001) among those who received mechanical ventilation and five times higher in (OR 5.38, P = .015) in patients with brain metastases.

Dr. Klosko noted that the main limitations for this study were that it was a single center retrospective analysis, and that patients were reviewed within the first 7 days of ICU admission. “This potentially missed patients who developed delirium outside of this time frame,” she said. In addition, “too few patients received high-dose benzodiazepines,” and “none of the patients received continuous neuromuscular blockade.”

However, in “contrast to these limitations, this is the largest study to date that has analyzed delirium in this population,” Dr. Klosko said.

Commenting on the study, Brenda Pun, DNP, RN, director of data quality at the Vanderbilt Critical Illness, Brain Dysfunction, and Survivorship Center, Nashville, Tenn., pointed out that the goal of this study was to describe delirium in this specific population. “But I will take a step backward and say that they are just confirming that these patients look like other ICU patients in many regards,” she said.

She explained that the sicker patients are, the higher the rates of delirium. “We have implemented strategies to lower these rates, and they have improved,” Dr. Pun said. “Ten years ago, I would say that 80% of patients who were on a ventilator would have delirium but now the rates are around 50% and that’s what we are typically seeing now.”

Dr. Pun emphasized that this study shows that delirium is like the “canary in the coal mine” or a red flag. “It’s a sign that something is wrong and that we need to pay attention, because the patient’s outcome may be worse,” she said. “So this is saying that we need to see if there is something that can be changed or modified to decrease the incidence of delirium—these are important questions.”

There was no outside sponsor. The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Pun has no disclosures.

Hematology-oncology patients who receive treatment in the intensive care unit often develop delirium, and according to new findings, mechanical ventilation, high-dose corticosteroid use, and brain metastases were identified as independent risk factors.

Roughly half of all hematology-oncology patients who were admitted to the ICU experienced delirium, explained lead author Rachel Klosko, PharmD, PGY-2 cardiology pharmacy resident at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

“Delirium was associated with increased mortality, an increase in hospital length of stay, and increased length of stay in the ICU,” she said.

Dr. Klosko presented the study results at the at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), which was held virtually this year.

Delirium is an acute and fluctuating disturbance of consciousness and cognition and fluctuates in severity. Critically ill patients are subject to numerous risk factors for delirium. “It can occur in independently of any known neurological disorder,” said Dr. Klosko, adding that its occurrence has been associated with poorer outcomes in ICU patients.

In this study, Dr. Klosko and colleagues sought to determine the incidence of delirium in cancer patients who were admitted to the ICU, as well as identify the associated risk factors and recognize potential consequences of the development of delirium in this patient population.

They conducted a single center, retrospective, cohort study that evaluated patients between the ages of 18 and 89 years who were admitted to the hematology-oncology medical or surgical ICU between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019.

The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of delirium within 7 days of ICU admission, defined as two positive Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) assessments within 24 hours. Patients identified with delirium were compared to those without it, for the evaluation of secondary endpoints that included hospital mortality and ICU and hospital length of stay. The researchers also sought to identify independent risk factors for delirium in this population.

A total of 244 patients were included in the final analysis. Of this group, 125 (51.2%) experienced delirium during their stay in the ICU, and 119 (48.8%) did not.

Mortality in the delirium group was significantly higher at 32.8% vs. 15.1% (P = .001). In addition, the delirium group was associated with significantly higher ICU length of stay (6 days vs. 3 days, P < .001) and hospital length of stay (21 days vs. 12 days, P < .001).

“When comparing the baseline characteristics between the two groups, the delirium group had a longer hospital length prior to ICU admission, a higher SOFA score, a higher rate of brain metastases, a higher rate of shock, and higher receipt of high-dose steroids, benzodiazepines, and immunotherapy,” said Dr. Klosko.

After multivariable regression, four variables were included in the final model. Among patients with delirium, the SOFA score increased by 25% (odds ratio[OR] 1.25, P < .001), while the odds of delirium were almost four times higher among those treated with high-dose corticosteroids (OR 3.79, P = .004). Delirium was also eight times higher (OR 8.48, P < .001) among those who received mechanical ventilation and five times higher in (OR 5.38, P = .015) in patients with brain metastases.

Dr. Klosko noted that the main limitations for this study were that it was a single center retrospective analysis, and that patients were reviewed within the first 7 days of ICU admission. “This potentially missed patients who developed delirium outside of this time frame,” she said. In addition, “too few patients received high-dose benzodiazepines,” and “none of the patients received continuous neuromuscular blockade.”

However, in “contrast to these limitations, this is the largest study to date that has analyzed delirium in this population,” Dr. Klosko said.

Commenting on the study, Brenda Pun, DNP, RN, director of data quality at the Vanderbilt Critical Illness, Brain Dysfunction, and Survivorship Center, Nashville, Tenn., pointed out that the goal of this study was to describe delirium in this specific population. “But I will take a step backward and say that they are just confirming that these patients look like other ICU patients in many regards,” she said.

She explained that the sicker patients are, the higher the rates of delirium. “We have implemented strategies to lower these rates, and they have improved,” Dr. Pun said. “Ten years ago, I would say that 80% of patients who were on a ventilator would have delirium but now the rates are around 50% and that’s what we are typically seeing now.”

Dr. Pun emphasized that this study shows that delirium is like the “canary in the coal mine” or a red flag. “It’s a sign that something is wrong and that we need to pay attention, because the patient’s outcome may be worse,” she said. “So this is saying that we need to see if there is something that can be changed or modified to decrease the incidence of delirium—these are important questions.”

There was no outside sponsor. The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Pun has no disclosures.

Hematology-oncology patients who receive treatment in the intensive care unit often develop delirium, and according to new findings, mechanical ventilation, high-dose corticosteroid use, and brain metastases were identified as independent risk factors.

Roughly half of all hematology-oncology patients who were admitted to the ICU experienced delirium, explained lead author Rachel Klosko, PharmD, PGY-2 cardiology pharmacy resident at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

“Delirium was associated with increased mortality, an increase in hospital length of stay, and increased length of stay in the ICU,” she said.

Dr. Klosko presented the study results at the at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), which was held virtually this year.

Delirium is an acute and fluctuating disturbance of consciousness and cognition and fluctuates in severity. Critically ill patients are subject to numerous risk factors for delirium. “It can occur in independently of any known neurological disorder,” said Dr. Klosko, adding that its occurrence has been associated with poorer outcomes in ICU patients.

In this study, Dr. Klosko and colleagues sought to determine the incidence of delirium in cancer patients who were admitted to the ICU, as well as identify the associated risk factors and recognize potential consequences of the development of delirium in this patient population.

They conducted a single center, retrospective, cohort study that evaluated patients between the ages of 18 and 89 years who were admitted to the hematology-oncology medical or surgical ICU between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019.

The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of delirium within 7 days of ICU admission, defined as two positive Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) assessments within 24 hours. Patients identified with delirium were compared to those without it, for the evaluation of secondary endpoints that included hospital mortality and ICU and hospital length of stay. The researchers also sought to identify independent risk factors for delirium in this population.

A total of 244 patients were included in the final analysis. Of this group, 125 (51.2%) experienced delirium during their stay in the ICU, and 119 (48.8%) did not.

Mortality in the delirium group was significantly higher at 32.8% vs. 15.1% (P = .001). In addition, the delirium group was associated with significantly higher ICU length of stay (6 days vs. 3 days, P < .001) and hospital length of stay (21 days vs. 12 days, P < .001).

“When comparing the baseline characteristics between the two groups, the delirium group had a longer hospital length prior to ICU admission, a higher SOFA score, a higher rate of brain metastases, a higher rate of shock, and higher receipt of high-dose steroids, benzodiazepines, and immunotherapy,” said Dr. Klosko.

After multivariable regression, four variables were included in the final model. Among patients with delirium, the SOFA score increased by 25% (odds ratio[OR] 1.25, P < .001), while the odds of delirium were almost four times higher among those treated with high-dose corticosteroids (OR 3.79, P = .004). Delirium was also eight times higher (OR 8.48, P < .001) among those who received mechanical ventilation and five times higher in (OR 5.38, P = .015) in patients with brain metastases.

Dr. Klosko noted that the main limitations for this study were that it was a single center retrospective analysis, and that patients were reviewed within the first 7 days of ICU admission. “This potentially missed patients who developed delirium outside of this time frame,” she said. In addition, “too few patients received high-dose benzodiazepines,” and “none of the patients received continuous neuromuscular blockade.”

However, in “contrast to these limitations, this is the largest study to date that has analyzed delirium in this population,” Dr. Klosko said.

Commenting on the study, Brenda Pun, DNP, RN, director of data quality at the Vanderbilt Critical Illness, Brain Dysfunction, and Survivorship Center, Nashville, Tenn., pointed out that the goal of this study was to describe delirium in this specific population. “But I will take a step backward and say that they are just confirming that these patients look like other ICU patients in many regards,” she said.

She explained that the sicker patients are, the higher the rates of delirium. “We have implemented strategies to lower these rates, and they have improved,” Dr. Pun said. “Ten years ago, I would say that 80% of patients who were on a ventilator would have delirium but now the rates are around 50% and that’s what we are typically seeing now.”

Dr. Pun emphasized that this study shows that delirium is like the “canary in the coal mine” or a red flag. “It’s a sign that something is wrong and that we need to pay attention, because the patient’s outcome may be worse,” she said. “So this is saying that we need to see if there is something that can be changed or modified to decrease the incidence of delirium—these are important questions.”

There was no outside sponsor. The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Pun has no disclosures.

Ideally, Americans receiving their Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines will get both doses from the same manufacturer, said Gregory Poland, MD, a vaccinologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

After all, that’s how they were tested for efficacy and safety, and it was results from those studies that led to emergency use authorization (EUA) being granted by the Food and Drug Administration.

But states and countries have struggled to keep up with the demand for vaccine, and more flexible vaccination schedules could help.

So researchers are exploring whether it is safe and effective to get the first and second doses from different manufacturers. And they are even wondering whether mixing doses from different manufacturers could increase effectiveness, particularly in light of emerging variants.

It’s called the “interchangeability issue,” said Dr. Poland, who has gotten a steady stream of questions about it.

For example, a patient recently asked about options for his father, who had gotten his first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine in Ecuador, but had since moved to the United States, where that product has not been approved for use.

Dr. Poland said in an interview that he prefaces each answer with: “I’ve got no science for what I’m about to tell you.”

In this particular case, he recommended that the man’s father talk with his doctor about his level of COVID-19 risk and consider whether he should gamble on the AstraZeneca vaccine getting approved in the United States soon, or whether he should ask for a second dose from one of the three vaccines currently approved.

On March 22, 2021, AstraZeneca released positive results from its phase 3 trial, which will likely speed its path toward use in the United States.

Although clinical trials have started to test combinations and boosters, there’s currently no definitive evidence from human trials on mixing COVID vaccines, Dr. Poland pointed out.

But a study of a mixed-vaccine regimen is currently underway in the United Kingdom.

Participants in that 13-month trial will be given the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines in different combinations and at different intervals. The first results from that trial are expected this summer.

And interim results from a trial combining Russia’s Sputnik V and the AstraZeneca vaccines are expected in 2 months, according to a Reuters report.
 

Mix only in ‘exceptional situations’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been hesitant to open the door to mixing Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations, noting that the two “are not interchangeable.” But CDC guidance has changed slightly. Now, instead of saying the two vaccines should not be mixed, CDC guidance says they can be mixed in “exceptional situations,” and that the second dose can be administered up to 6 weeks after the first dose.

It is reasonable to assume that mixing COVID-19 vaccines that use the same platform – such as the mRNA platform used by both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines – will be acceptable, Dr. Poland said, although human trials have not proven that.

However, it is unclear whether vaccines that use different platforms can be mixed. Can the first dose of an mRNA vaccine be followed by an adenovirus-based vaccine, like the Johnson & Johnson product or Novavax, if that vaccine is granted an EUA?

Ross Kedl, PhD, a vaccine researcher and professor of immunology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said matching vaccine platforms might not be the preferred vaccination strategy.

He disagreed that there’s a lack of science surrounding the issue, and said all signs point to mixing as not only a good option, but probably a better one.
 

Researcher says science backs mixing

A mix of two different vaccine platforms likely enhances immunity, Dr. Kedl said. The heterologous prime-boost strategy has been used in animal studies for decades, “and it is well known that this promotes a much better immune response than when immunizing with the same vaccine twice.

“If you think about it in a Venn diagram sort of way, it makes sense,” he said in an interview. “Each vaccine has a number of components in it that influence immunity in various ways, but between the two of them, they only have one component that is similar. In the case of the coronavirus vaccines, the one thing both have in common is the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2. In essence, this gives you two shots at generating immunity against the one thing in each vaccine you care most about, but only one shot for the other vaccine components in each platform, resulting in an amplified response against the common target.”

In fact, the heterologous prime-boost vaccination strategy has proven to be effective in humans in early studies.

For example, an Ebola regimen that consisted of an adenovirus vector, similar to the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, and a modified vaccinia virus vector showed promise in a phase 1 study. And an HIV regimen that consisted of the combination of a DNA vaccine, similar to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, and another viral vector showed encouraging results in a proof-of-concept study.

In both these cases, the heterologous prime-boost strategy was far better than single-vaccine prime-boost regimens, Dr. Kedl pointed out. And neither study reported any safety issues with the combinations.

For now, it’s best to stick with the same manufacturer for both shots, as the CDC guidance suggests, he said, agreeing with Dr. Poland.

But “I would be very surprised if we didn’t move to a mixing of vaccine platforms for the population,” Dr. Kedl said.

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

Ideally, Americans receiving their Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines will get both doses from the same manufacturer, said Gregory Poland, MD, a vaccinologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

After all, that’s how they were tested for efficacy and safety, and it was results from those studies that led to emergency use authorization (EUA) being granted by the Food and Drug Administration.

