Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

An oral oil containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) led to a significant and meaningful reduction in motor and vocal tics in patients with severe Tourette syndrome (TS), results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study show.

“In a methodologically robust manner (and independent of any drug company sponsorship), we provide evidence for the effectiveness of repeated dosing with THC:CBD vs. placebo in tic suppression, as well as reduction of comorbid anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder in severe TS,” neuropsychiatrist and lead investigator Philip Mosley, PhD, said in an interview.

The results offer support to people with TS who “want to approach their doctor to try medicinal cannabis when other drugs have not worked or are intolerable,” said Dr. Mosley, of the Wesley Research Institute and QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Australia.

The study was published online in NEJM Evidence.
 

A viable treatment option

Twenty-two adults (mean age, 31 years) with severe TS received THC:CBD oil titrated upward over 6 weeks to a daily dose of 20 mg of THC and 20 mg of CBD, followed by a 6-week course of placebo (or vice versa). Six participants had not previously used cannabis.

The primary outcome was the total tic score on the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS; range 0 to 50 with higher scores = greater tic severity).

The mean baseline YGTSS total tic score was 35.7. At 6 weeks, the reduction in total tic score was 8.9 with THC:CBD vs. 2.5 with placebo.

A linear mixed-effects model (intention-to-treat) showed a significant interaction of treatment and visit number (P = .008), indicating a greater decrease (improvement) in tic score over time with THC:CBD, the study team reported.

On average, the magnitude of the tic reduction was “moderate” and comparable to the effect observed with existing treatments such as antipsychotic agents, the investigators noted.

THC:CBD also led to a reduction in other symptoms associated with TS, particularly symptoms of OCD and anxiety.

The symptomatic response to THC:CBD correlated with serum metabolites of the cannabinoids, further supporting a biological relationship, the researchers noted.

There were no serious adverse events. Adverse effects with THC:CBD were generally mild. The most common adverse effect was cognitive difficulties, including slowed mentation, memory lapses, and poor concentration.

“Like many studies of psychoactive compounds, blinding among participants was a problem,” the researchers noted. Despite best efforts to conceal treatment allocation and match placebo to the active agent in terms of color and smell, most participants were able to correctly guess their treatment order.

Based on the findings in this small trial, larger and longer trials of THC:CBD in TS are warranted, they concluded.

“We need a plurality of treatment options in Tourette syndrome. For some, antipsychotics are effective tic-suppressing agents but for many these benefits are complicated by side effects such as weight gain & sedation,” Dr. Mosley tweeted. “Cannabinoids are a biologically plausible therapeutic agent. The body’s own ‘endocannabinoid’ receptors are concentrated in the basal ganglia – the neuroanatomical nexus of TS.”

The study was funded by the Wesley Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, and the Lambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics, a philanthropically funded research organization at the University of Sydney, Australia. Dr. Mosley reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

An oral oil containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) led to a significant and meaningful reduction in motor and vocal tics in patients with severe Tourette syndrome (TS), results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study show.

“In a methodologically robust manner (and independent of any drug company sponsorship), we provide evidence for the effectiveness of repeated dosing with THC:CBD vs. placebo in tic suppression, as well as reduction of comorbid anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder in severe TS,” neuropsychiatrist and lead investigator Philip Mosley, PhD, said in an interview.

The results offer support to people with TS who “want to approach their doctor to try medicinal cannabis when other drugs have not worked or are intolerable,” said Dr. Mosley, of the Wesley Research Institute and QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Australia.

The study was published online in NEJM Evidence.
 

A viable treatment option

Twenty-two adults (mean age, 31 years) with severe TS received THC:CBD oil titrated upward over 6 weeks to a daily dose of 20 mg of THC and 20 mg of CBD, followed by a 6-week course of placebo (or vice versa). Six participants had not previously used cannabis.

The primary outcome was the total tic score on the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS; range 0 to 50 with higher scores = greater tic severity).

The mean baseline YGTSS total tic score was 35.7. At 6 weeks, the reduction in total tic score was 8.9 with THC:CBD vs. 2.5 with placebo.

A linear mixed-effects model (intention-to-treat) showed a significant interaction of treatment and visit number (P = .008), indicating a greater decrease (improvement) in tic score over time with THC:CBD, the study team reported.

On average, the magnitude of the tic reduction was “moderate” and comparable to the effect observed with existing treatments such as antipsychotic agents, the investigators noted.

THC:CBD also led to a reduction in other symptoms associated with TS, particularly symptoms of OCD and anxiety.

The symptomatic response to THC:CBD correlated with serum metabolites of the cannabinoids, further supporting a biological relationship, the researchers noted.

There were no serious adverse events. Adverse effects with THC:CBD were generally mild. The most common adverse effect was cognitive difficulties, including slowed mentation, memory lapses, and poor concentration.

“Like many studies of psychoactive compounds, blinding among participants was a problem,” the researchers noted. Despite best efforts to conceal treatment allocation and match placebo to the active agent in terms of color and smell, most participants were able to correctly guess their treatment order.

Based on the findings in this small trial, larger and longer trials of THC:CBD in TS are warranted, they concluded.

“We need a plurality of treatment options in Tourette syndrome. For some, antipsychotics are effective tic-suppressing agents but for many these benefits are complicated by side effects such as weight gain & sedation,” Dr. Mosley tweeted. “Cannabinoids are a biologically plausible therapeutic agent. The body’s own ‘endocannabinoid’ receptors are concentrated in the basal ganglia – the neuroanatomical nexus of TS.”

The study was funded by the Wesley Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, and the Lambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics, a philanthropically funded research organization at the University of Sydney, Australia. Dr. Mosley reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

An oral oil containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) led to a significant and meaningful reduction in motor and vocal tics in patients with severe Tourette syndrome (TS), results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study show.

“In a methodologically robust manner (and independent of any drug company sponsorship), we provide evidence for the effectiveness of repeated dosing with THC:CBD vs. placebo in tic suppression, as well as reduction of comorbid anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder in severe TS,” neuropsychiatrist and lead investigator Philip Mosley, PhD, said in an interview.

The results offer support to people with TS who “want to approach their doctor to try medicinal cannabis when other drugs have not worked or are intolerable,” said Dr. Mosley, of the Wesley Research Institute and QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Australia.

The study was published online in NEJM Evidence.
 

A viable treatment option

Twenty-two adults (mean age, 31 years) with severe TS received THC:CBD oil titrated upward over 6 weeks to a daily dose of 20 mg of THC and 20 mg of CBD, followed by a 6-week course of placebo (or vice versa). Six participants had not previously used cannabis.

The primary outcome was the total tic score on the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS; range 0 to 50 with higher scores = greater tic severity).

The mean baseline YGTSS total tic score was 35.7. At 6 weeks, the reduction in total tic score was 8.9 with THC:CBD vs. 2.5 with placebo.

A linear mixed-effects model (intention-to-treat) showed a significant interaction of treatment and visit number (P = .008), indicating a greater decrease (improvement) in tic score over time with THC:CBD, the study team reported.

On average, the magnitude of the tic reduction was “moderate” and comparable to the effect observed with existing treatments such as antipsychotic agents, the investigators noted.

THC:CBD also led to a reduction in other symptoms associated with TS, particularly symptoms of OCD and anxiety.

The symptomatic response to THC:CBD correlated with serum metabolites of the cannabinoids, further supporting a biological relationship, the researchers noted.

There were no serious adverse events. Adverse effects with THC:CBD were generally mild. The most common adverse effect was cognitive difficulties, including slowed mentation, memory lapses, and poor concentration.

“Like many studies of psychoactive compounds, blinding among participants was a problem,” the researchers noted. Despite best efforts to conceal treatment allocation and match placebo to the active agent in terms of color and smell, most participants were able to correctly guess their treatment order.

Based on the findings in this small trial, larger and longer trials of THC:CBD in TS are warranted, they concluded.

“We need a plurality of treatment options in Tourette syndrome. For some, antipsychotics are effective tic-suppressing agents but for many these benefits are complicated by side effects such as weight gain & sedation,” Dr. Mosley tweeted. “Cannabinoids are a biologically plausible therapeutic agent. The body’s own ‘endocannabinoid’ receptors are concentrated in the basal ganglia – the neuroanatomical nexus of TS.”

The study was funded by the Wesley Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, and the Lambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics, a philanthropically funded research organization at the University of Sydney, Australia. Dr. Mosley reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration unanimously has agreed that the next COVID-19 vaccines should target the XBB variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus now in circulation in the United States, but questioned whether the population as a whole needs booster shots and how often they should be given.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the FDA voted 21-0 in favor of the recommendation about the strain to be used in the next crop of vaccines.

In the briefing document for the meeting, FDA staff said the available evidence suggests that a monovalent (single-strain) XBB-lineage vaccine “is warranted” for the 2023-2024 vaccination campaign and would replace the current bivalent vaccine, which targets the original version of the virus and two strains from the Omicron variant.

FDA staff also noted how such a shift would be in line with the World Health Organization toward targeting the XBB family of subvariants. European regulators have done this as well. 

The FDA is not obligated to act on the panel’s recommendations. But the agency often does and is highly likely to do so in this case. Vaccine companies will need the recommendation from the FDA to begin making vaccines for the fall.
 

New shot every year?

The FDA asked its expert panel to vote only on the question about the makeup of future vaccines in terms of which strain to include. 

But panelists also raised other questions during the meeting, including concerns about moves toward tying COVID vaccinations into the model of annual flu shots. 

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, argued for greater focus on the response of T cells after vaccination, even in light of the already recognized waning of antibody protection. 

In a recent Substack article, Dr. Offit called T cells the “unsung hero” of the pandemic. They take longer to develop after infection or vaccination than the antibodies that first attack the virus, but immune memory cells called B and T cells “are long-lived,” and their “protection against severe disease often lasts for years and sometimes decades.”

Dr. Offit said he was concerned about using a blanket approach for future recommendations for COVID vaccinations, following the one now in place for influenza vaccines.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends flu shots for everyone 6 months and older, with rare exceptions. 

“We need to continue to define who those high-risk groups are and not make this a recommendation for everybody every season,” he said.

Dr. Offit offered his own experience as an example. While he had been vaccinated against the virus’s early Wuhan strain, he still was infected, most likely with a variant that emerged later. 

“That was a drifted virus. That’s why I had a mild infection but I didn’t have a severe infection, because presumably I had T cells which prevented that severe infection, which may last for years,” Dr. Offit said.

Pfizer and Moderna, the two companies that make mRNA-based COVID vaccines, are working on experimental products meant to protect against both flu and SARS-COv-2 in one shot. Novavax, maker of a more traditional protein-based COVID shot, is doing the same. 

The idea of these combination products is to make it more convenient for people to protect against both viruses, while also offering companies some marketing advantages.

But without referring to these drugmakers’ plans for future combo flu-COVID shots, members of the FDA panel raised objections to an assumption of routine annual vaccines against variants of SARS-CoV-2. 

Among the panelists who expressed concerns was Henry H. Bernstein, DO, a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. 

Bernstein questioned the approach of dubbing these the “2023-2024 formulas,” as this approach conveyed a sense of an expectation for a need for annual vaccines, as happens with flu. 

“It’s not clear to me that this is a seasonal virus yet,” said Dr. Bernstein, who is also a professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y..

In response to Dr. Bernstein’s point, Arnold Monto, MD, the acting chair of the FDA panel, suggested such a pattern could emerge, while also agreeing that it’s too soon to say for sure.

A professor emeritus at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Dr. Monto’s career included pandemic planning and emergency response to virus outbreaks, including the 1968 Hong Kong influenza pandemic, avian influenza, and the original SARS.

“I think it’s premature to say that this virus will not become seasonal,” Dr. Monto said about SARS-CoV-2. “I agree. We’re not there yet, but we may be.”

At the end of the meeting, Dr. Monto recapped the meeting’s key points, noting that there was a general consensus that the XBB.1.5 subvariant would be the best to use in future COVID shots. 

He also noted that Novavax, which makes the more traditional protein-based vaccine, along with Pfizer and Moderna, already have honed in on this subvariant, which would allow for rapid development of updated COVID vaccines.

“The fact that most of the manufacturers are ready to work on an XBB 1.5 [vaccine] is an added reason to select this strain or this variant, given the immunologic data,” Dr. Monto said. 

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the demands involved in manufacturing vaccines tilts toward annual changes.

“Practically, we’re going to have one update per year, barring a heroic effort to deal with a strain that pops up that is essentially so different that it requires us to mobilize tremendous resources to address that strain change,” he said.

Dr. Marks questioned the panelists’ concerns about likening flu and COVID vaccination practices. The FDA staff’s intent was to try to help the public understand the need for follow-on vaccination.

“I’m really having trouble understanding that committee’s need to bristle against something that’s similar to influenza. People understand a yearly influenza vaccine,” Dr. Marks said. 

And it’s not certain when another major change in the COVID virus will follow the XBB subvariant, but it’s likely one will – and soon, Dr. Marks said. 

“It looks like, probably by next fall, there’ll be further drift from this,” he said.
 

Informing the public 

Dr. Marks also stressed the need to better convey the benefits of vaccination to people in the United States. 

CDC data estimate that 70% of the U.S. population completed an initial series of the original monovalent vaccines, with only 17% then getting bivalent shots. There’s even a decline among people ages 65 and older. CDC estimates 94% of this group completed their primary series, but only 43% got the bivalent booster dose.

“We have to do better because we have not done a good job today communicating to the American public what’s going on here,” Marks said.

Researchers also are still trying to determine the best timing for people to get additional COVID shots. Finding the “sweet spot” where people can maximize additional protection is tricky, with people most protected if they happen to get shot near the beginning of an uptick in viral spread, the CDC’s Ruth Link-Gelles, PhD, MPH, told the panel during a presentation. 

“You’re going to get the best incremental benefit if it’s been longer since your last vaccine,” she said. “But of course, if you wait too long since your last vaccine, you’re left with very little protection, and so you’re at higher risk of severe illness.”

Like Dr. Marks, Dr. Link-Gelles stressed the need for persuading more people to get follow-on vaccines. 

“Most Americans, at this point, haven’t even received the bivalent and so are a year or more out from their monovalent dose and so have relatively little protection left,” she said.

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

A panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration unanimously has agreed that the next COVID-19 vaccines should target the XBB variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus now in circulation in the United States, but questioned whether the population as a whole needs booster shots and how often they should be given.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the FDA voted 21-0 in favor of the recommendation about the strain to be used in the next crop of vaccines.

In the briefing document for the meeting, FDA staff said the available evidence suggests that a monovalent (single-strain) XBB-lineage vaccine “is warranted” for the 2023-2024 vaccination campaign and would replace the current bivalent vaccine, which targets the original version of the virus and two strains from the Omicron variant.

FDA staff also noted how such a shift would be in line with the World Health Organization toward targeting the XBB family of subvariants. European regulators have done this as well. 

The FDA is not obligated to act on the panel’s recommendations. But the agency often does and is highly likely to do so in this case. Vaccine companies will need the recommendation from the FDA to begin making vaccines for the fall.
 

New shot every year?

The FDA asked its expert panel to vote only on the question about the makeup of future vaccines in terms of which strain to include. 

But panelists also raised other questions during the meeting, including concerns about moves toward tying COVID vaccinations into the model of annual flu shots. 

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, argued for greater focus on the response of T cells after vaccination, even in light of the already recognized waning of antibody protection. 

In a recent Substack article, Dr. Offit called T cells the “unsung hero” of the pandemic. They take longer to develop after infection or vaccination than the antibodies that first attack the virus, but immune memory cells called B and T cells “are long-lived,” and their “protection against severe disease often lasts for years and sometimes decades.”

Dr. Offit said he was concerned about using a blanket approach for future recommendations for COVID vaccinations, following the one now in place for influenza vaccines.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends flu shots for everyone 6 months and older, with rare exceptions. 

“We need to continue to define who those high-risk groups are and not make this a recommendation for everybody every season,” he said.

Dr. Offit offered his own experience as an example. While he had been vaccinated against the virus’s early Wuhan strain, he still was infected, most likely with a variant that emerged later. 

“That was a drifted virus. That’s why I had a mild infection but I didn’t have a severe infection, because presumably I had T cells which prevented that severe infection, which may last for years,” Dr. Offit said.

Pfizer and Moderna, the two companies that make mRNA-based COVID vaccines, are working on experimental products meant to protect against both flu and SARS-COv-2 in one shot. Novavax, maker of a more traditional protein-based COVID shot, is doing the same. 

The idea of these combination products is to make it more convenient for people to protect against both viruses, while also offering companies some marketing advantages.

But without referring to these drugmakers’ plans for future combo flu-COVID shots, members of the FDA panel raised objections to an assumption of routine annual vaccines against variants of SARS-CoV-2. 

Among the panelists who expressed concerns was Henry H. Bernstein, DO, a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. 

Bernstein questioned the approach of dubbing these the “2023-2024 formulas,” as this approach conveyed a sense of an expectation for a need for annual vaccines, as happens with flu. 

“It’s not clear to me that this is a seasonal virus yet,” said Dr. Bernstein, who is also a professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y..

In response to Dr. Bernstein’s point, Arnold Monto, MD, the acting chair of the FDA panel, suggested such a pattern could emerge, while also agreeing that it’s too soon to say for sure.

