Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Editor in Chief of this news organization Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and professor of molecular medicine, has been closely following COVID-19 data since the pandemic began. He spoke with writer Miriam E. Tucker about the latest on SARS-CoV-2 variants and their impact on vaccine efficacy. The conversation serves as a follow-up to his April 13, 2021, New York Times opinion piece, in which he advised readers that “all variants are innocent until proven guilty.”

You have expressed overall confidence in the efficacy of the vaccines thus far despite the emergence of variants, with some caveats. How do you see the current situation?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated five “variants of concern,” but only three of them are real concerns – B.1.1.7, first detected in the United Kingdom; P.1, in Brazil and Japan; and B.1.351, in South Africa. Yet, all three are susceptible to our current vaccines.

The U.K. B.1.1.7 is the worst variant of all because it’s hypertransmissible, so I call it a “superspreader strain.” It also causes more severe illness independent of the spread, so it’s a double whammy. It’s clear that it also causes more deaths. The only arguable point is whether it’s 30% or 50% more deaths, but regardless, it’s more lethal and more transmissible.

The B.1.1.7 is going to be the dominant strain worldwide. It could develop new mutations within it that could come back to haunt us. We must keep watch.

But for now, it’s fully responsive to all the vaccines, which is great because if we didn’t have them, we wouldn’t have gotten through this U.S. pandemic like we have, and neither would Israel and the United Kingdom and other countries that have been able to get out of the crisis. We met the enemy and put it in check.

As for the South Africa variant of concern, B.1.351, we just got some encouraging news showing that it›s very responsive to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine in large numbers of people. The study was conducted in Qatar following that country’s mass immunization campaign in which a total of 385,853 people had received at least one vaccine dose and 265,410 had completed the two doses as of March 31, 2021.

At 2 weeks past the second dose, the vaccine was 75% effective at preventing any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant and 89.5% effective against B.1.1.7. The vaccine’s effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was greater than 97.4% for all circulating strains in Qatar, where B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 are most prominent.

We also know that B.1.351 is very responsive to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the Novavax [vaccine in development] to a lesser degree. It is the most immune-evading variant we’ve seen thus far, with the highest likelihood of providing some vaccine resistance, yet not enough to interfere with vaccination campaigns. So that’s great news.

The caveats here are that you definitely need two doses of the mRNA vaccines to combat the B.1.351 variant. Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine failed to prevent it in South Africa. However, that study was hard to judge because it was underpowered for number of people with mild infections. So, it didn’t look as if it had any efficacy, but maybe it would if tested in a real trial.

The P.1 (Brazil) variant is the second-highest concern after B.1.1.7 because it’s the only one in the United States that’s still headed up. It seems to be competing a bit with B.1.1.7 here. We know it was associated with the crisis in Brazil, in Chile, and some other South American countries. It has some immune escape, but not as bad as B.1.351. It also appears to have somewhat greater transmissibility but not as much as B.1.1.7.

With P.1, we just don’t know enough yet. It was difficult to assess in Brazil because they were in the midst of a catastrophe – like India is now – and you don’t know how much of it is dragged by the catastrophe vs driving it.

We have to respond to P.1 carefully. There are some good data that it does respond to the Chinese vaccine Sinovac and the AstraZeneca vaccine, and it appears to respond to the others as well, based on serum studies. So it doesn’t look like vaccines will be the worry with this variant. Rather, it could be competing with B.1.1.7 and could lead to breakthrough infections in vaccinated people or reinfections in unvaccinated people who had COVID-19. We need several more weeks to sort it out.

Although the B.1.427 and B.1.429 variants initially seen in California remain on the CDC’s concern list, I’m not worried about them.
 

You mentioned the current COVID-19 crisis in India, where a new variant has been described as a “double mutant,” but on Twitter you called it a “scariant.” Why?

First of all, the B.1.617 variant isn’t a double mutant. It has 15 mutations. It’s a stupid term, focusing on two mutations which largely have been put aside as to concern. One of them is the L452R, which is the same as one of the California variants, and that hasn’t proved to be particularly serious or concerning. The other is the 484Q, and it’s not clear whether that has any function.