But states and countries have struggled to keep up with the demand for vaccine, and more flexible vaccination schedules could help.

So researchers are exploring whether it is safe and effective to get the first and second doses from different manufacturers. And they are even wondering whether mixing doses from different manufacturers could increase effectiveness, particularly in light of emerging variants.

It’s called the “interchangeability issue,” said Dr. Poland, who has gotten a steady stream of questions about it.

For example, a patient recently asked about options for his father, who had gotten his first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine in Ecuador, but had since moved to the United States, where that product has not been approved for use.

Dr. Poland said in an interview that he prefaces each answer with: “I’ve got no science for what I’m about to tell you.”

In this particular case, he recommended that the man’s father talk with his doctor about his level of COVID-19 risk and consider whether he should gamble on the AstraZeneca vaccine getting approved in the United States soon, or whether he should ask for a second dose from one of the three vaccines currently approved.

On March 22, 2021, AstraZeneca released positive results from its phase 3 trial, which will likely speed its path toward use in the United States.

Although clinical trials have started to test combinations and boosters, there’s currently no definitive evidence from human trials on mixing COVID vaccines, Dr. Poland pointed out.

But a study of a mixed-vaccine regimen is currently underway in the United Kingdom.

Participants in that 13-month trial will be given the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines in different combinations and at different intervals. The first results from that trial are expected this summer.

And interim results from a trial combining Russia’s Sputnik V and the AstraZeneca vaccines are expected in 2 months, according to a Reuters report.
 

Mix only in ‘exceptional situations’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been hesitant to open the door to mixing Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations, noting that the two “are not interchangeable.” But CDC guidance has changed slightly. Now, instead of saying the two vaccines should not be mixed, CDC guidance says they can be mixed in “exceptional situations,” and that the second dose can be administered up to 6 weeks after the first dose.

It is reasonable to assume that mixing COVID-19 vaccines that use the same platform – such as the mRNA platform used by both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines – will be acceptable, Dr. Poland said, although human trials have not proven that.

However, it is unclear whether vaccines that use different platforms can be mixed. Can the first dose of an mRNA vaccine be followed by an adenovirus-based vaccine, like the Johnson & Johnson product or Novavax, if that vaccine is granted an EUA?

Ross Kedl, PhD, a vaccine researcher and professor of immunology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said matching vaccine platforms might not be the preferred vaccination strategy.

He disagreed that there’s a lack of science surrounding the issue, and said all signs point to mixing as not only a good option, but probably a better one.
 

Researcher says science backs mixing

A mix of two different vaccine platforms likely enhances immunity, Dr. Kedl said. The heterologous prime-boost strategy has been used in animal studies for decades, “and it is well known that this promotes a much better immune response than when immunizing with the same vaccine twice.

“If you think about it in a Venn diagram sort of way, it makes sense,” he said in an interview. “Each vaccine has a number of components in it that influence immunity in various ways, but between the two of them, they only have one component that is similar. In the case of the coronavirus vaccines, the one thing both have in common is the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2. In essence, this gives you two shots at generating immunity against the one thing in each vaccine you care most about, but only one shot for the other vaccine components in each platform, resulting in an amplified response against the common target.”

In fact, the heterologous prime-boost vaccination strategy has proven to be effective in humans in early studies.

For example, an Ebola regimen that consisted of an adenovirus vector, similar to the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, and a modified vaccinia virus vector showed promise in a phase 1 study. And an HIV regimen that consisted of the combination of a DNA vaccine, similar to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, and another viral vector showed encouraging results in a proof-of-concept study.

In both these cases, the heterologous prime-boost strategy was far better than single-vaccine prime-boost regimens, Dr. Kedl pointed out. And neither study reported any safety issues with the combinations.

For now, it’s best to stick with the same manufacturer for both shots, as the CDC guidance suggests, he said, agreeing with Dr. Poland.

But “I would be very surprised if we didn’t move to a mixing of vaccine platforms for the population,” Dr. Kedl said.

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

Ideally, Americans receiving their Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines will get both doses from the same manufacturer, said Gregory Poland, MD, a vaccinologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

After all, that’s how they were tested for efficacy and safety, and it was results from those studies that led to emergency use authorization (EUA) being granted by the Food and Drug Administration.

But states and countries have struggled to keep up with the demand for vaccine, and more flexible vaccination schedules could help.

So researchers are exploring whether it is safe and effective to get the first and second doses from different manufacturers. And they are even wondering whether mixing doses from different manufacturers could increase effectiveness, particularly in light of emerging variants.

It’s called the “interchangeability issue,” said Dr. Poland, who has gotten a steady stream of questions about it.

For example, a patient recently asked about options for his father, who had gotten his first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine in Ecuador, but had since moved to the United States, where that product has not been approved for use.

Dr. Poland said in an interview that he prefaces each answer with: “I’ve got no science for what I’m about to tell you.”

In this particular case, he recommended that the man’s father talk with his doctor about his level of COVID-19 risk and consider whether he should gamble on the AstraZeneca vaccine getting approved in the United States soon, or whether he should ask for a second dose from one of the three vaccines currently approved.

On March 22, 2021, AstraZeneca released positive results from its phase 3 trial, which will likely speed its path toward use in the United States.

Although clinical trials have started to test combinations and boosters, there’s currently no definitive evidence from human trials on mixing COVID vaccines, Dr. Poland pointed out.

But a study of a mixed-vaccine regimen is currently underway in the United Kingdom.

Participants in that 13-month trial will be given the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines in different combinations and at different intervals. The first results from that trial are expected this summer.

And interim results from a trial combining Russia’s Sputnik V and the AstraZeneca vaccines are expected in 2 months, according to a Reuters report.
 

Mix only in ‘exceptional situations’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been hesitant to open the door to mixing Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations, noting that the two “are not interchangeable.” But CDC guidance has changed slightly. Now, instead of saying the two vaccines should not be mixed, CDC guidance says they can be mixed in “exceptional situations,” and that the second dose can be administered up to 6 weeks after the first dose.

It is reasonable to assume that mixing COVID-19 vaccines that use the same platform – such as the mRNA platform used by both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines – will be acceptable, Dr. Poland said, although human trials have not proven that.

However, it is unclear whether vaccines that use different platforms can be mixed. Can the first dose of an mRNA vaccine be followed by an adenovirus-based vaccine, like the Johnson & Johnson product or Novavax, if that vaccine is granted an EUA?

Ross Kedl, PhD, a vaccine researcher and professor of immunology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said matching vaccine platforms might not be the preferred vaccination strategy.

He disagreed that there’s a lack of science surrounding the issue, and said all signs point to mixing as not only a good option, but probably a better one.
 

Researcher says science backs mixing

A mix of two different vaccine platforms likely enhances immunity, Dr. Kedl said. The heterologous prime-boost strategy has been used in animal studies for decades, “and it is well known that this promotes a much better immune response than when immunizing with the same vaccine twice.

“If you think about it in a Venn diagram sort of way, it makes sense,” he said in an interview. “Each vaccine has a number of components in it that influence immunity in various ways, but between the two of them, they only have one component that is similar. In the case of the coronavirus vaccines, the one thing both have in common is the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2. In essence, this gives you two shots at generating immunity against the one thing in each vaccine you care most about, but only one shot for the other vaccine components in each platform, resulting in an amplified response against the common target.”

In fact, the heterologous prime-boost vaccination strategy has proven to be effective in humans in early studies.

For example, an Ebola regimen that consisted of an adenovirus vector, similar to the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, and a modified vaccinia virus vector showed promise in a phase 1 study. And an HIV regimen that consisted of the combination of a DNA vaccine, similar to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, and another viral vector showed encouraging results in a proof-of-concept study.

In both these cases, the heterologous prime-boost strategy was far better than single-vaccine prime-boost regimens, Dr. Kedl pointed out. And neither study reported any safety issues with the combinations.

For now, it’s best to stick with the same manufacturer for both shots, as the CDC guidance suggests, he said, agreeing with Dr. Poland.

But “I would be very surprised if we didn’t move to a mixing of vaccine platforms for the population,” Dr. Kedl said.

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

Two-thirds of epidemiologists from leading academic institutions say the world will need new or modified vaccines for COVID-19 within a year, new research shows.

South_agency/Getty Images

In a survey of 77 epidemiologists from 28 countries by the People’s Vaccine Alliance, 66.2% predicted that the world has a year or less before variants make current vaccines ineffective. The People’s Vaccine Alliance is a coalition of more than 50 organizations, including the African Alliance, Oxfam, Public Citizen, and UNAIDS (the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS).

Almost a third (32.5%) of those surveyed said ineffectiveness would happen in 9 months or less; 18.2% said 6 months or less.

Paul A. Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview that, while it’s hard to say whether vaccines could become ineffective in that time frame, “It’s perfectly reasonable to think it could happen.”

The good news, said Dr. Offit, who was not involved with the survey, is that SARS-CoV-2 mutates slowly, compared with other viruses such as influenza.

“To date,” he said, “the mutations that have occurred are not far enough away from the immunity induced by your natural infection or immunization such that one isn’t protected at least against severe and critical disease.”

That’s the goal of vaccines, he noted: “to keep people from suffering mightily.”
 

A line may be crossed

“And so far that’s happening, even with the variants,” Dr. Offit said. “That line has not been crossed. But I think we should assume that it might be.”

Dr. Offit said it will be critical to monitor anyone who gets hospitalized who is known to have been infected or fully vaccinated. Then countries need to get really good at sequencing those viruses.

The great majority of those surveyed (88%) said that persistently low vaccine coverage in many countries would make it more likely that vaccine-resistant mutations will appear.

Coverage comparisons between countries are stark.
 

Many countries haven’t given a single vaccine dose

While rich countries are giving COVID-19 vaccinations at the rate of a person a second, many of the poorest countries have given hardly any vaccines, the People’s Vaccine Alliance says.

Additionally, according to researchers at the Global Health Innovation Center at Duke University, Durham, N.C., high- and upper-middle–income countries, which represent one-fifth of the world’s population, have bought about 6 billion doses. But low- and lower-middle–income countries, which make up four-fifths of the population, have bought only about 2.6 billion, an article in Nature reports.

“You’re only as strong as your weakest country,” Dr. Offit said. “If we haven’t learned that what happens in other countries can [affect the global population], we haven’t been paying attention.”

Gregg Gonsalves, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., one of the academic centers surveyed, didn’t specify a timeline for when vaccines would become ineffective, but said in a press release that the urgency for widespread global vaccination is real.

“Unless we vaccinate the world,” he said, “we leave the playing field open to more and more mutations, which could churn out variants that could evade our current vaccines and require booster shots to deal with them.”
 

“Dire, but not surprising”

Panagis Galiatsatos, MD, MHS, a pulmonologist at John Hopkins University, Baltimore, whose research focuses on health care disparities, said the survey findings were “dire, but not surprising.”

Johns Hopkins was another of the centers surveyed, but Dr. Galiatsatos wasn’t personally involved with the survey.

COVID-19, Dr. Galiatsatos pointed out, has laid bare disparities, both in who gets the vaccine and who’s involved in trials to develop the vaccines.

“It’s morally concerning and an ethical reckoning,” he said in an interview.

Recognition of the borderless swath of destruction the virus is exacting is critical, he said.

The United States “has to realize this can’t be a U.S.-centric issue,” he said. “We’re going to be back to the beginning if we don’t make sure that every country is doing well. We haven’t seen that level of uniform approach.”

He noted that scientists have always known that viruses mutate, but now the race is on to find the parts of SARS-CoV-2 that don’t mutate as much.

“My suspicion is we’ll probably need boosters instead of a whole different vaccine,” Dr. Galiatsatos said.

Among the strategies sought by the People’s Vaccine Alliance is for all pharmaceutical companies working on COVID-19 vaccines to openly share technology and intellectual property through the World Health Organization COVID-19 Technology Access Pool, to speed production and rollout of vaccines to all countries.

In the survey, 74% said that open sharing of technology and intellectual property could boost global vaccine coverage; 23% said maybe and 3% said it wouldn’t help.

The survey was carried out between Feb. 17 and March 25, 2021. Respondents included epidemiologists, virologists, and infection disease specialists from the following countries: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Denmark, Ethiopia, France, Guatemala, India, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Norway, Philippines, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, United Arab Emirates, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Dr. Offit and Dr. Galiatsatos reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two-thirds of epidemiologists from leading academic institutions say the world will need new or modified vaccines for COVID-19 within a year, new research shows.

South_agency/Getty Images

In a survey of 77 epidemiologists from 28 countries by the People’s Vaccine Alliance, 66.2% predicted that the world has a year or less before variants make current vaccines ineffective. The People’s Vaccine Alliance is a coalition of more than 50 organizations, including the African Alliance, Oxfam, Public Citizen, and UNAIDS (the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS).

Almost a third (32.5%) of those surveyed said ineffectiveness would happen in 9 months or less; 18.2% said 6 months or less.

Paul A. Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview that, while it’s hard to say whether vaccines could become ineffective in that time frame, “It’s perfectly reasonable to think it could happen.”

The good news, said Dr. Offit, who was not involved with the survey, is that SARS-CoV-2 mutates slowly, compared with other viruses such as influenza.

“To date,” he said, “the mutations that have occurred are not far enough away from the immunity induced by your natural infection or immunization such that one isn’t protected at least against severe and critical disease.”

That’s the goal of vaccines, he noted: “to keep people from suffering mightily.”
 

A line may be crossed

“And so far that’s happening, even with the variants,” Dr. Offit said. “That line has not been crossed. But I think we should assume that it might be.”

Dr. Offit said it will be critical to monitor anyone who gets hospitalized who is known to have been infected or fully vaccinated. Then countries need to get really good at sequencing those viruses.

The great majority of those surveyed (88%) said that persistently low vaccine coverage in many countries would make it more likely that vaccine-resistant mutations will appear.

Coverage comparisons between countries are stark.
 