A professor emeritus at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Dr. Monto’s career included pandemic planning and emergency response to virus outbreaks, including the 1968 Hong Kong influenza pandemic, avian influenza, and the original SARS.

“I think it’s premature to say that this virus will not become seasonal,” Dr. Monto said about SARS-CoV-2. “I agree. We’re not there yet, but we may be.”

At the end of the meeting, Dr. Monto recapped the meeting’s key points, noting that there was a general consensus that the XBB.1.5 subvariant would be the best to use in future COVID shots. 

He also noted that Novavax, which makes the more traditional protein-based vaccine, along with Pfizer and Moderna, already have honed in on this subvariant, which would allow for rapid development of updated COVID vaccines.

“The fact that most of the manufacturers are ready to work on an XBB 1.5 [vaccine] is an added reason to select this strain or this variant, given the immunologic data,” Dr. Monto said. 

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the demands involved in manufacturing vaccines tilts toward annual changes.

“Practically, we’re going to have one update per year, barring a heroic effort to deal with a strain that pops up that is essentially so different that it requires us to mobilize tremendous resources to address that strain change,” he said.

Dr. Marks questioned the panelists’ concerns about likening flu and COVID vaccination practices. The FDA staff’s intent was to try to help the public understand the need for follow-on vaccination.

“I’m really having trouble understanding that committee’s need to bristle against something that’s similar to influenza. People understand a yearly influenza vaccine,” Dr. Marks said. 

And it’s not certain when another major change in the COVID virus will follow the XBB subvariant, but it’s likely one will – and soon, Dr. Marks said. 

“It looks like, probably by next fall, there’ll be further drift from this,” he said.
 

Informing the public 

Dr. Marks also stressed the need to better convey the benefits of vaccination to people in the United States. 

CDC data estimate that 70% of the U.S. population completed an initial series of the original monovalent vaccines, with only 17% then getting bivalent shots. There’s even a decline among people ages 65 and older. CDC estimates 94% of this group completed their primary series, but only 43% got the bivalent booster dose.

“We have to do better because we have not done a good job today communicating to the American public what’s going on here,” Marks said.

Researchers also are still trying to determine the best timing for people to get additional COVID shots. Finding the “sweet spot” where people can maximize additional protection is tricky, with people most protected if they happen to get shot near the beginning of an uptick in viral spread, the CDC’s Ruth Link-Gelles, PhD, MPH, told the panel during a presentation. 

“You’re going to get the best incremental benefit if it’s been longer since your last vaccine,” she said. “But of course, if you wait too long since your last vaccine, you’re left with very little protection, and so you’re at higher risk of severe illness.”

Like Dr. Marks, Dr. Link-Gelles stressed the need for persuading more people to get follow-on vaccines. 

“Most Americans, at this point, haven’t even received the bivalent and so are a year or more out from their monovalent dose and so have relatively little protection left,” she said.

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

A panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration unanimously has agreed that the next COVID-19 vaccines should target the XBB variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus now in circulation in the United States, but questioned whether the population as a whole needs booster shots and how often they should be given.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the FDA voted 21-0 in favor of the recommendation about the strain to be used in the next crop of vaccines.

In the briefing document for the meeting, FDA staff said the available evidence suggests that a monovalent (single-strain) XBB-lineage vaccine “is warranted” for the 2023-2024 vaccination campaign and would replace the current bivalent vaccine, which targets the original version of the virus and two strains from the Omicron variant.

FDA staff also noted how such a shift would be in line with the World Health Organization toward targeting the XBB family of subvariants. European regulators have done this as well. 

The FDA is not obligated to act on the panel’s recommendations. But the agency often does and is highly likely to do so in this case. Vaccine companies will need the recommendation from the FDA to begin making vaccines for the fall.
 

New shot every year?

The FDA asked its expert panel to vote only on the question about the makeup of future vaccines in terms of which strain to include. 

But panelists also raised other questions during the meeting, including concerns about moves toward tying COVID vaccinations into the model of annual flu shots. 

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, argued for greater focus on the response of T cells after vaccination, even in light of the already recognized waning of antibody protection. 

In a recent Substack article, Dr. Offit called T cells the “unsung hero” of the pandemic. They take longer to develop after infection or vaccination than the antibodies that first attack the virus, but immune memory cells called B and T cells “are long-lived,” and their “protection against severe disease often lasts for years and sometimes decades.”

Dr. Offit said he was concerned about using a blanket approach for future recommendations for COVID vaccinations, following the one now in place for influenza vaccines.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends flu shots for everyone 6 months and older, with rare exceptions. 

“We need to continue to define who those high-risk groups are and not make this a recommendation for everybody every season,” he said.

Dr. Offit offered his own experience as an example. While he had been vaccinated against the virus’s early Wuhan strain, he still was infected, most likely with a variant that emerged later. 

“That was a drifted virus. That’s why I had a mild infection but I didn’t have a severe infection, because presumably I had T cells which prevented that severe infection, which may last for years,” Dr. Offit said.

Pfizer and Moderna, the two companies that make mRNA-based COVID vaccines, are working on experimental products meant to protect against both flu and SARS-COv-2 in one shot. Novavax, maker of a more traditional protein-based COVID shot, is doing the same. 

The idea of these combination products is to make it more convenient for people to protect against both viruses, while also offering companies some marketing advantages.

But without referring to these drugmakers’ plans for future combo flu-COVID shots, members of the FDA panel raised objections to an assumption of routine annual vaccines against variants of SARS-CoV-2. 

Among the panelists who expressed concerns was Henry H. Bernstein, DO, a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. 

Bernstein questioned the approach of dubbing these the “2023-2024 formulas,” as this approach conveyed a sense of an expectation for a need for annual vaccines, as happens with flu. 

“It’s not clear to me that this is a seasonal virus yet,” said Dr. Bernstein, who is also a professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y..

In response to Dr. Bernstein’s point, Arnold Monto, MD, the acting chair of the FDA panel, suggested such a pattern could emerge, while also agreeing that it’s too soon to say for sure.

A professor emeritus at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Dr. Monto’s career included pandemic planning and emergency response to virus outbreaks, including the 1968 Hong Kong influenza pandemic, avian influenza, and the original SARS.

“I think it’s premature to say that this virus will not become seasonal,” Dr. Monto said about SARS-CoV-2. “I agree. We’re not there yet, but we may be.”

At the end of the meeting, Dr. Monto recapped the meeting’s key points, noting that there was a general consensus that the XBB.1.5 subvariant would be the best to use in future COVID shots. 

He also noted that Novavax, which makes the more traditional protein-based vaccine, along with Pfizer and Moderna, already have honed in on this subvariant, which would allow for rapid development of updated COVID vaccines.

“The fact that most of the manufacturers are ready to work on an XBB 1.5 [vaccine] is an added reason to select this strain or this variant, given the immunologic data,” Dr. Monto said. 

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the demands involved in manufacturing vaccines tilts toward annual changes.

“Practically, we’re going to have one update per year, barring a heroic effort to deal with a strain that pops up that is essentially so different that it requires us to mobilize tremendous resources to address that strain change,” he said.

Dr. Marks questioned the panelists’ concerns about likening flu and COVID vaccination practices. The FDA staff’s intent was to try to help the public understand the need for follow-on vaccination.

“I’m really having trouble understanding that committee’s need to bristle against something that’s similar to influenza. People understand a yearly influenza vaccine,” Dr. Marks said. 

And it’s not certain when another major change in the COVID virus will follow the XBB subvariant, but it’s likely one will – and soon, Dr. Marks said. 

“It looks like, probably by next fall, there’ll be further drift from this,” he said.
 

Informing the public 

Dr. Marks also stressed the need to better convey the benefits of vaccination to people in the United States. 

CDC data estimate that 70% of the U.S. population completed an initial series of the original monovalent vaccines, with only 17% then getting bivalent shots. There’s even a decline among people ages 65 and older. CDC estimates 94% of this group completed their primary series, but only 43% got the bivalent booster dose.

“We have to do better because we have not done a good job today communicating to the American public what’s going on here,” Marks said.

Researchers also are still trying to determine the best timing for people to get additional COVID shots. Finding the “sweet spot” where people can maximize additional protection is tricky, with people most protected if they happen to get shot near the beginning of an uptick in viral spread, the CDC’s Ruth Link-Gelles, PhD, MPH, told the panel during a presentation. 

“You’re going to get the best incremental benefit if it’s been longer since your last vaccine,” she said. “But of course, if you wait too long since your last vaccine, you’re left with very little protection, and so you’re at higher risk of severe illness.”

Like Dr. Marks, Dr. Link-Gelles stressed the need for persuading more people to get follow-on vaccines. 

“Most Americans, at this point, haven’t even received the bivalent and so are a year or more out from their monovalent dose and so have relatively little protection left,” she said.

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

DENVER – In the ongoing absence of a reliable biomarker for multiple sclerosis (MS), misdiagnosis is a common and persistent problem that potentially puts patients at prolonged and unnecessary risk. Experts warn that false-negative diagnoses cause treatment delays, while false-positive diagnoses run the risk for potential harm from needless treatment.

“MS has a misdiagnosis problem,” said Patricia Coyle, MD, professor of neurology and vice chair (academic affairs), department of neurology, Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, in presenting on the issue at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

“We currently lack a diagnostic biomarker test, yet diagnosis is key. If you get it wrong – that really can be a problem,” Dr. Coyle said. Recent research indicates that MS misdiagnosis is a widespread problem, she added.

For instance, one research paper reported that nearly 20% of patients were misdiagnosed with MS and that more than 50% carried the misdiagnosis for at least 3 years, while 5% were misdiagnosed for 20 years or more.

The misdiagnosis problem is also reflected at large MS referral centers, where 30%-67% of patients turn out not to have the disease, Dr. Coyle noted.

A study from Argentina further highlights some of the key characteristics of misdiagnosis. In this study, examination of a cohort of 572 patients diagnosed with MS revealed that 16% were incorrectly diagnosed with MS and that women were at an 83% greater risk for misdiagnosis than men. Furthermore, the study showed that MS misdiagnosis increased by 8% per year of older age. The most frequent confirmed diagnoses among those who had been initially misdiagnosed as having MS were cerebrovascular disease, radiologically isolated syndrome, and headache.

The majority (83%) of patients incorrectly diagnosed with MS had an atypical presentation that did not indicate demyelination, 70% had an atypical brain magnetic resonance imaging, and 61% received a prescription for a disease-modifying treatment (DMT), despite not having confirmed MS.
 

The dangers of misdiagnosis

Misdiagnosis and incorrect treatment can be particularly dangerous if patients are diagnosed with MS when, in fact, they have neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), commonly mistaken for MS, Dr. Coyle noted.

“Several MS DMTs make NMOSD worse. You are also basically giving an unnecessary and inappropriate drug with potential side effects to the misdiagnosed patient,” she said.

There have been some advances in MS diagnosis on MRI. However, there are many caveats, Dr. Coyle noted.

For instance, leptomeningeal enhancement has been considered as an MS diagnostic indicator, but it is not unique to MS, Dr. Coyle noted. In addition, subpial demyelination is MS specific, but it is hard to see and is often missed, she added.

Central vein sign has received significant attention as an important MRI marker for MS, but, Dr. Coyle said, it is “not ready for prime time. It’s somewhat tedious and you need to use special protocols to identify it,” she said.

In the future, artificial intelligence and deep learning may be key to improving some of these technologies, Dr. Coyle noted.
 

Best hope for an accurate diagnosis

In the meantime, Dr. Coyle said she believes spinal fluid evaluation offers the best chance for a reliable MS diagnosis and is her preference. “I personally find spinal fluid to be extremely helpful to support MS diagnosis. Spinal fluid oligoclonal bands are positive in the vast majority of people with MS, and it is an independent finding from MRI to support an MS diagnosis. Added to MRI, it makes you much more comfortable,” she said.

Dr. Coyle said that a comprehensive workup should include:

• A thorough neurologic history and exam.
• MRI of the brain and spinal cord ensuring use of the MS protocol, and personally reading the studies with a neuroradiologist.
• Adding spinal fluid evaluation, especially in any atypical cases.
• Ruling out myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody disease and NMOSD, diseases that mimic relapsing MS, via blood IgG to aquaporin 4.

“You want to be as certain as possible. Everything starts with a thorough workup,” Dr. Coyle said.

Dr. Coyle’s disclosures include consulting, nonbranded speaker fees, and/or research support with Actelion, Alkermes, Accordant, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, CorEvitas LLC, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/Roche, Horizon Therapeutics, Janssen, MedDay, Labcorp, Eli Lilly, Mylan, NINDS, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and TG Therapeutics.

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

DENVER – In the ongoing absence of a reliable biomarker for multiple sclerosis (MS), misdiagnosis is a common and persistent problem that potentially puts patients at prolonged and unnecessary risk. Experts warn that false-negative diagnoses cause treatment delays, while false-positive diagnoses run the risk for potential harm from needless treatment.

“MS has a misdiagnosis problem,” said Patricia Coyle, MD, professor of neurology and vice chair (academic affairs), department of neurology, Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, in presenting on the issue at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

“We currently lack a diagnostic biomarker test, yet diagnosis is key. If you get it wrong – that really can be a problem,” Dr. Coyle said. Recent research indicates that MS misdiagnosis is a widespread problem, she added.

For instance, one research paper reported that nearly 20% of patients were misdiagnosed with MS and that more than 50% carried the misdiagnosis for at least 3 years, while 5% were misdiagnosed for 20 years or more.

The misdiagnosis problem is also reflected at large MS referral centers, where 30%-67% of patients turn out not to have the disease, Dr. Coyle noted.

A study from Argentina further highlights some of the key characteristics of misdiagnosis. In this study, examination of a cohort of 572 patients diagnosed with MS revealed that 16% were incorrectly diagnosed with MS and that women were at an 83% greater risk for misdiagnosis than men. Furthermore, the study showed that MS misdiagnosis increased by 8% per year of older age. The most frequent confirmed diagnoses among those who had been initially misdiagnosed as having MS were cerebrovascular disease, radiologically isolated syndrome, and headache.

The majority (83%) of patients incorrectly diagnosed with MS had an atypical presentation that did not indicate demyelination, 70% had an atypical brain magnetic resonance imaging, and 61% received a prescription for a disease-modifying treatment (DMT), despite not having confirmed MS.
 

The dangers of misdiagnosis

Misdiagnosis and incorrect treatment can be particularly dangerous if patients are diagnosed with MS when, in fact, they have neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), commonly mistaken for MS, Dr. Coyle noted.

“Several MS DMTs make NMOSD worse. You are also basically giving an unnecessary and inappropriate drug with potential side effects to the misdiagnosed patient,” she said.

There have been some advances in MS diagnosis on MRI. However, there are many caveats, Dr. Coyle noted.

For instance, leptomeningeal enhancement has been considered as an MS diagnostic indicator, but it is not unique to MS, Dr. Coyle noted. In addition, subpial demyelination is MS specific, but it is hard to see and is often missed, she added.

Central vein sign has received significant attention as an important MRI marker for MS, but, Dr. Coyle said, it is “not ready for prime time. It’s somewhat tedious and you need to use special protocols to identify it,” she said.

In the future, artificial intelligence and deep learning may be key to improving some of these technologies, Dr. Coyle noted.
 

Best hope for an accurate diagnosis

In the meantime, Dr. Coyle said she believes spinal fluid evaluation offers the best chance for a reliable MS diagnosis and is her preference. “I personally find spinal fluid to be extremely helpful to support MS diagnosis. Spinal fluid oligoclonal bands are positive in the vast majority of people with MS, and it is an independent finding from MRI to support an MS diagnosis. Added to MRI, it makes you much more comfortable,” she said.

Dr. Coyle said that a comprehensive workup should include:

• A thorough neurologic history and exam.
• MRI of the brain and spinal cord ensuring use of the MS protocol, and personally reading the studies with a neuroradiologist.
• Adding spinal fluid evaluation, especially in any atypical cases.
• Ruling out myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody disease and NMOSD, diseases that mimic relapsing MS, via blood IgG to aquaporin 4.

“You want to be as certain as possible. Everything starts with a thorough workup,” Dr. Coyle said.

Dr. Coyle’s disclosures include consulting, nonbranded speaker fees, and/or research support with Actelion, Alkermes, Accordant, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, CorEvitas LLC, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/Roche, Horizon Therapeutics, Janssen, MedDay, Labcorp, Eli Lilly, Mylan, NINDS, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and TG Therapeutics.

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

DENVER – In the ongoing absence of a reliable biomarker for multiple sclerosis (MS), misdiagnosis is a common and persistent problem that potentially puts patients at prolonged and unnecessary risk. Experts warn that false-negative diagnoses cause treatment delays, while false-positive diagnoses run the risk for potential harm from needless treatment.

“MS has a misdiagnosis problem,” said Patricia Coyle, MD, professor of neurology and vice chair (academic affairs), department of neurology, Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, in presenting on the issue at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

“We currently lack a diagnostic biomarker test, yet diagnosis is key. If you get it wrong – that really can be a problem,” Dr. Coyle said. Recent research indicates that MS misdiagnosis is a widespread problem, she added.

For instance, one research paper reported that nearly 20% of patients were misdiagnosed with MS and that more than 50% carried the misdiagnosis for at least 3 years, while 5% were misdiagnosed for 20 years or more.

