MDedge Rheumatology

Even as the war in Ukraine has prompted an exodus of international companies — from fast-food chains and oil producers to luxury retailers — from Russia, U.S. and global drug companies said they would continue manufacturing and selling their products there.

Airlines, automakers, banks, and technology giants — at least 320 companies by one count — are among the businesses curtailing operations or making high-profile exits from Russia as its invasion of Ukraine intensifies. McDonald’s, Starbucks, and Coca-Cola announced a pause in sales recently.

But drugmakers, medical device manufacturers, and health care companies, which are exempted from U.S. and European sanctions, said Russians need access to medicines and medical equipment and contend that international humanitarian law requires they keep supply chains open.

“As a health care company, we have an important purpose, which is why at this time we continue to serve people in all countries in which we operate who depend on us for essential products, some life-sustaining,” said Scott Stoffel, divisional vice president for Illinois-based Abbott Laboratories, which manufactures and sells medicines in Russia for oncology, women’s health, pancreatic insufficiency, and liver health.

Johnson & Johnson — which has corporate offices in Moscow, Novosibirsk, St. Petersburg, and Yekaterinburg — said in a statement, “We remain committed to providing essential health products to those in need in Ukraine, Russia, and the region, in compliance with current sanctions and while adapting to the rapidly changing situation on the ground.”

The reluctance of drugmakers to pause operations in Russia is being met with a growing chorus of criticism.

Pharmaceutical companies that say they must continue to manufacture drugs in Russia for humanitarian reasons are “being misguided at best, cynical in the medium case, and outright deplorably misleading and deceptive,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, DBA, a professor at the Yale School of Management who is tracking which companies have curtailed operations in Russia. He noted that banks and technology companies also provide essential services.

“Russians are put in a tragic position of unearned suffering. If we continue to make life palatable for them, then we are continuing to support the regime,” Dr. Sonnenfeld said. “These drug companies will be seen as complicit with the most vicious operation on the planet. Instead of protecting life, they are going to be seen as destroying life. The goal here is to show that Putin is not in control of all sectors of the economy.”

U.S. pharmaceutical and medical companies have operated in Russia for decades, and many ramped up operations after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, navigating the fraught relationship between the United States and Russia amid sanctions. In 2010, Vladimir Putin, then Russian prime minister, announced an ambitious national plan for the Russian pharmaceutical industry that would be a pillar in his efforts to reestablish his country as an influential superpower and wean the country off Western pharmaceutical imports. Under the plan, called “Pharma-2020” and “Pharma-2030,” the government required Western pharmaceutical companies eager to sell to Russia’s growing middle class to locate production inside the country.

Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Abbott are among the drugmakers that manufacture pharmaceutical drugs at facilities in St. Petersburg and elsewhere in the country and typically sell those drugs as branded generics or under Russian brands.

Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, said on CBS that the giant drugmaker is not going to make further investments in Russia, but that it will not cut ties with Russia, as multinational companies in other industries are doing.

Pharmaceutical manufacturing plants in Kaluga, a major manufacturing center for Volkswagen and Volvo southwest of Moscow, have been funded through a partnership between Rusnano, a state-owned venture that promotes the development of high-tech enterprises, and U.S. venture capital firms.

Russia also has sought to position itself as an attractive research market, offering an inexpensive and lax regulatory environment for clinical drug trials. Last year, Pfizer conducted in Russia clinical trials of Paxlovid, its experimental antiviral pill to treat covid-19. Before the invasion began in late February, 3,072 trials were underway in Russia and 503 were underway in Ukraine, according to BioWorld, a reporting hub focused on drug development that features data from Cortellis.

AstraZeneca is the top sponsor of clinical trials in Russia, with 49 trials, followed by a subsidiary of Merck, with 48 trials.

So far, drugmakers’ response to the Ukraine invasion has largely centered on public pledges to donate essential medicines and vaccines to Ukrainian patients and refugees. They’ve also made general comments about the need to keep open the supply of medicines flowing within Russia.

Abbott has pledged $2 million to support humanitarian efforts in Ukraine, and Pfizer, based in New York, said it has supplied $1 million in humanitarian grants. Swiss drug maker Novartis said it was expanding humanitarian efforts in Ukraine and working to “ensure the continued supply of our medicines in Ukraine.”

But no major pharmaceutical or medical device maker has announced plans to shutter manufacturing plants or halt sales inside Russia.

In an open letter, hundreds of leaders of mainly smaller biotechnology companies have called on industry members to cease business activities in Russia, including “investment in Russian companies and new investment within the borders of Russia,” and to halt trade and collaboration with Russian companies, except for supplying food and medicines. How many of the signatories have business operations in Russia was unclear.

Ulrich Neumann, director for market access at Janssen, a Johnson & Johnson company, was among those who signed the letter, but whether he was speaking for the company was unclear. In its own statement posted on social media, the company said it’s “committed to providing access to our essential medical products in the countries where we operate, in compliance with current international sanctions.”

GlaxoSmithKline, headquartered in the United Kingdom, said in a statement that it’s stopping all advertising in Russia and will not enter into contracts that “directly support the Russian administration or military.” But the company said that as a “supplier of needed medicines, vaccines and everyday health products, we have a responsibility to do all we can to make them available. For this reason, we will continue to supply our products to the people of Russia, while we can.”

Nell Minow, vice chair of ValueEdge Advisors, an investment consulting firm, noted that drug companies have been treated differently than other industries during previous global conflicts. For example, some corporate ethicists advised against pharmaceutical companies’ total divestment from South Africa’s apartheid regime to ensure essential medicines flowed to the country.

“There is a difference between a hamburger and a pill,” Mr. Minow said. Companies should strongly condemn Russia’s actions, she said, but unless the United States enters directly into a war with Russia, companies that make essential medicines and health care products should continue to operate. Before U.S. involvement in World War II, she added, there were “some American companies that did business with Germany until the last minute.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. KHN senior correspondent Arthur Allen contributed to this article.

Even as the war in Ukraine has prompted an exodus of international companies — from fast-food chains and oil producers to luxury retailers — from Russia, U.S. and global drug companies said they would continue manufacturing and selling their products there.

Airlines, automakers, banks, and technology giants — at least 320 companies by one count — are among the businesses curtailing operations or making high-profile exits from Russia as its invasion of Ukraine intensifies. McDonald’s, Starbucks, and Coca-Cola announced a pause in sales recently.

But drugmakers, medical device manufacturers, and health care companies, which are exempted from U.S. and European sanctions, said Russians need access to medicines and medical equipment and contend that international humanitarian law requires they keep supply chains open.

“As a health care company, we have an important purpose, which is why at this time we continue to serve people in all countries in which we operate who depend on us for essential products, some life-sustaining,” said Scott Stoffel, divisional vice president for Illinois-based Abbott Laboratories, which manufactures and sells medicines in Russia for oncology, women’s health, pancreatic insufficiency, and liver health.

Johnson & Johnson — which has corporate offices in Moscow, Novosibirsk, St. Petersburg, and Yekaterinburg — said in a statement, “We remain committed to providing essential health products to those in need in Ukraine, Russia, and the region, in compliance with current sanctions and while adapting to the rapidly changing situation on the ground.”

The reluctance of drugmakers to pause operations in Russia is being met with a growing chorus of criticism.

Pharmaceutical companies that say they must continue to manufacture drugs in Russia for humanitarian reasons are “being misguided at best, cynical in the medium case, and outright deplorably misleading and deceptive,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, DBA, a professor at the Yale School of Management who is tracking which companies have curtailed operations in Russia. He noted that banks and technology companies also provide essential services.

“Russians are put in a tragic position of unearned suffering. If we continue to make life palatable for them, then we are continuing to support the regime,” Dr. Sonnenfeld said. “These drug companies will be seen as complicit with the most vicious operation on the planet. Instead of protecting life, they are going to be seen as destroying life. The goal here is to show that Putin is not in control of all sectors of the economy.”

U.S. pharmaceutical and medical companies have operated in Russia for decades, and many ramped up operations after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, navigating the fraught relationship between the United States and Russia amid sanctions. In 2010, Vladimir Putin, then Russian prime minister, announced an ambitious national plan for the Russian pharmaceutical industry that would be a pillar in his efforts to reestablish his country as an influential superpower and wean the country off Western pharmaceutical imports. Under the plan, called “Pharma-2020” and “Pharma-2030,” the government required Western pharmaceutical companies eager to sell to Russia’s growing middle class to locate production inside the country.

Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Abbott are among the drugmakers that manufacture pharmaceutical drugs at facilities in St. Petersburg and elsewhere in the country and typically sell those drugs as branded generics or under Russian brands.

Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, said on CBS that the giant drugmaker is not going to make further investments in Russia, but that it will not cut ties with Russia, as multinational companies in other industries are doing.

Pharmaceutical manufacturing plants in Kaluga, a major manufacturing center for Volkswagen and Volvo southwest of Moscow, have been funded through a partnership between Rusnano, a state-owned venture that promotes the development of high-tech enterprises, and U.S. venture capital firms.

Russia also has sought to position itself as an attractive research market, offering an inexpensive and lax regulatory environment for clinical drug trials. Last year, Pfizer conducted in Russia clinical trials of Paxlovid, its experimental antiviral pill to treat covid-19. Before the invasion began in late February, 3,072 trials were underway in Russia and 503 were underway in Ukraine, according to BioWorld, a reporting hub focused on drug development that features data from Cortellis.

AstraZeneca is the top sponsor of clinical trials in Russia, with 49 trials, followed by a subsidiary of Merck, with 48 trials.

So far, drugmakers’ response to the Ukraine invasion has largely centered on public pledges to donate essential medicines and vaccines to Ukrainian patients and refugees. They’ve also made general comments about the need to keep open the supply of medicines flowing within Russia.

Abbott has pledged $2 million to support humanitarian efforts in Ukraine, and Pfizer, based in New York, said it has supplied $1 million in humanitarian grants. Swiss drug maker Novartis said it was expanding humanitarian efforts in Ukraine and working to “ensure the continued supply of our medicines in Ukraine.”

But no major pharmaceutical or medical device maker has announced plans to shutter manufacturing plants or halt sales inside Russia.

In an open letter, hundreds of leaders of mainly smaller biotechnology companies have called on industry members to cease business activities in Russia, including “investment in Russian companies and new investment within the borders of Russia,” and to halt trade and collaboration with Russian companies, except for supplying food and medicines. How many of the signatories have business operations in Russia was unclear.

Ulrich Neumann, director for market access at Janssen, a Johnson & Johnson company, was among those who signed the letter, but whether he was speaking for the company was unclear. In its own statement posted on social media, the company said it’s “committed to providing access to our essential medical products in the countries where we operate, in compliance with current international sanctions.”

GlaxoSmithKline, headquartered in the United Kingdom, said in a statement that it’s stopping all advertising in Russia and will not enter into contracts that “directly support the Russian administration or military.” But the company said that as a “supplier of needed medicines, vaccines and everyday health products, we have a responsibility to do all we can to make them available. For this reason, we will continue to supply our products to the people of Russia, while we can.”

Nell Minow, vice chair of ValueEdge Advisors, an investment consulting firm, noted that drug companies have been treated differently than other industries during previous global conflicts. For example, some corporate ethicists advised against pharmaceutical companies’ total divestment from South Africa’s apartheid regime to ensure essential medicines flowed to the country.

“There is a difference between a hamburger and a pill,” Mr. Minow said. Companies should strongly condemn Russia’s actions, she said, but unless the United States enters directly into a war with Russia, companies that make essential medicines and health care products should continue to operate. Before U.S. involvement in World War II, she added, there were “some American companies that did business with Germany until the last minute.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. KHN senior correspondent Arthur Allen contributed to this article.

Even as the war in Ukraine has prompted an exodus of international companies — from fast-food chains and oil producers to luxury retailers — from Russia, U.S. and global drug companies said they would continue manufacturing and selling their products there.

Airlines, automakers, banks, and technology giants — at least 320 companies by one count — are among the businesses curtailing operations or making high-profile exits from Russia as its invasion of Ukraine intensifies. McDonald’s, Starbucks, and Coca-Cola announced a pause in sales recently.

But drugmakers, medical device manufacturers, and health care companies, which are exempted from U.S. and European sanctions, said Russians need access to medicines and medical equipment and contend that international humanitarian law requires they keep supply chains open.

“As a health care company, we have an important purpose, which is why at this time we continue to serve people in all countries in which we operate who depend on us for essential products, some life-sustaining,” said Scott Stoffel, divisional vice president for Illinois-based Abbott Laboratories, which manufactures and sells medicines in Russia for oncology, women’s health, pancreatic insufficiency, and liver health.

Johnson & Johnson — which has corporate offices in Moscow, Novosibirsk, St. Petersburg, and Yekaterinburg — said in a statement, “We remain committed to providing essential health products to those in need in Ukraine, Russia, and the region, in compliance with current sanctions and while adapting to the rapidly changing situation on the ground.”

The reluctance of drugmakers to pause operations in Russia is being met with a growing chorus of criticism.

Pharmaceutical companies that say they must continue to manufacture drugs in Russia for humanitarian reasons are “being misguided at best, cynical in the medium case, and outright deplorably misleading and deceptive,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, DBA, a professor at the Yale School of Management who is tracking which companies have curtailed operations in Russia. He noted that banks and technology companies also provide essential services.

