Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

World Health Organization officials announced July 6 that they’re tracking a new subvariant of Omicron, which is becoming more common in India.

The subvariant, a sublineage of BA.2 being called BA.2.75, has been reported in eight countries and hasn’t yet been declared a variant of concern.

“There’s been an emergence of a ‘could be’ subvariant. It’s been not yet officially called, but some people are referring to it as BA.2.75,” Soumya Swaminathan, MD, the WHO’s chief scientist, said in a video posted on Twitter.

The subvariant appears to have mutations similar to other contagious strains, she said, though there are a limited number of sequences available to analyze. How transmissible and severe it is, and how well it can evade our immunity, aren’t yet known.

“We have to wait and see, and of course, we are tracking it,” Dr. Swaminathan said.

The WHO committee responsible for analyzing global coronavirus data will label the subvariant officially and release more information as the situation warrants it, she said.

Public health experts around the world are also talking about the subvariant, which has been nicknamed Centaurus. BA.2.75 was first found in India in May and is now competing with BA.5, which has become dominant in the United States.

BA.2.75 has eight mutations beyond those seen in BA.5, which “could make immune escape worse than what we’re seeing now,” Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief at Medscape, wrote in a Twitter post.

Individually, the extra mutations aren’t too concerning, “but all appearing together at once is another matter,” Tom Peacock, PhD, a virologist at Imperial College London, wrote in a Twitter post.

The “apparent rapid growth and wide geographical spread” are “worth keeping a close eye on,” he said.

BA.2.75 has been found in a handful of cases in the United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. In India, the sequence accounts for about 23% of recent samples.

“It is really too early to know if BA.2.75 will take over relative to BA.2 or even relative to BA.5,” Ulrich Elling, PhD, a researcher at Australia’s Institute of Molecular Biotechnology, wrote in a Twitter post.

“Just to emphasize it again: While the distribution across Indian regions as well as internationally and the very rapid appearance makes it likely we are dealing with a variant spreading fast and spread widely already, the absolute data points are few,” he said.

Globally, coronavirus cases have increased nearly 30% during the past 2 weeks, the WHO said July 6. Four out of six of the WHO subregions reported an increase in the last week, with BA.4 and BA.5 driving waves in the United States and Europe.

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

World Health Organization officials announced July 6 that they’re tracking a new subvariant of Omicron, which is becoming more common in India.

The subvariant, a sublineage of BA.2 being called BA.2.75, has been reported in eight countries and hasn’t yet been declared a variant of concern.

“There’s been an emergence of a ‘could be’ subvariant. It’s been not yet officially called, but some people are referring to it as BA.2.75,” Soumya Swaminathan, MD, the WHO’s chief scientist, said in a video posted on Twitter.

The subvariant appears to have mutations similar to other contagious strains, she said, though there are a limited number of sequences available to analyze. How transmissible and severe it is, and how well it can evade our immunity, aren’t yet known.

“We have to wait and see, and of course, we are tracking it,” Dr. Swaminathan said.

The WHO committee responsible for analyzing global coronavirus data will label the subvariant officially and release more information as the situation warrants it, she said.

Public health experts around the world are also talking about the subvariant, which has been nicknamed Centaurus. BA.2.75 was first found in India in May and is now competing with BA.5, which has become dominant in the United States.

BA.2.75 has eight mutations beyond those seen in BA.5, which “could make immune escape worse than what we’re seeing now,” Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief at Medscape, wrote in a Twitter post.

Individually, the extra mutations aren’t too concerning, “but all appearing together at once is another matter,” Tom Peacock, PhD, a virologist at Imperial College London, wrote in a Twitter post.

The “apparent rapid growth and wide geographical spread” are “worth keeping a close eye on,” he said.

BA.2.75 has been found in a handful of cases in the United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. In India, the sequence accounts for about 23% of recent samples.

“It is really too early to know if BA.2.75 will take over relative to BA.2 or even relative to BA.5,” Ulrich Elling, PhD, a researcher at Australia’s Institute of Molecular Biotechnology, wrote in a Twitter post.

“Just to emphasize it again: While the distribution across Indian regions as well as internationally and the very rapid appearance makes it likely we are dealing with a variant spreading fast and spread widely already, the absolute data points are few,” he said.

Globally, coronavirus cases have increased nearly 30% during the past 2 weeks, the WHO said July 6. Four out of six of the WHO subregions reported an increase in the last week, with BA.4 and BA.5 driving waves in the United States and Europe.

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

World Health Organization officials announced July 6 that they’re tracking a new subvariant of Omicron, which is becoming more common in India.

The subvariant, a sublineage of BA.2 being called BA.2.75, has been reported in eight countries and hasn’t yet been declared a variant of concern.

“There’s been an emergence of a ‘could be’ subvariant. It’s been not yet officially called, but some people are referring to it as BA.2.75,” Soumya Swaminathan, MD, the WHO’s chief scientist, said in a video posted on Twitter.

The subvariant appears to have mutations similar to other contagious strains, she said, though there are a limited number of sequences available to analyze. How transmissible and severe it is, and how well it can evade our immunity, aren’t yet known.

“We have to wait and see, and of course, we are tracking it,” Dr. Swaminathan said.

The WHO committee responsible for analyzing global coronavirus data will label the subvariant officially and release more information as the situation warrants it, she said.

Public health experts around the world are also talking about the subvariant, which has been nicknamed Centaurus. BA.2.75 was first found in India in May and is now competing with BA.5, which has become dominant in the United States.

BA.2.75 has eight mutations beyond those seen in BA.5, which “could make immune escape worse than what we’re seeing now,” Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief at Medscape, wrote in a Twitter post.

Individually, the extra mutations aren’t too concerning, “but all appearing together at once is another matter,” Tom Peacock, PhD, a virologist at Imperial College London, wrote in a Twitter post.

The “apparent rapid growth and wide geographical spread” are “worth keeping a close eye on,” he said.

BA.2.75 has been found in a handful of cases in the United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. In India, the sequence accounts for about 23% of recent samples.

“It is really too early to know if BA.2.75 will take over relative to BA.2 or even relative to BA.5,” Ulrich Elling, PhD, a researcher at Australia’s Institute of Molecular Biotechnology, wrote in a Twitter post.

“Just to emphasize it again: While the distribution across Indian regions as well as internationally and the very rapid appearance makes it likely we are dealing with a variant spreading fast and spread widely already, the absolute data points are few,” he said.

Globally, coronavirus cases have increased nearly 30% during the past 2 weeks, the WHO said July 6. Four out of six of the WHO subregions reported an increase in the last week, with BA.4 and BA.5 driving waves in the United States and Europe.

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

Only a small number of research clinical trials for cancer drugs actually show benefit in quality of life, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.

“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.

These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.

The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).

“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”

To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”

In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.

Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”

He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”

Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.

Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.

Only a small number of research clinical trials for cancer drugs actually show benefit in quality of life, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.

“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.

These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.

The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).

“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”

To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”

In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.

Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”

He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”

Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.

Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.

Only a small number of research clinical trials for cancer drugs actually show benefit in quality of life, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.

“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.

These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.

The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).

“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”

To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”

In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.

Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”

He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”

Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.

Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.

Opioids remain a staple in pain management for cancer, but there is little guidance around how to treat patients who have a history of opioid misuse.

Recently, a group of palliative and addiction medicine specialists developed strategies to help frontline clinicians manage patients with advanced cancer-related pain and opioid use disorder.

“There is a tendency to ignore treatment of opioid use disorder in advanced cancer patients because people think: ‘Oh, this person has bigger fish to fry,’ but that’s not a very patient-centric way of looking at things,” senior author Jessica Merlin, MD, PhD, with the University of Pittsburgh, said in a news release.

“We know that opioid use disorder is a really important factor in quality of life, so addressing opioid addiction and prescription opioid misuse in people with advanced cancer is really critical,” Dr. Merlin added.

The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.

To improve care for people with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain, the researchers first assessed how clinicians currently treat patients with opioid complexity.

Using an online Delphi platform, the team invited 120 clinicians with expertise in palliative care, pain management, and addiction medicine to weigh in on three common clinical scenarios – a patient with a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, a patient taking more opioids than prescribed, and a patient using nonprescribed benzodiazepines.

For a patient with cancer and a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, regardless of prognosis, the panel deemed it appropriate to begin treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone for pain but inappropriate to refer the patient to a methadone clinic. The panel felt that going to a methadone clinic would be too burdensome for a patient with advanced cancer and not possible for those with limited prognoses.

“This underscores the importance of access to [opioid use disorder] treatment in cancer treatment settings, including non–addiction specialists waivered to prescribe buprenorphine/naloxone and addiction specialists for more complex cases,” the authors wrote.

For a patient with untreated opioid use disorder, the panel deemed split-dose methadone (two to three times daily) appropriate in those with limited prognosis of weeks to months but was uncertain about the suitability of this approach for patients with longer prognoses of a year or longer.

The appropriateness of initiating treatment with a full-agonist opioid was considered uncertain for a patient with limited prognosis and inappropriate for a patient with longer prognosis.

For a patient with cancer pain and no medical history of opioid use disorder but taking more opioids than prescribed, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to increase monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids. The panel was not certain about whether to increase opioids based on the patient’s account of what they need or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.

For a patient with no history of opioid use disorder who was prescribed traditional opioids for pain and had a positive urine drug test for nonprescribed benzodiazepines, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to continue opioids with close monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.

The researchers said that improving education around buprenorphine and cancer pain management in the context of opioid use disorder or misuse is needed.

In a related editorial, two experts noted that the patients considered in this “important article” require considerable time and expertise from an interdisciplinary team.

“It is important that cancer centers establish and fund such teams mainly as a safety measure for these patients and also as a major contribution to the care of all patients with cancer,” wrote Joseph Arthur, MD, and Eduardo Bruera, MD, with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

In the wider context, Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera highlighted how treatments for patients with advanced cancer have evolved over the past 3 decades, yet patients have continued to be given opioids to address cancer-related pain. Developing more sophisticated drugs that relieve pain without significant side effects or addictive properties is imperative.

Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera said the study authors “appropriately emphasize the value of delivering compassionate and expert care for these particularly complex cases and the importance of conducting research on the best ways to alleviate the suffering in this rapidly growing patient population.”

This research was supported by Cambia Health Foundation and the National Institute of Nursing Research. Dr. Merlin, Dr. Arthur, and Dr. Bruera reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Opioids remain a staple in pain management for cancer, but there is little guidance around how to treat patients who have a history of opioid misuse.

Recently, a group of palliative and addiction medicine specialists developed strategies to help frontline clinicians manage patients with advanced cancer-related pain and opioid use disorder.

“There is a tendency to ignore treatment of opioid use disorder in advanced cancer patients because people think: ‘Oh, this person has bigger fish to fry,’ but that’s not a very patient-centric way of looking at things,” senior author Jessica Merlin, MD, PhD, with the University of Pittsburgh, said in a news release.

“We know that opioid use disorder is a really important factor in quality of life, so addressing opioid addiction and prescription opioid misuse in people with advanced cancer is really critical,” Dr. Merlin added.

The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.

To improve care for people with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain, the researchers first assessed how clinicians currently treat patients with opioid complexity.

Using an online Delphi platform, the team invited 120 clinicians with expertise in palliative care, pain management, and addiction medicine to weigh in on three common clinical scenarios – a patient with a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, a patient taking more opioids than prescribed, and a patient using nonprescribed benzodiazepines.

For a patient with cancer and a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, regardless of prognosis, the panel deemed it appropriate to begin treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone for pain but inappropriate to refer the patient to a methadone clinic. The panel felt that going to a methadone clinic would be too burdensome for a patient with advanced cancer and not possible for those with limited prognoses.

“This underscores the importance of access to [opioid use disorder] treatment in cancer treatment settings, including non–addiction specialists waivered to prescribe buprenorphine/naloxone and addiction specialists for more complex cases,” the authors wrote.

For a patient with untreated opioid use disorder, the panel deemed split-dose methadone (two to three times daily) appropriate in those with limited prognosis of weeks to months but was uncertain about the suitability of this approach for patients with longer prognoses of a year or longer.

The appropriateness of initiating treatment with a full-agonist opioid was considered uncertain for a patient with limited prognosis and inappropriate for a patient with longer prognosis.

For a patient with cancer pain and no medical history of opioid use disorder but taking more opioids than prescribed, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to increase monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids. The panel was not certain about whether to increase opioids based on the patient’s account of what they need or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.

For a patient with no history of opioid use disorder who was prescribed traditional opioids for pain and had a positive urine drug test for nonprescribed benzodiazepines, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to continue opioids with close monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.

The researchers said that improving education around buprenorphine and cancer pain management in the context of opioid use disorder or misuse is needed.

In a related editorial, two experts noted that the patients considered in this “important article” require considerable time and expertise from an interdisciplinary team.

“It is important that cancer centers establish and fund such teams mainly as a safety measure for these patients and also as a major contribution to the care of all patients with cancer,” wrote Joseph Arthur, MD, and Eduardo Bruera, MD, with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

In the wider context, Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera highlighted how treatments for patients with advanced cancer have evolved over the past 3 decades, yet patients have continued to be given opioids to address cancer-related pain. Developing more sophisticated drugs that relieve pain without significant side effects or addictive properties is imperative.

Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera said the study authors “appropriately emphasize the value of delivering compassionate and expert care for these particularly complex cases and the importance of conducting research on the best ways to alleviate the suffering in this rapidly growing patient population.”