The misdiagnosis problem is also reflected at large MS referral centers, where 30%-67% of patients turn out not to have the disease, Dr. Coyle noted.

A study from Argentina further highlights some of the key characteristics of misdiagnosis. In this study, examination of a cohort of 572 patients diagnosed with MS revealed that 16% were incorrectly diagnosed with MS and that women were at an 83% greater risk for misdiagnosis than men. Furthermore, the study showed that MS misdiagnosis increased by 8% per year of older age. The most frequent confirmed diagnoses among those who had been initially misdiagnosed as having MS were cerebrovascular disease, radiologically isolated syndrome, and headache.

The majority (83%) of patients incorrectly diagnosed with MS had an atypical presentation that did not indicate demyelination, 70% had an atypical brain magnetic resonance imaging, and 61% received a prescription for a disease-modifying treatment (DMT), despite not having confirmed MS.
 

The dangers of misdiagnosis

Misdiagnosis and incorrect treatment can be particularly dangerous if patients are diagnosed with MS when, in fact, they have neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), commonly mistaken for MS, Dr. Coyle noted.

“Several MS DMTs make NMOSD worse. You are also basically giving an unnecessary and inappropriate drug with potential side effects to the misdiagnosed patient,” she said.

There have been some advances in MS diagnosis on MRI. However, there are many caveats, Dr. Coyle noted.

For instance, leptomeningeal enhancement has been considered as an MS diagnostic indicator, but it is not unique to MS, Dr. Coyle noted. In addition, subpial demyelination is MS specific, but it is hard to see and is often missed, she added.

Central vein sign has received significant attention as an important MRI marker for MS, but, Dr. Coyle said, it is “not ready for prime time. It’s somewhat tedious and you need to use special protocols to identify it,” she said.

In the future, artificial intelligence and deep learning may be key to improving some of these technologies, Dr. Coyle noted.
 

Best hope for an accurate diagnosis

In the meantime, Dr. Coyle said she believes spinal fluid evaluation offers the best chance for a reliable MS diagnosis and is her preference. “I personally find spinal fluid to be extremely helpful to support MS diagnosis. Spinal fluid oligoclonal bands are positive in the vast majority of people with MS, and it is an independent finding from MRI to support an MS diagnosis. Added to MRI, it makes you much more comfortable,” she said.

Dr. Coyle said that a comprehensive workup should include:

• A thorough neurologic history and exam.
• MRI of the brain and spinal cord ensuring use of the MS protocol, and personally reading the studies with a neuroradiologist.
• Adding spinal fluid evaluation, especially in any atypical cases.
• Ruling out myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody disease and NMOSD, diseases that mimic relapsing MS, via blood IgG to aquaporin 4.

“You want to be as certain as possible. Everything starts with a thorough workup,” Dr. Coyle said.

Dr. Coyle’s disclosures include consulting, nonbranded speaker fees, and/or research support with Actelion, Alkermes, Accordant, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, CorEvitas LLC, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/Roche, Horizon Therapeutics, Janssen, MedDay, Labcorp, Eli Lilly, Mylan, NINDS, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and TG Therapeutics.

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

MILAN – The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with rheumatic and nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases is ongoing and not yet fully comprehended. New data presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, primarily derived from the global COVID-19 in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) survey but not limited to it, provide reassurance regarding the protection and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for older and younger adults, as well as for pregnant and breastfeeding women. These data also explore the influence of underlying diseases and medications on breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections and infection outcomes.

Safety of vaccines in patients with autoimmune or immune-mediated diseases

Following vaccination, even with low levels of antibodies, the risk of severe COVID-19 remains relatively low for patients who receive immunosuppressive therapy for various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). This encouraging finding comes from the Nor-vaC study, presented by Hilde Ørbo, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo.

During the presentation, Dr. Ørbo stated: “We did not find any specific diagnosis or medication associated with a significantly higher risk of hospitalization.” Receiving booster doses of the vaccine, having high levels of anti-spike antibodies after vaccination, and achieving hybrid immunity are correlated with further reductions in the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Dr. Hilde Ørbo

Between Feb. 15, 2021, and Feb. 15, 2023, COVID-19 affected a similar proportion among the 729 patients and 350 healthy control persons (67% and 68%, respectively). Among the patients, 22 reported severe COVID-19, whereas none of the healthy control persons did. However, there were no fatalities among the patients. The study cohort consisted of patients with various IMIDs; 70% had an inflammatory joint disease. The use of immunosuppressive medications also varied, with 63% of patients using tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, either as monotherapy or in combination with other treatments, and other patients taking medications such as methotrexate, interleukin inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, vedolizumab (Entyvio), and others.

While being older than 70 years and the presence of comorbidities were identified as risk factors for severe COVID-19, there was a significant reduction in risk with each additional vaccine dose. These results support the protective role of repeated COVID-19 vaccination for patients with IMIDs who are receiving immunosuppressive therapies; they yield a favorable prognosis even with the Omicron variant.

The study further compared the risk of severe COVID-19 between a group with hybrid immunity (having received three vaccine doses and experiencing breakthrough infection with the Omicron variant) and a group that received a fourth vaccine dose within the same time frame. The difference was striking: Hybrid immunity was associated with a 5.8-fold decrease in risk, compared with four-dose vaccination (P < .0001).

The level of antibodies, measured 2-4 weeks after the last vaccination, was predictive of the risk of breakthrough COVID-19. An antibody level above 6000 binding antibody units/mL after vaccination was significantly associated with a reduction in risk. “We can conclude that patients who receive multiple vaccine doses have a lower risk of COVID-19,” Dr. Ørbo said. “In patients who recently experienced breakthrough infections, the administration of a booster vaccine dose might be delayed.”

EULAR

“The virus has undergone changes throughout the pandemic, while the vaccines have remained relatively stable. Are we anticipating more infections over time?” asked Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, PhD, of Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich (Germany), the session moderator. In response, Dr. Ørbo stated that 85% of the recorded infections in the study occurred after the emergence of the Omicron variant, and time was considered a covariable in the analysis.

These data shed light on a topic discussed by Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in rheumatology and neuromuscular diseases at University College London, during his scientific session talk entitled, “Unsolved Issues of COVID Vaccination and Re-vaccination.” Dr. Machado referred to the VROOM study published in 2022, which examined the interruption of methotrexate for 2 weeks following booster administration. Both groups demonstrated a significant antibody response, but the group that stopped taking methotrexate showed double the antibody titers.

However, he emphasized, “what remains unknown is the clinical relevance of these differences in terms of severe infection, hospitalization, or even death. The potential benefit of increased immunogenicity by interrupting conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [csDMARDs] such as methotrexate before or after vaccination needs to be balanced against the potential risk of disease flare. Ultimately, decision-making should be individualized based on factors such as comorbidities, disease activity, and other considerations.” The results presented by Dr. Ørbo suggest that, while there may be a clinical difference in terms of severe infection, the overall prognosis for vaccinated patients is reasonably good.

Regarding other DMARDs, such as biologics, the approach may differ. Dr. Machado suggested: “In patients using rituximab or other B cell–depleting therapies, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination should be scheduled in a way that optimizes vaccine immunogenicity. A minimum of 10 B cells/mcL of blood is likely a relevant threshold above which a sufficient cellular and immune response is established.”
 

COVID vaccines are safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women

According to data from the COVAD study, which comprised two global cross-sectional surveys conducted in 2021 and 2022, the COVID-19 vaccine appeared safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women with autoimmune diseases (AID).

Presenter Laura Andreoli, MD, PhD, of the University of Brescia (Italy), said that, although pregnant patients with AID reported more adverse events related to vaccination, these rates were not significantly higher than those among pregnant, healthy control persons who were without AID. No difference in adverse events was observed between breastfeeding women and healthy control persons, and the incidence of disease flares did not significantly differ among all groups.

“In summary, this study provides initial insights into the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during the gestational and postpartum periods in women with autoimmune diseases. These reassuring observations will hopefully improve clinician-patient communication and address hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination, as the benefits for the mother and fetus through passive immunization appear to outweigh potential risks,” Dr. Andreoli said in an interview.

“The large number of participants and the global geographical spread of the COVAD survey were very beneficial in gaining access to this important subset of patients,” added Dr. Andreoli. However, she acknowledged that patients with low socioeconomic status and/or high disability were likely underrepresented. While no data on pregnancy outcomes have been collected thus far, Dr. Andreoli expressed the desire to include them in the study’s follow-up.

The COVAD survey data also indicate that, in general, vaccine hesitancy among patients with AID is decreasing; from 2021 to 2022, it declined from 16.5% to 5.1%, as Dr. Machado indicated in his presentation.
 

Multiple factors contribute to breakthrough infections

The risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections after vaccination varies among patients with rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatic or nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases, primarily depending on the underlying condition rather than the immunosuppressive medication. Environmental factors also appear to play a role. This complex landscape emerges from a further analysis of the COVAD survey dataset.

Alessia Alunno, MD, PhD, of the University of L’Aquila (Italy), presented a detailed and occasionally counterintuitive picture of similarities and differences among young adult patients (aged 18-35 years), mostly women, with various rheumatic and nonrheumatic diseases in relation to COVID-19. Most notably, the type of disease seemed to have more significance than the immunosuppression resulting from the treatment regimen. This held true for vaccine safety as well as for the risk of breakthrough COVID-19 and symptom profiles.

Patients with rheumatic disease (RMD) and nonrheumatic autoimmune disease (nr-AD) had significantly different therapeutic profiles on average. Before vaccination, 45% of patients with RMD used glucocorticoids (GC), and 91% used immunosuppressants (IS). In contrast, only 9.5% of nr-AD patients used GC, and 21% were taking IS.

Interestingly, the overall prevalence of reported SARS-CoV-2 infections was not influenced by medication and was practically identical (25% to 28%) across all groups. However, there were intriguing differences in the occurrence of infections before and after vaccination between disease groups. Prevaccine infections were less frequent among patients with RMD compared with healthy control persons (adjusted odds ratio, 0.6), while the rates were similar among patients with nr-AD and healthy control persons. On the other hand, breakthrough infections were more frequent in patients with RMD (aOR, 2.7), whereas the rate was similar between healthy control persons and patients with nr-AD.

Despite a much lower rate of GC/IS use, patients with nr-AD experienced repeated infections more frequently. In contrast, patients with RMD were less prone to multiple infections, even compared with healthy control persons (aOR, 0.5).

Regarding the disease profile, fewer than 5% of all infected patients required advanced therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Notably, all SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with nr-AD were symptomatic, whereas among patients with RMD and healthy control persons, the incidence of asymptomatic infections was 3%. The rate of hospital admissions was 4% for patients with RMD, compared with 2% for patients with nr-AD and 1% for control persons. The RMD group exhibited some differences between prevaccine infections and breakthrough infections, including a significantly lower frequency of loss of smell and taste during breakthrough infections. Overall, patients with RMD and COVID-19 experienced cough, runny nose, throat pain, nausea, and vomiting more frequently. In contrast, patients with nr-AD had a much higher risk of skin rashes during breakthrough infections (aOR, 8.7).

Vaccine adverse events (AEs) were also influenced by the underlying disease. Patients with RMD and those with nr-AD were more likely to experience mild AEs after the first or second dose, compared with healthy control persons (adjusted OR, 2.4 and 2.0, respectively). The most common early, mild AEs across all groups were injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue, but they occurred more frequently in the nr-AD group than in the RMD or healthy control group. Additionally, fever and chills occurred more frequently among the nr-AD group. Late, mild AEs and severe AEs were rare and affected all groups equally.

“The overall incidence of AEs was very low. Our results certainly do not undermine the safety of vaccines,” Dr. Alunno said.

Disease flares were more common after vaccination (10% with RMD and 7% with nr-AD) than after infection (5% with RMD and 1.5% with nr-AD). Furthermore, in many cases, after vaccination, flares required a change of medications, particularly for patients with RMD.

Dr. Naveen Ravichandran

Additional results from the COVAD survey from January to July 2022, presented by Naveen Ravichandran, MD, DM, of Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India, revealed a higher prevalence (OR, 1.2; P = .001) of breakthrough infections among patients with RA. A total of 22.6% of patients with RA experienced breakthrough infections, compared with 20.6% for patients with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases and 18.4% of healthy control persons. Hospitalizations and the need for advanced treatment were also more common among patients with RA (30.9%) than among healthy control persons (13.9%). Patients with RA who had breakthrough infections tended to be older (closer to 50 years of age on average) and female, and they were more likely to have comorbidities and mental disorders. The human development index of the patient’s country of residence also played a role. Further research is necessary to understand how breakthrough infection outcomes are affected by a patient’s socioeconomic situation.

According to Dr. Ravichandran, medication was not a significant factor, except for the use of steroids and rituximab, which were associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 and hospitalization. Patients using rituximab, in particular, faced significantly increased odds for hospitalization (OR, 3.4) and severe breakthrough COVID-19 (OR, 3.0).

Session moderator Kim Lauper, MD, of the University of Geneva, cautioned: “The roles of disease and medication are challenging to separate. Some diseases require a more aggressive immunosuppressive regimen. It’s possible that different diseases affect the immune system differently, but it is not easy to demonstrate.”

The complications observed in the data warrant further study, as mentioned by Dr. Schulze-Koops: “We have a problem tied to the time line of the pandemic, where we had different viruses, different population behaviors, different treatments, and different standards of care over time. We also have differences between ethnic communities and regions of the world. But most importantly, we have different viruses: From the original strain to Delta to Omicron, we know they have very different clinical outcomes. I believe we need more scientific research to unravel these factors.”

Dr. Ørbo, Dr. Ravichandran, Dr. Andreoli, and Dr. Alunno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Machado has received grants and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

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

MILAN – The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with rheumatic and nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases is ongoing and not yet fully comprehended. New data presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, primarily derived from the global COVID-19 in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) survey but not limited to it, provide reassurance regarding the protection and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for older and younger adults, as well as for pregnant and breastfeeding women. These data also explore the influence of underlying diseases and medications on breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections and infection outcomes.

Safety of vaccines in patients with autoimmune or immune-mediated diseases

Following vaccination, even with low levels of antibodies, the risk of severe COVID-19 remains relatively low for patients who receive immunosuppressive therapy for various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). This encouraging finding comes from the Nor-vaC study, presented by Hilde Ørbo, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo.

During the presentation, Dr. Ørbo stated: “We did not find any specific diagnosis or medication associated with a significantly higher risk of hospitalization.” Receiving booster doses of the vaccine, having high levels of anti-spike antibodies after vaccination, and achieving hybrid immunity are correlated with further reductions in the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Dr. Hilde Ørbo

Between Feb. 15, 2021, and Feb. 15, 2023, COVID-19 affected a similar proportion among the 729 patients and 350 healthy control persons (67% and 68%, respectively). Among the patients, 22 reported severe COVID-19, whereas none of the healthy control persons did. However, there were no fatalities among the patients. The study cohort consisted of patients with various IMIDs; 70% had an inflammatory joint disease. The use of immunosuppressive medications also varied, with 63% of patients using tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, either as monotherapy or in combination with other treatments, and other patients taking medications such as methotrexate, interleukin inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, vedolizumab (Entyvio), and others.

While being older than 70 years and the presence of comorbidities were identified as risk factors for severe COVID-19, there was a significant reduction in risk with each additional vaccine dose. These results support the protective role of repeated COVID-19 vaccination for patients with IMIDs who are receiving immunosuppressive therapies; they yield a favorable prognosis even with the Omicron variant.

The study further compared the risk of severe COVID-19 between a group with hybrid immunity (having received three vaccine doses and experiencing breakthrough infection with the Omicron variant) and a group that received a fourth vaccine dose within the same time frame. The difference was striking: Hybrid immunity was associated with a 5.8-fold decrease in risk, compared with four-dose vaccination (P < .0001).

The level of antibodies, measured 2-4 weeks after the last vaccination, was predictive of the risk of breakthrough COVID-19. An antibody level above 6000 binding antibody units/mL after vaccination was significantly associated with a reduction in risk. “We can conclude that patients who receive multiple vaccine doses have a lower risk of COVID-19,” Dr. Ørbo said. “In patients who recently experienced breakthrough infections, the administration of a booster vaccine dose might be delayed.”

EULAR

“The virus has undergone changes throughout the pandemic, while the vaccines have remained relatively stable. Are we anticipating more infections over time?” asked Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, PhD, of Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich (Germany), the session moderator. In response, Dr. Ørbo stated that 85% of the recorded infections in the study occurred after the emergence of the Omicron variant, and time was considered a covariable in the analysis.

These data shed light on a topic discussed by Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in rheumatology and neuromuscular diseases at University College London, during his scientific session talk entitled, “Unsolved Issues of COVID Vaccination and Re-vaccination.” Dr. Machado referred to the VROOM study published in 2022, which examined the interruption of methotrexate for 2 weeks following booster administration. Both groups demonstrated a significant antibody response, but the group that stopped taking methotrexate showed double the antibody titers.

However, he emphasized, “what remains unknown is the clinical relevance of these differences in terms of severe infection, hospitalization, or even death. The potential benefit of increased immunogenicity by interrupting conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [csDMARDs] such as methotrexate before or after vaccination needs to be balanced against the potential risk of disease flare. Ultimately, decision-making should be individualized based on factors such as comorbidities, disease activity, and other considerations.” The results presented by Dr. Ørbo suggest that, while there may be a clinical difference in terms of severe infection, the overall prognosis for vaccinated patients is reasonably good.