“Russians are put in a tragic position of unearned suffering. If we continue to make life palatable for them, then we are continuing to support the regime,” Dr. Sonnenfeld said. “These drug companies will be seen as complicit with the most vicious operation on the planet. Instead of protecting life, they are going to be seen as destroying life. The goal here is to show that Putin is not in control of all sectors of the economy.”

U.S. pharmaceutical and medical companies have operated in Russia for decades, and many ramped up operations after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, navigating the fraught relationship between the United States and Russia amid sanctions. In 2010, Vladimir Putin, then Russian prime minister, announced an ambitious national plan for the Russian pharmaceutical industry that would be a pillar in his efforts to reestablish his country as an influential superpower and wean the country off Western pharmaceutical imports. Under the plan, called “Pharma-2020” and “Pharma-2030,” the government required Western pharmaceutical companies eager to sell to Russia’s growing middle class to locate production inside the country.

Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Abbott are among the drugmakers that manufacture pharmaceutical drugs at facilities in St. Petersburg and elsewhere in the country and typically sell those drugs as branded generics or under Russian brands.

Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, said on CBS that the giant drugmaker is not going to make further investments in Russia, but that it will not cut ties with Russia, as multinational companies in other industries are doing.

Pharmaceutical manufacturing plants in Kaluga, a major manufacturing center for Volkswagen and Volvo southwest of Moscow, have been funded through a partnership between Rusnano, a state-owned venture that promotes the development of high-tech enterprises, and U.S. venture capital firms.

Russia also has sought to position itself as an attractive research market, offering an inexpensive and lax regulatory environment for clinical drug trials. Last year, Pfizer conducted in Russia clinical trials of Paxlovid, its experimental antiviral pill to treat covid-19. Before the invasion began in late February, 3,072 trials were underway in Russia and 503 were underway in Ukraine, according to BioWorld, a reporting hub focused on drug development that features data from Cortellis.

AstraZeneca is the top sponsor of clinical trials in Russia, with 49 trials, followed by a subsidiary of Merck, with 48 trials.

So far, drugmakers’ response to the Ukraine invasion has largely centered on public pledges to donate essential medicines and vaccines to Ukrainian patients and refugees. They’ve also made general comments about the need to keep open the supply of medicines flowing within Russia.

Abbott has pledged $2 million to support humanitarian efforts in Ukraine, and Pfizer, based in New York, said it has supplied $1 million in humanitarian grants. Swiss drug maker Novartis said it was expanding humanitarian efforts in Ukraine and working to “ensure the continued supply of our medicines in Ukraine.”

But no major pharmaceutical or medical device maker has announced plans to shutter manufacturing plants or halt sales inside Russia.

In an open letter, hundreds of leaders of mainly smaller biotechnology companies have called on industry members to cease business activities in Russia, including “investment in Russian companies and new investment within the borders of Russia,” and to halt trade and collaboration with Russian companies, except for supplying food and medicines. How many of the signatories have business operations in Russia was unclear.

Ulrich Neumann, director for market access at Janssen, a Johnson & Johnson company, was among those who signed the letter, but whether he was speaking for the company was unclear. In its own statement posted on social media, the company said it’s “committed to providing access to our essential medical products in the countries where we operate, in compliance with current international sanctions.”

GlaxoSmithKline, headquartered in the United Kingdom, said in a statement that it’s stopping all advertising in Russia and will not enter into contracts that “directly support the Russian administration or military.” But the company said that as a “supplier of needed medicines, vaccines and everyday health products, we have a responsibility to do all we can to make them available. For this reason, we will continue to supply our products to the people of Russia, while we can.”

Nell Minow, vice chair of ValueEdge Advisors, an investment consulting firm, noted that drug companies have been treated differently than other industries during previous global conflicts. For example, some corporate ethicists advised against pharmaceutical companies’ total divestment from South Africa’s apartheid regime to ensure essential medicines flowed to the country.

“There is a difference between a hamburger and a pill,” Mr. Minow said. Companies should strongly condemn Russia’s actions, she said, but unless the United States enters directly into a war with Russia, companies that make essential medicines and health care products should continue to operate. Before U.S. involvement in World War II, she added, there were “some American companies that did business with Germany until the last minute.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. KHN senior correspondent Arthur Allen contributed to this article.

People taking immunosuppressive drugs benefit significantly from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved in the United States to prevent and reduce the severity of COVID-19, according to the first study to quantify the vaccines’ real-world effectiveness in this population.

Researchers’ analysis of the electronic medical records of more than 150,000 people in the University of Michigan’s health care system showed that even after becoming fully vaccinated, immunosuppressed individuals remain at higher risk for COVID-19 than are vaccinated people in the wider population who aren’t receiving immunosuppressive therapy. However, they still derive benefit from vaccination, particularly when bolstered with a booster dose.

BrianAJackson/Thinkstock

The study, published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, also claims to be the first to show that the Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine is as effective as the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine for people taking immunosuppressants.

“Booster doses are effective and important for individuals on immunosuppressants,” corresponding author Lili Zhao, PhD, a research associate professor in biostatistics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “Previous studies focused mostly on the Pfizer vaccine, whereas our study is the first that also investigates the Moderna vaccine in a large, immunosuppressed population.”

The epidemiologic study included 154,519 fully vaccinated and unvaccinated adults in the Michigan Medicine electronic health record database. Participants were considered fully vaccinated if they were within 2 weeks of having received a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines or the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S) vaccine. The study population included 5,536 immunosuppressed patients; of those, 4,283 were fully vaccinated, and 1,253 were unvaccinated.

The researchers focused on data collected from Jan. 1 to Dec. 7, 2021, so the study doesn’t cover the Omicron variant. “The conclusions for immunosuppressed individuals are likely to remain the same during the Omicron period,” Dr. Zhao said. “We are currently investigating this.” Johnson & Johnson paused production of its vaccine in February.

The researchers found that, among unvaccinated individuals, the immunosuppressed group had about a 40% higher risk of infection than did the immunocompetent patients (hazard ratio, 1.398; 95% confidence interval, 1.068-1.829; P = .0075) but a similar risk of COVID-19 hospitalization (HR, 0.951; 95% CI, 0.435-2.080; P = .9984). For the fully vaccinated, the gap was significantly wider: Immunosuppressed patients had more than double the risk of infection (HR, 2.173; 95% CI, 1.690-2.794; P < .0001) and almost five times the risk of hospitalization (HR, 4.861; 95% CI, 2.238-10.56; P < .0001), compared with immunocompetent patients.

However, among immunosuppressed individuals, the vaccinations significantly lowered risks, compared with not being vaccinated. There was a statistically significant 45% lower risk of infection (HR, 0.550; 95% CI, 0.387-0.781; P = .001) and similarly lower risk of hospitalization that did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.534; 95% CI, 0.196-1.452; P = .3724).

When those immunosuppressed patients received a booster dose, their protection against COVID-19 improved, compared with their immunosuppressed counterparts who didn’t get a booster, with a 58% lower risk of infection after adjustment for age, gender, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.76; P = .0037). The study included nearly 4 months of data after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended a booster dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines for immunocompromised individuals in August 2021. Among the immunosuppressed patients, 38.5% had received a booster dose.

There also was no apparent difference in the effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, with adjusted hazard ratios showing 41%-48% lower risk of infection. Too few individuals in the study were vaccinated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to enable a sufficiently powered calculation of its effectiveness.

Other studies reach similar conclusions

The study findings fall into line with other studies of patient populations on immunosuppressants. A retrospective cohort study of Veterans Affairs patients with inflammatory bowel disease who were taking immunosuppressants, published in Gastroenterology, found that full vaccination with either Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines was about 80% effective. Another retrospective cohort study of data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, reported that full vaccination significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection regardless of immune status. Immunosuppressed patients in this study had higher rates of breakthrough infections than immunocompetent patients, but the disparities were in line with what Dr. Zhao and the University of Michigan researchers reported.

A review of 23 studies of COVID-19 vaccinations, published in Lancet Global Health, found that immunocompromised people – 1,722 of whom were included in the studies – had lower rates of producing antibodies after two vaccine doses than did immunocompetent people, ranging from 27% to 92%, depending on the nature of their immunocompromised status, compared with 99% for the immunocompetent.
 

Strengths and limitations

One strength of the Michigan study is the quality of data, which were drawn from the Michigan Medicine electronic health record, Dr. Zhao said. “So, we know who received the vaccine and who didn’t. We also have access to data on patient health conditions, such as comorbidities, in addition to demographic variables (age, gender, and race), which were controlled in making fair comparisons between immunosuppressants and immunocompetent groups.”

Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Washington University in St. Louis, who was not involved with the study, credited Dr. Zhao and associates for delivering the first data that specifically quantified COVID-19 risk reduction in a large study population. Although he noted that the large sample size and the design reduced the chances of confounding and were strengths, he said in an interview that “lumping” the patients taking immunosuppressive drugs into one group was a weakness of the study.

“Clearly, there are certain medications (B-cell depleters, mycophenolate, for example) that carry the greatest risk of poor antibody responses post vaccination,” he said. “One would have to guess that the greatest risk of breakthrough infections continues to be in those patients taking these high-risk medications.”

Another possible problem, which the authors acknowledged, is spotty SARS-CoV-2 testing of study participants – “a systemic issue,” Dr. Kim noted.

“The easiest and most durable way to reduce the risk of getting COVID-19 is through vaccination, period,” he said. “Now we have infection-rates data from a real-world study cohort to prove this. Furthermore, boosting clearly provides additional benefit to this population.”

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided funding for the study. Dr. Zhao, Dr. Zhao’s coauthors, and Kim disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People taking immunosuppressive drugs benefit significantly from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved in the United States to prevent and reduce the severity of COVID-19, according to the first study to quantify the vaccines’ real-world effectiveness in this population.

Researchers’ analysis of the electronic medical records of more than 150,000 people in the University of Michigan’s health care system showed that even after becoming fully vaccinated, immunosuppressed individuals remain at higher risk for COVID-19 than are vaccinated people in the wider population who aren’t receiving immunosuppressive therapy. However, they still derive benefit from vaccination, particularly when bolstered with a booster dose.

BrianAJackson/Thinkstock

The study, published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, also claims to be the first to show that the Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine is as effective as the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine for people taking immunosuppressants.

“Booster doses are effective and important for individuals on immunosuppressants,” corresponding author Lili Zhao, PhD, a research associate professor in biostatistics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “Previous studies focused mostly on the Pfizer vaccine, whereas our study is the first that also investigates the Moderna vaccine in a large, immunosuppressed population.”

The epidemiologic study included 154,519 fully vaccinated and unvaccinated adults in the Michigan Medicine electronic health record database. Participants were considered fully vaccinated if they were within 2 weeks of having received a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines or the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S) vaccine. The study population included 5,536 immunosuppressed patients; of those, 4,283 were fully vaccinated, and 1,253 were unvaccinated.

The researchers focused on data collected from Jan. 1 to Dec. 7, 2021, so the study doesn’t cover the Omicron variant. “The conclusions for immunosuppressed individuals are likely to remain the same during the Omicron period,” Dr. Zhao said. “We are currently investigating this.” Johnson & Johnson paused production of its vaccine in February.

The researchers found that, among unvaccinated individuals, the immunosuppressed group had about a 40% higher risk of infection than did the immunocompetent patients (hazard ratio, 1.398; 95% confidence interval, 1.068-1.829; P = .0075) but a similar risk of COVID-19 hospitalization (HR, 0.951; 95% CI, 0.435-2.080; P = .9984). For the fully vaccinated, the gap was significantly wider: Immunosuppressed patients had more than double the risk of infection (HR, 2.173; 95% CI, 1.690-2.794; P < .0001) and almost five times the risk of hospitalization (HR, 4.861; 95% CI, 2.238-10.56; P < .0001), compared with immunocompetent patients.

However, among immunosuppressed individuals, the vaccinations significantly lowered risks, compared with not being vaccinated. There was a statistically significant 45% lower risk of infection (HR, 0.550; 95% CI, 0.387-0.781; P = .001) and similarly lower risk of hospitalization that did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.534; 95% CI, 0.196-1.452; P = .3724).

When those immunosuppressed patients received a booster dose, their protection against COVID-19 improved, compared with their immunosuppressed counterparts who didn’t get a booster, with a 58% lower risk of infection after adjustment for age, gender, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.76; P = .0037). The study included nearly 4 months of data after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended a booster dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines for immunocompromised individuals in August 2021. Among the immunosuppressed patients, 38.5% had received a booster dose.

There also was no apparent difference in the effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, with adjusted hazard ratios showing 41%-48% lower risk of infection. Too few individuals in the study were vaccinated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to enable a sufficiently powered calculation of its effectiveness.

Other studies reach similar conclusions

The study findings fall into line with other studies of patient populations on immunosuppressants. A retrospective cohort study of Veterans Affairs patients with inflammatory bowel disease who were taking immunosuppressants, published in Gastroenterology, found that full vaccination with either Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines was about 80% effective. Another retrospective cohort study of data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, reported that full vaccination significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection regardless of immune status. Immunosuppressed patients in this study had higher rates of breakthrough infections than immunocompetent patients, but the disparities were in line with what Dr. Zhao and the University of Michigan researchers reported.

A review of 23 studies of COVID-19 vaccinations, published in Lancet Global Health, found that immunocompromised people – 1,722 of whom were included in the studies – had lower rates of producing antibodies after two vaccine doses than did immunocompetent people, ranging from 27% to 92%, depending on the nature of their immunocompromised status, compared with 99% for the immunocompetent.
 