This research was supported by Cambia Health Foundation and the National Institute of Nursing Research. Dr. Merlin, Dr. Arthur, and Dr. Bruera reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Opioids remain a staple in pain management for cancer, but there is little guidance around how to treat patients who have a history of opioid misuse.

Recently, a group of palliative and addiction medicine specialists developed strategies to help frontline clinicians manage patients with advanced cancer-related pain and opioid use disorder.

“There is a tendency to ignore treatment of opioid use disorder in advanced cancer patients because people think: ‘Oh, this person has bigger fish to fry,’ but that’s not a very patient-centric way of looking at things,” senior author Jessica Merlin, MD, PhD, with the University of Pittsburgh, said in a news release.

“We know that opioid use disorder is a really important factor in quality of life, so addressing opioid addiction and prescription opioid misuse in people with advanced cancer is really critical,” Dr. Merlin added.

The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.

To improve care for people with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain, the researchers first assessed how clinicians currently treat patients with opioid complexity.

Using an online Delphi platform, the team invited 120 clinicians with expertise in palliative care, pain management, and addiction medicine to weigh in on three common clinical scenarios – a patient with a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, a patient taking more opioids than prescribed, and a patient using nonprescribed benzodiazepines.

For a patient with cancer and a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, regardless of prognosis, the panel deemed it appropriate to begin treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone for pain but inappropriate to refer the patient to a methadone clinic. The panel felt that going to a methadone clinic would be too burdensome for a patient with advanced cancer and not possible for those with limited prognoses.

“This underscores the importance of access to [opioid use disorder] treatment in cancer treatment settings, including non–addiction specialists waivered to prescribe buprenorphine/naloxone and addiction specialists for more complex cases,” the authors wrote.

For a patient with untreated opioid use disorder, the panel deemed split-dose methadone (two to three times daily) appropriate in those with limited prognosis of weeks to months but was uncertain about the suitability of this approach for patients with longer prognoses of a year or longer.

The appropriateness of initiating treatment with a full-agonist opioid was considered uncertain for a patient with limited prognosis and inappropriate for a patient with longer prognosis.

For a patient with cancer pain and no medical history of opioid use disorder but taking more opioids than prescribed, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to increase monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids. The panel was not certain about whether to increase opioids based on the patient’s account of what they need or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.

For a patient with no history of opioid use disorder who was prescribed traditional opioids for pain and had a positive urine drug test for nonprescribed benzodiazepines, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to continue opioids with close monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.

The researchers said that improving education around buprenorphine and cancer pain management in the context of opioid use disorder or misuse is needed.

In a related editorial, two experts noted that the patients considered in this “important article” require considerable time and expertise from an interdisciplinary team.

“It is important that cancer centers establish and fund such teams mainly as a safety measure for these patients and also as a major contribution to the care of all patients with cancer,” wrote Joseph Arthur, MD, and Eduardo Bruera, MD, with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

In the wider context, Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera highlighted how treatments for patients with advanced cancer have evolved over the past 3 decades, yet patients have continued to be given opioids to address cancer-related pain. Developing more sophisticated drugs that relieve pain without significant side effects or addictive properties is imperative.

Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera said the study authors “appropriately emphasize the value of delivering compassionate and expert care for these particularly complex cases and the importance of conducting research on the best ways to alleviate the suffering in this rapidly growing patient population.”

This research was supported by Cambia Health Foundation and the National Institute of Nursing Research. Dr. Merlin, Dr. Arthur, and Dr. Bruera reported no relevant disclosures.

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

In June, the Concord, Mass.–based company Tremeau Pharmaceuticals announced that the Food and Drug Administration was letting it proceed with a phase 3 clinical trial to test rofecoxib, the once-bestselling painkiller known as Vioxx, in patients with migraine.

The anti-inflammatory drug, a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, received its first FDA approval in 1999 and became widely prescribed for arthritis and acute pain. In 2004 it was withdrawn by its manufacturer, Merck, after being shown to raise the risk of cardiovascular events.

In clinical trials and in real-world epidemiological studies, rofecoxib was associated with elevated heart attack, stroke, and related deaths; one 2005 study estimated that it had been responsible for some 38,000 excess deaths in the United States before being withdrawn. In 2007 Merck, beset with allegations that it had suppressed and mischaracterized rofecoxib’s safety data, paid out nearly $5 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by patients and their families.

Shortly before its withdrawal, rofecoxib was approved for the treatment of migraine. Now, with its original patents expired, Tremeau hopes to gain approval for its reformulated version of the drug in both migraine and in hemophilia arthropathy, an indication for which it received an orphan drug designation in 2017 and the agency’s green light for trials in 2020.

Brad Sippy, Tremeau’s chief executive officer, said that his company chose the two indications in part because both patient populations have low cardiovascular risk. Migraine patients are generally younger than the arthritis populations formerly treated with rofecoxib and are unlikely to take the drug for more than a day or 2 at time, avoiding the risks associated with extended exposure.
 

A crowded market

The past several years have seen the emergence of a cornucopia of new migraine treatments, including monoclonal antibodies such as erenumab (Aimovig, Amgen), which help prevent attacks by blocking the vasodilator calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP. In addition to the standard arsenal of triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute pain relief, migraine patients can now choose among serotonin-blocking agents such as lasmiditan (Reyvow, Eli Lilly), known as “ditans,” and small-molecule CGRP antagonists such as ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, Abbie), known as “gepants.” Some NSAIDs, including one COX inhibitor, have been formulated into rapidly absorbed powders or liquids for migraine.

Mr. Sippy said he sees a role for rofecoxib even in this crowded space. “Migraine as you know is a multimodal situation – few people say that only one drug works for them,” he said. “We think this is an option that would basically be like a high dose of ibuprofen,” but with less frequent dosing and lower gastrointestinal and platelet effects compared with ibuprofen and other NSAIDs.
 

An improved formulation

Rofecoxib “crosses the blood brain barrier very readily – better than other COX inhibitors on the market,” Mr. Sippy added. “It was well absorbed in its original formulation, and our product is even better absorbed than the original – we estimate it’s probably an hour quicker to [peak concentration].” In addition, he said, “our formulation is more efficient at delivering the drug so we don’t need as much active ingredient – our 17.5 milligrams gets you the same systemic exposure as 25 milligrams of the old product.”

A different mechanism of action

Neurologist Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that he was “cautiously optimistic” that “if used correctly and not too frequently, [rofecoxib] will find its niche in migraine treatment.”

“Patients liked Vioxx,” said Dr. Rapoport, past president of the International Headache Society. Even people currently on prevention “need to have an acute care drug handy.” While some patients on monoclonal antibodies have had success with gepants for acute care, “these both target the same pathway. It’s always nice to have options with a different mechanism of action.”

One of the arguments Tremeau has cited for reintroducing rofecoxib has been an urgent need for alternatives to opioid painkillers. Indeed some analysts have linked the demise of Vioxx with a subsequent increase in opioid prescribing.

Dr. Rapoport noted that he never prescribes opioids or butalbital, a barbiturate, for migraine, and that most headache specialists avoid them in clinical practice. But in the emergency setting, he said, patients receive them all too frequently.

Mr. Sippy said that opioid prescribing, while not unknown in migraine, was a bigger problem in hemophilic arthropathy, the first indication his company has pursued for rofecoxib. People with hemophilia “have a kind of arthritis that would respond well to an anti-inflammatory drug but they can’t take NSAIDs due to bleeding risk. This is why so many end up on opioids. Rofecoxib, as a COX-2 inhibitor, doesn’t have any effect on platelet aggregation, which would make it another option.”
 

No unique risks at prescribed doses

The migraine indication originally started out narrower: Patients with both migraine and bleeding disorders. “But in talking with the FDA, they encouraged us to develop it for migraine,” Mr. Sippy said. The company is considering pursuing a third indication: menstrual pain co-occurring with migraine. Tremeau has not ruled out seeking an indication in patients with arthritis who cannot take other painkillers, whether opioids or NSAIDs.

Five years ago, when Tremeau first announced its plans to bring rofecoxib back – indeed the company was set up for that purpose and has only this and another COX-2 inhibitor in development – some experts warned that there is little to prevent the drug from being used off-label, whether in higher doses or for other diseases.

“That’s something else we’re seeking to solve in addition to going for younger populations,” said Mr. Sippy, who worked at Merck during the Vioxx crisis and later headed neurology at Sunovion before starting his own company.

“We’re going for the former middle dose as our high dose and now we know that you don’t want to take more than the prescribed amount. If it doesn’t work you get off it; you don’t want to dose-creep on it. That’s been a key insight: At the appropriate dose, this product has no unique risk relative to the drug class and potentially some unique benefits,” he said.
 

Risk versus benefit

Joseph Ross, MD, a health policy researcher at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., who in a 2018 editorial expressed concerns about rofecoxib’s revival, said in an email that he felt its use in migraine could be justified, with caveats.

During Vioxx’s original approval and time on the market, “there was a cardiovascular risk associated with use that was not being transparently and clearly reported to patients and clinicians,” Dr. Ross said.

“In terms of testing the product for use in patients with migraine – a population of generally younger patients at lower risk of cardiovascular disease – my only concern is that the risk is clearly communicated and that there is adequate postmarket safety surveillance,” he said. “If patients are making fully informed decisions, the potential benefit of the drug with respect to pain control may be worth the risks.”

Dr. Rapoport serves as an adviser for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Collegium Pharmaceutical, Satsuma, Teva, Theranica and Xoc; he is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Impel, Lundbeck, and Teva. Dr. Ross disclosed research support from Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, along with government grants; he is also an expert witness in a lawsuit against Biogen.

In June, the Concord, Mass.–based company Tremeau Pharmaceuticals announced that the Food and Drug Administration was letting it proceed with a phase 3 clinical trial to test rofecoxib, the once-bestselling painkiller known as Vioxx, in patients with migraine.

The anti-inflammatory drug, a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, received its first FDA approval in 1999 and became widely prescribed for arthritis and acute pain. In 2004 it was withdrawn by its manufacturer, Merck, after being shown to raise the risk of cardiovascular events.

In clinical trials and in real-world epidemiological studies, rofecoxib was associated with elevated heart attack, stroke, and related deaths; one 2005 study estimated that it had been responsible for some 38,000 excess deaths in the United States before being withdrawn. In 2007 Merck, beset with allegations that it had suppressed and mischaracterized rofecoxib’s safety data, paid out nearly $5 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by patients and their families.

Shortly before its withdrawal, rofecoxib was approved for the treatment of migraine. Now, with its original patents expired, Tremeau hopes to gain approval for its reformulated version of the drug in both migraine and in hemophilia arthropathy, an indication for which it received an orphan drug designation in 2017 and the agency’s green light for trials in 2020.

Brad Sippy, Tremeau’s chief executive officer, said that his company chose the two indications in part because both patient populations have low cardiovascular risk. Migraine patients are generally younger than the arthritis populations formerly treated with rofecoxib and are unlikely to take the drug for more than a day or 2 at time, avoiding the risks associated with extended exposure.
 

A crowded market

The past several years have seen the emergence of a cornucopia of new migraine treatments, including monoclonal antibodies such as erenumab (Aimovig, Amgen), which help prevent attacks by blocking the vasodilator calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP. In addition to the standard arsenal of triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute pain relief, migraine patients can now choose among serotonin-blocking agents such as lasmiditan (Reyvow, Eli Lilly), known as “ditans,” and small-molecule CGRP antagonists such as ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, Abbie), known as “gepants.” Some NSAIDs, including one COX inhibitor, have been formulated into rapidly absorbed powders or liquids for migraine.

Mr. Sippy said he sees a role for rofecoxib even in this crowded space. “Migraine as you know is a multimodal situation – few people say that only one drug works for them,” he said. “We think this is an option that would basically be like a high dose of ibuprofen,” but with less frequent dosing and lower gastrointestinal and platelet effects compared with ibuprofen and other NSAIDs.
 

An improved formulation

Rofecoxib “crosses the blood brain barrier very readily – better than other COX inhibitors on the market,” Mr. Sippy added. “It was well absorbed in its original formulation, and our product is even better absorbed than the original – we estimate it’s probably an hour quicker to [peak concentration].” In addition, he said, “our formulation is more efficient at delivering the drug so we don’t need as much active ingredient – our 17.5 milligrams gets you the same systemic exposure as 25 milligrams of the old product.”

A different mechanism of action

Neurologist Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that he was “cautiously optimistic” that “if used correctly and not too frequently, [rofecoxib] will find its niche in migraine treatment.”

“Patients liked Vioxx,” said Dr. Rapoport, past president of the International Headache Society. Even people currently on prevention “need to have an acute care drug handy.” While some patients on monoclonal antibodies have had success with gepants for acute care, “these both target the same pathway. It’s always nice to have options with a different mechanism of action.”

One of the arguments Tremeau has cited for reintroducing rofecoxib has been an urgent need for alternatives to opioid painkillers. Indeed some analysts have linked the demise of Vioxx with a subsequent increase in opioid prescribing.

Dr. Rapoport noted that he never prescribes opioids or butalbital, a barbiturate, for migraine, and that most headache specialists avoid them in clinical practice. But in the emergency setting, he said, patients receive them all too frequently.

Mr. Sippy said that opioid prescribing, while not unknown in migraine, was a bigger problem in hemophilic arthropathy, the first indication his company has pursued for rofecoxib. People with hemophilia “have a kind of arthritis that would respond well to an anti-inflammatory drug but they can’t take NSAIDs due to bleeding risk. This is why so many end up on opioids. Rofecoxib, as a COX-2 inhibitor, doesn’t have any effect on platelet aggregation, which would make it another option.”
 