Regarding other DMARDs, such as biologics, the approach may differ. Dr. Machado suggested: “In patients using rituximab or other B cell–depleting therapies, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination should be scheduled in a way that optimizes vaccine immunogenicity. A minimum of 10 B cells/mcL of blood is likely a relevant threshold above which a sufficient cellular and immune response is established.”
 

COVID vaccines are safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women

According to data from the COVAD study, which comprised two global cross-sectional surveys conducted in 2021 and 2022, the COVID-19 vaccine appeared safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women with autoimmune diseases (AID).

Presenter Laura Andreoli, MD, PhD, of the University of Brescia (Italy), said that, although pregnant patients with AID reported more adverse events related to vaccination, these rates were not significantly higher than those among pregnant, healthy control persons who were without AID. No difference in adverse events was observed between breastfeeding women and healthy control persons, and the incidence of disease flares did not significantly differ among all groups.

“In summary, this study provides initial insights into the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during the gestational and postpartum periods in women with autoimmune diseases. These reassuring observations will hopefully improve clinician-patient communication and address hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination, as the benefits for the mother and fetus through passive immunization appear to outweigh potential risks,” Dr. Andreoli said in an interview.

“The large number of participants and the global geographical spread of the COVAD survey were very beneficial in gaining access to this important subset of patients,” added Dr. Andreoli. However, she acknowledged that patients with low socioeconomic status and/or high disability were likely underrepresented. While no data on pregnancy outcomes have been collected thus far, Dr. Andreoli expressed the desire to include them in the study’s follow-up.

The COVAD survey data also indicate that, in general, vaccine hesitancy among patients with AID is decreasing; from 2021 to 2022, it declined from 16.5% to 5.1%, as Dr. Machado indicated in his presentation.
 

Multiple factors contribute to breakthrough infections

The risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections after vaccination varies among patients with rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatic or nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases, primarily depending on the underlying condition rather than the immunosuppressive medication. Environmental factors also appear to play a role. This complex landscape emerges from a further analysis of the COVAD survey dataset.

Alessia Alunno, MD, PhD, of the University of L’Aquila (Italy), presented a detailed and occasionally counterintuitive picture of similarities and differences among young adult patients (aged 18-35 years), mostly women, with various rheumatic and nonrheumatic diseases in relation to COVID-19. Most notably, the type of disease seemed to have more significance than the immunosuppression resulting from the treatment regimen. This held true for vaccine safety as well as for the risk of breakthrough COVID-19 and symptom profiles.

Patients with rheumatic disease (RMD) and nonrheumatic autoimmune disease (nr-AD) had significantly different therapeutic profiles on average. Before vaccination, 45% of patients with RMD used glucocorticoids (GC), and 91% used immunosuppressants (IS). In contrast, only 9.5% of nr-AD patients used GC, and 21% were taking IS.

Interestingly, the overall prevalence of reported SARS-CoV-2 infections was not influenced by medication and was practically identical (25% to 28%) across all groups. However, there were intriguing differences in the occurrence of infections before and after vaccination between disease groups. Prevaccine infections were less frequent among patients with RMD compared with healthy control persons (adjusted odds ratio, 0.6), while the rates were similar among patients with nr-AD and healthy control persons. On the other hand, breakthrough infections were more frequent in patients with RMD (aOR, 2.7), whereas the rate was similar between healthy control persons and patients with nr-AD.

Despite a much lower rate of GC/IS use, patients with nr-AD experienced repeated infections more frequently. In contrast, patients with RMD were less prone to multiple infections, even compared with healthy control persons (aOR, 0.5).

Regarding the disease profile, fewer than 5% of all infected patients required advanced therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Notably, all SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with nr-AD were symptomatic, whereas among patients with RMD and healthy control persons, the incidence of asymptomatic infections was 3%. The rate of hospital admissions was 4% for patients with RMD, compared with 2% for patients with nr-AD and 1% for control persons. The RMD group exhibited some differences between prevaccine infections and breakthrough infections, including a significantly lower frequency of loss of smell and taste during breakthrough infections. Overall, patients with RMD and COVID-19 experienced cough, runny nose, throat pain, nausea, and vomiting more frequently. In contrast, patients with nr-AD had a much higher risk of skin rashes during breakthrough infections (aOR, 8.7).

Vaccine adverse events (AEs) were also influenced by the underlying disease. Patients with RMD and those with nr-AD were more likely to experience mild AEs after the first or second dose, compared with healthy control persons (adjusted OR, 2.4 and 2.0, respectively). The most common early, mild AEs across all groups were injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue, but they occurred more frequently in the nr-AD group than in the RMD or healthy control group. Additionally, fever and chills occurred more frequently among the nr-AD group. Late, mild AEs and severe AEs were rare and affected all groups equally.

“The overall incidence of AEs was very low. Our results certainly do not undermine the safety of vaccines,” Dr. Alunno said.

Disease flares were more common after vaccination (10% with RMD and 7% with nr-AD) than after infection (5% with RMD and 1.5% with nr-AD). Furthermore, in many cases, after vaccination, flares required a change of medications, particularly for patients with RMD.

Dr. Naveen Ravichandran

Additional results from the COVAD survey from January to July 2022, presented by Naveen Ravichandran, MD, DM, of Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India, revealed a higher prevalence (OR, 1.2; P = .001) of breakthrough infections among patients with RA. A total of 22.6% of patients with RA experienced breakthrough infections, compared with 20.6% for patients with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases and 18.4% of healthy control persons. Hospitalizations and the need for advanced treatment were also more common among patients with RA (30.9%) than among healthy control persons (13.9%). Patients with RA who had breakthrough infections tended to be older (closer to 50 years of age on average) and female, and they were more likely to have comorbidities and mental disorders. The human development index of the patient’s country of residence also played a role. Further research is necessary to understand how breakthrough infection outcomes are affected by a patient’s socioeconomic situation.

According to Dr. Ravichandran, medication was not a significant factor, except for the use of steroids and rituximab, which were associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 and hospitalization. Patients using rituximab, in particular, faced significantly increased odds for hospitalization (OR, 3.4) and severe breakthrough COVID-19 (OR, 3.0).

Session moderator Kim Lauper, MD, of the University of Geneva, cautioned: “The roles of disease and medication are challenging to separate. Some diseases require a more aggressive immunosuppressive regimen. It’s possible that different diseases affect the immune system differently, but it is not easy to demonstrate.”

The complications observed in the data warrant further study, as mentioned by Dr. Schulze-Koops: “We have a problem tied to the time line of the pandemic, where we had different viruses, different population behaviors, different treatments, and different standards of care over time. We also have differences between ethnic communities and regions of the world. But most importantly, we have different viruses: From the original strain to Delta to Omicron, we know they have very different clinical outcomes. I believe we need more scientific research to unravel these factors.”

Dr. Ørbo, Dr. Ravichandran, Dr. Andreoli, and Dr. Alunno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Machado has received grants and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

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

MILAN – The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with rheumatic and nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases is ongoing and not yet fully comprehended. New data presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, primarily derived from the global COVID-19 in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) survey but not limited to it, provide reassurance regarding the protection and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for older and younger adults, as well as for pregnant and breastfeeding women. These data also explore the influence of underlying diseases and medications on breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections and infection outcomes.

Safety of vaccines in patients with autoimmune or immune-mediated diseases

Following vaccination, even with low levels of antibodies, the risk of severe COVID-19 remains relatively low for patients who receive immunosuppressive therapy for various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). This encouraging finding comes from the Nor-vaC study, presented by Hilde Ørbo, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo.

During the presentation, Dr. Ørbo stated: “We did not find any specific diagnosis or medication associated with a significantly higher risk of hospitalization.” Receiving booster doses of the vaccine, having high levels of anti-spike antibodies after vaccination, and achieving hybrid immunity are correlated with further reductions in the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Dr. Hilde Ørbo

Between Feb. 15, 2021, and Feb. 15, 2023, COVID-19 affected a similar proportion among the 729 patients and 350 healthy control persons (67% and 68%, respectively). Among the patients, 22 reported severe COVID-19, whereas none of the healthy control persons did. However, there were no fatalities among the patients. The study cohort consisted of patients with various IMIDs; 70% had an inflammatory joint disease. The use of immunosuppressive medications also varied, with 63% of patients using tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, either as monotherapy or in combination with other treatments, and other patients taking medications such as methotrexate, interleukin inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, vedolizumab (Entyvio), and others.

While being older than 70 years and the presence of comorbidities were identified as risk factors for severe COVID-19, there was a significant reduction in risk with each additional vaccine dose. These results support the protective role of repeated COVID-19 vaccination for patients with IMIDs who are receiving immunosuppressive therapies; they yield a favorable prognosis even with the Omicron variant.

The study further compared the risk of severe COVID-19 between a group with hybrid immunity (having received three vaccine doses and experiencing breakthrough infection with the Omicron variant) and a group that received a fourth vaccine dose within the same time frame. The difference was striking: Hybrid immunity was associated with a 5.8-fold decrease in risk, compared with four-dose vaccination (P < .0001).

The level of antibodies, measured 2-4 weeks after the last vaccination, was predictive of the risk of breakthrough COVID-19. An antibody level above 6000 binding antibody units/mL after vaccination was significantly associated with a reduction in risk. “We can conclude that patients who receive multiple vaccine doses have a lower risk of COVID-19,” Dr. Ørbo said. “In patients who recently experienced breakthrough infections, the administration of a booster vaccine dose might be delayed.”

EULAR

“The virus has undergone changes throughout the pandemic, while the vaccines have remained relatively stable. Are we anticipating more infections over time?” asked Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, PhD, of Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich (Germany), the session moderator. In response, Dr. Ørbo stated that 85% of the recorded infections in the study occurred after the emergence of the Omicron variant, and time was considered a covariable in the analysis.

These data shed light on a topic discussed by Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in rheumatology and neuromuscular diseases at University College London, during his scientific session talk entitled, “Unsolved Issues of COVID Vaccination and Re-vaccination.” Dr. Machado referred to the VROOM study published in 2022, which examined the interruption of methotrexate for 2 weeks following booster administration. Both groups demonstrated a significant antibody response, but the group that stopped taking methotrexate showed double the antibody titers.

However, he emphasized, “what remains unknown is the clinical relevance of these differences in terms of severe infection, hospitalization, or even death. The potential benefit of increased immunogenicity by interrupting conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [csDMARDs] such as methotrexate before or after vaccination needs to be balanced against the potential risk of disease flare. Ultimately, decision-making should be individualized based on factors such as comorbidities, disease activity, and other considerations.” The results presented by Dr. Ørbo suggest that, while there may be a clinical difference in terms of severe infection, the overall prognosis for vaccinated patients is reasonably good.

Regarding other DMARDs, such as biologics, the approach may differ. Dr. Machado suggested: “In patients using rituximab or other B cell–depleting therapies, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination should be scheduled in a way that optimizes vaccine immunogenicity. A minimum of 10 B cells/mcL of blood is likely a relevant threshold above which a sufficient cellular and immune response is established.”
 

COVID vaccines are safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women

According to data from the COVAD study, which comprised two global cross-sectional surveys conducted in 2021 and 2022, the COVID-19 vaccine appeared safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women with autoimmune diseases (AID).

Presenter Laura Andreoli, MD, PhD, of the University of Brescia (Italy), said that, although pregnant patients with AID reported more adverse events related to vaccination, these rates were not significantly higher than those among pregnant, healthy control persons who were without AID. No difference in adverse events was observed between breastfeeding women and healthy control persons, and the incidence of disease flares did not significantly differ among all groups.

“In summary, this study provides initial insights into the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during the gestational and postpartum periods in women with autoimmune diseases. These reassuring observations will hopefully improve clinician-patient communication and address hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination, as the benefits for the mother and fetus through passive immunization appear to outweigh potential risks,” Dr. Andreoli said in an interview.

“The large number of participants and the global geographical spread of the COVAD survey were very beneficial in gaining access to this important subset of patients,” added Dr. Andreoli. However, she acknowledged that patients with low socioeconomic status and/or high disability were likely underrepresented. While no data on pregnancy outcomes have been collected thus far, Dr. Andreoli expressed the desire to include them in the study’s follow-up.

The COVAD survey data also indicate that, in general, vaccine hesitancy among patients with AID is decreasing; from 2021 to 2022, it declined from 16.5% to 5.1%, as Dr. Machado indicated in his presentation.
 

Multiple factors contribute to breakthrough infections

The risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections after vaccination varies among patients with rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatic or nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases, primarily depending on the underlying condition rather than the immunosuppressive medication. Environmental factors also appear to play a role. This complex landscape emerges from a further analysis of the COVAD survey dataset.

Alessia Alunno, MD, PhD, of the University of L’Aquila (Italy), presented a detailed and occasionally counterintuitive picture of similarities and differences among young adult patients (aged 18-35 years), mostly women, with various rheumatic and nonrheumatic diseases in relation to COVID-19. Most notably, the type of disease seemed to have more significance than the immunosuppression resulting from the treatment regimen. This held true for vaccine safety as well as for the risk of breakthrough COVID-19 and symptom profiles.

Patients with rheumatic disease (RMD) and nonrheumatic autoimmune disease (nr-AD) had significantly different therapeutic profiles on average. Before vaccination, 45% of patients with RMD used glucocorticoids (GC), and 91% used immunosuppressants (IS). In contrast, only 9.5% of nr-AD patients used GC, and 21% were taking IS.

Interestingly, the overall prevalence of reported SARS-CoV-2 infections was not influenced by medication and was practically identical (25% to 28%) across all groups. However, there were intriguing differences in the occurrence of infections before and after vaccination between disease groups. Prevaccine infections were less frequent among patients with RMD compared with healthy control persons (adjusted odds ratio, 0.6), while the rates were similar among patients with nr-AD and healthy control persons. On the other hand, breakthrough infections were more frequent in patients with RMD (aOR, 2.7), whereas the rate was similar between healthy control persons and patients with nr-AD.

Despite a much lower rate of GC/IS use, patients with nr-AD experienced repeated infections more frequently. In contrast, patients with RMD were less prone to multiple infections, even compared with healthy control persons (aOR, 0.5).

Regarding the disease profile, fewer than 5% of all infected patients required advanced therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Notably, all SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with nr-AD were symptomatic, whereas among patients with RMD and healthy control persons, the incidence of asymptomatic infections was 3%. The rate of hospital admissions was 4% for patients with RMD, compared with 2% for patients with nr-AD and 1% for control persons. The RMD group exhibited some differences between prevaccine infections and breakthrough infections, including a significantly lower frequency of loss of smell and taste during breakthrough infections. Overall, patients with RMD and COVID-19 experienced cough, runny nose, throat pain, nausea, and vomiting more frequently. In contrast, patients with nr-AD had a much higher risk of skin rashes during breakthrough infections (aOR, 8.7).

Vaccine adverse events (AEs) were also influenced by the underlying disease. Patients with RMD and those with nr-AD were more likely to experience mild AEs after the first or second dose, compared with healthy control persons (adjusted OR, 2.4 and 2.0, respectively). The most common early, mild AEs across all groups were injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue, but they occurred more frequently in the nr-AD group than in the RMD or healthy control group. Additionally, fever and chills occurred more frequently among the nr-AD group. Late, mild AEs and severe AEs were rare and affected all groups equally.

“The overall incidence of AEs was very low. Our results certainly do not undermine the safety of vaccines,” Dr. Alunno said.

Disease flares were more common after vaccination (10% with RMD and 7% with nr-AD) than after infection (5% with RMD and 1.5% with nr-AD). Furthermore, in many cases, after vaccination, flares required a change of medications, particularly for patients with RMD.

Dr. Naveen Ravichandran

Additional results from the COVAD survey from January to July 2022, presented by Naveen Ravichandran, MD, DM, of Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India, revealed a higher prevalence (OR, 1.2; P = .001) of breakthrough infections among patients with RA. A total of 22.6% of patients with RA experienced breakthrough infections, compared with 20.6% for patients with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases and 18.4% of healthy control persons. Hospitalizations and the need for advanced treatment were also more common among patients with RA (30.9%) than among healthy control persons (13.9%). Patients with RA who had breakthrough infections tended to be older (closer to 50 years of age on average) and female, and they were more likely to have comorbidities and mental disorders. The human development index of the patient’s country of residence also played a role. Further research is necessary to understand how breakthrough infection outcomes are affected by a patient’s socioeconomic situation.

According to Dr. Ravichandran, medication was not a significant factor, except for the use of steroids and rituximab, which were associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 and hospitalization. Patients using rituximab, in particular, faced significantly increased odds for hospitalization (OR, 3.4) and severe breakthrough COVID-19 (OR, 3.0).

Session moderator Kim Lauper, MD, of the University of Geneva, cautioned: “The roles of disease and medication are challenging to separate. Some diseases require a more aggressive immunosuppressive regimen. It’s possible that different diseases affect the immune system differently, but it is not easy to demonstrate.”

The complications observed in the data warrant further study, as mentioned by Dr. Schulze-Koops: “We have a problem tied to the time line of the pandemic, where we had different viruses, different population behaviors, different treatments, and different standards of care over time. We also have differences between ethnic communities and regions of the world. But most importantly, we have different viruses: From the original strain to Delta to Omicron, we know they have very different clinical outcomes. I believe we need more scientific research to unravel these factors.”