Strengths and limitations

One strength of the Michigan study is the quality of data, which were drawn from the Michigan Medicine electronic health record, Dr. Zhao said. “So, we know who received the vaccine and who didn’t. We also have access to data on patient health conditions, such as comorbidities, in addition to demographic variables (age, gender, and race), which were controlled in making fair comparisons between immunosuppressants and immunocompetent groups.”

Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Washington University in St. Louis, who was not involved with the study, credited Dr. Zhao and associates for delivering the first data that specifically quantified COVID-19 risk reduction in a large study population. Although he noted that the large sample size and the design reduced the chances of confounding and were strengths, he said in an interview that “lumping” the patients taking immunosuppressive drugs into one group was a weakness of the study.

“Clearly, there are certain medications (B-cell depleters, mycophenolate, for example) that carry the greatest risk of poor antibody responses post vaccination,” he said. “One would have to guess that the greatest risk of breakthrough infections continues to be in those patients taking these high-risk medications.”

Another possible problem, which the authors acknowledged, is spotty SARS-CoV-2 testing of study participants – “a systemic issue,” Dr. Kim noted.

“The easiest and most durable way to reduce the risk of getting COVID-19 is through vaccination, period,” he said. “Now we have infection-rates data from a real-world study cohort to prove this. Furthermore, boosting clearly provides additional benefit to this population.”

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided funding for the study. Dr. Zhao, Dr. Zhao’s coauthors, and Kim disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People taking immunosuppressive drugs benefit significantly from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved in the United States to prevent and reduce the severity of COVID-19, according to the first study to quantify the vaccines’ real-world effectiveness in this population.

Researchers’ analysis of the electronic medical records of more than 150,000 people in the University of Michigan’s health care system showed that even after becoming fully vaccinated, immunosuppressed individuals remain at higher risk for COVID-19 than are vaccinated people in the wider population who aren’t receiving immunosuppressive therapy. However, they still derive benefit from vaccination, particularly when bolstered with a booster dose.

BrianAJackson/Thinkstock

The study, published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, also claims to be the first to show that the Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine is as effective as the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine for people taking immunosuppressants.

“Booster doses are effective and important for individuals on immunosuppressants,” corresponding author Lili Zhao, PhD, a research associate professor in biostatistics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “Previous studies focused mostly on the Pfizer vaccine, whereas our study is the first that also investigates the Moderna vaccine in a large, immunosuppressed population.”

The epidemiologic study included 154,519 fully vaccinated and unvaccinated adults in the Michigan Medicine electronic health record database. Participants were considered fully vaccinated if they were within 2 weeks of having received a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines or the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S) vaccine. The study population included 5,536 immunosuppressed patients; of those, 4,283 were fully vaccinated, and 1,253 were unvaccinated.

The researchers focused on data collected from Jan. 1 to Dec. 7, 2021, so the study doesn’t cover the Omicron variant. “The conclusions for immunosuppressed individuals are likely to remain the same during the Omicron period,” Dr. Zhao said. “We are currently investigating this.” Johnson & Johnson paused production of its vaccine in February.

The researchers found that, among unvaccinated individuals, the immunosuppressed group had about a 40% higher risk of infection than did the immunocompetent patients (hazard ratio, 1.398; 95% confidence interval, 1.068-1.829; P = .0075) but a similar risk of COVID-19 hospitalization (HR, 0.951; 95% CI, 0.435-2.080; P = .9984). For the fully vaccinated, the gap was significantly wider: Immunosuppressed patients had more than double the risk of infection (HR, 2.173; 95% CI, 1.690-2.794; P < .0001) and almost five times the risk of hospitalization (HR, 4.861; 95% CI, 2.238-10.56; P < .0001), compared with immunocompetent patients.

However, among immunosuppressed individuals, the vaccinations significantly lowered risks, compared with not being vaccinated. There was a statistically significant 45% lower risk of infection (HR, 0.550; 95% CI, 0.387-0.781; P = .001) and similarly lower risk of hospitalization that did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.534; 95% CI, 0.196-1.452; P = .3724).

When those immunosuppressed patients received a booster dose, their protection against COVID-19 improved, compared with their immunosuppressed counterparts who didn’t get a booster, with a 58% lower risk of infection after adjustment for age, gender, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.76; P = .0037). The study included nearly 4 months of data after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended a booster dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines for immunocompromised individuals in August 2021. Among the immunosuppressed patients, 38.5% had received a booster dose.

There also was no apparent difference in the effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, with adjusted hazard ratios showing 41%-48% lower risk of infection. Too few individuals in the study were vaccinated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to enable a sufficiently powered calculation of its effectiveness.

Other studies reach similar conclusions

The study findings fall into line with other studies of patient populations on immunosuppressants. A retrospective cohort study of Veterans Affairs patients with inflammatory bowel disease who were taking immunosuppressants, published in Gastroenterology, found that full vaccination with either Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines was about 80% effective. Another retrospective cohort study of data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, reported that full vaccination significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection regardless of immune status. Immunosuppressed patients in this study had higher rates of breakthrough infections than immunocompetent patients, but the disparities were in line with what Dr. Zhao and the University of Michigan researchers reported.

A review of 23 studies of COVID-19 vaccinations, published in Lancet Global Health, found that immunocompromised people – 1,722 of whom were included in the studies – had lower rates of producing antibodies after two vaccine doses than did immunocompetent people, ranging from 27% to 92%, depending on the nature of their immunocompromised status, compared with 99% for the immunocompetent.
 

Strengths and limitations

One strength of the Michigan study is the quality of data, which were drawn from the Michigan Medicine electronic health record, Dr. Zhao said. “So, we know who received the vaccine and who didn’t. We also have access to data on patient health conditions, such as comorbidities, in addition to demographic variables (age, gender, and race), which were controlled in making fair comparisons between immunosuppressants and immunocompetent groups.”

Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Washington University in St. Louis, who was not involved with the study, credited Dr. Zhao and associates for delivering the first data that specifically quantified COVID-19 risk reduction in a large study population. Although he noted that the large sample size and the design reduced the chances of confounding and were strengths, he said in an interview that “lumping” the patients taking immunosuppressive drugs into one group was a weakness of the study.

“Clearly, there are certain medications (B-cell depleters, mycophenolate, for example) that carry the greatest risk of poor antibody responses post vaccination,” he said. “One would have to guess that the greatest risk of breakthrough infections continues to be in those patients taking these high-risk medications.”

Another possible problem, which the authors acknowledged, is spotty SARS-CoV-2 testing of study participants – “a systemic issue,” Dr. Kim noted.

“The easiest and most durable way to reduce the risk of getting COVID-19 is through vaccination, period,” he said. “Now we have infection-rates data from a real-world study cohort to prove this. Furthermore, boosting clearly provides additional benefit to this population.”

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided funding for the study. Dr. Zhao, Dr. Zhao’s coauthors, and Kim disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Drink a day could age your brain

There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.

According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.

Courtesy Debora Cartagena, USCDCP

Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!

The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.

Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?

Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
 

A big dose of meta-cine

The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.

Piqsels

That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.

Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.

Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
 

Please don’t eat the winner

Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.

Frank_P_AJJ74/Pixabay

Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?

Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?

Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.

Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?

In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”

Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!

Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
 

Turning back the egg timer

The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.

If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.

The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.

“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”

We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!

Drink a day could age your brain

There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.

According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.

Courtesy Debora Cartagena, USCDCP

Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!

The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.

Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?

Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
 

A big dose of meta-cine

The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.

Piqsels

That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.

Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.

Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
 

Please don’t eat the winner

Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.

Frank_P_AJJ74/Pixabay

Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?

Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?

Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.

Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?

In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”

Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!

Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
 

Turning back the egg timer

The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.

If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.

The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.

“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”

We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!

Drink a day could age your brain

There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.

According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.

Courtesy Debora Cartagena, USCDCP

Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!

The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.

Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?

Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
 

A big dose of meta-cine

The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.

Piqsels

That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.

Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.

Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
 

Please don’t eat the winner

Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.

Frank_P_AJJ74/Pixabay

Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?

Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?

Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.

Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?

In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”

Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!

Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
 

Turning back the egg timer

The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.

If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.

The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.

“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”

We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!

A new study has found that methotrexate plus leflunomide outperforms methotrexate alone as a treatment option for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

“We believe that prescribing this combination in routine practice is viable when combined with shared decision-making and strict monitoring of side effects,” write Michelle L.M. Mulder, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and her coauthors. Their findings were published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The latest treatment guidelines from the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommend conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for patients with active PsA, but Dr. Mulder and her colleagues note a distinct lack of information on their effectiveness, especially this particular combination.

To assess the efficacy and safety of methotrexate plus leflunomide, they launched a single-center, double-blind, randomized trial that included 78 Dutch patients with PsA. The majority of the participants in this trial – dubbed COMPLETE-PsA – were men (64%), and the median age of the patients was 55 years. All had active disease at baseline; the median swollen joint count (SJC) and tender joint count were 4.0 in both groups.

Participants were assigned to receive either methotrexate plus leflunomide (n = 39) or methotrexate plus placebo (n = 39). After 16 weeks, mean Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) had improved for patients in the combination therapy group in comparison with the monotherapy group (3.1; standard deviation, 1.4 vs. 3.7; SD, 1.3; treatment difference, –0.6; 90% confidence interval, –1.0 to –0.1; P = .025). The combination therapy group also achieved PASDAS low disease activity at a higher rate (59%) than did the monotherapy group (34%; P = .019).

Other notable differences after 16 weeks included improvements in SJC for 66 joints (–3.0 in the combination therapy group vs. –2.0 in the monotherapy group) and significantly better skin and nail measures – such as active psoriasis and change in body surface area – in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group.

When asked who should be prescribed the combination therapy and who should be prescribed methotrexate going forward, Dr. Mulder told this news organization, “At the moment, we have insufficient knowledge on who will benefit most or who will develop clinically relevant side effects. It seems warranted to discuss with every patient which approach they would prefer. This could be a step-down or -up approach.

“We hope to be able to better predict treatment response and side effects in the future via post hoc analysis of our study and via extensive flow-cytometric phenotyping of immune blood cells taken at baseline,” she added.

Three patients in the combination therapy group experienced serious adverse events, two of which were deemed unrelated to leflunomide. The most frequently occurring adverse events were nausea or vomiting, tiredness, and elevated alanine aminotransferase. Mild adverse events were more common in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group. No participants died, and all patients with adverse events recovered completely.

“It appears good practice to do blood draws for laboratory tests on liver enzymes at least monthly for the first 4 months and every 4 months after that once stable dosing is achieved, as well as have a telephone consultation after 6-8 weeks to talk about possible side effects a patient might experience and change or add therapy if necessary,” Dr. Mulder added.

Study turns perception of combination therapy into reality

It had already been perceived by rheumatologists that methotrexate plus leflunomide was an effective combo for PsA, and this study reinforces those beliefs, Clementina López-Medina, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the University of Cordoba (Spain), write in an accompanying editorial.

They highlight this study’s notable strengths, one of which was defining “active disease” as two or more swollen joints, which opened the study up to a larger patient population. The editorialists also underline the confirmation that leflunomide plus methotrexate reduces both joint symptoms and skin involvement in this subset of patients, which had also been found in a previous study.

“Leflunomide is usually considered as a second-line option after methotrexate is unsuccessful,” they note, “despite the fact that methotrexate did not show superiority over placebo in previous trials.”

The editorialists were not surprised that the combination therapy was more toxic than the monotherapy. Rheumatologists could use these data to individualize treatment accordingly, they write, while keeping an eye on “gastrointestinal disturbances.”

Overall, Dr. López-Medina and colleagues say that the study results should “be considered not only in daily clinical practice but also in the development of future recommendations.”

Leflunomide: Forgotten no longer, at least for PsA

“I think we probably underutilize leflunomide,” Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy at the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization. “Sometimes medicines get ‘old,’ for lack of a better term, and fall a little bit of out of favor, sometimes unnecessarily. Leflunomide falls into that category. Because it’s older, it doesn’t get as much buzz as what’s new and shiny.

“I was not surprised by the results on the joints,” he said, “because we know from previous studies that leflunomide works in that regard. What did surprise me is that the skin got better, especially with the combination.”

Regarding the side effects for the combination therapy, he commended the authors for limiting potential uncertainty by using such a high dose of methotrexate.

“By going with a dose of 25 mg [per week], no one can say, ‘They pulled their punches and methotrexate monotherapy would’ve been just as good if it was given at a higher dose,’ “ he said. “And they also used leflunomide at a high dose. It makes you wonder: Could you use lower doses, and do lower doses mean fewer lab test abnormalities? This positive study does lend itself to some other permutations in terms of study design.

“Even though this was a small study,” he added, “it brings us right back to: We should really consider leflunomide in the treatment of PsA.”

The authors acknowledge their study’s limitations, including the fact that it was conducted in a single country and the absence of a nontreatment placebo group. They also note the higher percentage of women in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group, “which might have lowered the treatment response and increased the adverse event rate, resulting in bias.”

The study was funded by a Regional Junior Researcher Grant from Sint Maartenskliniek. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving payment, research grants, and consulting and speaker fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

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

A new study has found that methotrexate plus leflunomide outperforms methotrexate alone as a treatment option for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

“We believe that prescribing this combination in routine practice is viable when combined with shared decision-making and strict monitoring of side effects,” write Michelle L.M. Mulder, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and her coauthors. Their findings were published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The latest treatment guidelines from the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommend conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for patients with active PsA, but Dr. Mulder and her colleagues note a distinct lack of information on their effectiveness, especially this particular combination.