The B.1.617 is not the driver of the catastrophe in India. It may be contributing a small amount, but it has been overhyped as the double mutant that’s causing it all. Adding to that are what I call “scariant” headlines here in the United States when a few cases of that variant have been seen.

I coined the term scariant in early February because it was a pretty clear trend. People don’t know what variants are. They know a little bit about mutations but not variants, and they’re scared. A few variants are concerning, but we keep learning more and more things to decrease the concern. That’s why I wrote the New York Times op-ed, to try to provide some reassurance, since there’s such paranoia.
 

Do you think booster vaccinations will be necessary? If so, will those be of the original vaccines or new ones that incorporate the variants?

As we go forward, there’s still potential for new variants that we haven’t seen yet that combine the worst of all features – transmissibility and immune evasion – especially since we have a world where COVID-19 is unchecked. So, we’re not out of it yet, but at least for the moment, we have vaccines that are capable of protecting against all variants.

In most people, the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 is very durable and strong and may well last for years. With the most closely related SARS-CoV-1, people still had immune responses up to 18 years later. However, some people will have less robust vaccine responses, including the elderly and the immunocompromised. If they don’t have great responses to the vaccine to start with, over time they’re likely to become more vulnerable, especially if they’re exposed to the variants with some degree of immune evasion.

I think we need to study these individuals post vaccination. A lot of people fit into those categories, including seniors, people being treated for cancer or autoimmune conditions, or post organ transplant. We could set up a prospective study to see whether they develop symptomatic COVID-19 and if so, from what – the original strain, B.1.1.7, or the newer variants.

That’s where I think booster shots may be needed. They may not be necessary across the board, but perhaps just in these special subgroups.

All of the current vaccines can be tweaked to include new variants, but the need for that is uncertain as of now. Moderna is working on a so-called bivalent vaccine that includes the original SARS-CoV-2 strain plus the B.1.351 variant, but it isn’t clear that that’s going to be necessary.

Currently, at least 200 COVID-19 vaccines are in development. There will be vaccines you can inhale, room temperature mRNA vaccines, and potentially even oral vaccines.

In the near future, Novavax is close, and there will likely be a two-dose Johnson & Johnson version that has the same potency as the mRNA vaccines. There are a lot of moving parts here.

There may be a step down in efficacy from mRNA to the others, though, and that shouldn’t be discounted. All of the available vaccines so far protect very well against severe disease and death, but some are less effective against mild to moderate infections, which may then lead to long COVID. We don’t yet know whether those who get mild infection post vaccination can still get long COVID.
 

What do you think it will take to achieve herd immunity?

I prefer the term “containment.” It’s quantitative. If you get to an infection rate of less than 1 in 100,000 people, as they’ve done in Israel, with 0.8 per 100,000, then you have the virus in check, and there will be very little spread when it’s at that controlled rate, with no outbreaks. The United States is currently at about 15 per 100,000. California is at 4. That still has to get lower.

It will be a challenge to get to President Biden’s goal of having 70% of U.S. adults given at least one dose by July 4. We’re now at about 57%. To get that next 13% of adults is going to take an all-out effort: mobile units, going to homes, making it ultraconvenient, education for people with safety concerns, incentivization, and days off.

We also need to get employers, universities, and health systems to get to the mandatory level. We haven’t done that yet. Some universities have mandated it for students, faculty, and staff. We need it in more health care systems. Right now, we only have a couple. We mandate flu shots, and flu is nothing, compared with COVID-19. And the COVID-19 vaccine is far more efficacious – flu shots are 40% efficacious, while these are 95%. COVID-19 is a tenfold more lethal and serious disease, and much more spreadable.

People are using the lack of full licensure by the Food and Drug Administration – as opposed to emergency use authorization – as an excuse not to get vaccinated. A biologics license application takes time to approve. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of millions of doses that have been well tolerated and incredibly effective.

Another aspect to consider regarding containment is that about 110 million Americans have already had COVID-19, even though only about 30 million cases have been confirmed. Most of these people have immune protection, although it’s not as good as if they have one vaccine dose. But they have enough protection to be part of the story here of the wall against COVID-19 and will help us get through this.