Many countries haven’t given a single vaccine dose

While rich countries are giving COVID-19 vaccinations at the rate of a person a second, many of the poorest countries have given hardly any vaccines, the People’s Vaccine Alliance says.

Additionally, according to researchers at the Global Health Innovation Center at Duke University, Durham, N.C., high- and upper-middle–income countries, which represent one-fifth of the world’s population, have bought about 6 billion doses. But low- and lower-middle–income countries, which make up four-fifths of the population, have bought only about 2.6 billion, an article in Nature reports.

“You’re only as strong as your weakest country,” Dr. Offit said. “If we haven’t learned that what happens in other countries can [affect the global population], we haven’t been paying attention.”

Gregg Gonsalves, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., one of the academic centers surveyed, didn’t specify a timeline for when vaccines would become ineffective, but said in a press release that the urgency for widespread global vaccination is real.

“Unless we vaccinate the world,” he said, “we leave the playing field open to more and more mutations, which could churn out variants that could evade our current vaccines and require booster shots to deal with them.”
 

“Dire, but not surprising”

Panagis Galiatsatos, MD, MHS, a pulmonologist at John Hopkins University, Baltimore, whose research focuses on health care disparities, said the survey findings were “dire, but not surprising.”

Johns Hopkins was another of the centers surveyed, but Dr. Galiatsatos wasn’t personally involved with the survey.

COVID-19, Dr. Galiatsatos pointed out, has laid bare disparities, both in who gets the vaccine and who’s involved in trials to develop the vaccines.

“It’s morally concerning and an ethical reckoning,” he said in an interview.

Recognition of the borderless swath of destruction the virus is exacting is critical, he said.

The United States “has to realize this can’t be a U.S.-centric issue,” he said. “We’re going to be back to the beginning if we don’t make sure that every country is doing well. We haven’t seen that level of uniform approach.”

He noted that scientists have always known that viruses mutate, but now the race is on to find the parts of SARS-CoV-2 that don’t mutate as much.

“My suspicion is we’ll probably need boosters instead of a whole different vaccine,” Dr. Galiatsatos said.

Among the strategies sought by the People’s Vaccine Alliance is for all pharmaceutical companies working on COVID-19 vaccines to openly share technology and intellectual property through the World Health Organization COVID-19 Technology Access Pool, to speed production and rollout of vaccines to all countries.

In the survey, 74% said that open sharing of technology and intellectual property could boost global vaccine coverage; 23% said maybe and 3% said it wouldn’t help.

The survey was carried out between Feb. 17 and March 25, 2021. Respondents included epidemiologists, virologists, and infection disease specialists from the following countries: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Denmark, Ethiopia, France, Guatemala, India, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Norway, Philippines, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, United Arab Emirates, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Dr. Offit and Dr. Galiatsatos reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two-thirds of epidemiologists from leading academic institutions say the world will need new or modified vaccines for COVID-19 within a year, new research shows.

South_agency/Getty Images

In a survey of 77 epidemiologists from 28 countries by the People’s Vaccine Alliance, 66.2% predicted that the world has a year or less before variants make current vaccines ineffective. The People’s Vaccine Alliance is a coalition of more than 50 organizations, including the African Alliance, Oxfam, Public Citizen, and UNAIDS (the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS).

Almost a third (32.5%) of those surveyed said ineffectiveness would happen in 9 months or less; 18.2% said 6 months or less.

Paul A. Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview that, while it’s hard to say whether vaccines could become ineffective in that time frame, “It’s perfectly reasonable to think it could happen.”

The good news, said Dr. Offit, who was not involved with the survey, is that SARS-CoV-2 mutates slowly, compared with other viruses such as influenza.

“To date,” he said, “the mutations that have occurred are not far enough away from the immunity induced by your natural infection or immunization such that one isn’t protected at least against severe and critical disease.”

That’s the goal of vaccines, he noted: “to keep people from suffering mightily.”
 

A line may be crossed

“And so far that’s happening, even with the variants,” Dr. Offit said. “That line has not been crossed. But I think we should assume that it might be.”

Dr. Offit said it will be critical to monitor anyone who gets hospitalized who is known to have been infected or fully vaccinated. Then countries need to get really good at sequencing those viruses.

The great majority of those surveyed (88%) said that persistently low vaccine coverage in many countries would make it more likely that vaccine-resistant mutations will appear.

Coverage comparisons between countries are stark.
 

Many countries haven’t given a single vaccine dose

While rich countries are giving COVID-19 vaccinations at the rate of a person a second, many of the poorest countries have given hardly any vaccines, the People’s Vaccine Alliance says.

Additionally, according to researchers at the Global Health Innovation Center at Duke University, Durham, N.C., high- and upper-middle–income countries, which represent one-fifth of the world’s population, have bought about 6 billion doses. But low- and lower-middle–income countries, which make up four-fifths of the population, have bought only about 2.6 billion, an article in Nature reports.

“You’re only as strong as your weakest country,” Dr. Offit said. “If we haven’t learned that what happens in other countries can [affect the global population], we haven’t been paying attention.”

Gregg Gonsalves, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., one of the academic centers surveyed, didn’t specify a timeline for when vaccines would become ineffective, but said in a press release that the urgency for widespread global vaccination is real.

“Unless we vaccinate the world,” he said, “we leave the playing field open to more and more mutations, which could churn out variants that could evade our current vaccines and require booster shots to deal with them.”
 

“Dire, but not surprising”

Panagis Galiatsatos, MD, MHS, a pulmonologist at John Hopkins University, Baltimore, whose research focuses on health care disparities, said the survey findings were “dire, but not surprising.”

Johns Hopkins was another of the centers surveyed, but Dr. Galiatsatos wasn’t personally involved with the survey.

COVID-19, Dr. Galiatsatos pointed out, has laid bare disparities, both in who gets the vaccine and who’s involved in trials to develop the vaccines.

“It’s morally concerning and an ethical reckoning,” he said in an interview.

Recognition of the borderless swath of destruction the virus is exacting is critical, he said.

The United States “has to realize this can’t be a U.S.-centric issue,” he said. “We’re going to be back to the beginning if we don’t make sure that every country is doing well. We haven’t seen that level of uniform approach.”

He noted that scientists have always known that viruses mutate, but now the race is on to find the parts of SARS-CoV-2 that don’t mutate as much.

“My suspicion is we’ll probably need boosters instead of a whole different vaccine,” Dr. Galiatsatos said.

Among the strategies sought by the People’s Vaccine Alliance is for all pharmaceutical companies working on COVID-19 vaccines to openly share technology and intellectual property through the World Health Organization COVID-19 Technology Access Pool, to speed production and rollout of vaccines to all countries.

In the survey, 74% said that open sharing of technology and intellectual property could boost global vaccine coverage; 23% said maybe and 3% said it wouldn’t help.

The survey was carried out between Feb. 17 and March 25, 2021. Respondents included epidemiologists, virologists, and infection disease specialists from the following countries: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Denmark, Ethiopia, France, Guatemala, India, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Norway, Philippines, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, United Arab Emirates, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Dr. Offit and Dr. Galiatsatos reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The National Psoriasis Foundation COVID-19 Task Force now recommends that certain patients on methotrexate consider stopping the drug for 2 weeks after receiving the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.

Courtesy Dr. Joel M. Gelfand

The new guidance states: “Patients 60 or older who have at least one comorbidity associated with an increased risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, and who are taking methotrexate with well-controlled psoriatic disease, may, in consultation with their prescriber, consider holding it for 2 weeks after receiving the Ad26.COV2.S [Johnson & Johnson] vaccine in order to potentially improve vaccine response.”

The key word here is “potentially.” There is no hard evidence that a 2-week hold on methotrexate after receiving the killed adenovirus vaccine will actually provide a clinically meaningful benefit. But it’s a hypothetical possibility. The rationale stems from a small randomized trial conducted in South Korea several years ago in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis were assigned to hold or continue their methotrexate for the first 2 weeks after receiving an inactivated-virus influenza vaccine. The antibody response to the vaccine was better in those who temporarily halted their methotrexate, explained Dr. Gelfand, cochair of the NPF COVID-19 Task Force and professor of dermatology and of epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“If you have a patient on methotrexate who’s 60 or older and whose psoriasis is completely controlled and quiescent and the patient is concerned about how well the vaccine is going to work, this is a reasonable thing to consider in someone who’s at higher risk for poor outcomes if they get infected,” he said.

If the informed patient wants to continue on methotrexate without interruption, that’s fine, too, in light of the lack of compelling evidence on this issue, the dermatologist added at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.

The NPF task force does not extend the recommendation to consider holding methotrexate in recipients of the mRNA-based Moderna and Pfizer vaccines because of their very different mechanisms of action. Nor is it recommended to hold biologic agents after receiving any of the available COVID-19 vaccines. Studies have shown no altered immunologic response to influenza or pneumococcal vaccines in patients who continued on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors or interleukin-17 inhibitors. The interleukin-23 inhibitors haven’t been studied in this regard.

The task force recommends that most psoriasis patients should continue on treatment throughout the pandemic, and newly diagnosed patients should commence appropriate therapy as if there was no pandemic.

“We’ve learned that many patients who stopped their treatment for psoriatic disease early in the pandemic came to regret that decision because their psoriasis flared and got worse and required reinstitution of therapy,” Dr. Gelfand said. “The current data is largely reassuring that if there is an effect of our therapies on the risk of COVID, it must be rather small and therefore unlikely to be clinically meaningful for our patients.”

Dr. Gelfand reported serving as a consultant to and recipient of institutional research grants from Pfizer and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

MedscapeLIVE and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

The National Psoriasis Foundation COVID-19 Task Force now recommends that certain patients on methotrexate consider stopping the drug for 2 weeks after receiving the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.

Courtesy Dr. Joel M. Gelfand

The new guidance states: “Patients 60 or older who have at least one comorbidity associated with an increased risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, and who are taking methotrexate with well-controlled psoriatic disease, may, in consultation with their prescriber, consider holding it for 2 weeks after receiving the Ad26.COV2.S [Johnson & Johnson] vaccine in order to potentially improve vaccine response.”

The key word here is “potentially.” There is no hard evidence that a 2-week hold on methotrexate after receiving the killed adenovirus vaccine will actually provide a clinically meaningful benefit. But it’s a hypothetical possibility. The rationale stems from a small randomized trial conducted in South Korea several years ago in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis were assigned to hold or continue their methotrexate for the first 2 weeks after receiving an inactivated-virus influenza vaccine. The antibody response to the vaccine was better in those who temporarily halted their methotrexate, explained Dr. Gelfand, cochair of the NPF COVID-19 Task Force and professor of dermatology and of epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“If you have a patient on methotrexate who’s 60 or older and whose psoriasis is completely controlled and quiescent and the patient is concerned about how well the vaccine is going to work, this is a reasonable thing to consider in someone who’s at higher risk for poor outcomes if they get infected,” he said.

If the informed patient wants to continue on methotrexate without interruption, that’s fine, too, in light of the lack of compelling evidence on this issue, the dermatologist added at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.

The NPF task force does not extend the recommendation to consider holding methotrexate in recipients of the mRNA-based Moderna and Pfizer vaccines because of their very different mechanisms of action. Nor is it recommended to hold biologic agents after receiving any of the available COVID-19 vaccines. Studies have shown no altered immunologic response to influenza or pneumococcal vaccines in patients who continued on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors or interleukin-17 inhibitors. The interleukin-23 inhibitors haven’t been studied in this regard.

The task force recommends that most psoriasis patients should continue on treatment throughout the pandemic, and newly diagnosed patients should commence appropriate therapy as if there was no pandemic.

“We’ve learned that many patients who stopped their treatment for psoriatic disease early in the pandemic came to regret that decision because their psoriasis flared and got worse and required reinstitution of therapy,” Dr. Gelfand said. “The current data is largely reassuring that if there is an effect of our therapies on the risk of COVID, it must be rather small and therefore unlikely to be clinically meaningful for our patients.”

Dr. Gelfand reported serving as a consultant to and recipient of institutional research grants from Pfizer and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

MedscapeLIVE and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

The National Psoriasis Foundation COVID-19 Task Force now recommends that certain patients on methotrexate consider stopping the drug for 2 weeks after receiving the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.

Courtesy Dr. Joel M. Gelfand

The new guidance states: “Patients 60 or older who have at least one comorbidity associated with an increased risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, and who are taking methotrexate with well-controlled psoriatic disease, may, in consultation with their prescriber, consider holding it for 2 weeks after receiving the Ad26.COV2.S [Johnson & Johnson] vaccine in order to potentially improve vaccine response.”

The key word here is “potentially.” There is no hard evidence that a 2-week hold on methotrexate after receiving the killed adenovirus vaccine will actually provide a clinically meaningful benefit. But it’s a hypothetical possibility. The rationale stems from a small randomized trial conducted in South Korea several years ago in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis were assigned to hold or continue their methotrexate for the first 2 weeks after receiving an inactivated-virus influenza vaccine. The antibody response to the vaccine was better in those who temporarily halted their methotrexate, explained Dr. Gelfand, cochair of the NPF COVID-19 Task Force and professor of dermatology and of epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“If you have a patient on methotrexate who’s 60 or older and whose psoriasis is completely controlled and quiescent and the patient is concerned about how well the vaccine is going to work, this is a reasonable thing to consider in someone who’s at higher risk for poor outcomes if they get infected,” he said.

If the informed patient wants to continue on methotrexate without interruption, that’s fine, too, in light of the lack of compelling evidence on this issue, the dermatologist added at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.

The NPF task force does not extend the recommendation to consider holding methotrexate in recipients of the mRNA-based Moderna and Pfizer vaccines because of their very different mechanisms of action. Nor is it recommended to hold biologic agents after receiving any of the available COVID-19 vaccines. Studies have shown no altered immunologic response to influenza or pneumococcal vaccines in patients who continued on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors or interleukin-17 inhibitors. The interleukin-23 inhibitors haven’t been studied in this regard.