No unique risks at prescribed doses

The migraine indication originally started out narrower: Patients with both migraine and bleeding disorders. “But in talking with the FDA, they encouraged us to develop it for migraine,” Mr. Sippy said. The company is considering pursuing a third indication: menstrual pain co-occurring with migraine. Tremeau has not ruled out seeking an indication in patients with arthritis who cannot take other painkillers, whether opioids or NSAIDs.

Five years ago, when Tremeau first announced its plans to bring rofecoxib back – indeed the company was set up for that purpose and has only this and another COX-2 inhibitor in development – some experts warned that there is little to prevent the drug from being used off-label, whether in higher doses or for other diseases.

“That’s something else we’re seeking to solve in addition to going for younger populations,” said Mr. Sippy, who worked at Merck during the Vioxx crisis and later headed neurology at Sunovion before starting his own company.

“We’re going for the former middle dose as our high dose and now we know that you don’t want to take more than the prescribed amount. If it doesn’t work you get off it; you don’t want to dose-creep on it. That’s been a key insight: At the appropriate dose, this product has no unique risk relative to the drug class and potentially some unique benefits,” he said.
 

Risk versus benefit

Joseph Ross, MD, a health policy researcher at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., who in a 2018 editorial expressed concerns about rofecoxib’s revival, said in an email that he felt its use in migraine could be justified, with caveats.

During Vioxx’s original approval and time on the market, “there was a cardiovascular risk associated with use that was not being transparently and clearly reported to patients and clinicians,” Dr. Ross said.

“In terms of testing the product for use in patients with migraine – a population of generally younger patients at lower risk of cardiovascular disease – my only concern is that the risk is clearly communicated and that there is adequate postmarket safety surveillance,” he said. “If patients are making fully informed decisions, the potential benefit of the drug with respect to pain control may be worth the risks.”

Dr. Rapoport serves as an adviser for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Collegium Pharmaceutical, Satsuma, Teva, Theranica and Xoc; he is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Impel, Lundbeck, and Teva. Dr. Ross disclosed research support from Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, along with government grants; he is also an expert witness in a lawsuit against Biogen.

In June, the Concord, Mass.–based company Tremeau Pharmaceuticals announced that the Food and Drug Administration was letting it proceed with a phase 3 clinical trial to test rofecoxib, the once-bestselling painkiller known as Vioxx, in patients with migraine.

The anti-inflammatory drug, a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, received its first FDA approval in 1999 and became widely prescribed for arthritis and acute pain. In 2004 it was withdrawn by its manufacturer, Merck, after being shown to raise the risk of cardiovascular events.

In clinical trials and in real-world epidemiological studies, rofecoxib was associated with elevated heart attack, stroke, and related deaths; one 2005 study estimated that it had been responsible for some 38,000 excess deaths in the United States before being withdrawn. In 2007 Merck, beset with allegations that it had suppressed and mischaracterized rofecoxib’s safety data, paid out nearly $5 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by patients and their families.

Shortly before its withdrawal, rofecoxib was approved for the treatment of migraine. Now, with its original patents expired, Tremeau hopes to gain approval for its reformulated version of the drug in both migraine and in hemophilia arthropathy, an indication for which it received an orphan drug designation in 2017 and the agency’s green light for trials in 2020.

Brad Sippy, Tremeau’s chief executive officer, said that his company chose the two indications in part because both patient populations have low cardiovascular risk. Migraine patients are generally younger than the arthritis populations formerly treated with rofecoxib and are unlikely to take the drug for more than a day or 2 at time, avoiding the risks associated with extended exposure.
 

A crowded market

The past several years have seen the emergence of a cornucopia of new migraine treatments, including monoclonal antibodies such as erenumab (Aimovig, Amgen), which help prevent attacks by blocking the vasodilator calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP. In addition to the standard arsenal of triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute pain relief, migraine patients can now choose among serotonin-blocking agents such as lasmiditan (Reyvow, Eli Lilly), known as “ditans,” and small-molecule CGRP antagonists such as ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, Abbie), known as “gepants.” Some NSAIDs, including one COX inhibitor, have been formulated into rapidly absorbed powders or liquids for migraine.

Mr. Sippy said he sees a role for rofecoxib even in this crowded space. “Migraine as you know is a multimodal situation – few people say that only one drug works for them,” he said. “We think this is an option that would basically be like a high dose of ibuprofen,” but with less frequent dosing and lower gastrointestinal and platelet effects compared with ibuprofen and other NSAIDs.
 

An improved formulation

Rofecoxib “crosses the blood brain barrier very readily – better than other COX inhibitors on the market,” Mr. Sippy added. “It was well absorbed in its original formulation, and our product is even better absorbed than the original – we estimate it’s probably an hour quicker to [peak concentration].” In addition, he said, “our formulation is more efficient at delivering the drug so we don’t need as much active ingredient – our 17.5 milligrams gets you the same systemic exposure as 25 milligrams of the old product.”

A different mechanism of action

Neurologist Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that he was “cautiously optimistic” that “if used correctly and not too frequently, [rofecoxib] will find its niche in migraine treatment.”

“Patients liked Vioxx,” said Dr. Rapoport, past president of the International Headache Society. Even people currently on prevention “need to have an acute care drug handy.” While some patients on monoclonal antibodies have had success with gepants for acute care, “these both target the same pathway. It’s always nice to have options with a different mechanism of action.”

One of the arguments Tremeau has cited for reintroducing rofecoxib has been an urgent need for alternatives to opioid painkillers. Indeed some analysts have linked the demise of Vioxx with a subsequent increase in opioid prescribing.

Dr. Rapoport noted that he never prescribes opioids or butalbital, a barbiturate, for migraine, and that most headache specialists avoid them in clinical practice. But in the emergency setting, he said, patients receive them all too frequently.

Mr. Sippy said that opioid prescribing, while not unknown in migraine, was a bigger problem in hemophilic arthropathy, the first indication his company has pursued for rofecoxib. People with hemophilia “have a kind of arthritis that would respond well to an anti-inflammatory drug but they can’t take NSAIDs due to bleeding risk. This is why so many end up on opioids. Rofecoxib, as a COX-2 inhibitor, doesn’t have any effect on platelet aggregation, which would make it another option.”
 

No unique risks at prescribed doses

The migraine indication originally started out narrower: Patients with both migraine and bleeding disorders. “But in talking with the FDA, they encouraged us to develop it for migraine,” Mr. Sippy said. The company is considering pursuing a third indication: menstrual pain co-occurring with migraine. Tremeau has not ruled out seeking an indication in patients with arthritis who cannot take other painkillers, whether opioids or NSAIDs.

Five years ago, when Tremeau first announced its plans to bring rofecoxib back – indeed the company was set up for that purpose and has only this and another COX-2 inhibitor in development – some experts warned that there is little to prevent the drug from being used off-label, whether in higher doses or for other diseases.

“That’s something else we’re seeking to solve in addition to going for younger populations,” said Mr. Sippy, who worked at Merck during the Vioxx crisis and later headed neurology at Sunovion before starting his own company.

“We’re going for the former middle dose as our high dose and now we know that you don’t want to take more than the prescribed amount. If it doesn’t work you get off it; you don’t want to dose-creep on it. That’s been a key insight: At the appropriate dose, this product has no unique risk relative to the drug class and potentially some unique benefits,” he said.
 

Risk versus benefit

Joseph Ross, MD, a health policy researcher at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., who in a 2018 editorial expressed concerns about rofecoxib’s revival, said in an email that he felt its use in migraine could be justified, with caveats.

During Vioxx’s original approval and time on the market, “there was a cardiovascular risk associated with use that was not being transparently and clearly reported to patients and clinicians,” Dr. Ross said.

“In terms of testing the product for use in patients with migraine – a population of generally younger patients at lower risk of cardiovascular disease – my only concern is that the risk is clearly communicated and that there is adequate postmarket safety surveillance,” he said. “If patients are making fully informed decisions, the potential benefit of the drug with respect to pain control may be worth the risks.”

Dr. Rapoport serves as an adviser for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Collegium Pharmaceutical, Satsuma, Teva, Theranica and Xoc; he is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Impel, Lundbeck, and Teva. Dr. Ross disclosed research support from Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, along with government grants; he is also an expert witness in a lawsuit against Biogen.

DENVER – In a debate over whether headache trials are representative of patients, one neurologist declared that they tend to leave out a variety of subjects with many types of headaches – the young, the old, the pregnant, and those without migraines, among others. But her counterpart defended migraine trials in particular, arguing that they’re evolving to become more valuable as researchers address their limitations.

At the core of the debate at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society were sharp divisions over how much the limitations of headache clinical trials matter. Both neurologists – Jan Brandes, MD, of Nashville (Tenn.) Neuroscience Group, and Amy Gelfand, MD, of the University of California at San Francisco, agree that they exist. But they diverged on how much they matter.
 

Exclusion/inclusion criteria are good

Dr. Brandes argued that randomized controlled trials “remain the single best study design,” and she said migraine headache trials have improved over the past couple of decades.

Eligibility criteria, for example, have expanded to allow patients with more subtypes of migraines to participate, she said. “Another change has been the establishment of guidelines or inclusion criteria that allow patients who have stable and treated hypertension, stable depression, and stable anxiety disorders that are controlled and treated and not interfering with the disease you’re studying.”

In essence, she said, “the exclusion/inclusion criteria are good.”

It’s also a positive change that longer patient-reported outcomes are included in trials, she said.
 

Exclusion/inclusion criteria are too restrictive

But Dr. Gelfand criticized the inclusion criteria in migraine trials, noting it includes “a lot of amazing complexity.” Trials often will limit participation to subjects aged 18-65, even though people have high rates of headaches, she said, and they frequently overrepresent men. Pregnant and lactating women are often omitted, too, even if a trial is examining a behavioral intervention. In some cases, lactating women may be breastfeeding for a year or two, she noted.

“The vast majority of births in the United States, 92%, are to females who are between the ages of 20 and 39. That is also the age range where migraine is most prevalent,” she said. Yes, certain new agents shouldn’t be tested for the first time in pregnant women because of the risk, she said, “but we need to grapple with the fact that migraine is affecting people who are also going to be pregnant and lactating.”

Many other criteria limit the subjects in headache trials, she said. The studies are “almost exclusively” of drugs for migraines, leaving out many people with other types such as adolescents with new persistent headaches. “Where are the trials for them?” she asked.

Other groups that are left out include those whose headaches that are due to a head injury, a viral infection such as COVID-19, or even vaccination against COVID-19, she said. “There are an infinite number of questions here that we are currently not even attempting to answer.”

Non-Whites are also poorly represented in trials, she said, and studies often don’t include data about non-Whites. “Race data exists. Where do we get off not even reporting it?”
 

Room for improvement

For her part, Dr. Brandes said less-common headache disorders are best studied in pragmatic trials until they can be better understood. “We need to understand pathophysiology better for some of these other disorders, particularly things like continuous headache and posttraumatic headache. Then we can begin to expand that.”

She added that randomized clinical trials are now underway regarding secondary headache related to COVID-19.

Dr. Brandes did not report disclosures. Dr. Gelfand had no disclosures.

DENVER – In a debate over whether headache trials are representative of patients, one neurologist declared that they tend to leave out a variety of subjects with many types of headaches – the young, the old, the pregnant, and those without migraines, among others. But her counterpart defended migraine trials in particular, arguing that they’re evolving to become more valuable as researchers address their limitations.

At the core of the debate at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society were sharp divisions over how much the limitations of headache clinical trials matter. Both neurologists – Jan Brandes, MD, of Nashville (Tenn.) Neuroscience Group, and Amy Gelfand, MD, of the University of California at San Francisco, agree that they exist. But they diverged on how much they matter.
 

Exclusion/inclusion criteria are good

Dr. Brandes argued that randomized controlled trials “remain the single best study design,” and she said migraine headache trials have improved over the past couple of decades.

Eligibility criteria, for example, have expanded to allow patients with more subtypes of migraines to participate, she said. “Another change has been the establishment of guidelines or inclusion criteria that allow patients who have stable and treated hypertension, stable depression, and stable anxiety disorders that are controlled and treated and not interfering with the disease you’re studying.”

In essence, she said, “the exclusion/inclusion criteria are good.”

It’s also a positive change that longer patient-reported outcomes are included in trials, she said.
 

Exclusion/inclusion criteria are too restrictive

But Dr. Gelfand criticized the inclusion criteria in migraine trials, noting it includes “a lot of amazing complexity.” Trials often will limit participation to subjects aged 18-65, even though people have high rates of headaches, she said, and they frequently overrepresent men. Pregnant and lactating women are often omitted, too, even if a trial is examining a behavioral intervention. In some cases, lactating women may be breastfeeding for a year or two, she noted.

“The vast majority of births in the United States, 92%, are to females who are between the ages of 20 and 39. That is also the age range where migraine is most prevalent,” she said. Yes, certain new agents shouldn’t be tested for the first time in pregnant women because of the risk, she said, “but we need to grapple with the fact that migraine is affecting people who are also going to be pregnant and lactating.”

Many other criteria limit the subjects in headache trials, she said. The studies are “almost exclusively” of drugs for migraines, leaving out many people with other types such as adolescents with new persistent headaches. “Where are the trials for them?” she asked.

Other groups that are left out include those whose headaches that are due to a head injury, a viral infection such as COVID-19, or even vaccination against COVID-19, she said. “There are an infinite number of questions here that we are currently not even attempting to answer.”