To assess the efficacy and safety of methotrexate plus leflunomide, they launched a single-center, double-blind, randomized trial that included 78 Dutch patients with PsA. The majority of the participants in this trial – dubbed COMPLETE-PsA – were men (64%), and the median age of the patients was 55 years. All had active disease at baseline; the median swollen joint count (SJC) and tender joint count were 4.0 in both groups.

Participants were assigned to receive either methotrexate plus leflunomide (n = 39) or methotrexate plus placebo (n = 39). After 16 weeks, mean Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) had improved for patients in the combination therapy group in comparison with the monotherapy group (3.1; standard deviation, 1.4 vs. 3.7; SD, 1.3; treatment difference, –0.6; 90% confidence interval, –1.0 to –0.1; P = .025). The combination therapy group also achieved PASDAS low disease activity at a higher rate (59%) than did the monotherapy group (34%; P = .019).

Other notable differences after 16 weeks included improvements in SJC for 66 joints (–3.0 in the combination therapy group vs. –2.0 in the monotherapy group) and significantly better skin and nail measures – such as active psoriasis and change in body surface area – in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group.

When asked who should be prescribed the combination therapy and who should be prescribed methotrexate going forward, Dr. Mulder told this news organization, “At the moment, we have insufficient knowledge on who will benefit most or who will develop clinically relevant side effects. It seems warranted to discuss with every patient which approach they would prefer. This could be a step-down or -up approach.

“We hope to be able to better predict treatment response and side effects in the future via post hoc analysis of our study and via extensive flow-cytometric phenotyping of immune blood cells taken at baseline,” she added.

Three patients in the combination therapy group experienced serious adverse events, two of which were deemed unrelated to leflunomide. The most frequently occurring adverse events were nausea or vomiting, tiredness, and elevated alanine aminotransferase. Mild adverse events were more common in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group. No participants died, and all patients with adverse events recovered completely.

“It appears good practice to do blood draws for laboratory tests on liver enzymes at least monthly for the first 4 months and every 4 months after that once stable dosing is achieved, as well as have a telephone consultation after 6-8 weeks to talk about possible side effects a patient might experience and change or add therapy if necessary,” Dr. Mulder added.

Study turns perception of combination therapy into reality

It had already been perceived by rheumatologists that methotrexate plus leflunomide was an effective combo for PsA, and this study reinforces those beliefs, Clementina López-Medina, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the University of Cordoba (Spain), write in an accompanying editorial.

They highlight this study’s notable strengths, one of which was defining “active disease” as two or more swollen joints, which opened the study up to a larger patient population. The editorialists also underline the confirmation that leflunomide plus methotrexate reduces both joint symptoms and skin involvement in this subset of patients, which had also been found in a previous study.

“Leflunomide is usually considered as a second-line option after methotrexate is unsuccessful,” they note, “despite the fact that methotrexate did not show superiority over placebo in previous trials.”

The editorialists were not surprised that the combination therapy was more toxic than the monotherapy. Rheumatologists could use these data to individualize treatment accordingly, they write, while keeping an eye on “gastrointestinal disturbances.”

Overall, Dr. López-Medina and colleagues say that the study results should “be considered not only in daily clinical practice but also in the development of future recommendations.”

Leflunomide: Forgotten no longer, at least for PsA

“I think we probably underutilize leflunomide,” Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy at the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization. “Sometimes medicines get ‘old,’ for lack of a better term, and fall a little bit of out of favor, sometimes unnecessarily. Leflunomide falls into that category. Because it’s older, it doesn’t get as much buzz as what’s new and shiny.

“I was not surprised by the results on the joints,” he said, “because we know from previous studies that leflunomide works in that regard. What did surprise me is that the skin got better, especially with the combination.”

Regarding the side effects for the combination therapy, he commended the authors for limiting potential uncertainty by using such a high dose of methotrexate.

“By going with a dose of 25 mg [per week], no one can say, ‘They pulled their punches and methotrexate monotherapy would’ve been just as good if it was given at a higher dose,’ “ he said. “And they also used leflunomide at a high dose. It makes you wonder: Could you use lower doses, and do lower doses mean fewer lab test abnormalities? This positive study does lend itself to some other permutations in terms of study design.

“Even though this was a small study,” he added, “it brings us right back to: We should really consider leflunomide in the treatment of PsA.”

The authors acknowledge their study’s limitations, including the fact that it was conducted in a single country and the absence of a nontreatment placebo group. They also note the higher percentage of women in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group, “which might have lowered the treatment response and increased the adverse event rate, resulting in bias.”

The study was funded by a Regional Junior Researcher Grant from Sint Maartenskliniek. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving payment, research grants, and consulting and speaker fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

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

A new study has found that methotrexate plus leflunomide outperforms methotrexate alone as a treatment option for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

“We believe that prescribing this combination in routine practice is viable when combined with shared decision-making and strict monitoring of side effects,” write Michelle L.M. Mulder, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and her coauthors. Their findings were published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The latest treatment guidelines from the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommend conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for patients with active PsA, but Dr. Mulder and her colleagues note a distinct lack of information on their effectiveness, especially this particular combination.

To assess the efficacy and safety of methotrexate plus leflunomide, they launched a single-center, double-blind, randomized trial that included 78 Dutch patients with PsA. The majority of the participants in this trial – dubbed COMPLETE-PsA – were men (64%), and the median age of the patients was 55 years. All had active disease at baseline; the median swollen joint count (SJC) and tender joint count were 4.0 in both groups.

Participants were assigned to receive either methotrexate plus leflunomide (n = 39) or methotrexate plus placebo (n = 39). After 16 weeks, mean Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) had improved for patients in the combination therapy group in comparison with the monotherapy group (3.1; standard deviation, 1.4 vs. 3.7; SD, 1.3; treatment difference, –0.6; 90% confidence interval, –1.0 to –0.1; P = .025). The combination therapy group also achieved PASDAS low disease activity at a higher rate (59%) than did the monotherapy group (34%; P = .019).

Other notable differences after 16 weeks included improvements in SJC for 66 joints (–3.0 in the combination therapy group vs. –2.0 in the monotherapy group) and significantly better skin and nail measures – such as active psoriasis and change in body surface area – in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group.

When asked who should be prescribed the combination therapy and who should be prescribed methotrexate going forward, Dr. Mulder told this news organization, “At the moment, we have insufficient knowledge on who will benefit most or who will develop clinically relevant side effects. It seems warranted to discuss with every patient which approach they would prefer. This could be a step-down or -up approach.

“We hope to be able to better predict treatment response and side effects in the future via post hoc analysis of our study and via extensive flow-cytometric phenotyping of immune blood cells taken at baseline,” she added.

Three patients in the combination therapy group experienced serious adverse events, two of which were deemed unrelated to leflunomide. The most frequently occurring adverse events were nausea or vomiting, tiredness, and elevated alanine aminotransferase. Mild adverse events were more common in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group. No participants died, and all patients with adverse events recovered completely.

“It appears good practice to do blood draws for laboratory tests on liver enzymes at least monthly for the first 4 months and every 4 months after that once stable dosing is achieved, as well as have a telephone consultation after 6-8 weeks to talk about possible side effects a patient might experience and change or add therapy if necessary,” Dr. Mulder added.

Study turns perception of combination therapy into reality

It had already been perceived by rheumatologists that methotrexate plus leflunomide was an effective combo for PsA, and this study reinforces those beliefs, Clementina López-Medina, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the University of Cordoba (Spain), write in an accompanying editorial.

They highlight this study’s notable strengths, one of which was defining “active disease” as two or more swollen joints, which opened the study up to a larger patient population. The editorialists also underline the confirmation that leflunomide plus methotrexate reduces both joint symptoms and skin involvement in this subset of patients, which had also been found in a previous study.

“Leflunomide is usually considered as a second-line option after methotrexate is unsuccessful,” they note, “despite the fact that methotrexate did not show superiority over placebo in previous trials.”

The editorialists were not surprised that the combination therapy was more toxic than the monotherapy. Rheumatologists could use these data to individualize treatment accordingly, they write, while keeping an eye on “gastrointestinal disturbances.”

Overall, Dr. López-Medina and colleagues say that the study results should “be considered not only in daily clinical practice but also in the development of future recommendations.”

Leflunomide: Forgotten no longer, at least for PsA

“I think we probably underutilize leflunomide,” Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy at the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization. “Sometimes medicines get ‘old,’ for lack of a better term, and fall a little bit of out of favor, sometimes unnecessarily. Leflunomide falls into that category. Because it’s older, it doesn’t get as much buzz as what’s new and shiny.

“I was not surprised by the results on the joints,” he said, “because we know from previous studies that leflunomide works in that regard. What did surprise me is that the skin got better, especially with the combination.”

Regarding the side effects for the combination therapy, he commended the authors for limiting potential uncertainty by using such a high dose of methotrexate.

“By going with a dose of 25 mg [per week], no one can say, ‘They pulled their punches and methotrexate monotherapy would’ve been just as good if it was given at a higher dose,’ “ he said. “And they also used leflunomide at a high dose. It makes you wonder: Could you use lower doses, and do lower doses mean fewer lab test abnormalities? This positive study does lend itself to some other permutations in terms of study design.

“Even though this was a small study,” he added, “it brings us right back to: We should really consider leflunomide in the treatment of PsA.”

The authors acknowledge their study’s limitations, including the fact that it was conducted in a single country and the absence of a nontreatment placebo group. They also note the higher percentage of women in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group, “which might have lowered the treatment response and increased the adverse event rate, resulting in bias.”

The study was funded by a Regional Junior Researcher Grant from Sint Maartenskliniek. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving payment, research grants, and consulting and speaker fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

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

In a bid to stop abuse and diversion of the anticonvulsant gabapentin, a watchdog group is petitioning federal regulators to make the drug a controlled substance.

The nonprofit group Public Citizen has filed a petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), arguing that the medication’s risks warrant additional safeguards.

Gabapentin is a generic drug, best known under the brand name Neurontin. The petition also covers the related drug gabapentin enacarbil (Horizant).

Public Citizen requested that gabapentin come under the DEA’s Schedule V category, which already includes the similar drug pregabalin (Lyrica). Schedule V is the lowest rung on the DEA’s drug schedule, meaning it has lower potential for abuse then Schedule I through IV drugs. This tier also includes cough preparations with less than 200 milligrams of codeine.

Classifying gabapentin as a Schedule V drug would facilitate better tracking of the drug’s use and misuse and put in place educational and limitation requirements to mitigate the risk of addiction, overdose, and death, Michael Abrams, MPH, PhD, senior health researcher with Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, and colleagues write in the petition.
 

‘Widespread misuse’

There is “substantial evidence of widespread misuse” of gabapentin, plausibly helped by “extraordinary levels of off-label prescribing,” Public Citizen said in the petition.

Some estimates have pegged off-label use at more than 90%, with gabapentin prescribed for indications such as chronic cough, hiccups, postoperative pain, and postmenopausal hot flashes, the group said.

“Moreover, there are numerous reports indicating that gabapentin is widely used and diverted on the street to induce ‘highs’ or otherwise self-medicate,” Public Citizen said. “Both gabapentin and pregabalin have been empirically linked to the opioid overdose epidemic as drugs that potentiate the activity of these oftentimes deadly analgesics.”

This news organization tried several times to reach Azurity for comment but did not receive a response. Pfizer included gabapentin in the portfolio of drugs used to create the Viatris spin-off, which took place in 2020. Pfizer referred this news organization to Viatris for comment, but it also did not respond.

It is unclear how the FDA and DEA will respond to the petition. Public Citizen has received a reply from the FDA, in which the agency acknowledged receipt of the petition. However, the “acceptance of the petition for filing is a procedural matter and in no way reflects the agency’s decision on the substantive merits of the petition,” the FDA said in a letter.

As is common practice, the agency assigned a docket number for the petition, FDA-2022-P-0149. The docket’s website allows interested parties to track the issue.
 

‘Unnoticed’ abuse

There have been rising concerns about risks and abuse of gabapentin in recent years. In its petition, Public Citizen noted that the United Kingdom and several U.S. states have already sought tighter control of gabapentin prescriptions.

In 2019, the United Kingdom announced it would reclassify both pregabalin and gabapentin as class C controlled substances because of the rising numbers of deaths linked to the drugs.

As of November 2020, seven states – Alabama, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia – had classified gabapentin as a schedule V drug, while another 12 states required prescription monitoring of the drug, Public Citizen noted.

In 2018, researchers at the University of Louisville, Kentucky, a state that has been hit particularly hard by the opioid crisis, tried to draw more attention to the risks of gabapentin.

“Amid the opioid epidemic, abuse of a different prescription painkiller has widely gone unnoticed,” the University said in a press release at the time.

The release highlighted a study led by Rachel Vickers Smith, PhD, assistant professor in the University of Louisville School of Nursing that was published in Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.

It included 33 individuals who reported recent recreational use of gabapentin. Use of the drug was combined with buprenorphine, other opioids, cocaine, and caffeine to produce effects such as muscle relaxation, pain reduction, sleep induction, feeling drunk, and feeling “high.”

In the press release, Dr. Vickers Smith said individuals who abuse gabapentin often mix it with opioids, marijuana, cocaine, and opioid treatment medication, compounding side effects to the central nervous system that include euphoria and sedation.