That’s a silver lining of having an unchecked epidemic for the entire year of 2020. The good part is that’s helping to get us to achieve an incredible level of containment when we haven’t even been close. Right now, we’re as good as the country has been in the pandemic, but we still have a long gap to get down to that 1 per 100,000. That’s what we should be working toward, and we can get there.

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

Editor in Chief of this news organization Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and professor of molecular medicine, has been closely following COVID-19 data since the pandemic began. He spoke with writer Miriam E. Tucker about the latest on SARS-CoV-2 variants and their impact on vaccine efficacy. The conversation serves as a follow-up to his April 13, 2021, New York Times opinion piece, in which he advised readers that “all variants are innocent until proven guilty.”

You have expressed overall confidence in the efficacy of the vaccines thus far despite the emergence of variants, with some caveats. How do you see the current situation?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated five “variants of concern,” but only three of them are real concerns – B.1.1.7, first detected in the United Kingdom; P.1, in Brazil and Japan; and B.1.351, in South Africa. Yet, all three are susceptible to our current vaccines.

The U.K. B.1.1.7 is the worst variant of all because it’s hypertransmissible, so I call it a “superspreader strain.” It also causes more severe illness independent of the spread, so it’s a double whammy. It’s clear that it also causes more deaths. The only arguable point is whether it’s 30% or 50% more deaths, but regardless, it’s more lethal and more transmissible.

The B.1.1.7 is going to be the dominant strain worldwide. It could develop new mutations within it that could come back to haunt us. We must keep watch.

But for now, it’s fully responsive to all the vaccines, which is great because if we didn’t have them, we wouldn’t have gotten through this U.S. pandemic like we have, and neither would Israel and the United Kingdom and other countries that have been able to get out of the crisis. We met the enemy and put it in check.

As for the South Africa variant of concern, B.1.351, we just got some encouraging news showing that it›s very responsive to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine in large numbers of people. The study was conducted in Qatar following that country’s mass immunization campaign in which a total of 385,853 people had received at least one vaccine dose and 265,410 had completed the two doses as of March 31, 2021.

At 2 weeks past the second dose, the vaccine was 75% effective at preventing any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant and 89.5% effective against B.1.1.7. The vaccine’s effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was greater than 97.4% for all circulating strains in Qatar, where B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 are most prominent.

We also know that B.1.351 is very responsive to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the Novavax [vaccine in development] to a lesser degree. It is the most immune-evading variant we’ve seen thus far, with the highest likelihood of providing some vaccine resistance, yet not enough to interfere with vaccination campaigns. So that’s great news.

The caveats here are that you definitely need two doses of the mRNA vaccines to combat the B.1.351 variant. Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine failed to prevent it in South Africa. However, that study was hard to judge because it was underpowered for number of people with mild infections. So, it didn’t look as if it had any efficacy, but maybe it would if tested in a real trial.

The P.1 (Brazil) variant is the second-highest concern after B.1.1.7 because it’s the only one in the United States that’s still headed up. It seems to be competing a bit with B.1.1.7 here. We know it was associated with the crisis in Brazil, in Chile, and some other South American countries. It has some immune escape, but not as bad as B.1.351. It also appears to have somewhat greater transmissibility but not as much as B.1.1.7.

With P.1, we just don’t know enough yet. It was difficult to assess in Brazil because they were in the midst of a catastrophe – like India is now – and you don’t know how much of it is dragged by the catastrophe vs driving it.

We have to respond to P.1 carefully. There are some good data that it does respond to the Chinese vaccine Sinovac and the AstraZeneca vaccine, and it appears to respond to the others as well, based on serum studies. So it doesn’t look like vaccines will be the worry with this variant. Rather, it could be competing with B.1.1.7 and could lead to breakthrough infections in vaccinated people or reinfections in unvaccinated people who had COVID-19. We need several more weeks to sort it out.

Although the B.1.427 and B.1.429 variants initially seen in California remain on the CDC’s concern list, I’m not worried about them.
 