Non-Whites are also poorly represented in trials, she said, and studies often don’t include data about non-Whites. “Race data exists. Where do we get off not even reporting it?”
 

Room for improvement

For her part, Dr. Brandes said less-common headache disorders are best studied in pragmatic trials until they can be better understood. “We need to understand pathophysiology better for some of these other disorders, particularly things like continuous headache and posttraumatic headache. Then we can begin to expand that.”

She added that randomized clinical trials are now underway regarding secondary headache related to COVID-19.

Dr. Brandes did not report disclosures. Dr. Gelfand had no disclosures.

DENVER – In a debate over whether headache trials are representative of patients, one neurologist declared that they tend to leave out a variety of subjects with many types of headaches – the young, the old, the pregnant, and those without migraines, among others. But her counterpart defended migraine trials in particular, arguing that they’re evolving to become more valuable as researchers address their limitations.

At the core of the debate at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society were sharp divisions over how much the limitations of headache clinical trials matter. Both neurologists – Jan Brandes, MD, of Nashville (Tenn.) Neuroscience Group, and Amy Gelfand, MD, of the University of California at San Francisco, agree that they exist. But they diverged on how much they matter.
 

Exclusion/inclusion criteria are good

Dr. Brandes argued that randomized controlled trials “remain the single best study design,” and she said migraine headache trials have improved over the past couple of decades.

Eligibility criteria, for example, have expanded to allow patients with more subtypes of migraines to participate, she said. “Another change has been the establishment of guidelines or inclusion criteria that allow patients who have stable and treated hypertension, stable depression, and stable anxiety disorders that are controlled and treated and not interfering with the disease you’re studying.”

In essence, she said, “the exclusion/inclusion criteria are good.”

It’s also a positive change that longer patient-reported outcomes are included in trials, she said.
 

Exclusion/inclusion criteria are too restrictive

But Dr. Gelfand criticized the inclusion criteria in migraine trials, noting it includes “a lot of amazing complexity.” Trials often will limit participation to subjects aged 18-65, even though people have high rates of headaches, she said, and they frequently overrepresent men. Pregnant and lactating women are often omitted, too, even if a trial is examining a behavioral intervention. In some cases, lactating women may be breastfeeding for a year or two, she noted.

“The vast majority of births in the United States, 92%, are to females who are between the ages of 20 and 39. That is also the age range where migraine is most prevalent,” she said. Yes, certain new agents shouldn’t be tested for the first time in pregnant women because of the risk, she said, “but we need to grapple with the fact that migraine is affecting people who are also going to be pregnant and lactating.”

Many other criteria limit the subjects in headache trials, she said. The studies are “almost exclusively” of drugs for migraines, leaving out many people with other types such as adolescents with new persistent headaches. “Where are the trials for them?” she asked.

Other groups that are left out include those whose headaches that are due to a head injury, a viral infection such as COVID-19, or even vaccination against COVID-19, she said. “There are an infinite number of questions here that we are currently not even attempting to answer.”

Non-Whites are also poorly represented in trials, she said, and studies often don’t include data about non-Whites. “Race data exists. Where do we get off not even reporting it?”
 

Room for improvement

For her part, Dr. Brandes said less-common headache disorders are best studied in pragmatic trials until they can be better understood. “We need to understand pathophysiology better for some of these other disorders, particularly things like continuous headache and posttraumatic headache. Then we can begin to expand that.”

She added that randomized clinical trials are now underway regarding secondary headache related to COVID-19.

Dr. Brandes did not report disclosures. Dr. Gelfand had no disclosures.

Hospitals in low-income and rural areas of the United States are much less likely to adopt stroke certification than hospitals in high-income and urban communities, a new study shows.

Further, other results showed that, after adjustment for population and hospital size, access to stroke-certified hospitals is significantly lower in Black, racially segregated communities.

The study was published online  in JAMA Neurology.

Noting that stroke-certified hospitals provide higher-quality stroke care, the authors, led by Yu-Chu Shen, PhD, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, Calif., conclude that: “Our findings suggest that structural inequities in stroke care may be an important consideration in eliminating stroke disparities for vulnerable populations.”

©Aaron Kohr/Thinkstock.com

She said there is a tendency to think this is a result of some sort of bias on the part of health care professionals. “We wanted to look deep down in the system and whether the built environment of health care supply and geographic distribution of services contributed to access and treatment inequities.”

The study combined a dataset of hospital stroke certification from all general acute nonfederal hospitals in the continental United States from January 2009 to December 2019. National, hospital, and census data were used to identify historically underserved communities by racial and ethnic composition, income distribution, and rurality.

A total of 4,984 hospitals were assessed. Results showed that over the 11-year study period, the number of hospitals with stroke certification grew from 961 (19%) to 1,763 (36%).

Without controlling for population and hospital size, hospitals in predominantly Black, racially segregated areas were 1.67-fold more likely to adopt stroke care of any level than those in predominantly non-Black, racially segregated areas (hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.97).

However, after adjustment for population and hospital size, the likelihood of adopting stroke care among hospitals serving Black, racially segregated communities was significantly lower than among those serving non-Black, racially segregated communities (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89).

“In other words, on a per-capita basis, a hospital serving a predominantly Black, racially segregated community was 26% less likely to adopt stroke certification of any level than a hospital in a predominantly non-Black, racially segregated community,” the authors state.

In terms of socioeconomic factors, hospitals serving low-income, economically integrated (HR, 0.23) and low-income, economically segregated (HR, 0.29) areas were far less likely to adopt any level of stroke care certification than hospitals serving high-income areas, regardless of income segregation.

Rural hospitals were also much less likely to adopt any level of stroke care than urban hospitals (HR, 0.10).

“Our results suggest that it might be necessary to incentivize hospitals operating in underserved communities to seek stroke certification or to entice hospitals with higher propensity to adopt stroke care to operate in such communities so access at the per-patient level becomes more equitable,” the authors say.

This project was supported by the Pilot Project Award from the National Bureau of Economic Research Center for Aging and Health Research, funded by the National Institute on Aging and by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Shen and Dr. Hsia have received grants from the National Institute of Aging and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

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

Hospitals in low-income and rural areas of the United States are much less likely to adopt stroke certification than hospitals in high-income and urban communities, a new study shows.

Further, other results showed that, after adjustment for population and hospital size, access to stroke-certified hospitals is significantly lower in Black, racially segregated communities.

The study was published online  in JAMA Neurology.

Noting that stroke-certified hospitals provide higher-quality stroke care, the authors, led by Yu-Chu Shen, PhD, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, Calif., conclude that: “Our findings suggest that structural inequities in stroke care may be an important consideration in eliminating stroke disparities for vulnerable populations.”

©Aaron Kohr/Thinkstock.com

She said there is a tendency to think this is a result of some sort of bias on the part of health care professionals. “We wanted to look deep down in the system and whether the built environment of health care supply and geographic distribution of services contributed to access and treatment inequities.”

The study combined a dataset of hospital stroke certification from all general acute nonfederal hospitals in the continental United States from January 2009 to December 2019. National, hospital, and census data were used to identify historically underserved communities by racial and ethnic composition, income distribution, and rurality.

A total of 4,984 hospitals were assessed. Results showed that over the 11-year study period, the number of hospitals with stroke certification grew from 961 (19%) to 1,763 (36%).

Without controlling for population and hospital size, hospitals in predominantly Black, racially segregated areas were 1.67-fold more likely to adopt stroke care of any level than those in predominantly non-Black, racially segregated areas (hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.97).

However, after adjustment for population and hospital size, the likelihood of adopting stroke care among hospitals serving Black, racially segregated communities was significantly lower than among those serving non-Black, racially segregated communities (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89).

“In other words, on a per-capita basis, a hospital serving a predominantly Black, racially segregated community was 26% less likely to adopt stroke certification of any level than a hospital in a predominantly non-Black, racially segregated community,” the authors state.

In terms of socioeconomic factors, hospitals serving low-income, economically integrated (HR, 0.23) and low-income, economically segregated (HR, 0.29) areas were far less likely to adopt any level of stroke care certification than hospitals serving high-income areas, regardless of income segregation.

Rural hospitals were also much less likely to adopt any level of stroke care than urban hospitals (HR, 0.10).

“Our results suggest that it might be necessary to incentivize hospitals operating in underserved communities to seek stroke certification or to entice hospitals with higher propensity to adopt stroke care to operate in such communities so access at the per-patient level becomes more equitable,” the authors say.

This project was supported by the Pilot Project Award from the National Bureau of Economic Research Center for Aging and Health Research, funded by the National Institute on Aging and by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Shen and Dr. Hsia have received grants from the National Institute of Aging and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

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

Hospitals in low-income and rural areas of the United States are much less likely to adopt stroke certification than hospitals in high-income and urban communities, a new study shows.

Further, other results showed that, after adjustment for population and hospital size, access to stroke-certified hospitals is significantly lower in Black, racially segregated communities.

The study was published online  in JAMA Neurology.

Noting that stroke-certified hospitals provide higher-quality stroke care, the authors, led by Yu-Chu Shen, PhD, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, Calif., conclude that: “Our findings suggest that structural inequities in stroke care may be an important consideration in eliminating stroke disparities for vulnerable populations.”

©Aaron Kohr/Thinkstock.com

She said there is a tendency to think this is a result of some sort of bias on the part of health care professionals. “We wanted to look deep down in the system and whether the built environment of health care supply and geographic distribution of services contributed to access and treatment inequities.”

The study combined a dataset of hospital stroke certification from all general acute nonfederal hospitals in the continental United States from January 2009 to December 2019. National, hospital, and census data were used to identify historically underserved communities by racial and ethnic composition, income distribution, and rurality.

A total of 4,984 hospitals were assessed. Results showed that over the 11-year study period, the number of hospitals with stroke certification grew from 961 (19%) to 1,763 (36%).

Without controlling for population and hospital size, hospitals in predominantly Black, racially segregated areas were 1.67-fold more likely to adopt stroke care of any level than those in predominantly non-Black, racially segregated areas (hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.97).

However, after adjustment for population and hospital size, the likelihood of adopting stroke care among hospitals serving Black, racially segregated communities was significantly lower than among those serving non-Black, racially segregated communities (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89).

“In other words, on a per-capita basis, a hospital serving a predominantly Black, racially segregated community was 26% less likely to adopt stroke certification of any level than a hospital in a predominantly non-Black, racially segregated community,” the authors state.

In terms of socioeconomic factors, hospitals serving low-income, economically integrated (HR, 0.23) and low-income, economically segregated (HR, 0.29) areas were far less likely to adopt any level of stroke care certification than hospitals serving high-income areas, regardless of income segregation.

Rural hospitals were also much less likely to adopt any level of stroke care than urban hospitals (HR, 0.10).

“Our results suggest that it might be necessary to incentivize hospitals operating in underserved communities to seek stroke certification or to entice hospitals with higher propensity to adopt stroke care to operate in such communities so access at the per-patient level becomes more equitable,” the authors say.

This project was supported by the Pilot Project Award from the National Bureau of Economic Research Center for Aging and Health Research, funded by the National Institute on Aging and by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Shen and Dr. Hsia have received grants from the National Institute of Aging and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

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

Skin manifestations of COVID-19 were among the topics presented in several sessions at the 49th Congress of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. Specialists agreed that fewer skin changes associated with this virus have been seen with the latest variants of SARS-CoV-2. They highlighted the results of the most remarkable research on this topic that were presented in this forum.

In the study, which was carried out by Spanish dermatologists with the support of the AEDV, researchers analyzed skin reactions associated with the COVID-19 vaccine.

Study author Cristina Galván, MD, a dermatologist at the University Hospital of Móstoles, Madrid, said, “This is the first study that analyzes a significant number of cases assessed by dermatologists and illustrated with clinical images of the dermatological manifestations caused as a reaction to these vaccines.”

The study was carried out during the first months of COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Galván told this news organization. It was proposed as a continuation of a COVID skin study that was published in the British Journal of Dermatology. That study documented the first classification of skin lesions associated with COVID-19. Dr. Galván is the lead author of the latter study.

“The objectives of this study were to characterize and classify skin reactions after vaccination, identify their chronology, and analyze the associations with a series of antecedents: dermatological and allergic diseases, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and skin reactions associated with COVID-19,” said Dr. Galván. The study was a team effort, she added.

“It was conducted between Feb. 15 and May 12, 2021, and information was gathered on 405 reactions that appeared during the 21 days after any dose of the COVID-19 vaccines approved at that time in Spain: the Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and University of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines,” she added.

Dr. Galván explained that the study shows very clear patterns and investigators reached conclusions that match those of other groups that have investigated this topic. “Six reaction patterns were described according to their frequency. The first is the ‘COVID-19 arm,’ which consists of a local reaction at the injection site and occurs almost exclusively in women and in 70% of cases after inoculation with the Moderna serum. It is a manifestation that resolves well and does not always recur in subsequent doses. More than half are of delayed onset: biopsied patients show signs of a delayed hypersensitivity reaction. In line with all the publications in this regard, it was found that this reaction is not a reason to skip or delay a dose.”
 

Herpes zoster reactivation

The second pattern is urticarial, which, according to the specialist, occurs with equal frequency after the administration of all vaccines and is well controlled with antihistamines. “This is a very nonspecific pattern, which does not prevent it from still being frequent. It was not associated with drug intake.

“The morbilliform pattern is more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. It affects the trunk and extremities, and up to a quarter of the cases required systemic corticosteroids. The papulovesicular and pityriasis rosea–like patterns are equally frequent in all vaccines. The latter is found in a younger age group. Finally, there is the purpuric pattern, more localized in the extremities and more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. On biopsy, this pattern showed small-vessel vasculitis.”