The task force recommends that most psoriasis patients should continue on treatment throughout the pandemic, and newly diagnosed patients should commence appropriate therapy as if there was no pandemic.

“We’ve learned that many patients who stopped their treatment for psoriatic disease early in the pandemic came to regret that decision because their psoriasis flared and got worse and required reinstitution of therapy,” Dr. Gelfand said. “The current data is largely reassuring that if there is an effect of our therapies on the risk of COVID, it must be rather small and therefore unlikely to be clinically meaningful for our patients.”

Dr. Gelfand reported serving as a consultant to and recipient of institutional research grants from Pfizer and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

MedscapeLIVE and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, described as a “living drug,” is now available for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have been treated with four or more prior lines of therapy.

The Food and Drug Administration said these patients represent an “unmet medical need” when it granted approval for the new product – idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; Abecma), developed by bluebird bio and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Ide-cel is the first CAR T-cell therapy to gain approval for use in multiple myeloma. It is also the first CAR T-cell therapy to target B-cell maturation antigen.

Previously approved CAR T-cell products target CD19 and have been approved for use in certain types of leukemia and lymphoma.

All the CAR T-cell therapies are customized treatments that are created specifically for each individual patient from their own blood. The patient’s own T cells are removed from the blood, are genetically modified and expanded, and are then infused back into the patient. These modified T cells then seek out and destroy blood cancer cells, and they continue to do so long term.

In some patients, this has led to eradication of disease that had previously progressed with every other treatment that had been tried – results that have been described as “absolutely remarkable” and “one-shot therapy that looks to be curative.”

However, this cell therapy comes with serious adverse effects, including neurologic toxicity and cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which can be life threatening. For this reason, all these products have a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, and the use of CAR T-cell therapies is limited to designated centers.

In addition, these CAR T-cells products are phenomenally expensive; hospitals have reported heavy financial losses with their use, and patients have turned to crowdfunding to pay for these therapies.
 

‘Phenomenal’ results in MM

The FDA noted that approval of ide-cel for multiple myeloma is based on data from a multicenter study that involved 127 patients with relapsed/refractory disease who had received at least three prior lines of treatment.

The results from this trial were published Feb. 25 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

An expert not involved in the trial described the results as “phenomenal.”

Krina Patel, MD, an associate professor in the department of lymphoma/myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that “the response rate of 73% in a patient population with a median of six lines of therapy, and with one-third of those patients achieving a deep response of complete response or better, is phenomenal.

“We are very excited as a myeloma community for this study of idecabtagene vicleucel for relapsed/refractory patients,” Dr. Patel told this news organization at the time.

The lead investigator of the study, Nikhil Munshi, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, commented: “The results of this trial represent a true turning point in the treatment of this disease. In my 30 years of treating myeloma, I have not seen any other therapy as effective in this group of patients.”

Both experts highlighted the poor prognosis for patients with relapsed/refractory disease. Recent decades have seen a flurry of new agents for myeloma, and there are now three main classes of agents: immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 antibodies.

Nevertheless, in some patients, the disease continues to progress. For patients for whom treatments with all three classes of drugs have failed, the median progression-free survival is 3-4 months, and the median overall survival is 9 months.

In contrast, the results reported in the NEJM article showed that overall median progression-free survival was 8.8 months, but it was more than double that (20.2 months) for patients who achieved a complete or stringent complete response.

Estimated median overall survival was 19.4 months, and the overall survival was 78% at 12 months. The authors note that overall survival data are not yet mature.

The patients who were enrolled in the CAR T-cell trial had undergone many previous treatments. They had undergone a median of six prior drug therapies (range, 3-16), and most of the patients (120, 94%) had also undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

In addition, the majority of patients (84%) had disease that was triple refractory (to an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody), 60% had disease that was penta-exposed (to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and daratumumab), and 26% had disease that was penta-refractory.

In the NEJM article, the authors report that about a third of patients had a complete response to CAR T-cell therapy.

At a median follow-up of 13.3 months, 94 of 128 patients (73%) showed a response to therapy (P < .001); 42 (33%) showed a complete or stringent complete response; and 67 patients (52%) showed a “very good partial response or better,” they write.

In the FDA announcement of the product approval, the figures for complete response were slightly lower. “Of those studied, 28% of patients showed complete response – or disappearance of all signs of multiple myeloma – to Abecma, and 65% of this group remained in complete response to the treatment for at least 12 months,” the agency noted.

The FDA also noted that treatment with Abecma can cause severe side effects. The label carries a boxed warning regarding CRS, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, neurologic toxicity, and prolonged cytopenia, all of which can be fatal or life threatening.

The most common side effects of Abecma are CRS, infections, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and a weakened immune system. Side effects from treatment usually appear within the first 1-2 weeks after treatment, but some side effects may occur later.

The agency also noted that, to further evaluate the long-term safety of the drug, it is requiring the manufacturer to conduct a postmarketing observational study.

“The FDA remains committed to advancing novel treatment options for areas of unmet patient need,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

“While there is no cure for multiple myeloma, the long-term outlook can vary based on the individual’s age and the stage of the condition at the time of diagnosis. Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients who have this uncommon type of cancer.”

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

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, described as a “living drug,” is now available for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have been treated with four or more prior lines of therapy.

The Food and Drug Administration said these patients represent an “unmet medical need” when it granted approval for the new product – idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; Abecma), developed by bluebird bio and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Ide-cel is the first CAR T-cell therapy to gain approval for use in multiple myeloma. It is also the first CAR T-cell therapy to target B-cell maturation antigen.

Previously approved CAR T-cell products target CD19 and have been approved for use in certain types of leukemia and lymphoma.

All the CAR T-cell therapies are customized treatments that are created specifically for each individual patient from their own blood. The patient’s own T cells are removed from the blood, are genetically modified and expanded, and are then infused back into the patient. These modified T cells then seek out and destroy blood cancer cells, and they continue to do so long term.

In some patients, this has led to eradication of disease that had previously progressed with every other treatment that had been tried – results that have been described as “absolutely remarkable” and “one-shot therapy that looks to be curative.”

However, this cell therapy comes with serious adverse effects, including neurologic toxicity and cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which can be life threatening. For this reason, all these products have a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, and the use of CAR T-cell therapies is limited to designated centers.

In addition, these CAR T-cells products are phenomenally expensive; hospitals have reported heavy financial losses with their use, and patients have turned to crowdfunding to pay for these therapies.
 

‘Phenomenal’ results in MM

The FDA noted that approval of ide-cel for multiple myeloma is based on data from a multicenter study that involved 127 patients with relapsed/refractory disease who had received at least three prior lines of treatment.

The results from this trial were published Feb. 25 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

An expert not involved in the trial described the results as “phenomenal.”

Krina Patel, MD, an associate professor in the department of lymphoma/myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that “the response rate of 73% in a patient population with a median of six lines of therapy, and with one-third of those patients achieving a deep response of complete response or better, is phenomenal.

“We are very excited as a myeloma community for this study of idecabtagene vicleucel for relapsed/refractory patients,” Dr. Patel told this news organization at the time.

The lead investigator of the study, Nikhil Munshi, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, commented: “The results of this trial represent a true turning point in the treatment of this disease. In my 30 years of treating myeloma, I have not seen any other therapy as effective in this group of patients.”

Both experts highlighted the poor prognosis for patients with relapsed/refractory disease. Recent decades have seen a flurry of new agents for myeloma, and there are now three main classes of agents: immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 antibodies.

Nevertheless, in some patients, the disease continues to progress. For patients for whom treatments with all three classes of drugs have failed, the median progression-free survival is 3-4 months, and the median overall survival is 9 months.

In contrast, the results reported in the NEJM article showed that overall median progression-free survival was 8.8 months, but it was more than double that (20.2 months) for patients who achieved a complete or stringent complete response.

Estimated median overall survival was 19.4 months, and the overall survival was 78% at 12 months. The authors note that overall survival data are not yet mature.

The patients who were enrolled in the CAR T-cell trial had undergone many previous treatments. They had undergone a median of six prior drug therapies (range, 3-16), and most of the patients (120, 94%) had also undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

In addition, the majority of patients (84%) had disease that was triple refractory (to an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody), 60% had disease that was penta-exposed (to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and daratumumab), and 26% had disease that was penta-refractory.

In the NEJM article, the authors report that about a third of patients had a complete response to CAR T-cell therapy.

At a median follow-up of 13.3 months, 94 of 128 patients (73%) showed a response to therapy (P < .001); 42 (33%) showed a complete or stringent complete response; and 67 patients (52%) showed a “very good partial response or better,” they write.

In the FDA announcement of the product approval, the figures for complete response were slightly lower. “Of those studied, 28% of patients showed complete response – or disappearance of all signs of multiple myeloma – to Abecma, and 65% of this group remained in complete response to the treatment for at least 12 months,” the agency noted.

The FDA also noted that treatment with Abecma can cause severe side effects. The label carries a boxed warning regarding CRS, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, neurologic toxicity, and prolonged cytopenia, all of which can be fatal or life threatening.

The most common side effects of Abecma are CRS, infections, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and a weakened immune system. Side effects from treatment usually appear within the first 1-2 weeks after treatment, but some side effects may occur later.

The agency also noted that, to further evaluate the long-term safety of the drug, it is requiring the manufacturer to conduct a postmarketing observational study.

“The FDA remains committed to advancing novel treatment options for areas of unmet patient need,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

“While there is no cure for multiple myeloma, the long-term outlook can vary based on the individual’s age and the stage of the condition at the time of diagnosis. Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients who have this uncommon type of cancer.”

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

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, described as a “living drug,” is now available for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have been treated with four or more prior lines of therapy.

The Food and Drug Administration said these patients represent an “unmet medical need” when it granted approval for the new product – idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; Abecma), developed by bluebird bio and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Ide-cel is the first CAR T-cell therapy to gain approval for use in multiple myeloma. It is also the first CAR T-cell therapy to target B-cell maturation antigen.

Previously approved CAR T-cell products target CD19 and have been approved for use in certain types of leukemia and lymphoma.

All the CAR T-cell therapies are customized treatments that are created specifically for each individual patient from their own blood. The patient’s own T cells are removed from the blood, are genetically modified and expanded, and are then infused back into the patient. These modified T cells then seek out and destroy blood cancer cells, and they continue to do so long term.

In some patients, this has led to eradication of disease that had previously progressed with every other treatment that had been tried – results that have been described as “absolutely remarkable” and “one-shot therapy that looks to be curative.”

However, this cell therapy comes with serious adverse effects, including neurologic toxicity and cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which can be life threatening. For this reason, all these products have a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, and the use of CAR T-cell therapies is limited to designated centers.

In addition, these CAR T-cells products are phenomenally expensive; hospitals have reported heavy financial losses with their use, and patients have turned to crowdfunding to pay for these therapies.
 

‘Phenomenal’ results in MM

The FDA noted that approval of ide-cel for multiple myeloma is based on data from a multicenter study that involved 127 patients with relapsed/refractory disease who had received at least three prior lines of treatment.

The results from this trial were published Feb. 25 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

An expert not involved in the trial described the results as “phenomenal.”

Krina Patel, MD, an associate professor in the department of lymphoma/myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that “the response rate of 73% in a patient population with a median of six lines of therapy, and with one-third of those patients achieving a deep response of complete response or better, is phenomenal.

“We are very excited as a myeloma community for this study of idecabtagene vicleucel for relapsed/refractory patients,” Dr. Patel told this news organization at the time.

The lead investigator of the study, Nikhil Munshi, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, commented: “The results of this trial represent a true turning point in the treatment of this disease. In my 30 years of treating myeloma, I have not seen any other therapy as effective in this group of patients.”

Both experts highlighted the poor prognosis for patients with relapsed/refractory disease. Recent decades have seen a flurry of new agents for myeloma, and there are now three main classes of agents: immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 antibodies.

Nevertheless, in some patients, the disease continues to progress. For patients for whom treatments with all three classes of drugs have failed, the median progression-free survival is 3-4 months, and the median overall survival is 9 months.

In contrast, the results reported in the NEJM article showed that overall median progression-free survival was 8.8 months, but it was more than double that (20.2 months) for patients who achieved a complete or stringent complete response.

Estimated median overall survival was 19.4 months, and the overall survival was 78% at 12 months. The authors note that overall survival data are not yet mature.

The patients who were enrolled in the CAR T-cell trial had undergone many previous treatments. They had undergone a median of six prior drug therapies (range, 3-16), and most of the patients (120, 94%) had also undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

In addition, the majority of patients (84%) had disease that was triple refractory (to an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody), 60% had disease that was penta-exposed (to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and daratumumab), and 26% had disease that was penta-refractory.

In the NEJM article, the authors report that about a third of patients had a complete response to CAR T-cell therapy.

At a median follow-up of 13.3 months, 94 of 128 patients (73%) showed a response to therapy (P < .001); 42 (33%) showed a complete or stringent complete response; and 67 patients (52%) showed a “very good partial response or better,” they write.

In the FDA announcement of the product approval, the figures for complete response were slightly lower. “Of those studied, 28% of patients showed complete response – or disappearance of all signs of multiple myeloma – to Abecma, and 65% of this group remained in complete response to the treatment for at least 12 months,” the agency noted.

The FDA also noted that treatment with Abecma can cause severe side effects. The label carries a boxed warning regarding CRS, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, neurologic toxicity, and prolonged cytopenia, all of which can be fatal or life threatening.

The most common side effects of Abecma are CRS, infections, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and a weakened immune system. Side effects from treatment usually appear within the first 1-2 weeks after treatment, but some side effects may occur later.

The agency also noted that, to further evaluate the long-term safety of the drug, it is requiring the manufacturer to conduct a postmarketing observational study.