In addition, some individuals who primarily abused opioid pain medication have turned to gabapentin after law-enforcement actions made it more difficult to obtain prescription opioids, she noted.

“People are looking for other drugs to substitute for opioids, and gabapentin has filled that place for some,” Dr. Vickers Smith said. “Some have said it gives them a high similar to opioids.”
 

FDA 2019 warning

In 2019, the FDA issued a warning about serious breathing difficulties associated with gabapentin and pregabalin in patients with respiratory risk factors.

These factors include opioid use and other drugs that depress the central nervous system, as well as conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that reduce lung function. Older patients are also at higher risk, the FDA said.

The agency noted that gabapentinoids are often co-prescribed with opioids for for medical conditions and abused in combination with opioids. Data collected in 2016 from an office-based physician survey showed 14% of patient encounters involving gabapentin also involved opioids, the FDA said.

“Our evaluation shows that the use of these medicines, often referred to as gabapentinoids, has been growing for prescribed medical use, as well as misuse and abuse,” the agency said in its 2019 alert.

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

In a bid to stop abuse and diversion of the anticonvulsant gabapentin, a watchdog group is petitioning federal regulators to make the drug a controlled substance.

The nonprofit group Public Citizen has filed a petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), arguing that the medication’s risks warrant additional safeguards.

Gabapentin is a generic drug, best known under the brand name Neurontin. The petition also covers the related drug gabapentin enacarbil (Horizant).

Public Citizen requested that gabapentin come under the DEA’s Schedule V category, which already includes the similar drug pregabalin (Lyrica). Schedule V is the lowest rung on the DEA’s drug schedule, meaning it has lower potential for abuse then Schedule I through IV drugs. This tier also includes cough preparations with less than 200 milligrams of codeine.

Classifying gabapentin as a Schedule V drug would facilitate better tracking of the drug’s use and misuse and put in place educational and limitation requirements to mitigate the risk of addiction, overdose, and death, Michael Abrams, MPH, PhD, senior health researcher with Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, and colleagues write in the petition.
 

‘Widespread misuse’

There is “substantial evidence of widespread misuse” of gabapentin, plausibly helped by “extraordinary levels of off-label prescribing,” Public Citizen said in the petition.

Some estimates have pegged off-label use at more than 90%, with gabapentin prescribed for indications such as chronic cough, hiccups, postoperative pain, and postmenopausal hot flashes, the group said.

“Moreover, there are numerous reports indicating that gabapentin is widely used and diverted on the street to induce ‘highs’ or otherwise self-medicate,” Public Citizen said. “Both gabapentin and pregabalin have been empirically linked to the opioid overdose epidemic as drugs that potentiate the activity of these oftentimes deadly analgesics.”

This news organization tried several times to reach Azurity for comment but did not receive a response. Pfizer included gabapentin in the portfolio of drugs used to create the Viatris spin-off, which took place in 2020. Pfizer referred this news organization to Viatris for comment, but it also did not respond.

It is unclear how the FDA and DEA will respond to the petition. Public Citizen has received a reply from the FDA, in which the agency acknowledged receipt of the petition. However, the “acceptance of the petition for filing is a procedural matter and in no way reflects the agency’s decision on the substantive merits of the petition,” the FDA said in a letter.

As is common practice, the agency assigned a docket number for the petition, FDA-2022-P-0149. The docket’s website allows interested parties to track the issue.
 

‘Unnoticed’ abuse

There have been rising concerns about risks and abuse of gabapentin in recent years. In its petition, Public Citizen noted that the United Kingdom and several U.S. states have already sought tighter control of gabapentin prescriptions.

In 2019, the United Kingdom announced it would reclassify both pregabalin and gabapentin as class C controlled substances because of the rising numbers of deaths linked to the drugs.

As of November 2020, seven states – Alabama, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia – had classified gabapentin as a schedule V drug, while another 12 states required prescription monitoring of the drug, Public Citizen noted.

In 2018, researchers at the University of Louisville, Kentucky, a state that has been hit particularly hard by the opioid crisis, tried to draw more attention to the risks of gabapentin.

“Amid the opioid epidemic, abuse of a different prescription painkiller has widely gone unnoticed,” the University said in a press release at the time.

The release highlighted a study led by Rachel Vickers Smith, PhD, assistant professor in the University of Louisville School of Nursing that was published in Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.

It included 33 individuals who reported recent recreational use of gabapentin. Use of the drug was combined with buprenorphine, other opioids, cocaine, and caffeine to produce effects such as muscle relaxation, pain reduction, sleep induction, feeling drunk, and feeling “high.”

In the press release, Dr. Vickers Smith said individuals who abuse gabapentin often mix it with opioids, marijuana, cocaine, and opioid treatment medication, compounding side effects to the central nervous system that include euphoria and sedation.

In addition, some individuals who primarily abused opioid pain medication have turned to gabapentin after law-enforcement actions made it more difficult to obtain prescription opioids, she noted.

“People are looking for other drugs to substitute for opioids, and gabapentin has filled that place for some,” Dr. Vickers Smith said. “Some have said it gives them a high similar to opioids.”
 

FDA 2019 warning

In 2019, the FDA issued a warning about serious breathing difficulties associated with gabapentin and pregabalin in patients with respiratory risk factors.

These factors include opioid use and other drugs that depress the central nervous system, as well as conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that reduce lung function. Older patients are also at higher risk, the FDA said.

The agency noted that gabapentinoids are often co-prescribed with opioids for for medical conditions and abused in combination with opioids. Data collected in 2016 from an office-based physician survey showed 14% of patient encounters involving gabapentin also involved opioids, the FDA said.

“Our evaluation shows that the use of these medicines, often referred to as gabapentinoids, has been growing for prescribed medical use, as well as misuse and abuse,” the agency said in its 2019 alert.

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

In a bid to stop abuse and diversion of the anticonvulsant gabapentin, a watchdog group is petitioning federal regulators to make the drug a controlled substance.

The nonprofit group Public Citizen has filed a petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), arguing that the medication’s risks warrant additional safeguards.

Gabapentin is a generic drug, best known under the brand name Neurontin. The petition also covers the related drug gabapentin enacarbil (Horizant).

Public Citizen requested that gabapentin come under the DEA’s Schedule V category, which already includes the similar drug pregabalin (Lyrica). Schedule V is the lowest rung on the DEA’s drug schedule, meaning it has lower potential for abuse then Schedule I through IV drugs. This tier also includes cough preparations with less than 200 milligrams of codeine.

Classifying gabapentin as a Schedule V drug would facilitate better tracking of the drug’s use and misuse and put in place educational and limitation requirements to mitigate the risk of addiction, overdose, and death, Michael Abrams, MPH, PhD, senior health researcher with Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, and colleagues write in the petition.
 

‘Widespread misuse’

There is “substantial evidence of widespread misuse” of gabapentin, plausibly helped by “extraordinary levels of off-label prescribing,” Public Citizen said in the petition.

Some estimates have pegged off-label use at more than 90%, with gabapentin prescribed for indications such as chronic cough, hiccups, postoperative pain, and postmenopausal hot flashes, the group said.

“Moreover, there are numerous reports indicating that gabapentin is widely used and diverted on the street to induce ‘highs’ or otherwise self-medicate,” Public Citizen said. “Both gabapentin and pregabalin have been empirically linked to the opioid overdose epidemic as drugs that potentiate the activity of these oftentimes deadly analgesics.”

This news organization tried several times to reach Azurity for comment but did not receive a response. Pfizer included gabapentin in the portfolio of drugs used to create the Viatris spin-off, which took place in 2020. Pfizer referred this news organization to Viatris for comment, but it also did not respond.

It is unclear how the FDA and DEA will respond to the petition. Public Citizen has received a reply from the FDA, in which the agency acknowledged receipt of the petition. However, the “acceptance of the petition for filing is a procedural matter and in no way reflects the agency’s decision on the substantive merits of the petition,” the FDA said in a letter.

As is common practice, the agency assigned a docket number for the petition, FDA-2022-P-0149. The docket’s website allows interested parties to track the issue.
 

‘Unnoticed’ abuse

There have been rising concerns about risks and abuse of gabapentin in recent years. In its petition, Public Citizen noted that the United Kingdom and several U.S. states have already sought tighter control of gabapentin prescriptions.

In 2019, the United Kingdom announced it would reclassify both pregabalin and gabapentin as class C controlled substances because of the rising numbers of deaths linked to the drugs.

As of November 2020, seven states – Alabama, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia – had classified gabapentin as a schedule V drug, while another 12 states required prescription monitoring of the drug, Public Citizen noted.

In 2018, researchers at the University of Louisville, Kentucky, a state that has been hit particularly hard by the opioid crisis, tried to draw more attention to the risks of gabapentin.

“Amid the opioid epidemic, abuse of a different prescription painkiller has widely gone unnoticed,” the University said in a press release at the time.

The release highlighted a study led by Rachel Vickers Smith, PhD, assistant professor in the University of Louisville School of Nursing that was published in Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.

It included 33 individuals who reported recent recreational use of gabapentin. Use of the drug was combined with buprenorphine, other opioids, cocaine, and caffeine to produce effects such as muscle relaxation, pain reduction, sleep induction, feeling drunk, and feeling “high.”

In the press release, Dr. Vickers Smith said individuals who abuse gabapentin often mix it with opioids, marijuana, cocaine, and opioid treatment medication, compounding side effects to the central nervous system that include euphoria and sedation.

In addition, some individuals who primarily abused opioid pain medication have turned to gabapentin after law-enforcement actions made it more difficult to obtain prescription opioids, she noted.

“People are looking for other drugs to substitute for opioids, and gabapentin has filled that place for some,” Dr. Vickers Smith said. “Some have said it gives them a high similar to opioids.”
 

FDA 2019 warning

In 2019, the FDA issued a warning about serious breathing difficulties associated with gabapentin and pregabalin in patients with respiratory risk factors.

These factors include opioid use and other drugs that depress the central nervous system, as well as conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that reduce lung function. Older patients are also at higher risk, the FDA said.

The agency noted that gabapentinoids are often co-prescribed with opioids for for medical conditions and abused in combination with opioids. Data collected in 2016 from an office-based physician survey showed 14% of patient encounters involving gabapentin also involved opioids, the FDA said.

“Our evaluation shows that the use of these medicines, often referred to as gabapentinoids, has been growing for prescribed medical use, as well as misuse and abuse,” the agency said in its 2019 alert.

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

The federal government’s efforts to thwart information blocking are underway. As such, physicians would do well to be standing at the ready when the information-blocking regulations, designed to ensure that patients can access their electronic health information (EHI), shift into full gear.

Recently, the Office of the National Coordinator revealed that the Department of Health & Humans Services has received 299 reports of information blocking since inviting anyone who suspected that health care providers, IT developers, or health information networks/exchanges might have interfered with access, exchange, or use of EHI through the Report Information Blocking Portal on April 5, 2021.

The vast majority of these claims – 211 – were filed against providers, while 46 alleged incidents of information blocking were by health IT developers, and two claims point to health information networks/ exchanges. The other 25 claims did not appear to present a claim of information blocking.

Of the 274 possible claims of information blocking recently released by ONC, 176 were made by patients.

The ONC has sent all possible claims to the HHS’s Office of the Inspector General. The claims have not yet been investigated and substantiated.
 

Do the stats tell the story?

The numbers in the recent ONC report do not shed much light on how much impact the regulations are having on information sharing. Health care providers, including physicians, might not yet be complying with the rules because monetary penalties are not in place.

Indeed, HHS has yet to spell out exactly what the disincentives on providers will be, though the 21st Century Cures Act stipulates that regulators could fine up to $1 million per information-blocking incident.

“Some providers might be saying, ‘I’m not going to be penalized at this point … so I can take a little bit longer to think about how I come into compliance.’ That could be just one factor of a host of many that are affecting compliance. We also are still in the middle of a public health emergency. So it’s hard to say at this point” exactly how the regulations will affect information blocking, Lauren Riplinger, vice president of policy and public affairs at the American Health Information Management Association, Chicago, said in an interview.
 

A long time coming

The government first zeroed in on ensuring that patients have access to their information in 2016 when President Obama signed the Cures Act into law. The legislation directed ONC to implement a standardized process for the public to report claims of possible information blocking.

The initiative appears to be picking up steam. The ONC is expected to release monthly reports on the cumulative number of information-blocking claims. The announcement of associated penalties is expected sometime in the future.

Industry leaders are advising health care providers to brush up on compliance. Physicians can look to professional groups such as the American Medical Association, the Medical Group Management Association, and other specialty associations for guidance. In addition, the ONC is educating providers on the rule.

“The ONC has provided a lot of great content for the past couple months, not only in terms of putting out FAQs to help clarify some of the gray areas in the rule, but they also have produced a series of provider-specific webinars where they walk through a potential scenario and address the extent to the rules apply,” Ms. Riplinger said.
 

With education, more is better

These efforts, however, could be expanded, according to MGMA.

“There is a general awareness of the rules, but we encourage ONC to continue educating the provider community: More FAQs and educational webinars would be helpful,” Claire Ernst, director of government affairs for MGMA, said in an interview. “A June 2021 MGMA poll found that 51% of medical groups said they needed more government guidance on complying with the new information-blocking rules.”

Although ONC already has provided some “scenario-based” education, more of this type of guidance could prove valuable.