Less frequently, reactivations or de novo onset of different dermatologic diseases were found. “Varicella-zoster virus reactivations were observed with a frequency of 13.8%, being more common after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine,” said Dr. Galván. “Other studies have corroborated this increase in herpes zoster, although it has been seen that the absolute number is low, so the benefits of the vaccine outweigh this eventual complication. At the same time and along the same lines, vaccination against herpes zoster is recommended for those over 50 years of age.”

Another fact revealed by the study is that these reactions were not significantly more severe in people with dermatologic diseases, those with previous infection, or those with skin manifestation associated with COVID-19.

Dr. Galván highlighted that, except for the COVID-19 arm, these patterns were among those associated with the disease, “which supports [the idea] that it does not demonstrate that the host’s immune reaction to the infection was playing a role.”
 

Women and young people

“As for pseudoperniosis, it is poorly represented in our series: 0.7% compared to 2% in the American registry. Although neither the SARS-CoV-2–pseudoperniosis association nor its pathophysiology is clear, the idea is that if this manifestation is related to the host’s immune response during infection, pseudoperniosis after vaccination could also be linked to the immune response to the vaccine,” said Dr. Galván.

Many of these reactions are more intense in women. “Before starting to use these vaccines, we already knew that messenger RNA vaccines (a powerful activator of innate immunity) induce frequent reactions, that adjuvants and excipients (polyethylene glycol and polysorbate) also generate them, and that other factors influence reactogenicity, among those of us of the same age and sex, reactions being more frequent in younger people and in women,” said Dr. Galván. “This may be one of the reasons why the COVID-19 arm is so much more prevalent in the female population and that 80% of all reactions that were collected were in women.”

In relation to the fact that manifestations differed, depending on the type of inoculated serum, Dr. Galván said, “Some reactions are just as common after any of the vaccines. However, others are not, as is the case with the COVID-19 arm for the Moderna vaccine or reactivations of the herpes virus, more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

“Undoubtedly, behind these differences are particularities in the immune reaction caused by each of the vaccines and their composition, including the excipients,” she said.

Regarding the fact that these reactions were the same throughout the vaccine regimen or that they varied in intensity, depending on the dose, Dr. Galván said, “In our study, as in those carried out by other groups, there were no significant differences in terms of frequency after the first and second doses. One thing to keep in mind is that, due to the temporary design of our study and the time at which it was conducted, it was not possible to collect reactions after second doses of AstraZeneca.

“Manifestations have generally been mild and well controlled. Many of them did not recur after the second dose, and the vast majority did not prevent completion of the vaccination scheme, but we must not lose sight of the fact that 20% of these manifestations were assessed by the dermatologist as serious or very serious,” Dr. Galván added.

Regarding the next steps planned for this line of research, Dr. Galván commented, “We are awaiting the evolution of the reported cases and the reactions that may arise, although for now, our group does not have any open studies. The most important thing now is to be alert and report the data observed in the pharmacovigilance systems, in open registries, and in scientific literature to generate evidence.”

Dr. Galván has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Skin manifestations of COVID-19 were among the topics presented in several sessions at the 49th Congress of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. Specialists agreed that fewer skin changes associated with this virus have been seen with the latest variants of SARS-CoV-2. They highlighted the results of the most remarkable research on this topic that were presented in this forum.

In the study, which was carried out by Spanish dermatologists with the support of the AEDV, researchers analyzed skin reactions associated with the COVID-19 vaccine.

Study author Cristina Galván, MD, a dermatologist at the University Hospital of Móstoles, Madrid, said, “This is the first study that analyzes a significant number of cases assessed by dermatologists and illustrated with clinical images of the dermatological manifestations caused as a reaction to these vaccines.”

The study was carried out during the first months of COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Galván told this news organization. It was proposed as a continuation of a COVID skin study that was published in the British Journal of Dermatology. That study documented the first classification of skin lesions associated with COVID-19. Dr. Galván is the lead author of the latter study.

“The objectives of this study were to characterize and classify skin reactions after vaccination, identify their chronology, and analyze the associations with a series of antecedents: dermatological and allergic diseases, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and skin reactions associated with COVID-19,” said Dr. Galván. The study was a team effort, she added.

“It was conducted between Feb. 15 and May 12, 2021, and information was gathered on 405 reactions that appeared during the 21 days after any dose of the COVID-19 vaccines approved at that time in Spain: the Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and University of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines,” she added.

Dr. Galván explained that the study shows very clear patterns and investigators reached conclusions that match those of other groups that have investigated this topic. “Six reaction patterns were described according to their frequency. The first is the ‘COVID-19 arm,’ which consists of a local reaction at the injection site and occurs almost exclusively in women and in 70% of cases after inoculation with the Moderna serum. It is a manifestation that resolves well and does not always recur in subsequent doses. More than half are of delayed onset: biopsied patients show signs of a delayed hypersensitivity reaction. In line with all the publications in this regard, it was found that this reaction is not a reason to skip or delay a dose.”
 

Herpes zoster reactivation

The second pattern is urticarial, which, according to the specialist, occurs with equal frequency after the administration of all vaccines and is well controlled with antihistamines. “This is a very nonspecific pattern, which does not prevent it from still being frequent. It was not associated with drug intake.

“The morbilliform pattern is more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. It affects the trunk and extremities, and up to a quarter of the cases required systemic corticosteroids. The papulovesicular and pityriasis rosea–like patterns are equally frequent in all vaccines. The latter is found in a younger age group. Finally, there is the purpuric pattern, more localized in the extremities and more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. On biopsy, this pattern showed small-vessel vasculitis.”

Less frequently, reactivations or de novo onset of different dermatologic diseases were found. “Varicella-zoster virus reactivations were observed with a frequency of 13.8%, being more common after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine,” said Dr. Galván. “Other studies have corroborated this increase in herpes zoster, although it has been seen that the absolute number is low, so the benefits of the vaccine outweigh this eventual complication. At the same time and along the same lines, vaccination against herpes zoster is recommended for those over 50 years of age.”

Another fact revealed by the study is that these reactions were not significantly more severe in people with dermatologic diseases, those with previous infection, or those with skin manifestation associated with COVID-19.

Dr. Galván highlighted that, except for the COVID-19 arm, these patterns were among those associated with the disease, “which supports [the idea] that it does not demonstrate that the host’s immune reaction to the infection was playing a role.”
 

Women and young people

“As for pseudoperniosis, it is poorly represented in our series: 0.7% compared to 2% in the American registry. Although neither the SARS-CoV-2–pseudoperniosis association nor its pathophysiology is clear, the idea is that if this manifestation is related to the host’s immune response during infection, pseudoperniosis after vaccination could also be linked to the immune response to the vaccine,” said Dr. Galván.

Many of these reactions are more intense in women. “Before starting to use these vaccines, we already knew that messenger RNA vaccines (a powerful activator of innate immunity) induce frequent reactions, that adjuvants and excipients (polyethylene glycol and polysorbate) also generate them, and that other factors influence reactogenicity, among those of us of the same age and sex, reactions being more frequent in younger people and in women,” said Dr. Galván. “This may be one of the reasons why the COVID-19 arm is so much more prevalent in the female population and that 80% of all reactions that were collected were in women.”

In relation to the fact that manifestations differed, depending on the type of inoculated serum, Dr. Galván said, “Some reactions are just as common after any of the vaccines. However, others are not, as is the case with the COVID-19 arm for the Moderna vaccine or reactivations of the herpes virus, more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

“Undoubtedly, behind these differences are particularities in the immune reaction caused by each of the vaccines and their composition, including the excipients,” she said.

Regarding the fact that these reactions were the same throughout the vaccine regimen or that they varied in intensity, depending on the dose, Dr. Galván said, “In our study, as in those carried out by other groups, there were no significant differences in terms of frequency after the first and second doses. One thing to keep in mind is that, due to the temporary design of our study and the time at which it was conducted, it was not possible to collect reactions after second doses of AstraZeneca.

“Manifestations have generally been mild and well controlled. Many of them did not recur after the second dose, and the vast majority did not prevent completion of the vaccination scheme, but we must not lose sight of the fact that 20% of these manifestations were assessed by the dermatologist as serious or very serious,” Dr. Galván added.

Regarding the next steps planned for this line of research, Dr. Galván commented, “We are awaiting the evolution of the reported cases and the reactions that may arise, although for now, our group does not have any open studies. The most important thing now is to be alert and report the data observed in the pharmacovigilance systems, in open registries, and in scientific literature to generate evidence.”

Dr. Galván has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Skin manifestations of COVID-19 were among the topics presented in several sessions at the 49th Congress of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. Specialists agreed that fewer skin changes associated with this virus have been seen with the latest variants of SARS-CoV-2. They highlighted the results of the most remarkable research on this topic that were presented in this forum.

In the study, which was carried out by Spanish dermatologists with the support of the AEDV, researchers analyzed skin reactions associated with the COVID-19 vaccine.

Study author Cristina Galván, MD, a dermatologist at the University Hospital of Móstoles, Madrid, said, “This is the first study that analyzes a significant number of cases assessed by dermatologists and illustrated with clinical images of the dermatological manifestations caused as a reaction to these vaccines.”

The study was carried out during the first months of COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Galván told this news organization. It was proposed as a continuation of a COVID skin study that was published in the British Journal of Dermatology. That study documented the first classification of skin lesions associated with COVID-19. Dr. Galván is the lead author of the latter study.

“The objectives of this study were to characterize and classify skin reactions after vaccination, identify their chronology, and analyze the associations with a series of antecedents: dermatological and allergic diseases, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and skin reactions associated with COVID-19,” said Dr. Galván. The study was a team effort, she added.

“It was conducted between Feb. 15 and May 12, 2021, and information was gathered on 405 reactions that appeared during the 21 days after any dose of the COVID-19 vaccines approved at that time in Spain: the Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and University of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines,” she added.

Dr. Galván explained that the study shows very clear patterns and investigators reached conclusions that match those of other groups that have investigated this topic. “Six reaction patterns were described according to their frequency. The first is the ‘COVID-19 arm,’ which consists of a local reaction at the injection site and occurs almost exclusively in women and in 70% of cases after inoculation with the Moderna serum. It is a manifestation that resolves well and does not always recur in subsequent doses. More than half are of delayed onset: biopsied patients show signs of a delayed hypersensitivity reaction. In line with all the publications in this regard, it was found that this reaction is not a reason to skip or delay a dose.”
 

Herpes zoster reactivation

The second pattern is urticarial, which, according to the specialist, occurs with equal frequency after the administration of all vaccines and is well controlled with antihistamines. “This is a very nonspecific pattern, which does not prevent it from still being frequent. It was not associated with drug intake.

“The morbilliform pattern is more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. It affects the trunk and extremities, and up to a quarter of the cases required systemic corticosteroids. The papulovesicular and pityriasis rosea–like patterns are equally frequent in all vaccines. The latter is found in a younger age group. Finally, there is the purpuric pattern, more localized in the extremities and more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. On biopsy, this pattern showed small-vessel vasculitis.”

Less frequently, reactivations or de novo onset of different dermatologic diseases were found. “Varicella-zoster virus reactivations were observed with a frequency of 13.8%, being more common after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine,” said Dr. Galván. “Other studies have corroborated this increase in herpes zoster, although it has been seen that the absolute number is low, so the benefits of the vaccine outweigh this eventual complication. At the same time and along the same lines, vaccination against herpes zoster is recommended for those over 50 years of age.”

Another fact revealed by the study is that these reactions were not significantly more severe in people with dermatologic diseases, those with previous infection, or those with skin manifestation associated with COVID-19.

Dr. Galván highlighted that, except for the COVID-19 arm, these patterns were among those associated with the disease, “which supports [the idea] that it does not demonstrate that the host’s immune reaction to the infection was playing a role.”
 

Women and young people

“As for pseudoperniosis, it is poorly represented in our series: 0.7% compared to 2% in the American registry. Although neither the SARS-CoV-2–pseudoperniosis association nor its pathophysiology is clear, the idea is that if this manifestation is related to the host’s immune response during infection, pseudoperniosis after vaccination could also be linked to the immune response to the vaccine,” said Dr. Galván.

Many of these reactions are more intense in women. “Before starting to use these vaccines, we already knew that messenger RNA vaccines (a powerful activator of innate immunity) induce frequent reactions, that adjuvants and excipients (polyethylene glycol and polysorbate) also generate them, and that other factors influence reactogenicity, among those of us of the same age and sex, reactions being more frequent in younger people and in women,” said Dr. Galván. “This may be one of the reasons why the COVID-19 arm is so much more prevalent in the female population and that 80% of all reactions that were collected were in women.”

In relation to the fact that manifestations differed, depending on the type of inoculated serum, Dr. Galván said, “Some reactions are just as common after any of the vaccines. However, others are not, as is the case with the COVID-19 arm for the Moderna vaccine or reactivations of the herpes virus, more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

“Undoubtedly, behind these differences are particularities in the immune reaction caused by each of the vaccines and their composition, including the excipients,” she said.

Regarding the fact that these reactions were the same throughout the vaccine regimen or that they varied in intensity, depending on the dose, Dr. Galván said, “In our study, as in those carried out by other groups, there were no significant differences in terms of frequency after the first and second doses. One thing to keep in mind is that, due to the temporary design of our study and the time at which it was conducted, it was not possible to collect reactions after second doses of AstraZeneca.