“The FDA remains committed to advancing novel treatment options for areas of unmet patient need,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

“While there is no cure for multiple myeloma, the long-term outlook can vary based on the individual’s age and the stage of the condition at the time of diagnosis. Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients who have this uncommon type of cancer.”

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

Every day Melissa Fulton, RN, MSN, FNP, APRN-C, shows up to work, she’s ready for another fight. An advanced practice nurse who specializes in multiple sclerosis care, Ms. Fulton said she typically spends more than a third of her time battling it out with insurance companies over drugs she knows her patients need but that insurers don’t want to cover. Instead, they want the patient to first receive less expensive and often less efficacious drugs, even if that goes against recommendations and, in some cases, against the patient’s medical history.

The maddening protocol – familiar to health care providers everywhere – is known as “step therapy.” It forces patients to try alternative medications – medications that often fail – before receiving the one initially prescribed. The process can take weeks or months, which is time that some patients don’t have. Step therapy was sold as a way to lower costs. However, beyond the ethically problematic notion of forcing sick patients to receiver cheaper alternatives that are ineffective, research has also shown it may actually be more costly in the long run.

Ms. Fulton, who works at Saunders Medical Center in Wahoo, Neb., is a veteran in the war against step therapy. She is used to pushing her appeals up the insurance company chain of command, past nonmedical reviewers, until her patient’s case finally lands on the desk of someone with a neurology background. She said that can take three or four appeals – a judge might even get involved – and the patient could still lose. “This happens constantly,” she said, “but we fight like hell.”

Fortunately, life may soon get a little easier for Ms. Fulton. In late March, a bill to restrict step therapy made it through the Nebraska state legislature and is on its way to the governor’s desk. The Step Therapy Reform Act doesn’t outright ban the practice; however, it will put guardrails in place. It requires that insurers respond to appeals within certain time frames, and it creates key exemptions.

When the governor signs off, Nebraska will join more than two dozen other states that already have step therapy restrictions on the books, according to Hannah Lynch, MPS, associate director of federal government relations and health policy at the National Psoriasis Foundation, a leading advocate to reform and protect against the insurance practice. “There’s a lot of frustration out there,” Ms. Lynch said. “It really hinders providers’ ability to make decisions they think will have the best outcomes.”

Driven by coalitions of doctors, nurses, and patients, laws reining in step therapy have been adopted at a relatively quick clip, mostly within the past 5 years. Recent additions include South Dakota and North Carolina, which adopted step therapy laws in 2020, and Arkansas, which passed a law earlier this year.

Ms. Lynch attributed growing support to rising out-of-pocket drug costs and the introduction of biologic drugs, which are often more effective but also more expensive. Like Nebraska’s law, most step therapy reform legislation carves out exemptions and requires timely appeals processes; however, many of the laws still have significant gaps, such as not including certain types of insurance plans.

Ideally, Ms. Lynch said, the protections would apply to all types of health plans that are regulated at the state level, such as Medicaid, state employee health plans, and coverage sold through state insurance exchanges. Closing loopholes in the laws is a top priority for advocates, she added, pointing to work currently underway in Arkansas to extend its new protections to Medicaid expansion patients.

“With so many outside stakeholders, you have to compromise – it’s a give and take,” Ms. Lynch said. Still, when it comes to fighting step therapy, she says, “Any protection on the books is always our first goal when we go into a state.”

Putting patients first

Lisa Arkin, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said she finds herself “swimming upstream every day in the fight with insurance.” Her patients are typically on their second or third stop and have more complex disorders. Dr. Arkin said that the problem with step therapy is that it tries to squeeze all patients into the same box, even if the circumstances don’t fit.

Her state passed restrictions on step therapy in 2019, but the measures only went into effect last year. Under the Wisconsin law, patients can be granted an exemption if an alternative treatment is contraindicated, likely to cause harm, or expected to be ineffective. Patients can also be exempt if their current treatment is working.

Dr. Arkin, an outspoken advocate for curbing step therapy, says the Wisconsin law is “very strong.” However, because it only applies to certain health plans – state employee health plans and those purchased in the state’s health insurance exchange – fewer than half the state’s patients benefit from its protections. She notes that some of the most severe presentations she treats occur in patients who rely on Medicaid coverage and already face barriers to care.

“I’m a doctor who puts up a fuss [with insurers], but that’s not fair – we shouldn’t have to do that,” Dr. Arkin said. “To me, it’s really critical to make this an even playing field so this law affords protection to everyone I see in the clinic.”

Major medical associations caution against step therapy as well. The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Medical Association have called out the risks to patient safety and health. In fact, in 2019, after the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services gave new authority to Medicare Advantage plans to start using step therapy, dozens of national medical groups called out the agency for allowing a practice that could potentially hurt patients and undercut the physician-patient decision-making process.

Last year, in a new position paper from the American College of Physicians, authors laid out recommendations for combating step therapy’s side effects. These recommendations included making related data transparent to the public and minimizing the policy’s disruptions to care. Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, MACP, a member of the committee that issued the position paper and who is a primary care physician in Georgia, said such insurance practices need to be designed with “strong input from frontline physicians, not clipboard physicians.

“What we want from insurers is understanding, transparency, and the least burdensome protocol to provide patients the care they need at a cost-effective price they can afford,” said Dr. Fincher, who is also the current president of the ACP. “The focus needs to be on what’s in the patient’s best interest.”
 

Every year a new fight

“We all dread January,” said Dr. Fincher. That is the worst month, she added, because new health benefits go into effect, which means patients who are responding well to certain treatments may suddenly face new restrictions.

Another aggravating aspect of step therapy? It is often difficult – if not impossible – to access information on specific step therapy protocols in a patient’s health plan in real time in the exam room, where treatment conversations actually take place. In a more patient-centered world, Dr. Fincher said, she would be able to use the electronic health record system to quickly identify whether a patient’s plan covers a particular treatment and, if not, what the alternatives are.

Georgia’s new step therapy law went into effect last year. Like laws in other states, it spells out step therapy exemptions and sets time frames in which insurers must respond to exceptions and appeals. Dr. Fincher, who spoke in favor of the new law, said she’s “happy for any step forward.” Still, the growing burden of prior authorization rules are an utter “time sink” for her and her staff.

“I have to justify my decisions to nondoctors before I even get to a doctor, and that’s really frustrating,” she said. “We’re talking about people here, not widgets.”

Advocates in Nevada are hoping this is the year a step therapy bill will make it into law in their state. As of March, one had yet to be introduced in the state legislature. Tom McCoy, director of state government affairs at the Nevada Chronic Care Collaborative, said existing Nevada law already prohibits nonmedical drug switching during a policy year; however, insurers can still make changes the following year.

A bill to rein in step therapy was proposed previously, Mr. McCoy said, but it never got off the ground. The collaborative, as well as about two dozen organizations representing Nevada providers and patients, are now calling on state lawmakers to make the issue a priority in the current session.

“The health plans have a lot of power – a lot,” Mr. McCoy said. “We’re hoping to get a [legislative] sponsor in 2021 ... but it’s also been a really hard year to connect legislators with patients and doctors, and being able to hear their stories really does make a difference.”

In Nebraska, Marcus Snow, MD, a rheumatologist at Nebraska Medicine, in Omaha, said that the state’s new step therapy law will be a “great first step in helping to provide some guardrails” around the practice. He noted that turnaround requirements for insurer responses are “sorely needed.” However, he said that, because the bill doesn’t apply to all health plans, many Nebraskans still won’t benefit.

Dealing with step therapy is a daily “headache” for Dr. Snow, who says navigating the bureaucracy of prior authorization seems to be getting worse every year. Like his peers around the country, he spends an inordinate amount of time pushing appeals up the insurance company ranks to get access to treatments he believes will be most effective. But Snow says that, more than just being a mountain of tiresome red tape, these practices also intrude on the patient-provider relationship, casting an unsettling sense of uncertainty that the ultimate decision about the best course of action isn’t up to the doctor and patient at all.

“In the end, the insurance company is the judge and jury of my prescription,” Dr. Snow said. “They’d argue I can still prescribe it, but if it costs $70,000 a year – I don’t know who can afford that.”

Ms. Lynch, at the National Psoriasis Foundation, said their step therapy advocacy will continue to take a two-pronged approach. They will push for new and expanded protections at both state and federal levels. Protections are needed at both levels to make sure that all health plans regulated by all entities are covered. In the U.S. Senate and the House, step therapy bills were reintroduced this year. They would apply to health plans subject to the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which governs employer-sponsored health coverage, and could close a big gap in existing protections. Oregon, New Jersey, and Arizona are at the top of the foundation’s advocacy list this year, according to Ms. Lynch.

“Folks are really starting to pay more attention to this issue,” she said. “And hearing those real-world stories and frustrations is definitely one of the most effective tools we have.”

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

Every day Melissa Fulton, RN, MSN, FNP, APRN-C, shows up to work, she’s ready for another fight. An advanced practice nurse who specializes in multiple sclerosis care, Ms. Fulton said she typically spends more than a third of her time battling it out with insurance companies over drugs she knows her patients need but that insurers don’t want to cover. Instead, they want the patient to first receive less expensive and often less efficacious drugs, even if that goes against recommendations and, in some cases, against the patient’s medical history.

The maddening protocol – familiar to health care providers everywhere – is known as “step therapy.” It forces patients to try alternative medications – medications that often fail – before receiving the one initially prescribed. The process can take weeks or months, which is time that some patients don’t have. Step therapy was sold as a way to lower costs. However, beyond the ethically problematic notion of forcing sick patients to receiver cheaper alternatives that are ineffective, research has also shown it may actually be more costly in the long run.

Ms. Fulton, who works at Saunders Medical Center in Wahoo, Neb., is a veteran in the war against step therapy. She is used to pushing her appeals up the insurance company chain of command, past nonmedical reviewers, until her patient’s case finally lands on the desk of someone with a neurology background. She said that can take three or four appeals – a judge might even get involved – and the patient could still lose. “This happens constantly,” she said, “but we fight like hell.”

Fortunately, life may soon get a little easier for Ms. Fulton. In late March, a bill to restrict step therapy made it through the Nebraska state legislature and is on its way to the governor’s desk. The Step Therapy Reform Act doesn’t outright ban the practice; however, it will put guardrails in place. It requires that insurers respond to appeals within certain time frames, and it creates key exemptions.

When the governor signs off, Nebraska will join more than two dozen other states that already have step therapy restrictions on the books, according to Hannah Lynch, MPS, associate director of federal government relations and health policy at the National Psoriasis Foundation, a leading advocate to reform and protect against the insurance practice. “There’s a lot of frustration out there,” Ms. Lynch said. “It really hinders providers’ ability to make decisions they think will have the best outcomes.”

Driven by coalitions of doctors, nurses, and patients, laws reining in step therapy have been adopted at a relatively quick clip, mostly within the past 5 years. Recent additions include South Dakota and North Carolina, which adopted step therapy laws in 2020, and Arkansas, which passed a law earlier this year.

Ms. Lynch attributed growing support to rising out-of-pocket drug costs and the introduction of biologic drugs, which are often more effective but also more expensive. Like Nebraska’s law, most step therapy reform legislation carves out exemptions and requires timely appeals processes; however, many of the laws still have significant gaps, such as not including certain types of insurance plans.

Ideally, Ms. Lynch said, the protections would apply to all types of health plans that are regulated at the state level, such as Medicaid, state employee health plans, and coverage sold through state insurance exchanges. Closing loopholes in the laws is a top priority for advocates, she added, pointing to work currently underway in Arkansas to extend its new protections to Medicaid expansion patients.

“With so many outside stakeholders, you have to compromise – it’s a give and take,” Ms. Lynch said. Still, when it comes to fighting step therapy, she says, “Any protection on the books is always our first goal when we go into a state.”

Putting patients first

Lisa Arkin, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said she finds herself “swimming upstream every day in the fight with insurance.” Her patients are typically on their second or third stop and have more complex disorders. Dr. Arkin said that the problem with step therapy is that it tries to squeeze all patients into the same box, even if the circumstances don’t fit.

Her state passed restrictions on step therapy in 2019, but the measures only went into effect last year. Under the Wisconsin law, patients can be granted an exemption if an alternative treatment is contraindicated, likely to cause harm, or expected to be ineffective. Patients can also be exempt if their current treatment is working.

Dr. Arkin, an outspoken advocate for curbing step therapy, says the Wisconsin law is “very strong.” However, because it only applies to certain health plans – state employee health plans and those purchased in the state’s health insurance exchange – fewer than half the state’s patients benefit from its protections. She notes that some of the most severe presentations she treats occur in patients who rely on Medicaid coverage and already face barriers to care.

“I’m a doctor who puts up a fuss [with insurers], but that’s not fair – we shouldn’t have to do that,” Dr. Arkin said. “To me, it’s really critical to make this an even playing field so this law affords protection to everyone I see in the clinic.”

Major medical associations caution against step therapy as well. The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Medical Association have called out the risks to patient safety and health. In fact, in 2019, after the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services gave new authority to Medicare Advantage plans to start using step therapy, dozens of national medical groups called out the agency for allowing a practice that could potentially hurt patients and undercut the physician-patient decision-making process.

Last year, in a new position paper from the American College of Physicians, authors laid out recommendations for combating step therapy’s side effects. These recommendations included making related data transparent to the public and minimizing the policy’s disruptions to care. Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, MACP, a member of the committee that issued the position paper and who is a primary care physician in Georgia, said such insurance practices need to be designed with “strong input from frontline physicians, not clipboard physicians.

“What we want from insurers is understanding, transparency, and the least burdensome protocol to provide patients the care they need at a cost-effective price they can afford,” said Dr. Fincher, who is also the current president of the ACP. “The focus needs to be on what’s in the patient’s best interest.”
 

Every year a new fight

“We all dread January,” said Dr. Fincher. That is the worst month, she added, because new health benefits go into effect, which means patients who are responding well to certain treatments may suddenly face new restrictions.