“This rule is that it is very circumstance based. … and so it’s those more nuanced cases that I think are more challenging for providers to know whether or not they are engaging in information blocking,” Ms. Riplinger noted.

For example, a physician might choose to not upload lab test results to a patient portal and prefer to wait to discuss the results directly with the patient, which could potentially be construed as information blocking under the regulations.

The MGMA is requesting that ONC take a second look at these situations – and possibly adjust the regulations.

“MGMA has heard concerns about the impact of providing immediate results to patients before medical groups have the time to thoroughly review test results and discuss them compassionately with their patients,” Ms. Ernst said. “To address this, ONC could expand the current definition of harm to account for other unintended consequences, such as emotional distress, or provide more flexibility in terms of the time frame.”

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

The federal government’s efforts to thwart information blocking are underway. As such, physicians would do well to be standing at the ready when the information-blocking regulations, designed to ensure that patients can access their electronic health information (EHI), shift into full gear.

Recently, the Office of the National Coordinator revealed that the Department of Health & Humans Services has received 299 reports of information blocking since inviting anyone who suspected that health care providers, IT developers, or health information networks/exchanges might have interfered with access, exchange, or use of EHI through the Report Information Blocking Portal on April 5, 2021.

The vast majority of these claims – 211 – were filed against providers, while 46 alleged incidents of information blocking were by health IT developers, and two claims point to health information networks/ exchanges. The other 25 claims did not appear to present a claim of information blocking.

Of the 274 possible claims of information blocking recently released by ONC, 176 were made by patients.

The ONC has sent all possible claims to the HHS’s Office of the Inspector General. The claims have not yet been investigated and substantiated.
 

Do the stats tell the story?

The numbers in the recent ONC report do not shed much light on how much impact the regulations are having on information sharing. Health care providers, including physicians, might not yet be complying with the rules because monetary penalties are not in place.

Indeed, HHS has yet to spell out exactly what the disincentives on providers will be, though the 21st Century Cures Act stipulates that regulators could fine up to $1 million per information-blocking incident.

“Some providers might be saying, ‘I’m not going to be penalized at this point … so I can take a little bit longer to think about how I come into compliance.’ That could be just one factor of a host of many that are affecting compliance. We also are still in the middle of a public health emergency. So it’s hard to say at this point” exactly how the regulations will affect information blocking, Lauren Riplinger, vice president of policy and public affairs at the American Health Information Management Association, Chicago, said in an interview.
 

A long time coming

The government first zeroed in on ensuring that patients have access to their information in 2016 when President Obama signed the Cures Act into law. The legislation directed ONC to implement a standardized process for the public to report claims of possible information blocking.

The initiative appears to be picking up steam. The ONC is expected to release monthly reports on the cumulative number of information-blocking claims. The announcement of associated penalties is expected sometime in the future.

Industry leaders are advising health care providers to brush up on compliance. Physicians can look to professional groups such as the American Medical Association, the Medical Group Management Association, and other specialty associations for guidance. In addition, the ONC is educating providers on the rule.

“The ONC has provided a lot of great content for the past couple months, not only in terms of putting out FAQs to help clarify some of the gray areas in the rule, but they also have produced a series of provider-specific webinars where they walk through a potential scenario and address the extent to the rules apply,” Ms. Riplinger said.
 

With education, more is better

These efforts, however, could be expanded, according to MGMA.

“There is a general awareness of the rules, but we encourage ONC to continue educating the provider community: More FAQs and educational webinars would be helpful,” Claire Ernst, director of government affairs for MGMA, said in an interview. “A June 2021 MGMA poll found that 51% of medical groups said they needed more government guidance on complying with the new information-blocking rules.”

Although ONC already has provided some “scenario-based” education, more of this type of guidance could prove valuable.

“This rule is that it is very circumstance based. … and so it’s those more nuanced cases that I think are more challenging for providers to know whether or not they are engaging in information blocking,” Ms. Riplinger noted.

For example, a physician might choose to not upload lab test results to a patient portal and prefer to wait to discuss the results directly with the patient, which could potentially be construed as information blocking under the regulations.

The MGMA is requesting that ONC take a second look at these situations – and possibly adjust the regulations.

“MGMA has heard concerns about the impact of providing immediate results to patients before medical groups have the time to thoroughly review test results and discuss them compassionately with their patients,” Ms. Ernst said. “To address this, ONC could expand the current definition of harm to account for other unintended consequences, such as emotional distress, or provide more flexibility in terms of the time frame.”

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

The federal government’s efforts to thwart information blocking are underway. As such, physicians would do well to be standing at the ready when the information-blocking regulations, designed to ensure that patients can access their electronic health information (EHI), shift into full gear.

Recently, the Office of the National Coordinator revealed that the Department of Health & Humans Services has received 299 reports of information blocking since inviting anyone who suspected that health care providers, IT developers, or health information networks/exchanges might have interfered with access, exchange, or use of EHI through the Report Information Blocking Portal on April 5, 2021.

The vast majority of these claims – 211 – were filed against providers, while 46 alleged incidents of information blocking were by health IT developers, and two claims point to health information networks/ exchanges. The other 25 claims did not appear to present a claim of information blocking.

Of the 274 possible claims of information blocking recently released by ONC, 176 were made by patients.

The ONC has sent all possible claims to the HHS’s Office of the Inspector General. The claims have not yet been investigated and substantiated.
 

Do the stats tell the story?

The numbers in the recent ONC report do not shed much light on how much impact the regulations are having on information sharing. Health care providers, including physicians, might not yet be complying with the rules because monetary penalties are not in place.

Indeed, HHS has yet to spell out exactly what the disincentives on providers will be, though the 21st Century Cures Act stipulates that regulators could fine up to $1 million per information-blocking incident.

“Some providers might be saying, ‘I’m not going to be penalized at this point … so I can take a little bit longer to think about how I come into compliance.’ That could be just one factor of a host of many that are affecting compliance. We also are still in the middle of a public health emergency. So it’s hard to say at this point” exactly how the regulations will affect information blocking, Lauren Riplinger, vice president of policy and public affairs at the American Health Information Management Association, Chicago, said in an interview.
 

A long time coming

The government first zeroed in on ensuring that patients have access to their information in 2016 when President Obama signed the Cures Act into law. The legislation directed ONC to implement a standardized process for the public to report claims of possible information blocking.

The initiative appears to be picking up steam. The ONC is expected to release monthly reports on the cumulative number of information-blocking claims. The announcement of associated penalties is expected sometime in the future.

Industry leaders are advising health care providers to brush up on compliance. Physicians can look to professional groups such as the American Medical Association, the Medical Group Management Association, and other specialty associations for guidance. In addition, the ONC is educating providers on the rule.

“The ONC has provided a lot of great content for the past couple months, not only in terms of putting out FAQs to help clarify some of the gray areas in the rule, but they also have produced a series of provider-specific webinars where they walk through a potential scenario and address the extent to the rules apply,” Ms. Riplinger said.
 

With education, more is better

These efforts, however, could be expanded, according to MGMA.

“There is a general awareness of the rules, but we encourage ONC to continue educating the provider community: More FAQs and educational webinars would be helpful,” Claire Ernst, director of government affairs for MGMA, said in an interview. “A June 2021 MGMA poll found that 51% of medical groups said they needed more government guidance on complying with the new information-blocking rules.”

Although ONC already has provided some “scenario-based” education, more of this type of guidance could prove valuable.

“This rule is that it is very circumstance based. … and so it’s those more nuanced cases that I think are more challenging for providers to know whether or not they are engaging in information blocking,” Ms. Riplinger noted.

For example, a physician might choose to not upload lab test results to a patient portal and prefer to wait to discuss the results directly with the patient, which could potentially be construed as information blocking under the regulations.

The MGMA is requesting that ONC take a second look at these situations – and possibly adjust the regulations.

“MGMA has heard concerns about the impact of providing immediate results to patients before medical groups have the time to thoroughly review test results and discuss them compassionately with their patients,” Ms. Ernst said. “To address this, ONC could expand the current definition of harm to account for other unintended consequences, such as emotional distress, or provide more flexibility in terms of the time frame.”

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

Data from the first 6 months after the rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States released today show that adverse effects from shots are typically mild and short-lived.

Findings of the large study, compiled after nearly 300 million doses were administered, were published online March 7 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Researchers, led by Hannah G. Rosenblum, MD, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID Response Team, used passive U.S. surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the active system, v-safe, starting in December 2020 through the first 6 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program. V-safe is a voluntary, smartphone-based system set up in 2020 specifically for monitoring reactions to COVID-19 and health effects after vaccination. The health effects information from v-safe is presented in this study for the first time.

Of the 298.7 million doses of mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. during the study period, VAERS processed 340,522 reports. Of those, 313,499 (92.1%) were nonserious; 22,527 (6.6%) were serious (nondeath); and 4,496 (1.3%) were deaths.

From v-safe reporting, researchers learned that about 71% of the 7.9 million participants reported local or systemic reactions, more frequently after dose 2 than after dose 1. Of those reporting reactions after dose 1, about two-thirds (68.6%) reported a local reaction and 52.7% reported a systemic reaction.

Among other findings:

• Injection-site pain occurred after dose 1 in 66.2% of participants and 68.6% after dose 2.
• One-third of participants (33.9%) reported fatigue after dose 1 and 55.7% after dose 2.
• Headache was reported among 27% of participants after dose 1 and 46.2% after dose 2.
• When injection site pain, fatigue, or headaches were reported, the reports were usually in the first week after vaccination.
• Reports of being unable to work or do normal daily activities, or instances of seeking medical care, occurred more commonly after dose 2 (32.1%) than after dose 1 (11.9%). Fewer than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after dose 1 or 2 of the vaccine.
• Reactions and health effects were reported more often in female than in male recipients, and in people younger than 65 years, compared with older people.
• Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations, but the events are rare.

The authors wrote that these results are consistent with preauthorization clinical trials and early postauthorization reports.

“On the basis of our findings, mild to moderate transient reactogenicity should be anticipated,” they said, “particularly among younger and female vaccine recipients.”
 

‘Robust and reassuring data’

“The safety monitoring of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines stands out as the most comprehensive of any vaccine in U.S. history. The use of these complementary monitoring systems has provided robust and reassuring data,” Matthew S. Krantz, MD, with the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and Elizabeth J. Phillips, MD, with the department of pathology, microbiology, and immunology at Vanderbilt, wrote in a related commentary in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

They point out that the v-safe reports of reactions are consistent with those reported from clinical trials and a large population study in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Phillips said in a press release, “[A]lthough approximately one in 1,000 individuals vaccinated may have an adverse effect, most of these are nonserious. No unusual patterns emerged in the cause of death or serious adverse effects among VAERS reports. For adverse events of special interest, it is reassuring that there were no unexpected signals other than myopericarditis and anaphylaxis, already known to be associated with mRNA vaccines.”

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Data from the first 6 months after the rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States released today show that adverse effects from shots are typically mild and short-lived.

Findings of the large study, compiled after nearly 300 million doses were administered, were published online March 7 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Researchers, led by Hannah G. Rosenblum, MD, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID Response Team, used passive U.S. surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the active system, v-safe, starting in December 2020 through the first 6 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program. V-safe is a voluntary, smartphone-based system set up in 2020 specifically for monitoring reactions to COVID-19 and health effects after vaccination. The health effects information from v-safe is presented in this study for the first time.

Of the 298.7 million doses of mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. during the study period, VAERS processed 340,522 reports. Of those, 313,499 (92.1%) were nonserious; 22,527 (6.6%) were serious (nondeath); and 4,496 (1.3%) were deaths.

From v-safe reporting, researchers learned that about 71% of the 7.9 million participants reported local or systemic reactions, more frequently after dose 2 than after dose 1. Of those reporting reactions after dose 1, about two-thirds (68.6%) reported a local reaction and 52.7% reported a systemic reaction.

Among other findings:

• Injection-site pain occurred after dose 1 in 66.2% of participants and 68.6% after dose 2.
• One-third of participants (33.9%) reported fatigue after dose 1 and 55.7% after dose 2.
• Headache was reported among 27% of participants after dose 1 and 46.2% after dose 2.
• When injection site pain, fatigue, or headaches were reported, the reports were usually in the first week after vaccination.
• Reports of being unable to work or do normal daily activities, or instances of seeking medical care, occurred more commonly after dose 2 (32.1%) than after dose 1 (11.9%). Fewer than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after dose 1 or 2 of the vaccine.
• Reactions and health effects were reported more often in female than in male recipients, and in people younger than 65 years, compared with older people.
• Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations, but the events are rare.

The authors wrote that these results are consistent with preauthorization clinical trials and early postauthorization reports.

“On the basis of our findings, mild to moderate transient reactogenicity should be anticipated,” they said, “particularly among younger and female vaccine recipients.”
 

‘Robust and reassuring data’

“The safety monitoring of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines stands out as the most comprehensive of any vaccine in U.S. history. The use of these complementary monitoring systems has provided robust and reassuring data,” Matthew S. Krantz, MD, with the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and Elizabeth J. Phillips, MD, with the department of pathology, microbiology, and immunology at Vanderbilt, wrote in a related commentary in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

They point out that the v-safe reports of reactions are consistent with those reported from clinical trials and a large population study in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Phillips said in a press release, “[A]lthough approximately one in 1,000 individuals vaccinated may have an adverse effect, most of these are nonserious. No unusual patterns emerged in the cause of death or serious adverse effects among VAERS reports. For adverse events of special interest, it is reassuring that there were no unexpected signals other than myopericarditis and anaphylaxis, already known to be associated with mRNA vaccines.”