“Manifestations have generally been mild and well controlled. Many of them did not recur after the second dose, and the vast majority did not prevent completion of the vaccination scheme, but we must not lose sight of the fact that 20% of these manifestations were assessed by the dermatologist as serious or very serious,” Dr. Galván added.

Regarding the next steps planned for this line of research, Dr. Galván commented, “We are awaiting the evolution of the reported cases and the reactions that may arise, although for now, our group does not have any open studies. The most important thing now is to be alert and report the data observed in the pharmacovigilance systems, in open registries, and in scientific literature to generate evidence.”

Dr. Galván has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

About 80% of American adults have low to moderate cardiovascular (CV) health based on the American Heart Association checklist for optimal heart health, which now includes healthy sleep as an essential component for heart health.

With the addition of sleep, “Life’s Essential 8” replaces the AHA’s “Life’s Simple 7” checklist.

“The new metric of sleep duration reflects the latest research findings: Sleep impacts overall health, and people who have healthier sleep patterns manage health factors such as weight, blood pressure, or risk for type 2 diabetes more effectively,” AHA President Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, said in a news release.

“In addition, advances in ways to measure sleep, such as with wearable devices, now offer people the ability to reliably and routinely monitor their sleep habits at home,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago.

The AHA Presidential Advisory – Life’s Essential 8: Updating and Enhancing the American Heart Association’s Construct on Cardiovascular Health – was published online in the journal Circulation.

A companion paper published simultaneously in Circulation reports the first study using Life’s Essential 8.

Overall, the results show that CV health of the U.S. population is “suboptimal, and we see important differences across age and sociodemographic groups,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.
 

Refining Life’s Simple 7

The AHA first defined the seven metrics for optimal CV health in 2010. After 12 years and more than 2,400 scientific papers on the topic, new discoveries in CV health and ways to measure it provided an opportunity to revisit each health component in more detail and provide updates as needed, the AHA explains.

“We felt it was the right time to conduct a comprehensive review of the latest research to refine the existing metrics and consider any new metrics that add value to assessing cardiovascular health for all people,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

Four of the original metrics have been redefined for consistency with newer clinical guidelines or compatibility with new measurement tools, and the scoring system can now also be applied to anyone ages 2 and older. Here is a snapshot of Life’s Essential 8 metrics, including updates.

1. Diet (updated) 

The tool includes a new guide to assess diet quality for adults and children at the individual and population level. At the population level, dietary assessment is based on daily intake of elements in the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) eating pattern. For individuals, the Mediterranean Eating Pattern for Americans (MEPA) is used to assess and monitor cardiovascular health.

2. Physical activity (no changes)

Physical activity continues to be measured by the total number of minutes of moderate or vigorous physical activity per week, as defined by the U.S. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (2nd edition). The optimal level is 150 minutes (2.5 hours) of moderate physical activity or more per week or 75 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity physical activity for adults; 420 minutes (7 hours) or more per week for children ages 6 and older; and age-specific modifications for younger children.

3. Nicotine exposure (updated)

Use of inhaled nicotine-delivery systems, which includes e-cigarettes or vaping devices, has been added since the previous metric monitored only traditional, combustible cigarettes. This reflects use by adults and youth and their implications on long-term health. Second-hand smoke exposure for children and adults has also been added.

4. Sleep duration (new)

Sleep duration is associated with CV health. Measured by average hours of sleep per night, the ideal level is 7-9 hours daily for adults. Ideal daily sleep ranges for children are 10-16 hours per 24 hours for ages 5 and younger; 9-12 hours for ages 6-12 years; and 8-10 hours for ages 13-18 years.

5. Body mass index (no changes)

The AHA acknowledges that body mass index (BMI) is an imperfect metric. Yet, because it’s easily calculated and widely available, BMI continues as a “reasonable” gauge to assess weight categories that may lead to health problems. BMI of 18.5-24.9 is associated with the highest levels of CV health. The AHA notes that BMI ranges and the subsequent health risks associated with them may differ among people from diverse racial or ethnic backgrounds or ancestry. This aligns with the World Health Organization recommendations to adjust BMI ranges for people of Asian or Pacific Islander ancestry because recent evidence indicates their risk of conditions such as CVD or type 2 diabetes is higher at a lower BMI.

6. Blood lipids (updated)

The metric for blood lipids (cholesterol and triglycerides) is updated to use non-HDL cholesterol as the preferred number to monitor, rather than total cholesterol. This shift is made because non-HDL cholesterol can be measured without fasting beforehand (thereby increasing its availability at any time of day and implementation at more appointments) and reliably calculated among all people.

7. Blood glucose (updated)

This metric is expanded to include the option of hemoglobin A1c readings or blood glucose levels for people with or without type 1 or 2 diabetes or prediabetes.

8. Blood pressure (no changes)

Blood pressure criteria remain unchanged from 2017 guidance that established levels less than 120/80 mm Hg as optimal, and defined hypertension as 130-139 mm Hg systolic pressure or 80-89 mm Hg diastolic pressure.

‘Concerning’ new data

Results of the first study using Life’s Essential 8 show that the overall CV health of the U.S. population is “well below ideal,” with 80% of adults scoring at a low or moderate level, the researchers report.

Data for the analysis came from 2013-2018 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination surveys (NHANES) of more than 13,500 adults aged 20-79 years and nearly 9,900 children aged 2-19 years. Among the key findings:

• The average CV health score based on Life’s Essential 8 was 64.7 for adults and 65.5 for children – in the moderate range on the 0-100 scale.
• Only 0.45% of adults had a perfect score of 100; 20% had high CV health (score of 80 or higher), 63% moderate (score of 50-79), and 18% had low CV health (score of less than 50).
• Adult women had higher average CV health scores (67) compared with men (62.5).
• In general, adults scored lowest in the areas of diet, physical activity, and BMI.
• CV health scores were generally lower at older ages.
• Non-Hispanic Asian Americans had a higher average CV health score than other racial/ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic Whites had the second highest average CV health score, followed, in order, by Hispanic (other than Mexican), Mexican, and non-Hispanic Blacks.
• Children’s diet scores were low, at an average of 40.6.
• Adult sociodemographic groups varied notably in CV health scores for diet, nicotine exposure, blood glucose, and blood pressure.

“These data represent the first look at the cardiovascular health of the U.S. population using the AHA’s new Life’s Essential 8 scoring algorithm,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

“Life’s Essential 8 is a major step forward in our ability to identify when cardiovascular health can be preserved and when it is suboptimal. It should energize efforts to improve cardiovascular health for all people and at every life stage,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added.

“Analyses like this can help policymakers, communities, clinicians, and the public to understand the opportunities to intervene to improve and maintain optimal cardiovascular health across the life course,” he said.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

About 80% of American adults have low to moderate cardiovascular (CV) health based on the American Heart Association checklist for optimal heart health, which now includes healthy sleep as an essential component for heart health.

With the addition of sleep, “Life’s Essential 8” replaces the AHA’s “Life’s Simple 7” checklist.

“The new metric of sleep duration reflects the latest research findings: Sleep impacts overall health, and people who have healthier sleep patterns manage health factors such as weight, blood pressure, or risk for type 2 diabetes more effectively,” AHA President Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, said in a news release.

“In addition, advances in ways to measure sleep, such as with wearable devices, now offer people the ability to reliably and routinely monitor their sleep habits at home,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago.

The AHA Presidential Advisory – Life’s Essential 8: Updating and Enhancing the American Heart Association’s Construct on Cardiovascular Health – was published online in the journal Circulation.

A companion paper published simultaneously in Circulation reports the first study using Life’s Essential 8.

Overall, the results show that CV health of the U.S. population is “suboptimal, and we see important differences across age and sociodemographic groups,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.
 

Refining Life’s Simple 7

The AHA first defined the seven metrics for optimal CV health in 2010. After 12 years and more than 2,400 scientific papers on the topic, new discoveries in CV health and ways to measure it provided an opportunity to revisit each health component in more detail and provide updates as needed, the AHA explains.

“We felt it was the right time to conduct a comprehensive review of the latest research to refine the existing metrics and consider any new metrics that add value to assessing cardiovascular health for all people,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

Four of the original metrics have been redefined for consistency with newer clinical guidelines or compatibility with new measurement tools, and the scoring system can now also be applied to anyone ages 2 and older. Here is a snapshot of Life’s Essential 8 metrics, including updates.

1. Diet (updated) 

The tool includes a new guide to assess diet quality for adults and children at the individual and population level. At the population level, dietary assessment is based on daily intake of elements in the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) eating pattern. For individuals, the Mediterranean Eating Pattern for Americans (MEPA) is used to assess and monitor cardiovascular health.

2. Physical activity (no changes)

Physical activity continues to be measured by the total number of minutes of moderate or vigorous physical activity per week, as defined by the U.S. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (2nd edition). The optimal level is 150 minutes (2.5 hours) of moderate physical activity or more per week or 75 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity physical activity for adults; 420 minutes (7 hours) or more per week for children ages 6 and older; and age-specific modifications for younger children.

3. Nicotine exposure (updated)

Use of inhaled nicotine-delivery systems, which includes e-cigarettes or vaping devices, has been added since the previous metric monitored only traditional, combustible cigarettes. This reflects use by adults and youth and their implications on long-term health. Second-hand smoke exposure for children and adults has also been added.

4. Sleep duration (new)

Sleep duration is associated with CV health. Measured by average hours of sleep per night, the ideal level is 7-9 hours daily for adults. Ideal daily sleep ranges for children are 10-16 hours per 24 hours for ages 5 and younger; 9-12 hours for ages 6-12 years; and 8-10 hours for ages 13-18 years.

5. Body mass index (no changes)

The AHA acknowledges that body mass index (BMI) is an imperfect metric. Yet, because it’s easily calculated and widely available, BMI continues as a “reasonable” gauge to assess weight categories that may lead to health problems. BMI of 18.5-24.9 is associated with the highest levels of CV health. The AHA notes that BMI ranges and the subsequent health risks associated with them may differ among people from diverse racial or ethnic backgrounds or ancestry. This aligns with the World Health Organization recommendations to adjust BMI ranges for people of Asian or Pacific Islander ancestry because recent evidence indicates their risk of conditions such as CVD or type 2 diabetes is higher at a lower BMI.

6. Blood lipids (updated)

The metric for blood lipids (cholesterol and triglycerides) is updated to use non-HDL cholesterol as the preferred number to monitor, rather than total cholesterol. This shift is made because non-HDL cholesterol can be measured without fasting beforehand (thereby increasing its availability at any time of day and implementation at more appointments) and reliably calculated among all people.

7. Blood glucose (updated)

This metric is expanded to include the option of hemoglobin A1c readings or blood glucose levels for people with or without type 1 or 2 diabetes or prediabetes.

8. Blood pressure (no changes)

Blood pressure criteria remain unchanged from 2017 guidance that established levels less than 120/80 mm Hg as optimal, and defined hypertension as 130-139 mm Hg systolic pressure or 80-89 mm Hg diastolic pressure.

‘Concerning’ new data

Results of the first study using Life’s Essential 8 show that the overall CV health of the U.S. population is “well below ideal,” with 80% of adults scoring at a low or moderate level, the researchers report.

Data for the analysis came from 2013-2018 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination surveys (NHANES) of more than 13,500 adults aged 20-79 years and nearly 9,900 children aged 2-19 years. Among the key findings:

• The average CV health score based on Life’s Essential 8 was 64.7 for adults and 65.5 for children – in the moderate range on the 0-100 scale.
• Only 0.45% of adults had a perfect score of 100; 20% had high CV health (score of 80 or higher), 63% moderate (score of 50-79), and 18% had low CV health (score of less than 50).
• Adult women had higher average CV health scores (67) compared with men (62.5).
• In general, adults scored lowest in the areas of diet, physical activity, and BMI.
• CV health scores were generally lower at older ages.
• Non-Hispanic Asian Americans had a higher average CV health score than other racial/ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic Whites had the second highest average CV health score, followed, in order, by Hispanic (other than Mexican), Mexican, and non-Hispanic Blacks.
• Children’s diet scores were low, at an average of 40.6.
• Adult sociodemographic groups varied notably in CV health scores for diet, nicotine exposure, blood glucose, and blood pressure.

“These data represent the first look at the cardiovascular health of the U.S. population using the AHA’s new Life’s Essential 8 scoring algorithm,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

“Life’s Essential 8 is a major step forward in our ability to identify when cardiovascular health can be preserved and when it is suboptimal. It should energize efforts to improve cardiovascular health for all people and at every life stage,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added.

“Analyses like this can help policymakers, communities, clinicians, and the public to understand the opportunities to intervene to improve and maintain optimal cardiovascular health across the life course,” he said.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

About 80% of American adults have low to moderate cardiovascular (CV) health based on the American Heart Association checklist for optimal heart health, which now includes healthy sleep as an essential component for heart health.

With the addition of sleep, “Life’s Essential 8” replaces the AHA’s “Life’s Simple 7” checklist.

“The new metric of sleep duration reflects the latest research findings: Sleep impacts overall health, and people who have healthier sleep patterns manage health factors such as weight, blood pressure, or risk for type 2 diabetes more effectively,” AHA President Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, said in a news release.

“In addition, advances in ways to measure sleep, such as with wearable devices, now offer people the ability to reliably and routinely monitor their sleep habits at home,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago.

The AHA Presidential Advisory – Life’s Essential 8: Updating and Enhancing the American Heart Association’s Construct on Cardiovascular Health – was published online in the journal Circulation.

A companion paper published simultaneously in Circulation reports the first study using Life’s Essential 8.