Another aggravating aspect of step therapy? It is often difficult – if not impossible – to access information on specific step therapy protocols in a patient’s health plan in real time in the exam room, where treatment conversations actually take place. In a more patient-centered world, Dr. Fincher said, she would be able to use the electronic health record system to quickly identify whether a patient’s plan covers a particular treatment and, if not, what the alternatives are.

Georgia’s new step therapy law went into effect last year. Like laws in other states, it spells out step therapy exemptions and sets time frames in which insurers must respond to exceptions and appeals. Dr. Fincher, who spoke in favor of the new law, said she’s “happy for any step forward.” Still, the growing burden of prior authorization rules are an utter “time sink” for her and her staff.

“I have to justify my decisions to nondoctors before I even get to a doctor, and that’s really frustrating,” she said. “We’re talking about people here, not widgets.”

Advocates in Nevada are hoping this is the year a step therapy bill will make it into law in their state. As of March, one had yet to be introduced in the state legislature. Tom McCoy, director of state government affairs at the Nevada Chronic Care Collaborative, said existing Nevada law already prohibits nonmedical drug switching during a policy year; however, insurers can still make changes the following year.

A bill to rein in step therapy was proposed previously, Mr. McCoy said, but it never got off the ground. The collaborative, as well as about two dozen organizations representing Nevada providers and patients, are now calling on state lawmakers to make the issue a priority in the current session.

“The health plans have a lot of power – a lot,” Mr. McCoy said. “We’re hoping to get a [legislative] sponsor in 2021 ... but it’s also been a really hard year to connect legislators with patients and doctors, and being able to hear their stories really does make a difference.”

In Nebraska, Marcus Snow, MD, a rheumatologist at Nebraska Medicine, in Omaha, said that the state’s new step therapy law will be a “great first step in helping to provide some guardrails” around the practice. He noted that turnaround requirements for insurer responses are “sorely needed.” However, he said that, because the bill doesn’t apply to all health plans, many Nebraskans still won’t benefit.

Dealing with step therapy is a daily “headache” for Dr. Snow, who says navigating the bureaucracy of prior authorization seems to be getting worse every year. Like his peers around the country, he spends an inordinate amount of time pushing appeals up the insurance company ranks to get access to treatments he believes will be most effective. But Snow says that, more than just being a mountain of tiresome red tape, these practices also intrude on the patient-provider relationship, casting an unsettling sense of uncertainty that the ultimate decision about the best course of action isn’t up to the doctor and patient at all.

“In the end, the insurance company is the judge and jury of my prescription,” Dr. Snow said. “They’d argue I can still prescribe it, but if it costs $70,000 a year – I don’t know who can afford that.”

Ms. Lynch, at the National Psoriasis Foundation, said their step therapy advocacy will continue to take a two-pronged approach. They will push for new and expanded protections at both state and federal levels. Protections are needed at both levels to make sure that all health plans regulated by all entities are covered. In the U.S. Senate and the House, step therapy bills were reintroduced this year. They would apply to health plans subject to the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which governs employer-sponsored health coverage, and could close a big gap in existing protections. Oregon, New Jersey, and Arizona are at the top of the foundation’s advocacy list this year, according to Ms. Lynch.

“Folks are really starting to pay more attention to this issue,” she said. “And hearing those real-world stories and frustrations is definitely one of the most effective tools we have.”

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

Every day Melissa Fulton, RN, MSN, FNP, APRN-C, shows up to work, she’s ready for another fight. An advanced practice nurse who specializes in multiple sclerosis care, Ms. Fulton said she typically spends more than a third of her time battling it out with insurance companies over drugs she knows her patients need but that insurers don’t want to cover. Instead, they want the patient to first receive less expensive and often less efficacious drugs, even if that goes against recommendations and, in some cases, against the patient’s medical history.

The maddening protocol – familiar to health care providers everywhere – is known as “step therapy.” It forces patients to try alternative medications – medications that often fail – before receiving the one initially prescribed. The process can take weeks or months, which is time that some patients don’t have. Step therapy was sold as a way to lower costs. However, beyond the ethically problematic notion of forcing sick patients to receiver cheaper alternatives that are ineffective, research has also shown it may actually be more costly in the long run.

Ms. Fulton, who works at Saunders Medical Center in Wahoo, Neb., is a veteran in the war against step therapy. She is used to pushing her appeals up the insurance company chain of command, past nonmedical reviewers, until her patient’s case finally lands on the desk of someone with a neurology background. She said that can take three or four appeals – a judge might even get involved – and the patient could still lose. “This happens constantly,” she said, “but we fight like hell.”

Fortunately, life may soon get a little easier for Ms. Fulton. In late March, a bill to restrict step therapy made it through the Nebraska state legislature and is on its way to the governor’s desk. The Step Therapy Reform Act doesn’t outright ban the practice; however, it will put guardrails in place. It requires that insurers respond to appeals within certain time frames, and it creates key exemptions.

When the governor signs off, Nebraska will join more than two dozen other states that already have step therapy restrictions on the books, according to Hannah Lynch, MPS, associate director of federal government relations and health policy at the National Psoriasis Foundation, a leading advocate to reform and protect against the insurance practice. “There’s a lot of frustration out there,” Ms. Lynch said. “It really hinders providers’ ability to make decisions they think will have the best outcomes.”

Driven by coalitions of doctors, nurses, and patients, laws reining in step therapy have been adopted at a relatively quick clip, mostly within the past 5 years. Recent additions include South Dakota and North Carolina, which adopted step therapy laws in 2020, and Arkansas, which passed a law earlier this year.

Ms. Lynch attributed growing support to rising out-of-pocket drug costs and the introduction of biologic drugs, which are often more effective but also more expensive. Like Nebraska’s law, most step therapy reform legislation carves out exemptions and requires timely appeals processes; however, many of the laws still have significant gaps, such as not including certain types of insurance plans.

Ideally, Ms. Lynch said, the protections would apply to all types of health plans that are regulated at the state level, such as Medicaid, state employee health plans, and coverage sold through state insurance exchanges. Closing loopholes in the laws is a top priority for advocates, she added, pointing to work currently underway in Arkansas to extend its new protections to Medicaid expansion patients.

“With so many outside stakeholders, you have to compromise – it’s a give and take,” Ms. Lynch said. Still, when it comes to fighting step therapy, she says, “Any protection on the books is always our first goal when we go into a state.”

Putting patients first

Lisa Arkin, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said she finds herself “swimming upstream every day in the fight with insurance.” Her patients are typically on their second or third stop and have more complex disorders. Dr. Arkin said that the problem with step therapy is that it tries to squeeze all patients into the same box, even if the circumstances don’t fit.

Her state passed restrictions on step therapy in 2019, but the measures only went into effect last year. Under the Wisconsin law, patients can be granted an exemption if an alternative treatment is contraindicated, likely to cause harm, or expected to be ineffective. Patients can also be exempt if their current treatment is working.

Dr. Arkin, an outspoken advocate for curbing step therapy, says the Wisconsin law is “very strong.” However, because it only applies to certain health plans – state employee health plans and those purchased in the state’s health insurance exchange – fewer than half the state’s patients benefit from its protections. She notes that some of the most severe presentations she treats occur in patients who rely on Medicaid coverage and already face barriers to care.

“I’m a doctor who puts up a fuss [with insurers], but that’s not fair – we shouldn’t have to do that,” Dr. Arkin said. “To me, it’s really critical to make this an even playing field so this law affords protection to everyone I see in the clinic.”

Major medical associations caution against step therapy as well. The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Medical Association have called out the risks to patient safety and health. In fact, in 2019, after the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services gave new authority to Medicare Advantage plans to start using step therapy, dozens of national medical groups called out the agency for allowing a practice that could potentially hurt patients and undercut the physician-patient decision-making process.

Last year, in a new position paper from the American College of Physicians, authors laid out recommendations for combating step therapy’s side effects. These recommendations included making related data transparent to the public and minimizing the policy’s disruptions to care. Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, MACP, a member of the committee that issued the position paper and who is a primary care physician in Georgia, said such insurance practices need to be designed with “strong input from frontline physicians, not clipboard physicians.

“What we want from insurers is understanding, transparency, and the least burdensome protocol to provide patients the care they need at a cost-effective price they can afford,” said Dr. Fincher, who is also the current president of the ACP. “The focus needs to be on what’s in the patient’s best interest.”
 

Every year a new fight

“We all dread January,” said Dr. Fincher. That is the worst month, she added, because new health benefits go into effect, which means patients who are responding well to certain treatments may suddenly face new restrictions.

Another aggravating aspect of step therapy? It is often difficult – if not impossible – to access information on specific step therapy protocols in a patient’s health plan in real time in the exam room, where treatment conversations actually take place. In a more patient-centered world, Dr. Fincher said, she would be able to use the electronic health record system to quickly identify whether a patient’s plan covers a particular treatment and, if not, what the alternatives are.

Georgia’s new step therapy law went into effect last year. Like laws in other states, it spells out step therapy exemptions and sets time frames in which insurers must respond to exceptions and appeals. Dr. Fincher, who spoke in favor of the new law, said she’s “happy for any step forward.” Still, the growing burden of prior authorization rules are an utter “time sink” for her and her staff.

“I have to justify my decisions to nondoctors before I even get to a doctor, and that’s really frustrating,” she said. “We’re talking about people here, not widgets.”

Advocates in Nevada are hoping this is the year a step therapy bill will make it into law in their state. As of March, one had yet to be introduced in the state legislature. Tom McCoy, director of state government affairs at the Nevada Chronic Care Collaborative, said existing Nevada law already prohibits nonmedical drug switching during a policy year; however, insurers can still make changes the following year.

A bill to rein in step therapy was proposed previously, Mr. McCoy said, but it never got off the ground. The collaborative, as well as about two dozen organizations representing Nevada providers and patients, are now calling on state lawmakers to make the issue a priority in the current session.

“The health plans have a lot of power – a lot,” Mr. McCoy said. “We’re hoping to get a [legislative] sponsor in 2021 ... but it’s also been a really hard year to connect legislators with patients and doctors, and being able to hear their stories really does make a difference.”

In Nebraska, Marcus Snow, MD, a rheumatologist at Nebraska Medicine, in Omaha, said that the state’s new step therapy law will be a “great first step in helping to provide some guardrails” around the practice. He noted that turnaround requirements for insurer responses are “sorely needed.” However, he said that, because the bill doesn’t apply to all health plans, many Nebraskans still won’t benefit.

Dealing with step therapy is a daily “headache” for Dr. Snow, who says navigating the bureaucracy of prior authorization seems to be getting worse every year. Like his peers around the country, he spends an inordinate amount of time pushing appeals up the insurance company ranks to get access to treatments he believes will be most effective. But Snow says that, more than just being a mountain of tiresome red tape, these practices also intrude on the patient-provider relationship, casting an unsettling sense of uncertainty that the ultimate decision about the best course of action isn’t up to the doctor and patient at all.

“In the end, the insurance company is the judge and jury of my prescription,” Dr. Snow said. “They’d argue I can still prescribe it, but if it costs $70,000 a year – I don’t know who can afford that.”

Ms. Lynch, at the National Psoriasis Foundation, said their step therapy advocacy will continue to take a two-pronged approach. They will push for new and expanded protections at both state and federal levels. Protections are needed at both levels to make sure that all health plans regulated by all entities are covered. In the U.S. Senate and the House, step therapy bills were reintroduced this year. They would apply to health plans subject to the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which governs employer-sponsored health coverage, and could close a big gap in existing protections. Oregon, New Jersey, and Arizona are at the top of the foundation’s advocacy list this year, according to Ms. Lynch.

“Folks are really starting to pay more attention to this issue,” she said. “And hearing those real-world stories and frustrations is definitely one of the most effective tools we have.”

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

Americans gained nearly 2 pounds per month under COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders in 2020, according to a new study published March 22, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Those who kept the same lockdown habits could have gained 20 pounds during the past year, the study authors said.

“We know that weight gain is a public health problem in the U.S. already, so anything making it worse is definitely concerning, and shelter-in-place orders are so ubiquitous that the sheer number of people affected by this makes it extremely relevant,” Gregory Marcus, MD, the senior author and a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, told the New York Times.

Dr. Marcus and colleagues analyzed more than 7,000 weight measurements from 269 people in 37 states who used Bluetooth-connected scales from Feb. 1 to June 1, 2020. Among the participants, about 52% were women, 77% were White, and they had an average age of 52 years.

The research team found that participants had a steady weight gain of more than half a pound every 10 days. That equals about 1.5-2 pounds per month.

Many of the participants were losing weight before the shelter-in-place orders went into effect, Dr. Marcus said. The lockdown effects could be even greater for those who weren’t losing weight before.

“It’s reasonable to assume these individuals are more engaged with their health in general, and more disciplined and on top of things,” he said. “That suggests we could be underestimating – that this is the tip of the iceberg.”

The small study doesn’t represent all of the nation and can’t be generalized to the U.S. population, the study authors noted, but it’s an indicator of what happened during the pandemic. The participants’ weight increased regardless of their location and chronic medical conditions.

Overall, people don’t move around as much during lockdowns, the UCSF researchers reported in another study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020. According to smartphone data, daily step counts decreased by 27% in March 2020. The step counts increased again throughout the summer but still remained lower than before the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The detrimental health outcomes suggested by these data demonstrate a need to identify concurrent strategies to mitigate weight gain,” the authors wrote in the JAMA Network Open study, “such as encouraging healthy diets and exploring ways to enhance physical activity, as local governments consider new constraints in response to SARS-CoV-2 and potential future pandemics.”

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

Americans gained nearly 2 pounds per month under COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders in 2020, according to a new study published March 22, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Those who kept the same lockdown habits could have gained 20 pounds during the past year, the study authors said.

“We know that weight gain is a public health problem in the U.S. already, so anything making it worse is definitely concerning, and shelter-in-place orders are so ubiquitous that the sheer number of people affected by this makes it extremely relevant,” Gregory Marcus, MD, the senior author and a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, told the New York Times.