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Data from the first 6 months after the rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States released today show that adverse effects from shots are typically mild and short-lived.

Findings of the large study, compiled after nearly 300 million doses were administered, were published online March 7 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Researchers, led by Hannah G. Rosenblum, MD, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID Response Team, used passive U.S. surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the active system, v-safe, starting in December 2020 through the first 6 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program. V-safe is a voluntary, smartphone-based system set up in 2020 specifically for monitoring reactions to COVID-19 and health effects after vaccination. The health effects information from v-safe is presented in this study for the first time.

Of the 298.7 million doses of mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. during the study period, VAERS processed 340,522 reports. Of those, 313,499 (92.1%) were nonserious; 22,527 (6.6%) were serious (nondeath); and 4,496 (1.3%) were deaths.

From v-safe reporting, researchers learned that about 71% of the 7.9 million participants reported local or systemic reactions, more frequently after dose 2 than after dose 1. Of those reporting reactions after dose 1, about two-thirds (68.6%) reported a local reaction and 52.7% reported a systemic reaction.

Among other findings:

• Injection-site pain occurred after dose 1 in 66.2% of participants and 68.6% after dose 2.
• One-third of participants (33.9%) reported fatigue after dose 1 and 55.7% after dose 2.
• Headache was reported among 27% of participants after dose 1 and 46.2% after dose 2.
• When injection site pain, fatigue, or headaches were reported, the reports were usually in the first week after vaccination.
• Reports of being unable to work or do normal daily activities, or instances of seeking medical care, occurred more commonly after dose 2 (32.1%) than after dose 1 (11.9%). Fewer than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after dose 1 or 2 of the vaccine.
• Reactions and health effects were reported more often in female than in male recipients, and in people younger than 65 years, compared with older people.
• Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations, but the events are rare.

The authors wrote that these results are consistent with preauthorization clinical trials and early postauthorization reports.

“On the basis of our findings, mild to moderate transient reactogenicity should be anticipated,” they said, “particularly among younger and female vaccine recipients.”
 

‘Robust and reassuring data’

“The safety monitoring of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines stands out as the most comprehensive of any vaccine in U.S. history. The use of these complementary monitoring systems has provided robust and reassuring data,” Matthew S. Krantz, MD, with the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and Elizabeth J. Phillips, MD, with the department of pathology, microbiology, and immunology at Vanderbilt, wrote in a related commentary in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

They point out that the v-safe reports of reactions are consistent with those reported from clinical trials and a large population study in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Phillips said in a press release, “[A]lthough approximately one in 1,000 individuals vaccinated may have an adverse effect, most of these are nonserious. No unusual patterns emerged in the cause of death or serious adverse effects among VAERS reports. For adverse events of special interest, it is reassuring that there were no unexpected signals other than myopericarditis and anaphylaxis, already known to be associated with mRNA vaccines.”

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with undifferentiated arthritis (UA) that is defined according to contemporary criteria don’t appear to have the same excess mortality that is associated with rheumatoid arthritis, despite links between the two conditions.

UA has long been considered an earlier phase of RA, so similar management strategies are often used based on the assumption that outcomes and elevated mortality risk were similar between the two, but new findings reported in a research letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases challenge that assumption.

The change in the definition of UA that accompanied the introduction of new RA criteria in 2010 meant that some of the patients who previously met the criteria for UA now were classified as having RA, and “the remaining contemporary UA population (not fulfilling the 1987/2010 RA criteria) is largely autoantibody negative, presents with monoarthritis or oligoarthritis, and progresses less frequently to RA,” PhD candidate Marloes Verstappen of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center, and coauthors wrote.

As the first large study on excess mortality in patients meeting contemporary criteria for UA, the authors said it suggests that the change in criteria for UA has served to increase the differences in mortality between it and RA.

“Further research and discussions are needed as to whether the management of contemporary UA should be similar to or different from that of RA,” they wrote.

The researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study of 860 patients who met the conventional criteria for UA – they did not meet the 1987 RA criteria or other diagnosis – at baseline and 561 who met contemporary criteria for UA based on the fact that they did not meet the 1987 or 2010 RA criteria. There were also 762 patients who were diagnosed with RA according to the 1987 criteria, and 828 diagnosed according to the 2010 criteria. All of these patients were diagnosed between 1993 and 2008 and their median follow-up times ranged from 16.0 to 17.3 years, with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up.

The study found that, while there was a trend toward excess mortality in the conventional UA group (standardized mortality ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.27), there was no significant excess mortality in the contemporary UA patients (SMR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.87-1.26).

In comparison, patients in both the 1987 RA criteria group and the 2010 criteria group showed significantly higher mortality. Among patients with anti–citrullinated protein antibody–positive disease, even early treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and treat-to-target strategies didn’t reduce the excess mortality.

The study did find some suggestion of excess mortality among patients with contemporary UA and who were anti–citrullinated protein antibody positive, but the number of patients was small.

“Only a few percent of patients presenting with contemporary UA are autoantibody positive; these patients may be considered at increased risk to progress to RA,” the authors wrote.

The data also suggested that disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs didn’t alter excess mortality among patients with contemporary UA.

The study was supported by the Dutch Arthritis Foundation and the European Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Patients with undifferentiated arthritis (UA) that is defined according to contemporary criteria don’t appear to have the same excess mortality that is associated with rheumatoid arthritis, despite links between the two conditions.

UA has long been considered an earlier phase of RA, so similar management strategies are often used based on the assumption that outcomes and elevated mortality risk were similar between the two, but new findings reported in a research letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases challenge that assumption.

The change in the definition of UA that accompanied the introduction of new RA criteria in 2010 meant that some of the patients who previously met the criteria for UA now were classified as having RA, and “the remaining contemporary UA population (not fulfilling the 1987/2010 RA criteria) is largely autoantibody negative, presents with monoarthritis or oligoarthritis, and progresses less frequently to RA,” PhD candidate Marloes Verstappen of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center, and coauthors wrote.

As the first large study on excess mortality in patients meeting contemporary criteria for UA, the authors said it suggests that the change in criteria for UA has served to increase the differences in mortality between it and RA.

“Further research and discussions are needed as to whether the management of contemporary UA should be similar to or different from that of RA,” they wrote.

The researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study of 860 patients who met the conventional criteria for UA – they did not meet the 1987 RA criteria or other diagnosis – at baseline and 561 who met contemporary criteria for UA based on the fact that they did not meet the 1987 or 2010 RA criteria. There were also 762 patients who were diagnosed with RA according to the 1987 criteria, and 828 diagnosed according to the 2010 criteria. All of these patients were diagnosed between 1993 and 2008 and their median follow-up times ranged from 16.0 to 17.3 years, with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up.

The study found that, while there was a trend toward excess mortality in the conventional UA group (standardized mortality ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.27), there was no significant excess mortality in the contemporary UA patients (SMR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.87-1.26).

In comparison, patients in both the 1987 RA criteria group and the 2010 criteria group showed significantly higher mortality. Among patients with anti–citrullinated protein antibody–positive disease, even early treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and treat-to-target strategies didn’t reduce the excess mortality.

The study did find some suggestion of excess mortality among patients with contemporary UA and who were anti–citrullinated protein antibody positive, but the number of patients was small.

“Only a few percent of patients presenting with contemporary UA are autoantibody positive; these patients may be considered at increased risk to progress to RA,” the authors wrote.

The data also suggested that disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs didn’t alter excess mortality among patients with contemporary UA.

The study was supported by the Dutch Arthritis Foundation and the European Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Patients with undifferentiated arthritis (UA) that is defined according to contemporary criteria don’t appear to have the same excess mortality that is associated with rheumatoid arthritis, despite links between the two conditions.

UA has long been considered an earlier phase of RA, so similar management strategies are often used based on the assumption that outcomes and elevated mortality risk were similar between the two, but new findings reported in a research letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases challenge that assumption.

The change in the definition of UA that accompanied the introduction of new RA criteria in 2010 meant that some of the patients who previously met the criteria for UA now were classified as having RA, and “the remaining contemporary UA population (not fulfilling the 1987/2010 RA criteria) is largely autoantibody negative, presents with monoarthritis or oligoarthritis, and progresses less frequently to RA,” PhD candidate Marloes Verstappen of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center, and coauthors wrote.

As the first large study on excess mortality in patients meeting contemporary criteria for UA, the authors said it suggests that the change in criteria for UA has served to increase the differences in mortality between it and RA.

“Further research and discussions are needed as to whether the management of contemporary UA should be similar to or different from that of RA,” they wrote.

The researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study of 860 patients who met the conventional criteria for UA – they did not meet the 1987 RA criteria or other diagnosis – at baseline and 561 who met contemporary criteria for UA based on the fact that they did not meet the 1987 or 2010 RA criteria. There were also 762 patients who were diagnosed with RA according to the 1987 criteria, and 828 diagnosed according to the 2010 criteria. All of these patients were diagnosed between 1993 and 2008 and their median follow-up times ranged from 16.0 to 17.3 years, with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up.

The study found that, while there was a trend toward excess mortality in the conventional UA group (standardized mortality ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.27), there was no significant excess mortality in the contemporary UA patients (SMR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.87-1.26).

In comparison, patients in both the 1987 RA criteria group and the 2010 criteria group showed significantly higher mortality. Among patients with anti–citrullinated protein antibody–positive disease, even early treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and treat-to-target strategies didn’t reduce the excess mortality.

The study did find some suggestion of excess mortality among patients with contemporary UA and who were anti–citrullinated protein antibody positive, but the number of patients was small.

“Only a few percent of patients presenting with contemporary UA are autoantibody positive; these patients may be considered at increased risk to progress to RA,” the authors wrote.

The data also suggested that disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs didn’t alter excess mortality among patients with contemporary UA.

The study was supported by the Dutch Arthritis Foundation and the European Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.

California-based emergency physician Simone Melissa Gold, MD, JD, founder of the antivaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) and leading voice in the antivaccine movement, has pleaded guilty to one of five charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

According to the plea deal, Dr. Gold pleaded guilty to charges that she “did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, or otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, during a time when the vice president was in the building without lawful authority to do so.” As part of the agreement, additional charges against her – obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business – will be dismissed. She also agreed to cooperate with investigators, including allowing them to review social media postings made during the time surrounding the event.

Shortly after she was indicted, Dr. Gold told The Washington Post that she did not see any violence and that the event was “peaceful.” However, according to news reports, Dr. Gold acknowledged in her plea deal that she and her codefendant, John Herbert Strand, witnessed the assault of a police officer while they were outside the building.

Dr. Gold, 56, based in Beverly Hills, Calif., founded AFD in 2019. The group notes its goal is to “amplify the voices of concerned physicians and patients nationwide to combat those who push political and economic agendas at the expense of science and quality health care solutions.” Mr. Strand is the organization’s communication’s director.

The group has been a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin as a “safe and effective treatment” for COVID-19, according to its website.

In 2021, Dr. Gold spoke at an event called The Stand, representing AFD, where she promised to tell “the truth” about COVID vaccines, including that it was actually giving people the virus, that COVID was renamed from the “Wuhan Virus” as part of a cover-up, and touted treatments, including hydroxycholoroquine and ivermectin.

Dr. Gold has been one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement. She has more than 400,000 Twitter followers; her Twitter profile includes a pinned tweet saying: “We are living in Orwellian times.” In addition to spreading vaccine misinformation, Dr. Gold has promoted the use of unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

Calls and emails to AFD regarding a statement on Gold’s plea made by this news organization were not returned by press time.

In October, Representative James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, launched an investigation into organizations, including AFD, that spread misinformation and facilitate access to disproven and potentially hazardous treatments for COVID-19. According to news reports, Rep. Clyburn called the AFD and other such groups “predatory actors.”

Hospitals where Dr. Gold previously worked, including Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, have disassociated themselves from her. On July 29, 2020, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where Gold previously worked, issued a statement that said, in part, “Simone Gold, MD, has not worked with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center or any of its offices or affiliates since 2015. For 3 weeks in late 2015, Dr. Gold was employed on a per diem basis by Cedars-Sinai Medical Network, a component of Cedars-Sinai. She worked during this brief time in a network urgent care clinic. Dr. Gold is not authorized to represent or speak about any information on behalf of Cedars-Sinai.”

Dr. Gold’s medical license in the state of California is current and she has no pending hearings before the state medical board, according to its website. On her own website, Dr. Gold says she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year, “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.”

Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned her law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford (Calif.) Law School.

Dr. Gold faces 6 months in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16.

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

California-based emergency physician Simone Melissa Gold, MD, JD, founder of the antivaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) and leading voice in the antivaccine movement, has pleaded guilty to one of five charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

According to the plea deal, Dr. Gold pleaded guilty to charges that she “did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, or otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, during a time when the vice president was in the building without lawful authority to do so.” As part of the agreement, additional charges against her – obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business – will be dismissed. She also agreed to cooperate with investigators, including allowing them to review social media postings made during the time surrounding the event.

Shortly after she was indicted, Dr. Gold told The Washington Post that she did not see any violence and that the event was “peaceful.” However, according to news reports, Dr. Gold acknowledged in her plea deal that she and her codefendant, John Herbert Strand, witnessed the assault of a police officer while they were outside the building.