Overall, the results show that CV health of the U.S. population is “suboptimal, and we see important differences across age and sociodemographic groups,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.
 

Refining Life’s Simple 7

The AHA first defined the seven metrics for optimal CV health in 2010. After 12 years and more than 2,400 scientific papers on the topic, new discoveries in CV health and ways to measure it provided an opportunity to revisit each health component in more detail and provide updates as needed, the AHA explains.

“We felt it was the right time to conduct a comprehensive review of the latest research to refine the existing metrics and consider any new metrics that add value to assessing cardiovascular health for all people,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

Four of the original metrics have been redefined for consistency with newer clinical guidelines or compatibility with new measurement tools, and the scoring system can now also be applied to anyone ages 2 and older. Here is a snapshot of Life’s Essential 8 metrics, including updates.

1. Diet (updated) 

The tool includes a new guide to assess diet quality for adults and children at the individual and population level. At the population level, dietary assessment is based on daily intake of elements in the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) eating pattern. For individuals, the Mediterranean Eating Pattern for Americans (MEPA) is used to assess and monitor cardiovascular health.

2. Physical activity (no changes)

Physical activity continues to be measured by the total number of minutes of moderate or vigorous physical activity per week, as defined by the U.S. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (2nd edition). The optimal level is 150 minutes (2.5 hours) of moderate physical activity or more per week or 75 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity physical activity for adults; 420 minutes (7 hours) or more per week for children ages 6 and older; and age-specific modifications for younger children.

3. Nicotine exposure (updated)

Use of inhaled nicotine-delivery systems, which includes e-cigarettes or vaping devices, has been added since the previous metric monitored only traditional, combustible cigarettes. This reflects use by adults and youth and their implications on long-term health. Second-hand smoke exposure for children and adults has also been added.

4. Sleep duration (new)

Sleep duration is associated with CV health. Measured by average hours of sleep per night, the ideal level is 7-9 hours daily for adults. Ideal daily sleep ranges for children are 10-16 hours per 24 hours for ages 5 and younger; 9-12 hours for ages 6-12 years; and 8-10 hours for ages 13-18 years.

5. Body mass index (no changes)

The AHA acknowledges that body mass index (BMI) is an imperfect metric. Yet, because it’s easily calculated and widely available, BMI continues as a “reasonable” gauge to assess weight categories that may lead to health problems. BMI of 18.5-24.9 is associated with the highest levels of CV health. The AHA notes that BMI ranges and the subsequent health risks associated with them may differ among people from diverse racial or ethnic backgrounds or ancestry. This aligns with the World Health Organization recommendations to adjust BMI ranges for people of Asian or Pacific Islander ancestry because recent evidence indicates their risk of conditions such as CVD or type 2 diabetes is higher at a lower BMI.

6. Blood lipids (updated)

The metric for blood lipids (cholesterol and triglycerides) is updated to use non-HDL cholesterol as the preferred number to monitor, rather than total cholesterol. This shift is made because non-HDL cholesterol can be measured without fasting beforehand (thereby increasing its availability at any time of day and implementation at more appointments) and reliably calculated among all people.

7. Blood glucose (updated)

This metric is expanded to include the option of hemoglobin A1c readings or blood glucose levels for people with or without type 1 or 2 diabetes or prediabetes.

8. Blood pressure (no changes)

Blood pressure criteria remain unchanged from 2017 guidance that established levels less than 120/80 mm Hg as optimal, and defined hypertension as 130-139 mm Hg systolic pressure or 80-89 mm Hg diastolic pressure.

‘Concerning’ new data

Results of the first study using Life’s Essential 8 show that the overall CV health of the U.S. population is “well below ideal,” with 80% of adults scoring at a low or moderate level, the researchers report.

Data for the analysis came from 2013-2018 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination surveys (NHANES) of more than 13,500 adults aged 20-79 years and nearly 9,900 children aged 2-19 years. Among the key findings:

• The average CV health score based on Life’s Essential 8 was 64.7 for adults and 65.5 for children – in the moderate range on the 0-100 scale.
• Only 0.45% of adults had a perfect score of 100; 20% had high CV health (score of 80 or higher), 63% moderate (score of 50-79), and 18% had low CV health (score of less than 50).
• Adult women had higher average CV health scores (67) compared with men (62.5).
• In general, adults scored lowest in the areas of diet, physical activity, and BMI.
• CV health scores were generally lower at older ages.
• Non-Hispanic Asian Americans had a higher average CV health score than other racial/ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic Whites had the second highest average CV health score, followed, in order, by Hispanic (other than Mexican), Mexican, and non-Hispanic Blacks.
• Children’s diet scores were low, at an average of 40.6.
• Adult sociodemographic groups varied notably in CV health scores for diet, nicotine exposure, blood glucose, and blood pressure.

“These data represent the first look at the cardiovascular health of the U.S. population using the AHA’s new Life’s Essential 8 scoring algorithm,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

“Life’s Essential 8 is a major step forward in our ability to identify when cardiovascular health can be preserved and when it is suboptimal. It should energize efforts to improve cardiovascular health for all people and at every life stage,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added.

“Analyses like this can help policymakers, communities, clinicians, and the public to understand the opportunities to intervene to improve and maintain optimal cardiovascular health across the life course,” he said.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

How satisfied are physicians that they are fairly compensated for their dedication, skills, and time? That’s a subject that seems to steer many physicians to heated emotions and to a variety of issues with today’s medical field – not all of which directly affect their pay.

Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2022: “Incomes Gain, Pay Gaps Remain” generally shows encouraging trends. Physician income rose from a year earlier, when it stagnated as COVID-19 restrictions led patients to stay home and medical practices to cut hours or close. And for the first time in Medscape’s 11 years of reporting on physician compensation, average income rose for every medical specialty surveyed.

Heartening findings, right? Yet the tone of comments to the report was anything but peppy. Many commenters were highly distressed or even angry about their compensation. One physician even complained his plumber earns more than he does.

A family physician lamented that he has “made less in the past 3 years, with more hassles and work” and he “can’t wait to retire next year.” Meanwhile, he complained, the U.S. health system is “the costliest, yet wasteful, with worse outcomes; reactive, not preventative; and has the costliest drugs and social issues.”
 

Do NPs and PAs encroach on your income?

The conversation about fair compensation launched some commenters into a discussion about competition from nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Some physicians expressed wariness at best, and anger at worst, about NPs and PAs evolving beyond traditional doctor support roles into certain direct patient support.

One-fourth of respondents in the compensation report said their income was negatively affected by competition from NPs, PAs, and other nonphysician providers. For example, with states like Arkansas expanding independent practice for certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), one commenter complained, “we are no longer needed.”

Added another physician, “primary care, especially internal medicine, is just going away for doctors. We wasted, by all accounts, 4 full years of our working lives because NPs are ‘just as good.’ ”

Greater independence for NPs and PAs strengthens the hands of health insurers and “will end up hastening the demise of primary care as we have known it,” another reader predicted. Other physicians’ takes: “For the institution, it’s much cheaper to hire NPs than to hire doctors” and “overall, physician negotiating power will decrease in the future.”
 

Medicare reimbursement rates grate

Although 7 in 10 respondents in the compensation report said they would continue to accept new Medicare or Medicaid patients, comments reveal resentment about the practical need to work with Medicare and its resentment rates.

“An open question to Medicare: Are you doing the dumbest thing possible by paying low wages and giving huge administrative burdens for internal medicine on purpose?” one physician wrote. “Or are you really that short-sighted?”

Another reader cited an analysis from the American College of Surgeons of Medicare’s 1998 surgical CPT codes. If Medicare had left those codes alone beyond annual inflation adjustments, the study found, reimbursement rates by 2019 would be half of what they became.

Another way of looking at the code reimbursement increases is a 50% pay cut over 20 years for doctors and medical practices, that reader insisted. “The rising cost of employee wages, particularly of the last two-and-a-half years of COVID-19, combined with the effective pay cuts over the last 20 years, equals time to quit!”

Another commenter concurred. “In the 1990s, most full-time docs were making almost double what you see [in the report], and everything cost almost half of what it does now. So, MD purchasing power is between half and one-quarter of what it was in the early 1990s.”
 

Are self-pay models better?

Do physicians have a better chance at consistently fair income under a self-pay practice that avoids dealing with insurance companies?

One commenter hypothesized that psychiatrists once trailed internists in income but today earn more because many “quit working for insurance and went to a cash business 15 years ago.” Many family physicians did something similar by switching to a direct primary care model, he said.

This physician said he has done the same “with great results” for patients as well: shorter office visits, faster booking of appointments, no deductibles owed. Best of all, “I love practicing medicine again, and my patients love the great health care they receive.”

Another commenter agreed. “Two words: cash practice.” But another objected, “I guess only the very rich can afford to cover your business costs.”

Regardless of the payment model, another physician argued for private practice over employed positions. “Save on the bureaucratic expenses. Go back to private practice and get rid of electronic records.”

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

How satisfied are physicians that they are fairly compensated for their dedication, skills, and time? That’s a subject that seems to steer many physicians to heated emotions and to a variety of issues with today’s medical field – not all of which directly affect their pay.

Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2022: “Incomes Gain, Pay Gaps Remain” generally shows encouraging trends. Physician income rose from a year earlier, when it stagnated as COVID-19 restrictions led patients to stay home and medical practices to cut hours or close. And for the first time in Medscape’s 11 years of reporting on physician compensation, average income rose for every medical specialty surveyed.

Heartening findings, right? Yet the tone of comments to the report was anything but peppy. Many commenters were highly distressed or even angry about their compensation. One physician even complained his plumber earns more than he does.

A family physician lamented that he has “made less in the past 3 years, with more hassles and work” and he “can’t wait to retire next year.” Meanwhile, he complained, the U.S. health system is “the costliest, yet wasteful, with worse outcomes; reactive, not preventative; and has the costliest drugs and social issues.”
 

Do NPs and PAs encroach on your income?

The conversation about fair compensation launched some commenters into a discussion about competition from nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Some physicians expressed wariness at best, and anger at worst, about NPs and PAs evolving beyond traditional doctor support roles into certain direct patient support.

One-fourth of respondents in the compensation report said their income was negatively affected by competition from NPs, PAs, and other nonphysician providers. For example, with states like Arkansas expanding independent practice for certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), one commenter complained, “we are no longer needed.”

Added another physician, “primary care, especially internal medicine, is just going away for doctors. We wasted, by all accounts, 4 full years of our working lives because NPs are ‘just as good.’ ”

Greater independence for NPs and PAs strengthens the hands of health insurers and “will end up hastening the demise of primary care as we have known it,” another reader predicted. Other physicians’ takes: “For the institution, it’s much cheaper to hire NPs than to hire doctors” and “overall, physician negotiating power will decrease in the future.”
 

Medicare reimbursement rates grate

Although 7 in 10 respondents in the compensation report said they would continue to accept new Medicare or Medicaid patients, comments reveal resentment about the practical need to work with Medicare and its resentment rates.

“An open question to Medicare: Are you doing the dumbest thing possible by paying low wages and giving huge administrative burdens for internal medicine on purpose?” one physician wrote. “Or are you really that short-sighted?”

Another reader cited an analysis from the American College of Surgeons of Medicare’s 1998 surgical CPT codes. If Medicare had left those codes alone beyond annual inflation adjustments, the study found, reimbursement rates by 2019 would be half of what they became.

Another way of looking at the code reimbursement increases is a 50% pay cut over 20 years for doctors and medical practices, that reader insisted. “The rising cost of employee wages, particularly of the last two-and-a-half years of COVID-19, combined with the effective pay cuts over the last 20 years, equals time to quit!”

Another commenter concurred. “In the 1990s, most full-time docs were making almost double what you see [in the report], and everything cost almost half of what it does now. So, MD purchasing power is between half and one-quarter of what it was in the early 1990s.”
 

Are self-pay models better?

Do physicians have a better chance at consistently fair income under a self-pay practice that avoids dealing with insurance companies?

One commenter hypothesized that psychiatrists once trailed internists in income but today earn more because many “quit working for insurance and went to a cash business 15 years ago.” Many family physicians did something similar by switching to a direct primary care model, he said.

This physician said he has done the same “with great results” for patients as well: shorter office visits, faster booking of appointments, no deductibles owed. Best of all, “I love practicing medicine again, and my patients love the great health care they receive.”

Another commenter agreed. “Two words: cash practice.” But another objected, “I guess only the very rich can afford to cover your business costs.”

Regardless of the payment model, another physician argued for private practice over employed positions. “Save on the bureaucratic expenses. Go back to private practice and get rid of electronic records.”

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

How satisfied are physicians that they are fairly compensated for their dedication, skills, and time? That’s a subject that seems to steer many physicians to heated emotions and to a variety of issues with today’s medical field – not all of which directly affect their pay.

Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2022: “Incomes Gain, Pay Gaps Remain” generally shows encouraging trends. Physician income rose from a year earlier, when it stagnated as COVID-19 restrictions led patients to stay home and medical practices to cut hours or close. And for the first time in Medscape’s 11 years of reporting on physician compensation, average income rose for every medical specialty surveyed.

Heartening findings, right? Yet the tone of comments to the report was anything but peppy. Many commenters were highly distressed or even angry about their compensation. One physician even complained his plumber earns more than he does.

A family physician lamented that he has “made less in the past 3 years, with more hassles and work” and he “can’t wait to retire next year.” Meanwhile, he complained, the U.S. health system is “the costliest, yet wasteful, with worse outcomes; reactive, not preventative; and has the costliest drugs and social issues.”
 

Do NPs and PAs encroach on your income?