Dr. Ørbo, Dr. Ravichandran, Dr. Andreoli, and Dr. Alunno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Machado has received grants and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

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

Millions of Americans who were infected with COVID-19 still have not fully recovered their sense of taste or smell, a new report says.

Almost 36 million people were diagnosed in 2021, and 60% of them reported accompanying losses in smell or taste, according to the study by Mass Eye and Ear, which is affiliated with Harvard Medical School, Boston. The study was published in The Laryngoscope.

Most people fully regained the senses, but about 24% didn’t get smell back completely, and more than 3% had no recovery, the researchers reported. The numbers were similar among those who lost the sense of taste, they added.

“Many people never fully recovered,” Neil Bhattacharyya, MD, professor of otolaryngology and one of the study’s authors, told Fortune, estimating that up to 6 million people still have lingering symptoms. “If you lost your sense of smell, did you get it back? There’s about a one in four chance you didn’t. That’s terrible.”

Researchers looked at the records of 30,000 adults who had COVID-19 in 2021. They reported that patients who suffered more severe cases were less likely to regain some or all their senses.

Some patients said they lost appetite because they couldn’t smell food. There’s concern, too, about losing the ability to smell gas and smoke, spoiled food, and dirty diapers.

People with symptoms should see their doctors, Dr. Bhattacharyya said. The symptoms might be caused by something other than lingering COVID-19 effects and might be treatable.
 

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

Millions of Americans who were infected with COVID-19 still have not fully recovered their sense of taste or smell, a new report says.

Almost 36 million people were diagnosed in 2021, and 60% of them reported accompanying losses in smell or taste, according to the study by Mass Eye and Ear, which is affiliated with Harvard Medical School, Boston. The study was published in The Laryngoscope.

Most people fully regained the senses, but about 24% didn’t get smell back completely, and more than 3% had no recovery, the researchers reported. The numbers were similar among those who lost the sense of taste, they added.

“Many people never fully recovered,” Neil Bhattacharyya, MD, professor of otolaryngology and one of the study’s authors, told Fortune, estimating that up to 6 million people still have lingering symptoms. “If you lost your sense of smell, did you get it back? There’s about a one in four chance you didn’t. That’s terrible.”

Researchers looked at the records of 30,000 adults who had COVID-19 in 2021. They reported that patients who suffered more severe cases were less likely to regain some or all their senses.

Some patients said they lost appetite because they couldn’t smell food. There’s concern, too, about losing the ability to smell gas and smoke, spoiled food, and dirty diapers.

People with symptoms should see their doctors, Dr. Bhattacharyya said. The symptoms might be caused by something other than lingering COVID-19 effects and might be treatable.
 

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

Millions of Americans who were infected with COVID-19 still have not fully recovered their sense of taste or smell, a new report says.

Almost 36 million people were diagnosed in 2021, and 60% of them reported accompanying losses in smell or taste, according to the study by Mass Eye and Ear, which is affiliated with Harvard Medical School, Boston. The study was published in The Laryngoscope.

Most people fully regained the senses, but about 24% didn’t get smell back completely, and more than 3% had no recovery, the researchers reported. The numbers were similar among those who lost the sense of taste, they added.

“Many people never fully recovered,” Neil Bhattacharyya, MD, professor of otolaryngology and one of the study’s authors, told Fortune, estimating that up to 6 million people still have lingering symptoms. “If you lost your sense of smell, did you get it back? There’s about a one in four chance you didn’t. That’s terrible.”

Researchers looked at the records of 30,000 adults who had COVID-19 in 2021. They reported that patients who suffered more severe cases were less likely to regain some or all their senses.

Some patients said they lost appetite because they couldn’t smell food. There’s concern, too, about losing the ability to smell gas and smoke, spoiled food, and dirty diapers.

People with symptoms should see their doctors, Dr. Bhattacharyya said. The symptoms might be caused by something other than lingering COVID-19 effects and might be treatable.
 

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

Intranasal (IN) ketamine may be a feasible treatment alternative for people with chronic, refractory migraine who don’t respond to other medications, new research shows.

Half of the study participants who used IN ketamine for chronic, treatment-refractory migraine in a new retrospective cohort study reported it as “very effective” and over one-third said it boosted their quality of life.

“In our study, we showed that with even a few uses per day, intranasal ketamine can still improve patients’ quality of life,” lead investigator Hsiangkuo Yuan, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Yuan is associate professor of neurology at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and director of clinical research at the Jefferson Headache Center.

He added that “multiple medications failed these patients, and the majority of patients were having daily headaches. So, if anything works, even partially and shortly, it may still give patients some relief to get through the day.”

The findings were published online in Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine.  
 

Daily migraine, failed medications

Use of IN ketamine has not been studied for the treatment of chronic, treatment-refractory migraine – although it has been studied in patients with cluster headache and migraine, the investigators note.

Ketamine is not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat migraine.

To further explore ketamine’s effect in those with chronic, treatment-refractory migraine, the investigators retrospectively analyzed electronic health records of patients at the Jefferson Headache Center who had received IN ketamine for the treatment of migraine between January 2019 and February 2020.

Of 242 patients who had received IN ketamine, Dr. Yuan’s team followed up with 169 who agreed to be part of the study.

The majority (67%) had daily migraine, and 85% had tried more than three classes of preventive medications for migraine. They currently used a median of two medications, the most common of which was a CGRP monoclonal antibody.

On average, patients used six sprays per day for a median 10 days per month. Median pain relief onset was 52 minutes after dosage.

Almost three-quarters of patients reported at least one side effect from the ketamine, most commonly fatigue (22%), double/blurred vision (21%), and confusion/dissociation (21%). These effects were mostly temporary, the researchers report.

The most common reasons for initiating IN ketamine included an incomplete response to prior acute medications (59%), incomplete response to prior preventive medications (31%), and prior benefit from IV ketamine (23%).

Study investigators noted that ketamine has the potential to become addictive and indicated that “clinicians should only consider the use of a potentially addictive medication such as ketamine for significantly disabled patients with migraine.”

About half of the participants who used IN ketamine found it “very effective,” and 40% found it “somewhat effective.” Within the same group, 36% and 43% found the overall impact of IN ketamine on their quality of life was much better and somewhat better, respectively.

Among those still using ketamine during study follow-up, 82% reported that ketamine was very effective.

Compared with other acute headache medications, IN ketamine was considered much better (43%) or somewhat better (30%).

Nearly 75% of participants reported using fewer pain relievers when using IN ketamine.

Dr. Yuan said that future research might focus on finding predictors for IN ketamine response or determining the optimal effective and safe dose for the drug in those with chronic, treatment-refractory migraine.  

“We still need a prospective, randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy and tolerability of intranasal ketamine,” he added.
 

‘Impressive result’

Commenting on the findings for this article, Richard Lipton, MD, professor of neurology, psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Montefiore Headache Center at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said that “in this refractory population with multiple treatment failures, this is a very impressive, open-label result.”

“This real-world data suggests that ketamine is an effective option for people with medically intractable chronic migraine,” said Dr. Lipton, who was not part of the study. “In these very difficult to treat patients, 65% of those who started on ketamine persisted. Of those who remained on ketamine, 82% found it very effective.”

“This study makes me more confident that intranasal ketamine is a helpful treatment option, and I plan to use it more often in the future,” he added.

Like Dr. Yuan, Dr. Lipton highlighted the need for “well-designed placebo-controlled trials” and “rigorous comparative effectiveness studies.”

The study was funded by Miles for Migraine. Dr. Yuan has received institutional support for serving as an investigator from Teva and AbbVie, and royalties from Cambridge University Press and MedLink. Dr. Lipton has received compensation for consultation from Alder/Lumbeck, Axsome, Supernus, Theranica, Upsher-Smith, and Satsuma. He has participated in speaker bureaus for Eli Lilly and Amgen/Novartis and has received institutional support for serving as principal investigator from Teva, GammaCore, and Allergan/AbbVie. He has received payments for authorship or royalties from Demos Medical, Cambridge University Press, and MedLink.

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

Intranasal (IN) ketamine may be a feasible treatment alternative for people with chronic, refractory migraine who don’t respond to other medications, new research shows.

Half of the study participants who used IN ketamine for chronic, treatment-refractory migraine in a new retrospective cohort study reported it as “very effective” and over one-third said it boosted their quality of life.

“In our study, we showed that with even a few uses per day, intranasal ketamine can still improve patients’ quality of life,” lead investigator Hsiangkuo Yuan, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Yuan is associate professor of neurology at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and director of clinical research at the Jefferson Headache Center.

He added that “multiple medications failed these patients, and the majority of patients were having daily headaches. So, if anything works, even partially and shortly, it may still give patients some relief to get through the day.”

The findings were published online in Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine.  
 

Daily migraine, failed medications

Use of IN ketamine has not been studied for the treatment of chronic, treatment-refractory migraine – although it has been studied in patients with cluster headache and migraine, the investigators note.

Ketamine is not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat migraine.

To further explore ketamine’s effect in those with chronic, treatment-refractory migraine, the investigators retrospectively analyzed electronic health records of patients at the Jefferson Headache Center who had received IN ketamine for the treatment of migraine between January 2019 and February 2020.

Of 242 patients who had received IN ketamine, Dr. Yuan’s team followed up with 169 who agreed to be part of the study.

The majority (67%) had daily migraine, and 85% had tried more than three classes of preventive medications for migraine. They currently used a median of two medications, the most common of which was a CGRP monoclonal antibody.

On average, patients used six sprays per day for a median 10 days per month. Median pain relief onset was 52 minutes after dosage.

Almost three-quarters of patients reported at least one side effect from the ketamine, most commonly fatigue (22%), double/blurred vision (21%), and confusion/dissociation (21%). These effects were mostly temporary, the researchers report.

The most common reasons for initiating IN ketamine included an incomplete response to prior acute medications (59%), incomplete response to prior preventive medications (31%), and prior benefit from IV ketamine (23%).

Study investigators noted that ketamine has the potential to become addictive and indicated that “clinicians should only consider the use of a potentially addictive medication such as ketamine for significantly disabled patients with migraine.”

About half of the participants who used IN ketamine found it “very effective,” and 40% found it “somewhat effective.” Within the same group, 36% and 43% found the overall impact of IN ketamine on their quality of life was much better and somewhat better, respectively.

Among those still using ketamine during study follow-up, 82% reported that ketamine was very effective.

Compared with other acute headache medications, IN ketamine was considered much better (43%) or somewhat better (30%).

Nearly 75% of participants reported using fewer pain relievers when using IN ketamine.

Dr. Yuan said that future research might focus on finding predictors for IN ketamine response or determining the optimal effective and safe dose for the drug in those with chronic, treatment-refractory migraine.  

“We still need a prospective, randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy and tolerability of intranasal ketamine,” he added.
 

‘Impressive result’

Commenting on the findings for this article, Richard Lipton, MD, professor of neurology, psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Montefiore Headache Center at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said that “in this refractory population with multiple treatment failures, this is a very impressive, open-label result.”

“This real-world data suggests that ketamine is an effective option for people with medically intractable chronic migraine,” said Dr. Lipton, who was not part of the study. “In these very difficult to treat patients, 65% of those who started on ketamine persisted. Of those who remained on ketamine, 82% found it very effective.”

“This study makes me more confident that intranasal ketamine is a helpful treatment option, and I plan to use it more often in the future,” he added.

Like Dr. Yuan, Dr. Lipton highlighted the need for “well-designed placebo-controlled trials” and “rigorous comparative effectiveness studies.”

The study was funded by Miles for Migraine. Dr. Yuan has received institutional support for serving as an investigator from Teva and AbbVie, and royalties from Cambridge University Press and MedLink. Dr. Lipton has received compensation for consultation from Alder/Lumbeck, Axsome, Supernus, Theranica, Upsher-Smith, and Satsuma. He has participated in speaker bureaus for Eli Lilly and Amgen/Novartis and has received institutional support for serving as principal investigator from Teva, GammaCore, and Allergan/AbbVie. He has received payments for authorship or royalties from Demos Medical, Cambridge University Press, and MedLink.

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

Intranasal (IN) ketamine may be a feasible treatment alternative for people with chronic, refractory migraine who don’t respond to other medications, new research shows.

Half of the study participants who used IN ketamine for chronic, treatment-refractory migraine in a new retrospective cohort study reported it as “very effective” and over one-third said it boosted their quality of life.

“In our study, we showed that with even a few uses per day, intranasal ketamine can still improve patients’ quality of life,” lead investigator Hsiangkuo Yuan, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Yuan is associate professor of neurology at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and director of clinical research at the Jefferson Headache Center.

He added that “multiple medications failed these patients, and the majority of patients were having daily headaches. So, if anything works, even partially and shortly, it may still give patients some relief to get through the day.”

The findings were published online in Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine.  
 

Daily migraine, failed medications

Use of IN ketamine has not been studied for the treatment of chronic, treatment-refractory migraine – although it has been studied in patients with cluster headache and migraine, the investigators note.

Ketamine is not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat migraine.

To further explore ketamine’s effect in those with chronic, treatment-refractory migraine, the investigators retrospectively analyzed electronic health records of patients at the Jefferson Headache Center who had received IN ketamine for the treatment of migraine between January 2019 and February 2020.

Of 242 patients who had received IN ketamine, Dr. Yuan’s team followed up with 169 who agreed to be part of the study.

The majority (67%) had daily migraine, and 85% had tried more than three classes of preventive medications for migraine. They currently used a median of two medications, the most common of which was a CGRP monoclonal antibody.

On average, patients used six sprays per day for a median 10 days per month. Median pain relief onset was 52 minutes after dosage.

Almost three-quarters of patients reported at least one side effect from the ketamine, most commonly fatigue (22%), double/blurred vision (21%), and confusion/dissociation (21%). These effects were mostly temporary, the researchers report.

The most common reasons for initiating IN ketamine included an incomplete response to prior acute medications (59%), incomplete response to prior preventive medications (31%), and prior benefit from IV ketamine (23%).

Study investigators noted that ketamine has the potential to become addictive and indicated that “clinicians should only consider the use of a potentially addictive medication such as ketamine for significantly disabled patients with migraine.”

About half of the participants who used IN ketamine found it “very effective,” and 40% found it “somewhat effective.” Within the same group, 36% and 43% found the overall impact of IN ketamine on their quality of life was much better and somewhat better, respectively.

Among those still using ketamine during study follow-up, 82% reported that ketamine was very effective.

Compared with other acute headache medications, IN ketamine was considered much better (43%) or somewhat better (30%).

Nearly 75% of participants reported using fewer pain relievers when using IN ketamine.

Dr. Yuan said that future research might focus on finding predictors for IN ketamine response or determining the optimal effective and safe dose for the drug in those with chronic, treatment-refractory migraine.  

“We still need a prospective, randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy and tolerability of intranasal ketamine,” he added.
 

‘Impressive result’

Commenting on the findings for this article, Richard Lipton, MD, professor of neurology, psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Montefiore Headache Center at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said that “in this refractory population with multiple treatment failures, this is a very impressive, open-label result.”

“This real-world data suggests that ketamine is an effective option for people with medically intractable chronic migraine,” said Dr. Lipton, who was not part of the study. “In these very difficult to treat patients, 65% of those who started on ketamine persisted. Of those who remained on ketamine, 82% found it very effective.”

“This study makes me more confident that intranasal ketamine is a helpful treatment option, and I plan to use it more often in the future,” he added.

Like Dr. Yuan, Dr. Lipton highlighted the need for “well-designed placebo-controlled trials” and “rigorous comparative effectiveness studies.”

The study was funded by Miles for Migraine. Dr. Yuan has received institutional support for serving as an investigator from Teva and AbbVie, and royalties from Cambridge University Press and MedLink. Dr. Lipton has received compensation for consultation from Alder/Lumbeck, Axsome, Supernus, Theranica, Upsher-Smith, and Satsuma. He has participated in speaker bureaus for Eli Lilly and Amgen/Novartis and has received institutional support for serving as principal investigator from Teva, GammaCore, and Allergan/AbbVie. He has received payments for authorship or royalties from Demos Medical, Cambridge University Press, and MedLink.

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

Insurance companies are starting to send warning letters to doctors and health care providers suspected of off-label prescribing for the drug Ozempic. 

The warning letters, first reported by The Washington Post, include threats such as the possibility of reporting “suspected inappropriate or fraudulent activity ... to the state licensure board, federal and/or state law enforcement.”

It’s the latest chapter in the story of the popular, highly effective, and very expensive drug intended for diabetes that results in quick weight loss. Off-label prescribing means a medicine has been prescribed for a reason other than the uses approved by the Food and Drug Administration.  The practice is common and legal (the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality says one in five prescriptions in the U.S. are off label). 

But insurance companies are pushing back because many do not cover weight loss medications, while they do cover diabetes treatments. The insurance company letters suggest that prescribers are failing to document in a person’s medical record that the person actually has diabetes. 

Ozempic, which is FDA approved for treatment of diabetes, is similar to the drug Wegovy, which is approved to be used for weight loss. Ozempic typically costs more than $900 per month. Both Wegovy and Ozempic contain semaglutide, which mimics a hormone that helps the brain regulate appetite and food intake. Clinical studies show that after taking semaglutide for more than 5 years, people lose on average 17% of their body weight. But once they stop taking it, most people regain much of the weight. 