Dr. Gold, 56, based in Beverly Hills, Calif., founded AFD in 2019. The group notes its goal is to “amplify the voices of concerned physicians and patients nationwide to combat those who push political and economic agendas at the expense of science and quality health care solutions.” Mr. Strand is the organization’s communication’s director.

The group has been a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin as a “safe and effective treatment” for COVID-19, according to its website.

In 2021, Dr. Gold spoke at an event called The Stand, representing AFD, where she promised to tell “the truth” about COVID vaccines, including that it was actually giving people the virus, that COVID was renamed from the “Wuhan Virus” as part of a cover-up, and touted treatments, including hydroxycholoroquine and ivermectin.

Dr. Gold has been one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement. She has more than 400,000 Twitter followers; her Twitter profile includes a pinned tweet saying: “We are living in Orwellian times.” In addition to spreading vaccine misinformation, Dr. Gold has promoted the use of unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

Calls and emails to AFD regarding a statement on Gold’s plea made by this news organization were not returned by press time.

In October, Representative James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, launched an investigation into organizations, including AFD, that spread misinformation and facilitate access to disproven and potentially hazardous treatments for COVID-19. According to news reports, Rep. Clyburn called the AFD and other such groups “predatory actors.”

Hospitals where Dr. Gold previously worked, including Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, have disassociated themselves from her. On July 29, 2020, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where Gold previously worked, issued a statement that said, in part, “Simone Gold, MD, has not worked with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center or any of its offices or affiliates since 2015. For 3 weeks in late 2015, Dr. Gold was employed on a per diem basis by Cedars-Sinai Medical Network, a component of Cedars-Sinai. She worked during this brief time in a network urgent care clinic. Dr. Gold is not authorized to represent or speak about any information on behalf of Cedars-Sinai.”

Dr. Gold’s medical license in the state of California is current and she has no pending hearings before the state medical board, according to its website. On her own website, Dr. Gold says she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year, “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.”

Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned her law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford (Calif.) Law School.

Dr. Gold faces 6 months in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16.

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

California-based emergency physician Simone Melissa Gold, MD, JD, founder of the antivaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) and leading voice in the antivaccine movement, has pleaded guilty to one of five charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

According to the plea deal, Dr. Gold pleaded guilty to charges that she “did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, or otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, during a time when the vice president was in the building without lawful authority to do so.” As part of the agreement, additional charges against her – obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business – will be dismissed. She also agreed to cooperate with investigators, including allowing them to review social media postings made during the time surrounding the event.

Shortly after she was indicted, Dr. Gold told The Washington Post that she did not see any violence and that the event was “peaceful.” However, according to news reports, Dr. Gold acknowledged in her plea deal that she and her codefendant, John Herbert Strand, witnessed the assault of a police officer while they were outside the building.

Dr. Gold, 56, based in Beverly Hills, Calif., founded AFD in 2019. The group notes its goal is to “amplify the voices of concerned physicians and patients nationwide to combat those who push political and economic agendas at the expense of science and quality health care solutions.” Mr. Strand is the organization’s communication’s director.

The group has been a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin as a “safe and effective treatment” for COVID-19, according to its website.

In 2021, Dr. Gold spoke at an event called The Stand, representing AFD, where she promised to tell “the truth” about COVID vaccines, including that it was actually giving people the virus, that COVID was renamed from the “Wuhan Virus” as part of a cover-up, and touted treatments, including hydroxycholoroquine and ivermectin.

Dr. Gold has been one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement. She has more than 400,000 Twitter followers; her Twitter profile includes a pinned tweet saying: “We are living in Orwellian times.” In addition to spreading vaccine misinformation, Dr. Gold has promoted the use of unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

Calls and emails to AFD regarding a statement on Gold’s plea made by this news organization were not returned by press time.

In October, Representative James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, launched an investigation into organizations, including AFD, that spread misinformation and facilitate access to disproven and potentially hazardous treatments for COVID-19. According to news reports, Rep. Clyburn called the AFD and other such groups “predatory actors.”

Hospitals where Dr. Gold previously worked, including Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, have disassociated themselves from her. On July 29, 2020, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where Gold previously worked, issued a statement that said, in part, “Simone Gold, MD, has not worked with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center or any of its offices or affiliates since 2015. For 3 weeks in late 2015, Dr. Gold was employed on a per diem basis by Cedars-Sinai Medical Network, a component of Cedars-Sinai. She worked during this brief time in a network urgent care clinic. Dr. Gold is not authorized to represent or speak about any information on behalf of Cedars-Sinai.”

Dr. Gold’s medical license in the state of California is current and she has no pending hearings before the state medical board, according to its website. On her own website, Dr. Gold says she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year, “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.”

Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned her law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford (Calif.) Law School.

Dr. Gold faces 6 months in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16.

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

A former pain medicine physician received a sentence of 20 years in prison for selling opioids and writing prescriptions for patients who were abusing or diverting the medications.

Patrick Titus, 58, operated Lighthouse Internal Medicine in Milford, Delaware, from 2005-2014.

Federal prosecutors said Mr. Titus unlawfully distributed or dispensed opioids including fentanyl, morphine, methadone, OxyContin, and oxycodone outside the scope of practice and often prescribed them in combination with each other or in other dangerous combinations. Mr. Titus distributed over 1 million pills, said the government.

In a 2018 indictment, the government said that Mr. Titus would, “at the first and nearly every follow-up visit” prescribe opioids in high dosages, often without conducting an exam or reviewing any urine test results. He would also write prescriptions for opioids without getting patients’s prior medical records or reviewing test results and rarely referred patients to alternative pain treatments such as physical therapy, psychotherapy, or massage.

According to the indictment, he ignored “red flags,” including that patients would come from long distances, sometimes from out of state, and would pay cash, despite having Medicaid coverage.

“Today’s sentencing makes clear that medical professionals who recklessly prescribe opioids and endanger the safety and health of patients will be held accountable,” said Anne Milgram, a Drug Enforcement Administration administrator.

“This sentence is a reminder that the Department of Justice will hold accountable those doctors who are illegitimately prescribing opioids and fueling the country’s opioid crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the same statement. “Doctors who commit these unlawful acts exploit their roles as stewards of their patients’s care for their own profit,” he added.

The sentence follows Mr. Titus’s 2-week jury trial in 2021, when he was convicted of 13 counts of unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances and one count of maintaining his practice primarily as a location to sell drugs. Mr. Titus faced a maximum of 20 years per count.

At the time of his conviction, Mr. Titus’s attorney said he planned to appeal, according to Delaware Online.

Delaware suspended Mr. Titus’s registration to prescribe controlled substances for 1 year in 2011. At the time, the state said it had determined that his continued prescribing “poses [an] imminent danger to the public health or safety.”

The state found that from January to November 2011, Mr. Titus issued 3,941 prescriptions for almost 750,000 pills for 17 different controlled substances, all sent to a single pharmacy.

The state also alleged that he wrote prescriptions for controlled substances to patients with felony convictions for drug trafficking and to at least one patient who his staff told him was selling the opioid that Mr. Titus had prescribed. It later determined that Mr. Titus continued prescribing even after it had suspended his DEA registration.

According to a 2014 consent agreement, the state subsequently ordered another 1-year suspension of his DEA registration, to be followed by a 3-year probation period.

Meanwhile, the same year, the state Board of Medical Licensure put Mr. Titus’s medical license on probation for 2 years and ordered him to complete 15 continuing medical education credits in medical recordkeeping, ethics, how to detect diversion and abuse, and in some other areas, and to pay a $7,500 fine.

In 2016, the medical board revoked Mr. Titus’s license, after finding that he continued to prescribe pain medications to patients he did not screen or monitor and for a multitude of other infractions.

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

A former pain medicine physician received a sentence of 20 years in prison for selling opioids and writing prescriptions for patients who were abusing or diverting the medications.

Patrick Titus, 58, operated Lighthouse Internal Medicine in Milford, Delaware, from 2005-2014.

Federal prosecutors said Mr. Titus unlawfully distributed or dispensed opioids including fentanyl, morphine, methadone, OxyContin, and oxycodone outside the scope of practice and often prescribed them in combination with each other or in other dangerous combinations. Mr. Titus distributed over 1 million pills, said the government.

In a 2018 indictment, the government said that Mr. Titus would, “at the first and nearly every follow-up visit” prescribe opioids in high dosages, often without conducting an exam or reviewing any urine test results. He would also write prescriptions for opioids without getting patients’s prior medical records or reviewing test results and rarely referred patients to alternative pain treatments such as physical therapy, psychotherapy, or massage.

According to the indictment, he ignored “red flags,” including that patients would come from long distances, sometimes from out of state, and would pay cash, despite having Medicaid coverage.

“Today’s sentencing makes clear that medical professionals who recklessly prescribe opioids and endanger the safety and health of patients will be held accountable,” said Anne Milgram, a Drug Enforcement Administration administrator.

“This sentence is a reminder that the Department of Justice will hold accountable those doctors who are illegitimately prescribing opioids and fueling the country’s opioid crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the same statement. “Doctors who commit these unlawful acts exploit their roles as stewards of their patients’s care for their own profit,” he added.

The sentence follows Mr. Titus’s 2-week jury trial in 2021, when he was convicted of 13 counts of unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances and one count of maintaining his practice primarily as a location to sell drugs. Mr. Titus faced a maximum of 20 years per count.

At the time of his conviction, Mr. Titus’s attorney said he planned to appeal, according to Delaware Online.

Delaware suspended Mr. Titus’s registration to prescribe controlled substances for 1 year in 2011. At the time, the state said it had determined that his continued prescribing “poses [an] imminent danger to the public health or safety.”

The state found that from January to November 2011, Mr. Titus issued 3,941 prescriptions for almost 750,000 pills for 17 different controlled substances, all sent to a single pharmacy.

The state also alleged that he wrote prescriptions for controlled substances to patients with felony convictions for drug trafficking and to at least one patient who his staff told him was selling the opioid that Mr. Titus had prescribed. It later determined that Mr. Titus continued prescribing even after it had suspended his DEA registration.

According to a 2014 consent agreement, the state subsequently ordered another 1-year suspension of his DEA registration, to be followed by a 3-year probation period.

Meanwhile, the same year, the state Board of Medical Licensure put Mr. Titus’s medical license on probation for 2 years and ordered him to complete 15 continuing medical education credits in medical recordkeeping, ethics, how to detect diversion and abuse, and in some other areas, and to pay a $7,500 fine.

In 2016, the medical board revoked Mr. Titus’s license, after finding that he continued to prescribe pain medications to patients he did not screen or monitor and for a multitude of other infractions.

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

A former pain medicine physician received a sentence of 20 years in prison for selling opioids and writing prescriptions for patients who were abusing or diverting the medications.

Patrick Titus, 58, operated Lighthouse Internal Medicine in Milford, Delaware, from 2005-2014.

Federal prosecutors said Mr. Titus unlawfully distributed or dispensed opioids including fentanyl, morphine, methadone, OxyContin, and oxycodone outside the scope of practice and often prescribed them in combination with each other or in other dangerous combinations. Mr. Titus distributed over 1 million pills, said the government.

In a 2018 indictment, the government said that Mr. Titus would, “at the first and nearly every follow-up visit” prescribe opioids in high dosages, often without conducting an exam or reviewing any urine test results. He would also write prescriptions for opioids without getting patients’s prior medical records or reviewing test results and rarely referred patients to alternative pain treatments such as physical therapy, psychotherapy, or massage.

According to the indictment, he ignored “red flags,” including that patients would come from long distances, sometimes from out of state, and would pay cash, despite having Medicaid coverage.

“Today’s sentencing makes clear that medical professionals who recklessly prescribe opioids and endanger the safety and health of patients will be held accountable,” said Anne Milgram, a Drug Enforcement Administration administrator.

“This sentence is a reminder that the Department of Justice will hold accountable those doctors who are illegitimately prescribing opioids and fueling the country’s opioid crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the same statement. “Doctors who commit these unlawful acts exploit their roles as stewards of their patients’s care for their own profit,” he added.

The sentence follows Mr. Titus’s 2-week jury trial in 2021, when he was convicted of 13 counts of unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances and one count of maintaining his practice primarily as a location to sell drugs. Mr. Titus faced a maximum of 20 years per count.

At the time of his conviction, Mr. Titus’s attorney said he planned to appeal, according to Delaware Online.

Delaware suspended Mr. Titus’s registration to prescribe controlled substances for 1 year in 2011. At the time, the state said it had determined that his continued prescribing “poses [an] imminent danger to the public health or safety.”

The state found that from January to November 2011, Mr. Titus issued 3,941 prescriptions for almost 750,000 pills for 17 different controlled substances, all sent to a single pharmacy.

The state also alleged that he wrote prescriptions for controlled substances to patients with felony convictions for drug trafficking and to at least one patient who his staff told him was selling the opioid that Mr. Titus had prescribed. It later determined that Mr. Titus continued prescribing even after it had suspended his DEA registration.

According to a 2014 consent agreement, the state subsequently ordered another 1-year suspension of his DEA registration, to be followed by a 3-year probation period.

Meanwhile, the same year, the state Board of Medical Licensure put Mr. Titus’s medical license on probation for 2 years and ordered him to complete 15 continuing medical education credits in medical recordkeeping, ethics, how to detect diversion and abuse, and in some other areas, and to pay a $7,500 fine.

In 2016, the medical board revoked Mr. Titus’s license, after finding that he continued to prescribe pain medications to patients he did not screen or monitor and for a multitude of other infractions.

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