The conversation about fair compensation launched some commenters into a discussion about competition from nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Some physicians expressed wariness at best, and anger at worst, about NPs and PAs evolving beyond traditional doctor support roles into certain direct patient support.

One-fourth of respondents in the compensation report said their income was negatively affected by competition from NPs, PAs, and other nonphysician providers. For example, with states like Arkansas expanding independent practice for certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), one commenter complained, “we are no longer needed.”

Added another physician, “primary care, especially internal medicine, is just going away for doctors. We wasted, by all accounts, 4 full years of our working lives because NPs are ‘just as good.’ ”

Greater independence for NPs and PAs strengthens the hands of health insurers and “will end up hastening the demise of primary care as we have known it,” another reader predicted. Other physicians’ takes: “For the institution, it’s much cheaper to hire NPs than to hire doctors” and “overall, physician negotiating power will decrease in the future.”
 

Medicare reimbursement rates grate

Although 7 in 10 respondents in the compensation report said they would continue to accept new Medicare or Medicaid patients, comments reveal resentment about the practical need to work with Medicare and its resentment rates.

“An open question to Medicare: Are you doing the dumbest thing possible by paying low wages and giving huge administrative burdens for internal medicine on purpose?” one physician wrote. “Or are you really that short-sighted?”

Another reader cited an analysis from the American College of Surgeons of Medicare’s 1998 surgical CPT codes. If Medicare had left those codes alone beyond annual inflation adjustments, the study found, reimbursement rates by 2019 would be half of what they became.

Another way of looking at the code reimbursement increases is a 50% pay cut over 20 years for doctors and medical practices, that reader insisted. “The rising cost of employee wages, particularly of the last two-and-a-half years of COVID-19, combined with the effective pay cuts over the last 20 years, equals time to quit!”

Another commenter concurred. “In the 1990s, most full-time docs were making almost double what you see [in the report], and everything cost almost half of what it does now. So, MD purchasing power is between half and one-quarter of what it was in the early 1990s.”
 

Are self-pay models better?

Do physicians have a better chance at consistently fair income under a self-pay practice that avoids dealing with insurance companies?

One commenter hypothesized that psychiatrists once trailed internists in income but today earn more because many “quit working for insurance and went to a cash business 15 years ago.” Many family physicians did something similar by switching to a direct primary care model, he said.

This physician said he has done the same “with great results” for patients as well: shorter office visits, faster booking of appointments, no deductibles owed. Best of all, “I love practicing medicine again, and my patients love the great health care they receive.”

Another commenter agreed. “Two words: cash practice.” But another objected, “I guess only the very rich can afford to cover your business costs.”

Regardless of the payment model, another physician argued for private practice over employed positions. “Save on the bureaucratic expenses. Go back to private practice and get rid of electronic records.”

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

Bone densitometry scans may be a novel, noninvasive, and scalable way to identify older women at risk of developing dementia, new research suggests.

In an analysis of more than 900 study participants, women in their 70s with more advanced abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) seen on lateral spine images during dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) had a two- to fourfold higher risk for late-life dementia than those with low AAC.

This finding was independent of cardiovascular risk factors and apolipoprotein E (APOE ) genotype.

“While these results are exciting, we now need to undertake further large screening studies in older men and women using this approach to show that the findings are generalizable to older men and can identify people with greater cognitive decline,” coinvestigator Marc Sim, PhD, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia, said in an interview.

“This will hopefully open the door to studies of early disease-modifying interventions,” Sim said.

The findings were published online in The Lancet Regional Health – Western Pacific. 
 

AAC and cognition

Late-life dementia occurring after age 80 is increasingly common because of both vascular and nonvascular risk factors.

Two recent studies in middle-aged and older men and women showed that AAC identified on bone densitometry was associated with poorer cognition, suggesting it may be related to cognitive decline and increased dementia risk.

This provided the rationale for the current study, Dr. Sim noted.

The researchers assessed AAC using DXA lateral spine images captured in the late 1990s in a prospective cohort of 958 older women who were participating in an osteoporosis study.

AAC was classified into established low, moderate, and extensive categories. At baseline, all women were aged 70 and older, and 45% had low AAC, 36% had moderate AAC, and 19% had extensive AAC.

Over 14.5 years, 150 women (15.7%) had a late-life hospitalization and/or died.
 

Improved risk prediction

Results showed that, compared with women who had low AAC, women with moderate and extensive AAC were more likely to experience late-life dementia hospitalization (9.3% low, 15.5% moderate, and 18.3% extensive) and death (2.8%, 8.3%, and 9.4%, respectively).

After multivariable adjustment, women with moderate AAC had a two- and threefold increased relative risk for late-life dementia hospitalization or death, compared with their peers who had low AAC.

Women with extensive AAC had a two- and fourfold increase in the adjusted relative risk for late-life dementia hospitalization or death.

“To our knowledge this is the first time it has been shown that AAC from these scans is related to late-life dementia,” Dr. Sim said.

“We demonstrated that AAC improved risk prediction in addition to cardiovascular risk factors and APOE genotype, a genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease, the major form of dementia,” he added.

Dr. Sim noted “these additional lateral spine images” can be taken at the same time that hip and spine bone density tests are done.

“This provides an opportunity to identify AAC in large numbers of people,” he said.

He cautioned, however, that further studies with detailed dementia-related phenotypes, brain imaging, and measures of cognition are needed to confirm whether AAC will add value to dementia risk prediction.
 

‘Not surprising’

Commenting on the findings for this article, Claire Sexton, DPhil, senior director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, Chicago, noted that AAC is a marker of atherosclerosis and is associated with vascular health outcomes.

Therefore, it is “not surprising it would be associated with dementia too. There’s been previous research linking atherosclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Sexton said.  

“What’s novel about this research is that it’s looking at AAC specifically, which can be identified through a relatively simple test that is already in widespread use,” she added.

Dr. Sexton noted that “much more research” is now needed in larger, more diverse populations in order to better understand the link between AAC and dementia – and whether bone density testing may be an appropriate dementia-screening tool.

“The good news is vascular conditions like atherosclerosis can be managed through lifestyle changes like eating a healthy diet and getting regular exercise. And research tells us what’s good for the heart is good for the brain,” Dr. Sexton said.

The study was funded by Kidney Health Australia, Healthway Health Promotion Foundation of Western Australia, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital Research Advisory Committee Grant, and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Sim and Dr. Sexton have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Bone densitometry scans may be a novel, noninvasive, and scalable way to identify older women at risk of developing dementia, new research suggests.

In an analysis of more than 900 study participants, women in their 70s with more advanced abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) seen on lateral spine images during dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) had a two- to fourfold higher risk for late-life dementia than those with low AAC.

This finding was independent of cardiovascular risk factors and apolipoprotein E (APOE ) genotype.

“While these results are exciting, we now need to undertake further large screening studies in older men and women using this approach to show that the findings are generalizable to older men and can identify people with greater cognitive decline,” coinvestigator Marc Sim, PhD, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia, said in an interview.

“This will hopefully open the door to studies of early disease-modifying interventions,” Sim said.

The findings were published online in The Lancet Regional Health – Western Pacific. 
 

AAC and cognition

Late-life dementia occurring after age 80 is increasingly common because of both vascular and nonvascular risk factors.

Two recent studies in middle-aged and older men and women showed that AAC identified on bone densitometry was associated with poorer cognition, suggesting it may be related to cognitive decline and increased dementia risk.

This provided the rationale for the current study, Dr. Sim noted.

The researchers assessed AAC using DXA lateral spine images captured in the late 1990s in a prospective cohort of 958 older women who were participating in an osteoporosis study.

AAC was classified into established low, moderate, and extensive categories. At baseline, all women were aged 70 and older, and 45% had low AAC, 36% had moderate AAC, and 19% had extensive AAC.

Over 14.5 years, 150 women (15.7%) had a late-life hospitalization and/or died.
 

Improved risk prediction

Results showed that, compared with women who had low AAC, women with moderate and extensive AAC were more likely to experience late-life dementia hospitalization (9.3% low, 15.5% moderate, and 18.3% extensive) and death (2.8%, 8.3%, and 9.4%, respectively).

After multivariable adjustment, women with moderate AAC had a two- and threefold increased relative risk for late-life dementia hospitalization or death, compared with their peers who had low AAC.

Women with extensive AAC had a two- and fourfold increase in the adjusted relative risk for late-life dementia hospitalization or death.

“To our knowledge this is the first time it has been shown that AAC from these scans is related to late-life dementia,” Dr. Sim said.

“We demonstrated that AAC improved risk prediction in addition to cardiovascular risk factors and APOE genotype, a genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease, the major form of dementia,” he added.

Dr. Sim noted “these additional lateral spine images” can be taken at the same time that hip and spine bone density tests are done.

“This provides an opportunity to identify AAC in large numbers of people,” he said.

He cautioned, however, that further studies with detailed dementia-related phenotypes, brain imaging, and measures of cognition are needed to confirm whether AAC will add value to dementia risk prediction.
 

‘Not surprising’

Commenting on the findings for this article, Claire Sexton, DPhil, senior director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, Chicago, noted that AAC is a marker of atherosclerosis and is associated with vascular health outcomes.

Therefore, it is “not surprising it would be associated with dementia too. There’s been previous research linking atherosclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Sexton said.  

“What’s novel about this research is that it’s looking at AAC specifically, which can be identified through a relatively simple test that is already in widespread use,” she added.

Dr. Sexton noted that “much more research” is now needed in larger, more diverse populations in order to better understand the link between AAC and dementia – and whether bone density testing may be an appropriate dementia-screening tool.

“The good news is vascular conditions like atherosclerosis can be managed through lifestyle changes like eating a healthy diet and getting regular exercise. And research tells us what’s good for the heart is good for the brain,” Dr. Sexton said.

The study was funded by Kidney Health Australia, Healthway Health Promotion Foundation of Western Australia, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital Research Advisory Committee Grant, and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Sim and Dr. Sexton have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Bone densitometry scans may be a novel, noninvasive, and scalable way to identify older women at risk of developing dementia, new research suggests.

In an analysis of more than 900 study participants, women in their 70s with more advanced abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) seen on lateral spine images during dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) had a two- to fourfold higher risk for late-life dementia than those with low AAC.

This finding was independent of cardiovascular risk factors and apolipoprotein E (APOE ) genotype.

“While these results are exciting, we now need to undertake further large screening studies in older men and women using this approach to show that the findings are generalizable to older men and can identify people with greater cognitive decline,” coinvestigator Marc Sim, PhD, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia, said in an interview.

“This will hopefully open the door to studies of early disease-modifying interventions,” Sim said.

The findings were published online in The Lancet Regional Health – Western Pacific. 
 

AAC and cognition

Late-life dementia occurring after age 80 is increasingly common because of both vascular and nonvascular risk factors.

Two recent studies in middle-aged and older men and women showed that AAC identified on bone densitometry was associated with poorer cognition, suggesting it may be related to cognitive decline and increased dementia risk.

This provided the rationale for the current study, Dr. Sim noted.

The researchers assessed AAC using DXA lateral spine images captured in the late 1990s in a prospective cohort of 958 older women who were participating in an osteoporosis study.

AAC was classified into established low, moderate, and extensive categories. At baseline, all women were aged 70 and older, and 45% had low AAC, 36% had moderate AAC, and 19% had extensive AAC.

Over 14.5 years, 150 women (15.7%) had a late-life hospitalization and/or died.
 

Improved risk prediction

Results showed that, compared with women who had low AAC, women with moderate and extensive AAC were more likely to experience late-life dementia hospitalization (9.3% low, 15.5% moderate, and 18.3% extensive) and death (2.8%, 8.3%, and 9.4%, respectively).

After multivariable adjustment, women with moderate AAC had a two- and threefold increased relative risk for late-life dementia hospitalization or death, compared with their peers who had low AAC.

Women with extensive AAC had a two- and fourfold increase in the adjusted relative risk for late-life dementia hospitalization or death.

“To our knowledge this is the first time it has been shown that AAC from these scans is related to late-life dementia,” Dr. Sim said.

“We demonstrated that AAC improved risk prediction in addition to cardiovascular risk factors and APOE genotype, a genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease, the major form of dementia,” he added.

Dr. Sim noted “these additional lateral spine images” can be taken at the same time that hip and spine bone density tests are done.

“This provides an opportunity to identify AAC in large numbers of people,” he said.

He cautioned, however, that further studies with detailed dementia-related phenotypes, brain imaging, and measures of cognition are needed to confirm whether AAC will add value to dementia risk prediction.
 

‘Not surprising’

Commenting on the findings for this article, Claire Sexton, DPhil, senior director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, Chicago, noted that AAC is a marker of atherosclerosis and is associated with vascular health outcomes.

Therefore, it is “not surprising it would be associated with dementia too. There’s been previous research linking atherosclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Sexton said.  

“What’s novel about this research is that it’s looking at AAC specifically, which can be identified through a relatively simple test that is already in widespread use,” she added.

Dr. Sexton noted that “much more research” is now needed in larger, more diverse populations in order to better understand the link between AAC and dementia – and whether bone density testing may be an appropriate dementia-screening tool.

“The good news is vascular conditions like atherosclerosis can be managed through lifestyle changes like eating a healthy diet and getting regular exercise. And research tells us what’s good for the heart is good for the brain,” Dr. Sexton said.

The study was funded by Kidney Health Australia, Healthway Health Promotion Foundation of Western Australia, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital Research Advisory Committee Grant, and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Sim and Dr. Sexton have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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