Demand for both Ozempic and Wegovy has been surging, leading to shortages and tactics to acquire the drugs outside of the United States, as well as warnings from public health officials about the dangers of knockoff versions of the drugs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says 42% of people in the United States are obese.

“Obesity is a complex disease involving an excessive amount of body fat,” the Mayo Clinic explained. “Obesity isn’t just a cosmetic concern. It’s a medical problem that increases the risk of other diseases and health problems, such as heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and certain cancers.”

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

Insurance companies are starting to send warning letters to doctors and health care providers suspected of off-label prescribing for the drug Ozempic. 

The warning letters, first reported by The Washington Post, include threats such as the possibility of reporting “suspected inappropriate or fraudulent activity ... to the state licensure board, federal and/or state law enforcement.”

It’s the latest chapter in the story of the popular, highly effective, and very expensive drug intended for diabetes that results in quick weight loss. Off-label prescribing means a medicine has been prescribed for a reason other than the uses approved by the Food and Drug Administration.  The practice is common and legal (the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality says one in five prescriptions in the U.S. are off label). 

But insurance companies are pushing back because many do not cover weight loss medications, while they do cover diabetes treatments. The insurance company letters suggest that prescribers are failing to document in a person’s medical record that the person actually has diabetes. 

Ozempic, which is FDA approved for treatment of diabetes, is similar to the drug Wegovy, which is approved to be used for weight loss. Ozempic typically costs more than $900 per month. Both Wegovy and Ozempic contain semaglutide, which mimics a hormone that helps the brain regulate appetite and food intake. Clinical studies show that after taking semaglutide for more than 5 years, people lose on average 17% of their body weight. But once they stop taking it, most people regain much of the weight. 

Demand for both Ozempic and Wegovy has been surging, leading to shortages and tactics to acquire the drugs outside of the United States, as well as warnings from public health officials about the dangers of knockoff versions of the drugs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says 42% of people in the United States are obese.

“Obesity is a complex disease involving an excessive amount of body fat,” the Mayo Clinic explained. “Obesity isn’t just a cosmetic concern. It’s a medical problem that increases the risk of other diseases and health problems, such as heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and certain cancers.”

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

Insurance companies are starting to send warning letters to doctors and health care providers suspected of off-label prescribing for the drug Ozempic. 

The warning letters, first reported by The Washington Post, include threats such as the possibility of reporting “suspected inappropriate or fraudulent activity ... to the state licensure board, federal and/or state law enforcement.”

It’s the latest chapter in the story of the popular, highly effective, and very expensive drug intended for diabetes that results in quick weight loss. Off-label prescribing means a medicine has been prescribed for a reason other than the uses approved by the Food and Drug Administration.  The practice is common and legal (the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality says one in five prescriptions in the U.S. are off label). 

But insurance companies are pushing back because many do not cover weight loss medications, while they do cover diabetes treatments. The insurance company letters suggest that prescribers are failing to document in a person’s medical record that the person actually has diabetes. 

Ozempic, which is FDA approved for treatment of diabetes, is similar to the drug Wegovy, which is approved to be used for weight loss. Ozempic typically costs more than $900 per month. Both Wegovy and Ozempic contain semaglutide, which mimics a hormone that helps the brain regulate appetite and food intake. Clinical studies show that after taking semaglutide for more than 5 years, people lose on average 17% of their body weight. But once they stop taking it, most people regain much of the weight. 

Demand for both Ozempic and Wegovy has been surging, leading to shortages and tactics to acquire the drugs outside of the United States, as well as warnings from public health officials about the dangers of knockoff versions of the drugs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says 42% of people in the United States are obese.

“Obesity is a complex disease involving an excessive amount of body fat,” the Mayo Clinic explained. “Obesity isn’t just a cosmetic concern. It’s a medical problem that increases the risk of other diseases and health problems, such as heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and certain cancers.”

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

Medscape’s Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD, referred to continual noninvasive, cuffless, accurate blood pressure devices as “a holy grail in sensor technology.”

He personally tested a cuff-calibrated, over-the-counter device available in Europe that claims to monitor daily blood pressure changes and produce data that can help physicians titrate medications.

Dr. Topol does not believe that it is ready for prime time. Yes, cuffless devices are easy to use, and generate lots of data. But are those data accurate?

Many experts say not yet, even as the market continues to grow and more devices are introduced and highlighted at high-profile consumer events.
 

Burned before

Limitations of cuffed devices are well known, including errors related to cuff size, patient positioning, patient habits or behaviors (for example, caffeine/nicotine use, acute meal digestion, full bladder, very recent physical activity) and clinicians’ failure to take accurate measurements.

But are the currently available cuffless devices acceptable substitutes?

Like many clinicians, Timothy B. Plante, MD, MHS, assistant professor at the University of Vermont Medical Center thrombosis & hemostasis program in Burlington, is very excited about cuffless technology. However, “we’ve been burned by it before,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Plante’s 2016 validation study of an instant blood pressure smartphone app found that its measurements were “highly inaccurate,” with such low sensitivity that more than three-quarters of individuals with hypertensive blood levels would be falsely reassured that their blood pressure was in the normal range.

His team’s 2023 review of the current landscape, which includes more sophisticated devices, concluded that accuracy remains an issue: “Unfortunately, the pace of regulation of these devices has failed to match the speed of innovation and direct availability to patient consumers. There is an urgent need to develop a consensus on standards by which cuffless BP devices can be tested for accuracy.”
 

Devices, indications differ

Cuffless devices estimate blood pressure indirectly. Most operate based on pulse wave analysis and pulse arrival time (PWA-PAT), explained Ramakrishna Mukkamala, PhD, in a commentary. Dr. Mukkamala is a professor in the departments of bioengineering and anesthesiology and perioperative medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.

PWA involves measuring a peripheral arterial waveform using an optical sensor such as the green lights on the back of a wrist-worn device, or a ‘force sensor’ such as a finger cuff or pressing on a smartphone. Certain features are extracted from the waveform using machine learning and calibrated to blood pressure values.

PAT techniques work together with PWA; they record the ECG and extract features from that signal as well as the arterial waveform for calibration to blood pressure values.

The algorithm used to generate the BP numbers comprises a proprietary baseline model that may include demographics and other patient characteristics. A cuff measurement is often part of the baseline model because most cuffless devices require periodic (typically weekly or monthly) calibration using a cuffed device.

Cuffless devices that require cuff calibration compare the estimate they get to the cuff-calibrated number. In this scenario, the cuffless device may come up with the same blood pressure numbers simply because the baseline model – which is made up of thousands of data points relevant to the patient – has not changed.

This has led some experts to question whether PWA-PAT cuffless device readings actually add anything to the baseline model.

They don’t, according to Microsoft Research in what Dr. Mukkamala and coauthors referred to (in a review published in Hypertension) as “a complex article describing perhaps the most important and highest resource project to date (Aurora Project) on assessing the accuracy of PWA and PWA devices.”

The Microsoft article was written for bioengineers. The review in Hypertension explains the project for clinicians, and concludes that, “Cuffless BP devices based on PWA and PWA-PAT, which are similar to some regulatory-cleared devices, were of no additional value in measuring auscultatory or 24-hour ambulatory cuff BP when compared with a baseline model in which BP was predicted without an actual measurement.”
 

IEEE and FDA validation

Despite these concerns, several cuffless devices using PWA and PAT have been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration.

Validating cuffless devices is no simple matter. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers published a validation protocol for cuffless blood pressure devices in 2014 that was amended in 2019 to include a requirement to evaluate performance in different positions and in the presence of motion with varying degrees of noise artifact.

However, Daichi Shimbo, MD, codirector of the Columbia Hypertension Center in New York and vice chair of the American Heart Association Statement on blood pressure monitoring, and colleagues point out limitations, even in the updated standard. These include not requiring evaluation for drift over time; lack of specific dynamic testing protocols for stressors such as exercise or environmental temperatures; and an unsuitable reference standard (oscillometric cuff-based devices) during movement.

Dr. Shimbo said in an interview that, although he is excited about them, “these cuffless devices are not aligned with regulatory bodies. If a device gives someone a wrong blood pressure, they might be diagnosed with hypertension when they don’t have it or might miss the fact that they’re hypertensive because they get a normal blood pressure reading. If there’s no yardstick by which you say these devices are good, what are we really doing – helping, or causing a problem?”

“The specifics of how a device estimates blood pressure can determine what testing is needed to ensure that it is providing accurate performance in the intended conditions of use,” Jeremy Kahn, an FDA press officer, said in an interview. “For example, for cuffless devices that are calibrated initially with a cuff-based blood pressure device, the cuffless device needs to specify the period over which it can provide accurate readings and have testing to demonstrate that it provides accurate results over that period of use.”

The FDA said its testing is different from what the Microsoft Aurora Project used in their study.

“The intent of that testing, as the agency understands it, is to evaluate whether the device is providing useful input based on the current physiology of the patient rather than relying on predetermined values based on calibration or patient attributes. We evaluate this clinically in two separate tests: an induced change in blood pressure test and tracking of natural blood pressure changes with longer term device use,” Mr. Kahn explained.

Analyzing a device’s performance on individuals who have had natural changes in blood pressure as compared to a calibration value or initial reading “can also help discern if the device is using physiological data from the patient to determine their blood pressure accurately,” he said.

Experts interviewed for this article who remain skeptical about cuffless BP monitoring question whether the numbers that appear during the induced blood pressure change, and with the natural blood pressure changes that may occur over time, accurately reflect a patient’s blood pressure.

“The FDA doesn’t approve these devices; they clear them,” Dr. Shimbo pointed out. “Clearing them means they can be sold to the general public in the U.S. It’s not a strong statement that they’re accurate.”
 

Moving toward validation, standards

Ultimately, cuffless BP monitors may require more than one validation protocol and standard, depending on their technology, how and where they will be used, and by whom.

And as Dr. Plante and colleagues write, “Importantly, validation should be performed in diverse and special populations, including pregnant women and individuals across a range of heart rates, skin tones, wrist sizes, common arrhythmias, and beta-blocker use.”

Organizations that might be expected to help move validation and standards forward have mostly remained silent. The American Medical Association’s US Blood Pressure Validated Device Listing website includes only cuffed devices, as does the website of the international scientific nonprofit STRIDE BP.

The European Society of Hypertension 2022 consensus statement on cuffless devices concluded that, until there is an internationally accepted accuracy standard and the devices have been tested in healthy people and those with suspected or diagnosed hypertension, “cuffless BP devices should not be used for the evaluation or management of hypertension in clinical practice.”

This month, ESH published recommendations for “specific, clinically meaningful, and pragmatic validation procedures for different types of intermittent cuffless devices” that will be presented at their upcoming annual meeting June 26.

Updated protocols from IEEE “are coming out soon,” according to Dr. Shimbo. The FDA says currently cleared devices won’t need to revalidate according to new standards unless the sponsor makes significant modifications in software algorithms, device hardware, or targeted patient populations.
 

Device makers take the initiative

In the face of conflicting reports on accuracy and lack of a robust standard, some device makers are publishing their own tests or encouraging validation by potential customers.

For example, institutions that are considering using the Biobeat cuffless blood pressure monitor watch “usually start with small pilots with our devices to do internal validation,” Lior Ben Shettrit, the company’s vice president of business development, said in an interview. “Only after they complete the internal validation are they willing to move forward to full implementation.”

Cardiologist Dean Nachman, MD, is leading validation studies of the Biobeat device at the Hadassah Ein Kerem Medical Center in Jerusalem. For the first validation, the team recruited 1,057 volunteers who did a single blood pressure measurement with the cuffless device and with a cuffed device.

“We found 96.3% agreement in identifying hypertension and an interclass correlation coefficient of 0.99 and 0.97 for systolic and diastolic measurements, respectively,” he said. “Then we took it to the next level and compared the device to ambulatory 24-hour blood pressure monitoring and found comparable measurements.”

The investigators are not done yet. “We need data from thousands of patients, with subgroups, to not have any concerns,” he says. “Right now, we are using the device as a general monitor – as an EKG plus heart rate plus oxygen saturation level monitor – and as a blood pressure monitor for 24-hour blood pressure monitoring.”

The developers of the Aktiia device, which is the one Dr. Topol tested, take a different perspective. “When somebody introduces a new technology that is disrupting something that has been in place for over 100 years, there will always be some grumblings, ruffling of feathers, people saying it’s not ready, it’s not ready, it’s not ready,” Aktiia’s chief medical officer Jay Shah, MD, noted.

“But a lot of those comments are coming from the isolation of an ivory tower,” he said.

Aktiia cofounder and chief technology officer Josep Solà said that “no device is probably as accurate as if you have an invasive catheter,” adding that “we engage patients to look at their blood pressure day by day. … If each individual measurement of each of those patient is slightly less accurate than a cuff, who cares? We have 40 measurements per day on each patient. The accuracy and precision of each of those is good.”

Researchers from the George Institute for Global Health recently compared the Aktiia device to conventional ambulatory monitoring in 41 patients and found that “it did not accurately track night-time BP decline and results suggested it was unable to track medication-induced BP changes.”

“In the context of 24/7 monitoring of hypertensive patients,” Mr. Solà said, “whatever you do, if it’s better than a sham device or a baseline model and you track the blood pressure changes, it’s a hundred times much better than doing nothing.”

Dr. Nachman and Dr. Plante reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Shimbo reported that he received funding from NIH and has consulted for Abbott Vascular, Edward Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Tryton Medical.

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

Medscape’s Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD, referred to continual noninvasive, cuffless, accurate blood pressure devices as “a holy grail in sensor technology.”

He personally tested a cuff-calibrated, over-the-counter device available in Europe that claims to monitor daily blood pressure changes and produce data that can help physicians titrate medications.

Dr. Topol does not believe that it is ready for prime time. Yes, cuffless devices are easy to use, and generate lots of data. But are those data accurate?

Many experts say not yet, even as the market continues to grow and more devices are introduced and highlighted at high-profile consumer events.
 

Burned before

Limitations of cuffed devices are well known, including errors related to cuff size, patient positioning, patient habits or behaviors (for example, caffeine/nicotine use, acute meal digestion, full bladder, very recent physical activity) and clinicians’ failure to take accurate measurements.

But are the currently available cuffless devices acceptable substitutes?

Like many clinicians, Timothy B. Plante, MD, MHS, assistant professor at the University of Vermont Medical Center thrombosis & hemostasis program in Burlington, is very excited about cuffless technology. However, “we’ve been burned by it before,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Plante’s 2016 validation study of an instant blood pressure smartphone app found that its measurements were “highly inaccurate,” with such low sensitivity that more than three-quarters of individuals with hypertensive blood levels would be falsely reassured that their blood pressure was in the normal range.

His team’s 2023 review of the current landscape, which includes more sophisticated devices, concluded that accuracy remains an issue: “Unfortunately, the pace of regulation of these devices has failed to match the speed of innovation and direct availability to patient consumers. There is an urgent need to develop a consensus on standards by which cuffless BP devices can be tested for accuracy.”
 

Devices, indications differ

Cuffless devices estimate blood pressure indirectly. Most operate based on pulse wave analysis and pulse arrival time (PWA-PAT), explained Ramakrishna Mukkamala, PhD, in a commentary. Dr. Mukkamala is a professor in the departments of bioengineering and anesthesiology and perioperative medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.

PWA involves measuring a peripheral arterial waveform using an optical sensor such as the green lights on the back of a wrist-worn device, or a ‘force sensor’ such as a finger cuff or pressing on a smartphone. Certain features are extracted from the waveform using machine learning and calibrated to blood pressure values.

PAT techniques work together with PWA; they record the ECG and extract features from that signal as well as the arterial waveform for calibration to blood pressure values.

The algorithm used to generate the BP numbers comprises a proprietary baseline model that may include demographics and other patient characteristics. A cuff measurement is often part of the baseline model because most cuffless devices require periodic (typically weekly or monthly) calibration using a cuffed device.

Cuffless devices that require cuff calibration compare the estimate they get to the cuff-calibrated number. In this scenario, the cuffless device may come up with the same blood pressure numbers simply because the baseline model – which is made up of thousands of data points relevant to the patient – has not changed.

This has led some experts to question whether PWA-PAT cuffless device readings actually add anything to the baseline model.

They don’t, according to Microsoft Research in what Dr. Mukkamala and coauthors referred to (in a review published in Hypertension) as “a complex article describing perhaps the most important and highest resource project to date (Aurora Project) on assessing the accuracy of PWA and PWA devices.”

The Microsoft article was written for bioengineers. The review in Hypertension explains the project for clinicians, and concludes that, “Cuffless BP devices based on PWA and PWA-PAT, which are similar to some regulatory-cleared devices, were of no additional value in measuring auscultatory or 24-hour ambulatory cuff BP when compared with a baseline model in which BP was predicted without an actual measurement.”
 

IEEE and FDA validation

Despite these concerns, several cuffless devices using PWA and PAT have been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration.

Validating cuffless devices is no simple matter. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers published a validation protocol for cuffless blood pressure devices in 2014 that was amended in 2019 to include a requirement to evaluate performance in different positions and in the presence of motion with varying degrees of noise artifact.