Dr. Marcus and colleagues analyzed more than 7,000 weight measurements from 269 people in 37 states who used Bluetooth-connected scales from Feb. 1 to June 1, 2020. Among the participants, about 52% were women, 77% were White, and they had an average age of 52 years.

The research team found that participants had a steady weight gain of more than half a pound every 10 days. That equals about 1.5-2 pounds per month.

Many of the participants were losing weight before the shelter-in-place orders went into effect, Dr. Marcus said. The lockdown effects could be even greater for those who weren’t losing weight before.

“It’s reasonable to assume these individuals are more engaged with their health in general, and more disciplined and on top of things,” he said. “That suggests we could be underestimating – that this is the tip of the iceberg.”

The small study doesn’t represent all of the nation and can’t be generalized to the U.S. population, the study authors noted, but it’s an indicator of what happened during the pandemic. The participants’ weight increased regardless of their location and chronic medical conditions.

Overall, people don’t move around as much during lockdowns, the UCSF researchers reported in another study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020. According to smartphone data, daily step counts decreased by 27% in March 2020. The step counts increased again throughout the summer but still remained lower than before the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The detrimental health outcomes suggested by these data demonstrate a need to identify concurrent strategies to mitigate weight gain,” the authors wrote in the JAMA Network Open study, “such as encouraging healthy diets and exploring ways to enhance physical activity, as local governments consider new constraints in response to SARS-CoV-2 and potential future pandemics.”

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

Americans gained nearly 2 pounds per month under COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders in 2020, according to a new study published March 22, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Those who kept the same lockdown habits could have gained 20 pounds during the past year, the study authors said.

“We know that weight gain is a public health problem in the U.S. already, so anything making it worse is definitely concerning, and shelter-in-place orders are so ubiquitous that the sheer number of people affected by this makes it extremely relevant,” Gregory Marcus, MD, the senior author and a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, told the New York Times.

Dr. Marcus and colleagues analyzed more than 7,000 weight measurements from 269 people in 37 states who used Bluetooth-connected scales from Feb. 1 to June 1, 2020. Among the participants, about 52% were women, 77% were White, and they had an average age of 52 years.

The research team found that participants had a steady weight gain of more than half a pound every 10 days. That equals about 1.5-2 pounds per month.

Many of the participants were losing weight before the shelter-in-place orders went into effect, Dr. Marcus said. The lockdown effects could be even greater for those who weren’t losing weight before.

“It’s reasonable to assume these individuals are more engaged with their health in general, and more disciplined and on top of things,” he said. “That suggests we could be underestimating – that this is the tip of the iceberg.”

The small study doesn’t represent all of the nation and can’t be generalized to the U.S. population, the study authors noted, but it’s an indicator of what happened during the pandemic. The participants’ weight increased regardless of their location and chronic medical conditions.

Overall, people don’t move around as much during lockdowns, the UCSF researchers reported in another study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020. According to smartphone data, daily step counts decreased by 27% in March 2020. The step counts increased again throughout the summer but still remained lower than before the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The detrimental health outcomes suggested by these data demonstrate a need to identify concurrent strategies to mitigate weight gain,” the authors wrote in the JAMA Network Open study, “such as encouraging healthy diets and exploring ways to enhance physical activity, as local governments consider new constraints in response to SARS-CoV-2 and potential future pandemics.”

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

Higher levels of vitamin D than traditionally considered sufficient may help prevent COVID-19 infection – particularly in Black patients, shows a new single-center, retrospective study looking at the role of vitamin D in prevention of infection.

The study, published recently in JAMA Network Open, noted that expert opinion varies as to what “sufficient” levels of vitamin D are, some define this as 30 ng/mL, while others cite 40 ng/mL or greater.

In their discussion, the authors also noted that their results showed the “risk of positive COVID-19 test results decreased significantly with increased vitamin D level of 30 ng/mL or greater when measured as a continuous variable.”

“These new results tell us that having vitamin D levels above those normally considered sufficient is associated with decreased risk of testing positive for COVID-19, at least in Black individuals,” lead author, David Meltzer, MD, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago, said in a press release from his institution.

“These findings suggest that randomized clinical trials to determine whether increasing vitamin D levels to greater than 30-40 ng/mL affect COVID-19 risk are warranted, especially in Black individuals,” he and his coauthors said.
 

Vitamin D at time of testing most strongly associated with COVID risk

An earlier study by the same researchers found that vitamin D deficiency (less than 20 ng/mL) may raise the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 in people from various ethnicities, as reported by this news organization.

Data for this latest study were drawn from electronic health records for 4,638 individuals at the University of Chicago Medicine and were used to examine whether the likelihood of a positive COVID-19 test was associated with a person’s most recent vitamin D level (within the previous year), and whether there was any effect of ethnicity on this outcome.

Mean age was 52.8 years, 69% were women, 49% were Black, 43% White, and 8% were another race/ethnicity. A total of 27% of the individuals were deficient in vitamin D (less than 20 ng/mL), 27% had insufficient levels (20-30 ng/mL), 22% had sufficient levels (30-40 ng/mL), and the remaining 24% had levels of 40 ng/mL or greater.

In total, 333 (7%) of people tested positive for COVID-19, including 102 (5%) Whites and 211 (9%) Blacks. And 36% of Black individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 were classified as vitamin D deficient, compared with 16% of Whites.

A positive test result for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D levels in white individuals but was in Black individuals.

In Black people, compared with levels of at least 40 ng/mL, vitamin D levels of 30-40 ng/mL were associated with an incidence rate ratio of 2.64 for COVID-19 positivity (P = .01). For levels of 20-30 ng/mL, the IRR was 1.69 (P = 0.21); and for less than 20 ng/mL the IRR was 2.55 (P = .009).

The researchers also found that the risk of positive test results with lower vitamin D levels increased when those levels were lower just prior to the positive COVID-19 test, lending “support [to] the idea that vitamin D level at the time of testing is most strongly associated with COVID-19 risk,” they wrote.
 

Try upping vitamin D levels to 40 ng/mL or greater to prevent COVID?

In their discussion, the authors noted that significant association of vitamin D levels with COVID-19 risk in Blacks but not in Whites, “could reflect their higher COVID-19 risk, to which socioeconomic factors and structural inequities clearly contribute.

“Biological susceptibility to vitamin D deficiency may also be less frequent in White than Black individuals, since lighter skin increases vitamin D production in response to sunlight, and vitamin D binding proteins may vary by race and affect vitamin D bioavailability.”

Given less than 10% of U.S. adults have a vitamin D level greater than 40 ng/mL, the study findings increase the urgency to consider whether increased sun exposure or supplementation could reduce COVID-19 risk, according to the authors.

“When increased sun exposure is impractical, achieving vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or greater typically requires greater supplementation than currently recommended for most individuals of 600-800 IU/d vitamin D3,” they added.

However, Dr. Meltzer also acknowledged that “this is an observational study. We can see that there’s an association between vitamin D levels and likelihood of a COVID-19 diagnosis, but we don’t know exactly why that is, or whether these results are due to the vitamin D directly or other related biological factors.”

All in all, the authors suggested that randomized clinical trials are needed to understand if vitamin D can reduce COVID-19 risk, and as such they should include doses of supplements likely to increase vitamin D to at least 40 ng/mL, and perhaps even higher, although they pointed out that the latter must be achieved safely.

“Studies should also consider the role of vitamin D testing, loading doses, dose adjustments for individuals who are obese or overweight, risks for hypercalcemia, and strategies to monitor for and mitigate hypercalcemia, and that non-White populations, such as Black individuals, may have greater needs for supplementation,” they outlined.

They are now recruiting participants for two separate clinical trials testing the efficacy of vitamin D supplements for preventing COVID-19.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher levels of vitamin D than traditionally considered sufficient may help prevent COVID-19 infection – particularly in Black patients, shows a new single-center, retrospective study looking at the role of vitamin D in prevention of infection.

The study, published recently in JAMA Network Open, noted that expert opinion varies as to what “sufficient” levels of vitamin D are, some define this as 30 ng/mL, while others cite 40 ng/mL or greater.

In their discussion, the authors also noted that their results showed the “risk of positive COVID-19 test results decreased significantly with increased vitamin D level of 30 ng/mL or greater when measured as a continuous variable.”

“These new results tell us that having vitamin D levels above those normally considered sufficient is associated with decreased risk of testing positive for COVID-19, at least in Black individuals,” lead author, David Meltzer, MD, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago, said in a press release from his institution.

“These findings suggest that randomized clinical trials to determine whether increasing vitamin D levels to greater than 30-40 ng/mL affect COVID-19 risk are warranted, especially in Black individuals,” he and his coauthors said.
 

Vitamin D at time of testing most strongly associated with COVID risk

An earlier study by the same researchers found that vitamin D deficiency (less than 20 ng/mL) may raise the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 in people from various ethnicities, as reported by this news organization.

Data for this latest study were drawn from electronic health records for 4,638 individuals at the University of Chicago Medicine and were used to examine whether the likelihood of a positive COVID-19 test was associated with a person’s most recent vitamin D level (within the previous year), and whether there was any effect of ethnicity on this outcome.

Mean age was 52.8 years, 69% were women, 49% were Black, 43% White, and 8% were another race/ethnicity. A total of 27% of the individuals were deficient in vitamin D (less than 20 ng/mL), 27% had insufficient levels (20-30 ng/mL), 22% had sufficient levels (30-40 ng/mL), and the remaining 24% had levels of 40 ng/mL or greater.

In total, 333 (7%) of people tested positive for COVID-19, including 102 (5%) Whites and 211 (9%) Blacks. And 36% of Black individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 were classified as vitamin D deficient, compared with 16% of Whites.

A positive test result for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D levels in white individuals but was in Black individuals.

In Black people, compared with levels of at least 40 ng/mL, vitamin D levels of 30-40 ng/mL were associated with an incidence rate ratio of 2.64 for COVID-19 positivity (P = .01). For levels of 20-30 ng/mL, the IRR was 1.69 (P = 0.21); and for less than 20 ng/mL the IRR was 2.55 (P = .009).

The researchers also found that the risk of positive test results with lower vitamin D levels increased when those levels were lower just prior to the positive COVID-19 test, lending “support [to] the idea that vitamin D level at the time of testing is most strongly associated with COVID-19 risk,” they wrote.
 

Try upping vitamin D levels to 40 ng/mL or greater to prevent COVID?

In their discussion, the authors noted that significant association of vitamin D levels with COVID-19 risk in Blacks but not in Whites, “could reflect their higher COVID-19 risk, to which socioeconomic factors and structural inequities clearly contribute.

“Biological susceptibility to vitamin D deficiency may also be less frequent in White than Black individuals, since lighter skin increases vitamin D production in response to sunlight, and vitamin D binding proteins may vary by race and affect vitamin D bioavailability.”

Given less than 10% of U.S. adults have a vitamin D level greater than 40 ng/mL, the study findings increase the urgency to consider whether increased sun exposure or supplementation could reduce COVID-19 risk, according to the authors.

“When increased sun exposure is impractical, achieving vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or greater typically requires greater supplementation than currently recommended for most individuals of 600-800 IU/d vitamin D3,” they added.

However, Dr. Meltzer also acknowledged that “this is an observational study. We can see that there’s an association between vitamin D levels and likelihood of a COVID-19 diagnosis, but we don’t know exactly why that is, or whether these results are due to the vitamin D directly or other related biological factors.”

All in all, the authors suggested that randomized clinical trials are needed to understand if vitamin D can reduce COVID-19 risk, and as such they should include doses of supplements likely to increase vitamin D to at least 40 ng/mL, and perhaps even higher, although they pointed out that the latter must be achieved safely.

“Studies should also consider the role of vitamin D testing, loading doses, dose adjustments for individuals who are obese or overweight, risks for hypercalcemia, and strategies to monitor for and mitigate hypercalcemia, and that non-White populations, such as Black individuals, may have greater needs for supplementation,” they outlined.

They are now recruiting participants for two separate clinical trials testing the efficacy of vitamin D supplements for preventing COVID-19.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher levels of vitamin D than traditionally considered sufficient may help prevent COVID-19 infection – particularly in Black patients, shows a new single-center, retrospective study looking at the role of vitamin D in prevention of infection.

The study, published recently in JAMA Network Open, noted that expert opinion varies as to what “sufficient” levels of vitamin D are, some define this as 30 ng/mL, while others cite 40 ng/mL or greater.

In their discussion, the authors also noted that their results showed the “risk of positive COVID-19 test results decreased significantly with increased vitamin D level of 30 ng/mL or greater when measured as a continuous variable.”

“These new results tell us that having vitamin D levels above those normally considered sufficient is associated with decreased risk of testing positive for COVID-19, at least in Black individuals,” lead author, David Meltzer, MD, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago, said in a press release from his institution.

“These findings suggest that randomized clinical trials to determine whether increasing vitamin D levels to greater than 30-40 ng/mL affect COVID-19 risk are warranted, especially in Black individuals,” he and his coauthors said.
 

Vitamin D at time of testing most strongly associated with COVID risk

An earlier study by the same researchers found that vitamin D deficiency (less than 20 ng/mL) may raise the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 in people from various ethnicities, as reported by this news organization.

Data for this latest study were drawn from electronic health records for 4,638 individuals at the University of Chicago Medicine and were used to examine whether the likelihood of a positive COVID-19 test was associated with a person’s most recent vitamin D level (within the previous year), and whether there was any effect of ethnicity on this outcome.

Mean age was 52.8 years, 69% were women, 49% were Black, 43% White, and 8% were another race/ethnicity. A total of 27% of the individuals were deficient in vitamin D (less than 20 ng/mL), 27% had insufficient levels (20-30 ng/mL), 22% had sufficient levels (30-40 ng/mL), and the remaining 24% had levels of 40 ng/mL or greater.