However, Daichi Shimbo, MD, codirector of the Columbia Hypertension Center in New York and vice chair of the American Heart Association Statement on blood pressure monitoring, and colleagues point out limitations, even in the updated standard. These include not requiring evaluation for drift over time; lack of specific dynamic testing protocols for stressors such as exercise or environmental temperatures; and an unsuitable reference standard (oscillometric cuff-based devices) during movement.

Dr. Shimbo said in an interview that, although he is excited about them, “these cuffless devices are not aligned with regulatory bodies. If a device gives someone a wrong blood pressure, they might be diagnosed with hypertension when they don’t have it or might miss the fact that they’re hypertensive because they get a normal blood pressure reading. If there’s no yardstick by which you say these devices are good, what are we really doing – helping, or causing a problem?”

“The specifics of how a device estimates blood pressure can determine what testing is needed to ensure that it is providing accurate performance in the intended conditions of use,” Jeremy Kahn, an FDA press officer, said in an interview. “For example, for cuffless devices that are calibrated initially with a cuff-based blood pressure device, the cuffless device needs to specify the period over which it can provide accurate readings and have testing to demonstrate that it provides accurate results over that period of use.”

The FDA said its testing is different from what the Microsoft Aurora Project used in their study.

“The intent of that testing, as the agency understands it, is to evaluate whether the device is providing useful input based on the current physiology of the patient rather than relying on predetermined values based on calibration or patient attributes. We evaluate this clinically in two separate tests: an induced change in blood pressure test and tracking of natural blood pressure changes with longer term device use,” Mr. Kahn explained.

Analyzing a device’s performance on individuals who have had natural changes in blood pressure as compared to a calibration value or initial reading “can also help discern if the device is using physiological data from the patient to determine their blood pressure accurately,” he said.

Experts interviewed for this article who remain skeptical about cuffless BP monitoring question whether the numbers that appear during the induced blood pressure change, and with the natural blood pressure changes that may occur over time, accurately reflect a patient’s blood pressure.

“The FDA doesn’t approve these devices; they clear them,” Dr. Shimbo pointed out. “Clearing them means they can be sold to the general public in the U.S. It’s not a strong statement that they’re accurate.”
 

Moving toward validation, standards

Ultimately, cuffless BP monitors may require more than one validation protocol and standard, depending on their technology, how and where they will be used, and by whom.

And as Dr. Plante and colleagues write, “Importantly, validation should be performed in diverse and special populations, including pregnant women and individuals across a range of heart rates, skin tones, wrist sizes, common arrhythmias, and beta-blocker use.”

Organizations that might be expected to help move validation and standards forward have mostly remained silent. The American Medical Association’s US Blood Pressure Validated Device Listing website includes only cuffed devices, as does the website of the international scientific nonprofit STRIDE BP.

The European Society of Hypertension 2022 consensus statement on cuffless devices concluded that, until there is an internationally accepted accuracy standard and the devices have been tested in healthy people and those with suspected or diagnosed hypertension, “cuffless BP devices should not be used for the evaluation or management of hypertension in clinical practice.”

This month, ESH published recommendations for “specific, clinically meaningful, and pragmatic validation procedures for different types of intermittent cuffless devices” that will be presented at their upcoming annual meeting June 26.

Updated protocols from IEEE “are coming out soon,” according to Dr. Shimbo. The FDA says currently cleared devices won’t need to revalidate according to new standards unless the sponsor makes significant modifications in software algorithms, device hardware, or targeted patient populations.
 

Device makers take the initiative

In the face of conflicting reports on accuracy and lack of a robust standard, some device makers are publishing their own tests or encouraging validation by potential customers.

For example, institutions that are considering using the Biobeat cuffless blood pressure monitor watch “usually start with small pilots with our devices to do internal validation,” Lior Ben Shettrit, the company’s vice president of business development, said in an interview. “Only after they complete the internal validation are they willing to move forward to full implementation.”

Cardiologist Dean Nachman, MD, is leading validation studies of the Biobeat device at the Hadassah Ein Kerem Medical Center in Jerusalem. For the first validation, the team recruited 1,057 volunteers who did a single blood pressure measurement with the cuffless device and with a cuffed device.

“We found 96.3% agreement in identifying hypertension and an interclass correlation coefficient of 0.99 and 0.97 for systolic and diastolic measurements, respectively,” he said. “Then we took it to the next level and compared the device to ambulatory 24-hour blood pressure monitoring and found comparable measurements.”

The investigators are not done yet. “We need data from thousands of patients, with subgroups, to not have any concerns,” he says. “Right now, we are using the device as a general monitor – as an EKG plus heart rate plus oxygen saturation level monitor – and as a blood pressure monitor for 24-hour blood pressure monitoring.”

The developers of the Aktiia device, which is the one Dr. Topol tested, take a different perspective. “When somebody introduces a new technology that is disrupting something that has been in place for over 100 years, there will always be some grumblings, ruffling of feathers, people saying it’s not ready, it’s not ready, it’s not ready,” Aktiia’s chief medical officer Jay Shah, MD, noted.

“But a lot of those comments are coming from the isolation of an ivory tower,” he said.

Aktiia cofounder and chief technology officer Josep Solà said that “no device is probably as accurate as if you have an invasive catheter,” adding that “we engage patients to look at their blood pressure day by day. … If each individual measurement of each of those patient is slightly less accurate than a cuff, who cares? We have 40 measurements per day on each patient. The accuracy and precision of each of those is good.”

Researchers from the George Institute for Global Health recently compared the Aktiia device to conventional ambulatory monitoring in 41 patients and found that “it did not accurately track night-time BP decline and results suggested it was unable to track medication-induced BP changes.”

“In the context of 24/7 monitoring of hypertensive patients,” Mr. Solà said, “whatever you do, if it’s better than a sham device or a baseline model and you track the blood pressure changes, it’s a hundred times much better than doing nothing.”

Dr. Nachman and Dr. Plante reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Shimbo reported that he received funding from NIH and has consulted for Abbott Vascular, Edward Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Tryton Medical.

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

Medscape’s Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD, referred to continual noninvasive, cuffless, accurate blood pressure devices as “a holy grail in sensor technology.”

He personally tested a cuff-calibrated, over-the-counter device available in Europe that claims to monitor daily blood pressure changes and produce data that can help physicians titrate medications.

Dr. Topol does not believe that it is ready for prime time. Yes, cuffless devices are easy to use, and generate lots of data. But are those data accurate?

Many experts say not yet, even as the market continues to grow and more devices are introduced and highlighted at high-profile consumer events.
 

Burned before

Limitations of cuffed devices are well known, including errors related to cuff size, patient positioning, patient habits or behaviors (for example, caffeine/nicotine use, acute meal digestion, full bladder, very recent physical activity) and clinicians’ failure to take accurate measurements.

But are the currently available cuffless devices acceptable substitutes?

Like many clinicians, Timothy B. Plante, MD, MHS, assistant professor at the University of Vermont Medical Center thrombosis & hemostasis program in Burlington, is very excited about cuffless technology. However, “we’ve been burned by it before,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Plante’s 2016 validation study of an instant blood pressure smartphone app found that its measurements were “highly inaccurate,” with such low sensitivity that more than three-quarters of individuals with hypertensive blood levels would be falsely reassured that their blood pressure was in the normal range.

His team’s 2023 review of the current landscape, which includes more sophisticated devices, concluded that accuracy remains an issue: “Unfortunately, the pace of regulation of these devices has failed to match the speed of innovation and direct availability to patient consumers. There is an urgent need to develop a consensus on standards by which cuffless BP devices can be tested for accuracy.”
 

Devices, indications differ

Cuffless devices estimate blood pressure indirectly. Most operate based on pulse wave analysis and pulse arrival time (PWA-PAT), explained Ramakrishna Mukkamala, PhD, in a commentary. Dr. Mukkamala is a professor in the departments of bioengineering and anesthesiology and perioperative medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.

PWA involves measuring a peripheral arterial waveform using an optical sensor such as the green lights on the back of a wrist-worn device, or a ‘force sensor’ such as a finger cuff or pressing on a smartphone. Certain features are extracted from the waveform using machine learning and calibrated to blood pressure values.

PAT techniques work together with PWA; they record the ECG and extract features from that signal as well as the arterial waveform for calibration to blood pressure values.

The algorithm used to generate the BP numbers comprises a proprietary baseline model that may include demographics and other patient characteristics. A cuff measurement is often part of the baseline model because most cuffless devices require periodic (typically weekly or monthly) calibration using a cuffed device.

Cuffless devices that require cuff calibration compare the estimate they get to the cuff-calibrated number. In this scenario, the cuffless device may come up with the same blood pressure numbers simply because the baseline model – which is made up of thousands of data points relevant to the patient – has not changed.

This has led some experts to question whether PWA-PAT cuffless device readings actually add anything to the baseline model.

They don’t, according to Microsoft Research in what Dr. Mukkamala and coauthors referred to (in a review published in Hypertension) as “a complex article describing perhaps the most important and highest resource project to date (Aurora Project) on assessing the accuracy of PWA and PWA devices.”

The Microsoft article was written for bioengineers. The review in Hypertension explains the project for clinicians, and concludes that, “Cuffless BP devices based on PWA and PWA-PAT, which are similar to some regulatory-cleared devices, were of no additional value in measuring auscultatory or 24-hour ambulatory cuff BP when compared with a baseline model in which BP was predicted without an actual measurement.”
 

IEEE and FDA validation

Despite these concerns, several cuffless devices using PWA and PAT have been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration.

Validating cuffless devices is no simple matter. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers published a validation protocol for cuffless blood pressure devices in 2014 that was amended in 2019 to include a requirement to evaluate performance in different positions and in the presence of motion with varying degrees of noise artifact.

However, Daichi Shimbo, MD, codirector of the Columbia Hypertension Center in New York and vice chair of the American Heart Association Statement on blood pressure monitoring, and colleagues point out limitations, even in the updated standard. These include not requiring evaluation for drift over time; lack of specific dynamic testing protocols for stressors such as exercise or environmental temperatures; and an unsuitable reference standard (oscillometric cuff-based devices) during movement.

Dr. Shimbo said in an interview that, although he is excited about them, “these cuffless devices are not aligned with regulatory bodies. If a device gives someone a wrong blood pressure, they might be diagnosed with hypertension when they don’t have it or might miss the fact that they’re hypertensive because they get a normal blood pressure reading. If there’s no yardstick by which you say these devices are good, what are we really doing – helping, or causing a problem?”

“The specifics of how a device estimates blood pressure can determine what testing is needed to ensure that it is providing accurate performance in the intended conditions of use,” Jeremy Kahn, an FDA press officer, said in an interview. “For example, for cuffless devices that are calibrated initially with a cuff-based blood pressure device, the cuffless device needs to specify the period over which it can provide accurate readings and have testing to demonstrate that it provides accurate results over that period of use.”

The FDA said its testing is different from what the Microsoft Aurora Project used in their study.

“The intent of that testing, as the agency understands it, is to evaluate whether the device is providing useful input based on the current physiology of the patient rather than relying on predetermined values based on calibration or patient attributes. We evaluate this clinically in two separate tests: an induced change in blood pressure test and tracking of natural blood pressure changes with longer term device use,” Mr. Kahn explained.

Analyzing a device’s performance on individuals who have had natural changes in blood pressure as compared to a calibration value or initial reading “can also help discern if the device is using physiological data from the patient to determine their blood pressure accurately,” he said.

Experts interviewed for this article who remain skeptical about cuffless BP monitoring question whether the numbers that appear during the induced blood pressure change, and with the natural blood pressure changes that may occur over time, accurately reflect a patient’s blood pressure.

“The FDA doesn’t approve these devices; they clear them,” Dr. Shimbo pointed out. “Clearing them means they can be sold to the general public in the U.S. It’s not a strong statement that they’re accurate.”
 

Moving toward validation, standards

Ultimately, cuffless BP monitors may require more than one validation protocol and standard, depending on their technology, how and where they will be used, and by whom.

And as Dr. Plante and colleagues write, “Importantly, validation should be performed in diverse and special populations, including pregnant women and individuals across a range of heart rates, skin tones, wrist sizes, common arrhythmias, and beta-blocker use.”

Organizations that might be expected to help move validation and standards forward have mostly remained silent. The American Medical Association’s US Blood Pressure Validated Device Listing website includes only cuffed devices, as does the website of the international scientific nonprofit STRIDE BP.

The European Society of Hypertension 2022 consensus statement on cuffless devices concluded that, until there is an internationally accepted accuracy standard and the devices have been tested in healthy people and those with suspected or diagnosed hypertension, “cuffless BP devices should not be used for the evaluation or management of hypertension in clinical practice.”

This month, ESH published recommendations for “specific, clinically meaningful, and pragmatic validation procedures for different types of intermittent cuffless devices” that will be presented at their upcoming annual meeting June 26.

Updated protocols from IEEE “are coming out soon,” according to Dr. Shimbo. The FDA says currently cleared devices won’t need to revalidate according to new standards unless the sponsor makes significant modifications in software algorithms, device hardware, or targeted patient populations.
 

Device makers take the initiative

In the face of conflicting reports on accuracy and lack of a robust standard, some device makers are publishing their own tests or encouraging validation by potential customers.

For example, institutions that are considering using the Biobeat cuffless blood pressure monitor watch “usually start with small pilots with our devices to do internal validation,” Lior Ben Shettrit, the company’s vice president of business development, said in an interview. “Only after they complete the internal validation are they willing to move forward to full implementation.”

Cardiologist Dean Nachman, MD, is leading validation studies of the Biobeat device at the Hadassah Ein Kerem Medical Center in Jerusalem. For the first validation, the team recruited 1,057 volunteers who did a single blood pressure measurement with the cuffless device and with a cuffed device.

“We found 96.3% agreement in identifying hypertension and an interclass correlation coefficient of 0.99 and 0.97 for systolic and diastolic measurements, respectively,” he said. “Then we took it to the next level and compared the device to ambulatory 24-hour blood pressure monitoring and found comparable measurements.”

The investigators are not done yet. “We need data from thousands of patients, with subgroups, to not have any concerns,” he says. “Right now, we are using the device as a general monitor – as an EKG plus heart rate plus oxygen saturation level monitor – and as a blood pressure monitor for 24-hour blood pressure monitoring.”

The developers of the Aktiia device, which is the one Dr. Topol tested, take a different perspective. “When somebody introduces a new technology that is disrupting something that has been in place for over 100 years, there will always be some grumblings, ruffling of feathers, people saying it’s not ready, it’s not ready, it’s not ready,” Aktiia’s chief medical officer Jay Shah, MD, noted.

“But a lot of those comments are coming from the isolation of an ivory tower,” he said.

Aktiia cofounder and chief technology officer Josep Solà said that “no device is probably as accurate as if you have an invasive catheter,” adding that “we engage patients to look at their blood pressure day by day. … If each individual measurement of each of those patient is slightly less accurate than a cuff, who cares? We have 40 measurements per day on each patient. The accuracy and precision of each of those is good.”

Researchers from the George Institute for Global Health recently compared the Aktiia device to conventional ambulatory monitoring in 41 patients and found that “it did not accurately track night-time BP decline and results suggested it was unable to track medication-induced BP changes.”

“In the context of 24/7 monitoring of hypertensive patients,” Mr. Solà said, “whatever you do, if it’s better than a sham device or a baseline model and you track the blood pressure changes, it’s a hundred times much better than doing nothing.”

Dr. Nachman and Dr. Plante reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Shimbo reported that he received funding from NIH and has consulted for Abbott Vascular, Edward Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Tryton Medical.

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

The clinical pattern of a scaly herald patch predating the eruption of multiple scaly macules is the hallmark of pityriasis rosea (PR). This patient’s severe itching is also classic for PR.

PR’s etiology is believed to be a reactivation of infection from human herpes viruses 6 and 7.¹ Prodromal viral symptoms of malaise, sore throat, myalgias, and fever are common.² Along with the prodromal symptoms, there is often a several-centimeter herald patch that occurs on the trunk. It is often confused with eczema or tinea due to its erythema and scale. (Secondary syphilis is also in the differential.) Sometimes PR can be differentiated by the scale pattern being a collarette instead of diffuse. The diagnosis becomes clearer 1 to 2 weeks later with the onset of multiple small scaly macules across the trunk following the Langer’s skin lines. The course is self-limited but takes several weeks to months to resolve.

If severe, PR may be treated with acyclovir 800 mg orally 5 times daily for 5 days; this is the same regimen for treating varicella zoster (shingles).^1,2 Estimated recurrence rates are 4% to 24%.^1,3

At age 49 years, this woman was older than the average patient with PR, as the usual age range is 10 to 35 years.¹ Her physician advised her that the outbreak might recur. She was also given a prescription for oral hydroxyzine 25 mg to be taken at bedtime if the itching was interfering with her sleep. Her physician told her to return for reevaluation if the rash did not resolve in 3 months. She did not return for reevaluation.

‌

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

The clinical pattern of a scaly herald patch predating the eruption of multiple scaly macules is the hallmark of pityriasis rosea (PR). This patient’s severe itching is also classic for PR.

PR’s etiology is believed to be a reactivation of infection from human herpes viruses 6 and 7.¹ Prodromal viral symptoms of malaise, sore throat, myalgias, and fever are common.² Along with the prodromal symptoms, there is often a several-centimeter herald patch that occurs on the trunk. It is often confused with eczema or tinea due to its erythema and scale. (Secondary syphilis is also in the differential.) Sometimes PR can be differentiated by the scale pattern being a collarette instead of diffuse. The diagnosis becomes clearer 1 to 2 weeks later with the onset of multiple small scaly macules across the trunk following the Langer’s skin lines. The course is self-limited but takes several weeks to months to resolve.

If severe, PR may be treated with acyclovir 800 mg orally 5 times daily for 5 days; this is the same regimen for treating varicella zoster (shingles).^1,2 Estimated recurrence rates are 4% to 24%.^1,3

At age 49 years, this woman was older than the average patient with PR, as the usual age range is 10 to 35 years.¹ Her physician advised her that the outbreak might recur. She was also given a prescription for oral hydroxyzine 25 mg to be taken at bedtime if the itching was interfering with her sleep. Her physician told her to return for reevaluation if the rash did not resolve in 3 months. She did not return for reevaluation.

‌

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

The clinical pattern of a scaly herald patch predating the eruption of multiple scaly macules is the hallmark of pityriasis rosea (PR). This patient’s severe itching is also classic for PR.

PR’s etiology is believed to be a reactivation of infection from human herpes viruses 6 and 7.¹ Prodromal viral symptoms of malaise, sore throat, myalgias, and fever are common.² Along with the prodromal symptoms, there is often a several-centimeter herald patch that occurs on the trunk. It is often confused with eczema or tinea due to its erythema and scale. (Secondary syphilis is also in the differential.) Sometimes PR can be differentiated by the scale pattern being a collarette instead of diffuse. The diagnosis becomes clearer 1 to 2 weeks later with the onset of multiple small scaly macules across the trunk following the Langer’s skin lines. The course is self-limited but takes several weeks to months to resolve.

If severe, PR may be treated with acyclovir 800 mg orally 5 times daily for 5 days; this is the same regimen for treating varicella zoster (shingles).^1,2 Estimated recurrence rates are 4% to 24%.^1,3

At age 49 years, this woman was older than the average patient with PR, as the usual age range is 10 to 35 years.¹ Her physician advised her that the outbreak might recur. She was also given a prescription for oral hydroxyzine 25 mg to be taken at bedtime if the itching was interfering with her sleep. Her physician told her to return for reevaluation if the rash did not resolve in 3 months. She did not return for reevaluation.

‌

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

Patients with “treatment-resistant depression” may be taking other medications with side effects that interfere with antidepressant efficacy.

Investigators studied over 800 patients who were taking antidepressants for major depressive disorder (MDD) and found that close to two-thirds were taking at least one nonpsychiatric medication with potential depressive symptom side effects (PDSS), more than 30% were taking two or more such medications, and 20% at least three such medications.

These medications, which included antihypertensive medications and corticosteroids, among others, were associated with higher odds of moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms, compared with medications without PDSS.

“When evaluating the reasons for inadequate response to treatment for depression, clinicians should consider whether their patient is also receiving a nonpsychiatric medication with a potential for depressive symptom side effects,” study investigator Mark Olfson, MD, MPH, Elizabeth K. Dollard professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law and professor of epidemiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

Columbia University

Previous research limited

“In earlier research, we found that people who were taking medications with a potential to cause depressive symptom side effects were at increased risk of depression, especially those adults who were taking more than one of these medications,” said Dr. Olfson.

This finding led Dr. Olfson and his team to “wonder whether the risks of depressive symptoms associated with these medications extended to people who were being actively treated with antidepressants for depression.”

To investigate, they turned to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) – a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of the United States general population.

The study was based on the 2013-2014, 2015-2016, and 2017-2018 waves and included 885 adults who reported using antidepressant medications for greater than or equal to 6 weeks for depression and whose depression could be ascertained.

Prescription medications with PDSS were identified through Micromedex, whose accuracy is “established” and primarily based on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s labeled side effects.

Nonantidepressant psychiatric medications and medications for Alzheimer’s disease or substance use disorders were not included in the analysis.

Antidepressant-treated MDD was defined as taking an antidepressant for MDD for greater than or equal to 6 weeks. Depressive symptoms were ascertained using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) with a score of less than 5 representing no/minimal depressive symptoms and a score of greater than or equal to 10 indicating moderate/severe symptoms.

Other variables included self-reported sex, age, race/ethnicity, income, education, health insurance, and common chronic medical conditions such as hypertension, arthritis, lung disease, diabetes mellitus, thyroid disease, cancer, heart disease, liver disease, stroke, and congestive heart failure.
 

Recovery interrupted

Of the patients in the study treated with antidepressants, most were female, greater than or equal to 50 years, non-Hispanic White, and with a college education (70.55, 62.0%, 81.7%, and 69.4%, respectively).

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were used by 67.9% of participants with MDD. Most had been on the same antidepressant medication for a “long time,” the authors report, with 79.2% and 67.8% taking them for greater than 1 year and greater than 2 years, respectively.

Despite the large number of patients on antidepressants, only 43.0% scored in the no/minimal symptoms range, based on the PHQ-9, while 28.4% scored in the moderate/severe range.

Most patients (85%) took at least one medication for medical conditions, with the majority medications with PDSS: 66.7% took at least one medication with PDSS, 37.3% took at least two, 21.6% took at least three, 10.7% took at least four, and 4.9% took at least five.

Almost 75% were using greater than or equal to 1 medication without PDSS, and about 50% were using greater than 1.

The number of medications with PDSS was significantly associated with lower odds of no/minimal depressive symptoms (AOR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.64-0.87]; P < .001) and higher odds of moderate/severe symptoms (AOR, 1.14 [1.004-1.29]; P = .044).

“The predicted probability of no/minimal symptoms in those taking 5 medications with PDSS was less than half the predicted probability in those taking no medications with PDSS (0.23 vs. 0.52),” the authors report.

Conversely, the predicted probability of moderate/severe symptoms was ~50% higher in individuals taking 5 versus 0 medications with PDSS (0.36 vs. 0.24).

No corresponding associations were found for medications without PDSS.

The results were even stronger when the researchers repeated their adjusted regression analyses to focus on the 10 individual medications most associated with the severity of depressive symptoms. These were omeprazole, gabapentin, meloxicam, tramadol, ranitidine, baclofen, oxycodone, tizanidine, propranolol, and morphine, with an AOR of 0.42 [0.30-0.60] for no/minimal symptoms and 1.68 [1.24-2.27] for moderate/severe symptoms.

“Many widely prescribed medications, from antihypertensives, such as atenolol and metoprolol to corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone and triamcinolone, are associated with depression side effects,” said Dr. Olfson.

“These medications could interfere with recovery from depression. When available, consideration should be given to selecting a substitute with lower risk for depressive symptoms,” he said.
 

Role in treatment-resistant depression

In a comment, Dima Qato, PharmD, MPH, PhD, Hygeia Centennial chair and associate professor, University of Southern California School of Pharmacy, Los Angeles, said the study “is an important reminder that the use of medications with depressive symptoms side effects is increasingly common and may contribute to delays in responsiveness or worsen depressive symptoms among individuals being treated for depression.”

University of Southern California

Dr. Qato, who is also the director of the Program on Medicines and Public Health, USC School of Pharmacy, and was not involved with the study, recommended that clinicians “consider the role of medications with depression side effects when evaluating patients with treatment-resistant depression.”

The study was not supported by any funding agency. Dr. Olfson and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Qato is a consultant for the Public Citizen Health Research Group.

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

Patients with “treatment-resistant depression” may be taking other medications with side effects that interfere with antidepressant efficacy.

Investigators studied over 800 patients who were taking antidepressants for major depressive disorder (MDD) and found that close to two-thirds were taking at least one nonpsychiatric medication with potential depressive symptom side effects (PDSS), more than 30% were taking two or more such medications, and 20% at least three such medications.

These medications, which included antihypertensive medications and corticosteroids, among others, were associated with higher odds of moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms, compared with medications without PDSS.

“When evaluating the reasons for inadequate response to treatment for depression, clinicians should consider whether their patient is also receiving a nonpsychiatric medication with a potential for depressive symptom side effects,” study investigator Mark Olfson, MD, MPH, Elizabeth K. Dollard professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law and professor of epidemiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

Columbia University

Previous research limited

“In earlier research, we found that people who were taking medications with a potential to cause depressive symptom side effects were at increased risk of depression, especially those adults who were taking more than one of these medications,” said Dr. Olfson.

This finding led Dr. Olfson and his team to “wonder whether the risks of depressive symptoms associated with these medications extended to people who were being actively treated with antidepressants for depression.”

To investigate, they turned to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) – a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of the United States general population.

The study was based on the 2013-2014, 2015-2016, and 2017-2018 waves and included 885 adults who reported using antidepressant medications for greater than or equal to 6 weeks for depression and whose depression could be ascertained.

Prescription medications with PDSS were identified through Micromedex, whose accuracy is “established” and primarily based on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s labeled side effects.

Nonantidepressant psychiatric medications and medications for Alzheimer’s disease or substance use disorders were not included in the analysis.

Antidepressant-treated MDD was defined as taking an antidepressant for MDD for greater than or equal to 6 weeks. Depressive symptoms were ascertained using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) with a score of less than 5 representing no/minimal depressive symptoms and a score of greater than or equal to 10 indicating moderate/severe symptoms.

Other variables included self-reported sex, age, race/ethnicity, income, education, health insurance, and common chronic medical conditions such as hypertension, arthritis, lung disease, diabetes mellitus, thyroid disease, cancer, heart disease, liver disease, stroke, and congestive heart failure.
 

Recovery interrupted

Of the patients in the study treated with antidepressants, most were female, greater than or equal to 50 years, non-Hispanic White, and with a college education (70.55, 62.0%, 81.7%, and 69.4%, respectively).

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were used by 67.9% of participants with MDD. Most had been on the same antidepressant medication for a “long time,” the authors report, with 79.2% and 67.8% taking them for greater than 1 year and greater than 2 years, respectively.

Despite the large number of patients on antidepressants, only 43.0% scored in the no/minimal symptoms range, based on the PHQ-9, while 28.4% scored in the moderate/severe range.

Most patients (85%) took at least one medication for medical conditions, with the majority medications with PDSS: 66.7% took at least one medication with PDSS, 37.3% took at least two, 21.6% took at least three, 10.7% took at least four, and 4.9% took at least five.

Almost 75% were using greater than or equal to 1 medication without PDSS, and about 50% were using greater than 1.

The number of medications with PDSS was significantly associated with lower odds of no/minimal depressive symptoms (AOR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.64-0.87]; P < .001) and higher odds of moderate/severe symptoms (AOR, 1.14 [1.004-1.29]; P = .044).

“The predicted probability of no/minimal symptoms in those taking 5 medications with PDSS was less than half the predicted probability in those taking no medications with PDSS (0.23 vs. 0.52),” the authors report.

Conversely, the predicted probability of moderate/severe symptoms was ~50% higher in individuals taking 5 versus 0 medications with PDSS (0.36 vs. 0.24).

No corresponding associations were found for medications without PDSS.

The results were even stronger when the researchers repeated their adjusted regression analyses to focus on the 10 individual medications most associated with the severity of depressive symptoms. These were omeprazole, gabapentin, meloxicam, tramadol, ranitidine, baclofen, oxycodone, tizanidine, propranolol, and morphine, with an AOR of 0.42 [0.30-0.60] for no/minimal symptoms and 1.68 [1.24-2.27] for moderate/severe symptoms.

“Many widely prescribed medications, from antihypertensives, such as atenolol and metoprolol to corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone and triamcinolone, are associated with depression side effects,” said Dr. Olfson.

“These medications could interfere with recovery from depression. When available, consideration should be given to selecting a substitute with lower risk for depressive symptoms,” he said.
 

Role in treatment-resistant depression

In a comment, Dima Qato, PharmD, MPH, PhD, Hygeia Centennial chair and associate professor, University of Southern California School of Pharmacy, Los Angeles, said the study “is an important reminder that the use of medications with depressive symptoms side effects is increasingly common and may contribute to delays in responsiveness or worsen depressive symptoms among individuals being treated for depression.”

University of Southern California

Dr. Qato, who is also the director of the Program on Medicines and Public Health, USC School of Pharmacy, and was not involved with the study, recommended that clinicians “consider the role of medications with depression side effects when evaluating patients with treatment-resistant depression.”

The study was not supported by any funding agency. Dr. Olfson and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Qato is a consultant for the Public Citizen Health Research Group.

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

Patients with “treatment-resistant depression” may be taking other medications with side effects that interfere with antidepressant efficacy.

Investigators studied over 800 patients who were taking antidepressants for major depressive disorder (MDD) and found that close to two-thirds were taking at least one nonpsychiatric medication with potential depressive symptom side effects (PDSS), more than 30% were taking two or more such medications, and 20% at least three such medications.

These medications, which included antihypertensive medications and corticosteroids, among others, were associated with higher odds of moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms, compared with medications without PDSS.

“When evaluating the reasons for inadequate response to treatment for depression, clinicians should consider whether their patient is also receiving a nonpsychiatric medication with a potential for depressive symptom side effects,” study investigator Mark Olfson, MD, MPH, Elizabeth K. Dollard professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law and professor of epidemiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

Columbia University

Previous research limited

“In earlier research, we found that people who were taking medications with a potential to cause depressive symptom side effects were at increased risk of depression, especially those adults who were taking more than one of these medications,” said Dr. Olfson.

This finding led Dr. Olfson and his team to “wonder whether the risks of depressive symptoms associated with these medications extended to people who were being actively treated with antidepressants for depression.”

To investigate, they turned to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) – a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of the United States general population.

The study was based on the 2013-2014, 2015-2016, and 2017-2018 waves and included 885 adults who reported using antidepressant medications for greater than or equal to 6 weeks for depression and whose depression could be ascertained.

Prescription medications with PDSS were identified through Micromedex, whose accuracy is “established” and primarily based on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s labeled side effects.

Nonantidepressant psychiatric medications and medications for Alzheimer’s disease or substance use disorders were not included in the analysis.

Antidepressant-treated MDD was defined as taking an antidepressant for MDD for greater than or equal to 6 weeks. Depressive symptoms were ascertained using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) with a score of less than 5 representing no/minimal depressive symptoms and a score of greater than or equal to 10 indicating moderate/severe symptoms.

Other variables included self-reported sex, age, race/ethnicity, income, education, health insurance, and common chronic medical conditions such as hypertension, arthritis, lung disease, diabetes mellitus, thyroid disease, cancer, heart disease, liver disease, stroke, and congestive heart failure.
 

Recovery interrupted

Of the patients in the study treated with antidepressants, most were female, greater than or equal to 50 years, non-Hispanic White, and with a college education (70.55, 62.0%, 81.7%, and 69.4%, respectively).

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were used by 67.9% of participants with MDD. Most had been on the same antidepressant medication for a “long time,” the authors report, with 79.2% and 67.8% taking them for greater than 1 year and greater than 2 years, respectively.

Despite the large number of patients on antidepressants, only 43.0% scored in the no/minimal symptoms range, based on the PHQ-9, while 28.4% scored in the moderate/severe range.

Most patients (85%) took at least one medication for medical conditions, with the majority medications with PDSS: 66.7% took at least one medication with PDSS, 37.3% took at least two, 21.6% took at least three, 10.7% took at least four, and 4.9% took at least five.

Almost 75% were using greater than or equal to 1 medication without PDSS, and about 50% were using greater than 1.

The number of medications with PDSS was significantly associated with lower odds of no/minimal depressive symptoms (AOR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.64-0.87]; P < .001) and higher odds of moderate/severe symptoms (AOR, 1.14 [1.004-1.29]; P = .044).

“The predicted probability of no/minimal symptoms in those taking 5 medications with PDSS was less than half the predicted probability in those taking no medications with PDSS (0.23 vs. 0.52),” the authors report.

Conversely, the predicted probability of moderate/severe symptoms was ~50% higher in individuals taking 5 versus 0 medications with PDSS (0.36 vs. 0.24).

No corresponding associations were found for medications without PDSS.

The results were even stronger when the researchers repeated their adjusted regression analyses to focus on the 10 individual medications most associated with the severity of depressive symptoms. These were omeprazole, gabapentin, meloxicam, tramadol, ranitidine, baclofen, oxycodone, tizanidine, propranolol, and morphine, with an AOR of 0.42 [0.30-0.60] for no/minimal symptoms and 1.68 [1.24-2.27] for moderate/severe symptoms.

“Many widely prescribed medications, from antihypertensives, such as atenolol and metoprolol to corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone and triamcinolone, are associated with depression side effects,” said Dr. Olfson.

“These medications could interfere with recovery from depression. When available, consideration should be given to selecting a substitute with lower risk for depressive symptoms,” he said.
 

Role in treatment-resistant depression

In a comment, Dima Qato, PharmD, MPH, PhD, Hygeia Centennial chair and associate professor, University of Southern California School of Pharmacy, Los Angeles, said the study “is an important reminder that the use of medications with depressive symptoms side effects is increasingly common and may contribute to delays in responsiveness or worsen depressive symptoms among individuals being treated for depression.”

University of Southern California

Dr. Qato, who is also the director of the Program on Medicines and Public Health, USC School of Pharmacy, and was not involved with the study, recommended that clinicians “consider the role of medications with depression side effects when evaluating patients with treatment-resistant depression.”

The study was not supported by any funding agency. Dr. Olfson and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Qato is a consultant for the Public Citizen Health Research Group.

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