In total, 333 (7%) of people tested positive for COVID-19, including 102 (5%) Whites and 211 (9%) Blacks. And 36% of Black individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 were classified as vitamin D deficient, compared with 16% of Whites.

A positive test result for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D levels in white individuals but was in Black individuals.

In Black people, compared with levels of at least 40 ng/mL, vitamin D levels of 30-40 ng/mL were associated with an incidence rate ratio of 2.64 for COVID-19 positivity (P = .01). For levels of 20-30 ng/mL, the IRR was 1.69 (P = 0.21); and for less than 20 ng/mL the IRR was 2.55 (P = .009).

The researchers also found that the risk of positive test results with lower vitamin D levels increased when those levels were lower just prior to the positive COVID-19 test, lending “support [to] the idea that vitamin D level at the time of testing is most strongly associated with COVID-19 risk,” they wrote.
 

Try upping vitamin D levels to 40 ng/mL or greater to prevent COVID?

In their discussion, the authors noted that significant association of vitamin D levels with COVID-19 risk in Blacks but not in Whites, “could reflect their higher COVID-19 risk, to which socioeconomic factors and structural inequities clearly contribute.

“Biological susceptibility to vitamin D deficiency may also be less frequent in White than Black individuals, since lighter skin increases vitamin D production in response to sunlight, and vitamin D binding proteins may vary by race and affect vitamin D bioavailability.”

Given less than 10% of U.S. adults have a vitamin D level greater than 40 ng/mL, the study findings increase the urgency to consider whether increased sun exposure or supplementation could reduce COVID-19 risk, according to the authors.

“When increased sun exposure is impractical, achieving vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or greater typically requires greater supplementation than currently recommended for most individuals of 600-800 IU/d vitamin D3,” they added.

However, Dr. Meltzer also acknowledged that “this is an observational study. We can see that there’s an association between vitamin D levels and likelihood of a COVID-19 diagnosis, but we don’t know exactly why that is, or whether these results are due to the vitamin D directly or other related biological factors.”

All in all, the authors suggested that randomized clinical trials are needed to understand if vitamin D can reduce COVID-19 risk, and as such they should include doses of supplements likely to increase vitamin D to at least 40 ng/mL, and perhaps even higher, although they pointed out that the latter must be achieved safely.

“Studies should also consider the role of vitamin D testing, loading doses, dose adjustments for individuals who are obese or overweight, risks for hypercalcemia, and strategies to monitor for and mitigate hypercalcemia, and that non-White populations, such as Black individuals, may have greater needs for supplementation,” they outlined.

They are now recruiting participants for two separate clinical trials testing the efficacy of vitamin D supplements for preventing COVID-19.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among individuals who have received a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), often used in the treatment of blood cancers, rates of survival are poor for those who develop COVID-19.

The probability of survival 30 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19 is only 68% for persons who have received an allogeneic HSCT and 67% for autologous HSCT recipients, according to new data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

These findings underscore the need for “stringent surveillance and aggressive treatment measures” in this population, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online March 1, 2021, in The Lancet Haematology.

The study is “of importance for physicians caring for HSCT recipients worldwide,” Mathieu Leclerc, MD, and Sébastien Maury, MD, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France, commented in an accompanying editorial.
 

Study details

For their study, Dr. Sharma and colleagues analyzed outcomes for all HSCT recipients who developed COVID-19 and whose cases were reported to the CIBMTR. Of 318 such patients, 184 had undergone allogeneic HSCT, and 134 had undergone autologous HSCT.

Overall, about half of these patients (49%) had mild COVID-19.

Severe COVID-19 that required mechanical ventilation developed in 15% and 13% of the allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.

About one-fifth of patients died: 22% and 19% of allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.

Factors associated with greater mortality risk included age of 50 years or older (hazard ratio, 2.53), male sex (HR, 3.53), and development of COVID-19 within 12 months of undergoing HSCT (HR, 2.67).

Among autologous HSCT recipients, lymphoma was associated with higher mortality risk in comparison with a plasma cell disorder or myeloma (HR, 2.41), the authors noted.

“Two important messages can be drawn from the results reported by Sharma and colleagues,” Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury wrote in their editorial. “The first is the confirmation that the prognosis of COVID-19 is particularly poor in HSCT recipients, and that its prevention, in the absence of any specific curative treatment with sufficient efficacy, should be at the forefront of concerns.”

The second relates to the risk factors for death among HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19. In addition to previously known risk factors, such as age and gender, the investigators identified transplant-specific factors potentially associated with prognosis – namely, the nearly threefold increase in death among allogeneic HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19 within 12 months of transplant, they explained.

However, the findings are limited by a substantial amount of missing data, short follow-up, and the possibility of selection bias, they noted.

“Further large and well-designed studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm and refine the results,” the editorialists wrote.

“[A] better understanding of the distinctive features of COVID-19 infection in HSCT recipients will be a necessary and essential step toward improvement of the remarkably poor prognosis observed in this setting,” they added.

The study was funded by the American Society of Hematology; the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society; the National Cancer Institute; the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; the National Institutes of Health; the Health Resources and Services Administration; and the Office of Naval Research. Dr. Sharma receives support for the conduct of industry-sponsored trials from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Novartis and consulting fees from Spotlight Therapeutics. Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among individuals who have received a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), often used in the treatment of blood cancers, rates of survival are poor for those who develop COVID-19.

The probability of survival 30 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19 is only 68% for persons who have received an allogeneic HSCT and 67% for autologous HSCT recipients, according to new data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

These findings underscore the need for “stringent surveillance and aggressive treatment measures” in this population, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online March 1, 2021, in The Lancet Haematology.

The study is “of importance for physicians caring for HSCT recipients worldwide,” Mathieu Leclerc, MD, and Sébastien Maury, MD, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France, commented in an accompanying editorial.
 

Study details

For their study, Dr. Sharma and colleagues analyzed outcomes for all HSCT recipients who developed COVID-19 and whose cases were reported to the CIBMTR. Of 318 such patients, 184 had undergone allogeneic HSCT, and 134 had undergone autologous HSCT.

Overall, about half of these patients (49%) had mild COVID-19.

Severe COVID-19 that required mechanical ventilation developed in 15% and 13% of the allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.

About one-fifth of patients died: 22% and 19% of allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.

Factors associated with greater mortality risk included age of 50 years or older (hazard ratio, 2.53), male sex (HR, 3.53), and development of COVID-19 within 12 months of undergoing HSCT (HR, 2.67).

Among autologous HSCT recipients, lymphoma was associated with higher mortality risk in comparison with a plasma cell disorder or myeloma (HR, 2.41), the authors noted.

“Two important messages can be drawn from the results reported by Sharma and colleagues,” Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury wrote in their editorial. “The first is the confirmation that the prognosis of COVID-19 is particularly poor in HSCT recipients, and that its prevention, in the absence of any specific curative treatment with sufficient efficacy, should be at the forefront of concerns.”

The second relates to the risk factors for death among HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19. In addition to previously known risk factors, such as age and gender, the investigators identified transplant-specific factors potentially associated with prognosis – namely, the nearly threefold increase in death among allogeneic HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19 within 12 months of transplant, they explained.

However, the findings are limited by a substantial amount of missing data, short follow-up, and the possibility of selection bias, they noted.

“Further large and well-designed studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm and refine the results,” the editorialists wrote.

“[A] better understanding of the distinctive features of COVID-19 infection in HSCT recipients will be a necessary and essential step toward improvement of the remarkably poor prognosis observed in this setting,” they added.

The study was funded by the American Society of Hematology; the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society; the National Cancer Institute; the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; the National Institutes of Health; the Health Resources and Services Administration; and the Office of Naval Research. Dr. Sharma receives support for the conduct of industry-sponsored trials from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Novartis and consulting fees from Spotlight Therapeutics. Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among individuals who have received a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), often used in the treatment of blood cancers, rates of survival are poor for those who develop COVID-19.

The probability of survival 30 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19 is only 68% for persons who have received an allogeneic HSCT and 67% for autologous HSCT recipients, according to new data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

These findings underscore the need for “stringent surveillance and aggressive treatment measures” in this population, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online March 1, 2021, in The Lancet Haematology.

The study is “of importance for physicians caring for HSCT recipients worldwide,” Mathieu Leclerc, MD, and Sébastien Maury, MD, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France, commented in an accompanying editorial.
 

Study details

For their study, Dr. Sharma and colleagues analyzed outcomes for all HSCT recipients who developed COVID-19 and whose cases were reported to the CIBMTR. Of 318 such patients, 184 had undergone allogeneic HSCT, and 134 had undergone autologous HSCT.

Overall, about half of these patients (49%) had mild COVID-19.

Severe COVID-19 that required mechanical ventilation developed in 15% and 13% of the allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.

About one-fifth of patients died: 22% and 19% of allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients, respectively.

Factors associated with greater mortality risk included age of 50 years or older (hazard ratio, 2.53), male sex (HR, 3.53), and development of COVID-19 within 12 months of undergoing HSCT (HR, 2.67).

Among autologous HSCT recipients, lymphoma was associated with higher mortality risk in comparison with a plasma cell disorder or myeloma (HR, 2.41), the authors noted.

“Two important messages can be drawn from the results reported by Sharma and colleagues,” Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury wrote in their editorial. “The first is the confirmation that the prognosis of COVID-19 is particularly poor in HSCT recipients, and that its prevention, in the absence of any specific curative treatment with sufficient efficacy, should be at the forefront of concerns.”

The second relates to the risk factors for death among HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19. In addition to previously known risk factors, such as age and gender, the investigators identified transplant-specific factors potentially associated with prognosis – namely, the nearly threefold increase in death among allogeneic HSCT recipients who develop COVID-19 within 12 months of transplant, they explained.

However, the findings are limited by a substantial amount of missing data, short follow-up, and the possibility of selection bias, they noted.

“Further large and well-designed studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm and refine the results,” the editorialists wrote.

“[A] better understanding of the distinctive features of COVID-19 infection in HSCT recipients will be a necessary and essential step toward improvement of the remarkably poor prognosis observed in this setting,” they added.

The study was funded by the American Society of Hematology; the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society; the National Cancer Institute; the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; the National Institutes of Health; the Health Resources and Services Administration; and the Office of Naval Research. Dr. Sharma receives support for the conduct of industry-sponsored trials from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Novartis and consulting fees from Spotlight Therapeutics. Dr. Leclerc and Dr. Maury disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Senate voted mostly along party lines Wednesday to confirm Vice Adm. Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, to serve as the 21st Surgeon General of the United States.

Seven Republicans – Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine), Roger Marshall (Kan.), Susan Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio), Mitt Romney (Utah), and Dan Sullivan (Alaska) – joined all the Democrats and independents in the 57-43 vote approving Dr. Murthy’s nomination.

Dr. Murthy, 43, previously served as the 19th Surgeon General, from December 2014 to April 2017, when he was asked to step down by President Donald J. Trump.

Surgeons General serve 4-year terms.

During his first tenure, Dr. Murthy issued the first-ever Surgeon General’s report on the crisis of addiction and issued a call to action to doctors to help battle the opioid crisis.

When Dr. Murthy was nominated by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. in December, he was acting as cochair of the incoming administration’s COVID-19 transition advisory board.

Early in 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Dr. Murthy published a timely book: “Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World”.

He earned his bachelor’s degree from Harvard and his MD and MBA degrees from Yale. He completed his internal medicine residency at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where he also served as a hospitalist, and later joined Harvard Medical School as a faculty member in internal medicine.

He is married to Alice Chen, MD. The couple have two children.
 

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

The U.S. Senate voted mostly along party lines Wednesday to confirm Vice Adm. Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, to serve as the 21st Surgeon General of the United States.

Seven Republicans – Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine), Roger Marshall (Kan.), Susan Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio), Mitt Romney (Utah), and Dan Sullivan (Alaska) – joined all the Democrats and independents in the 57-43 vote approving Dr. Murthy’s nomination.

Dr. Murthy, 43, previously served as the 19th Surgeon General, from December 2014 to April 2017, when he was asked to step down by President Donald J. Trump.

Surgeons General serve 4-year terms.

During his first tenure, Dr. Murthy issued the first-ever Surgeon General’s report on the crisis of addiction and issued a call to action to doctors to help battle the opioid crisis.

When Dr. Murthy was nominated by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. in December, he was acting as cochair of the incoming administration’s COVID-19 transition advisory board.

Early in 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Dr. Murthy published a timely book: “Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World”.

He earned his bachelor’s degree from Harvard and his MD and MBA degrees from Yale. He completed his internal medicine residency at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where he also served as a hospitalist, and later joined Harvard Medical School as a faculty member in internal medicine.

He is married to Alice Chen, MD. The couple have two children.
 

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

The U.S. Senate voted mostly along party lines Wednesday to confirm Vice Adm. Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, to serve as the 21st Surgeon General of the United States.

Seven Republicans – Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine), Roger Marshall (Kan.), Susan Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio), Mitt Romney (Utah), and Dan Sullivan (Alaska) – joined all the Democrats and independents in the 57-43 vote approving Dr. Murthy’s nomination.

Dr. Murthy, 43, previously served as the 19th Surgeon General, from December 2014 to April 2017, when he was asked to step down by President Donald J. Trump.

Surgeons General serve 4-year terms.

During his first tenure, Dr. Murthy issued the first-ever Surgeon General’s report on the crisis of addiction and issued a call to action to doctors to help battle the opioid crisis.

When Dr. Murthy was nominated by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. in December, he was acting as cochair of the incoming administration’s COVID-19 transition advisory board.

Early in 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Dr. Murthy published a timely book: “Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World”.

He earned his bachelor’s degree from Harvard and his MD and MBA degrees from Yale. He completed his internal medicine residency at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where he also served as a hospitalist, and later joined Harvard Medical School as a faculty member in internal medicine.

He is married to Alice Chen, MD. The couple have two children.
 

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