You mentioned the current COVID-19 crisis in India, where a new variant has been described as a “double mutant,” but on Twitter you called it a “scariant.” Why?

First of all, the B.1.617 variant isn’t a double mutant. It has 15 mutations. It’s a stupid term, focusing on two mutations which largely have been put aside as to concern. One of them is the L452R, which is the same as one of the California variants, and that hasn’t proved to be particularly serious or concerning. The other is the 484Q, and it’s not clear whether that has any function.

The B.1.617 is not the driver of the catastrophe in India. It may be contributing a small amount, but it has been overhyped as the double mutant that’s causing it all. Adding to that are what I call “scariant” headlines here in the United States when a few cases of that variant have been seen.

I coined the term scariant in early February because it was a pretty clear trend. People don’t know what variants are. They know a little bit about mutations but not variants, and they’re scared. A few variants are concerning, but we keep learning more and more things to decrease the concern. That’s why I wrote the New York Times op-ed, to try to provide some reassurance, since there’s such paranoia.
 

Do you think booster vaccinations will be necessary? If so, will those be of the original vaccines or new ones that incorporate the variants?

As we go forward, there’s still potential for new variants that we haven’t seen yet that combine the worst of all features – transmissibility and immune evasion – especially since we have a world where COVID-19 is unchecked. So, we’re not out of it yet, but at least for the moment, we have vaccines that are capable of protecting against all variants.

In most people, the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 is very durable and strong and may well last for years. With the most closely related SARS-CoV-1, people still had immune responses up to 18 years later. However, some people will have less robust vaccine responses, including the elderly and the immunocompromised. If they don’t have great responses to the vaccine to start with, over time they’re likely to become more vulnerable, especially if they’re exposed to the variants with some degree of immune evasion.

I think we need to study these individuals post vaccination. A lot of people fit into those categories, including seniors, people being treated for cancer or autoimmune conditions, or post organ transplant. We could set up a prospective study to see whether they develop symptomatic COVID-19 and if so, from what – the original strain, B.1.1.7, or the newer variants.

That’s where I think booster shots may be needed. They may not be necessary across the board, but perhaps just in these special subgroups.

All of the current vaccines can be tweaked to include new variants, but the need for that is uncertain as of now. Moderna is working on a so-called bivalent vaccine that includes the original SARS-CoV-2 strain plus the B.1.351 variant, but it isn’t clear that that’s going to be necessary.

Currently, at least 200 COVID-19 vaccines are in development. There will be vaccines you can inhale, room temperature mRNA vaccines, and potentially even oral vaccines.

In the near future, Novavax is close, and there will likely be a two-dose Johnson & Johnson version that has the same potency as the mRNA vaccines. There are a lot of moving parts here.

There may be a step down in efficacy from mRNA to the others, though, and that shouldn’t be discounted. All of the available vaccines so far protect very well against severe disease and death, but some are less effective against mild to moderate infections, which may then lead to long COVID. We don’t yet know whether those who get mild infection post vaccination can still get long COVID.
 

What do you think it will take to achieve herd immunity?

I prefer the term “containment.” It’s quantitative. If you get to an infection rate of less than 1 in 100,000 people, as they’ve done in Israel, with 0.8 per 100,000, then you have the virus in check, and there will be very little spread when it’s at that controlled rate, with no outbreaks. The United States is currently at about 15 per 100,000. California is at 4. That still has to get lower.

It will be a challenge to get to President Biden’s goal of having 70% of U.S. adults given at least one dose by July 4. We’re now at about 57%. To get that next 13% of adults is going to take an all-out effort: mobile units, going to homes, making it ultraconvenient, education for people with safety concerns, incentivization, and days off.

We also need to get employers, universities, and health systems to get to the mandatory level. We haven’t done that yet. Some universities have mandated it for students, faculty, and staff. We need it in more health care systems. Right now, we only have a couple. We mandate flu shots, and flu is nothing, compared with COVID-19. And the COVID-19 vaccine is far more efficacious – flu shots are 40% efficacious, while these are 95%. COVID-19 is a tenfold more lethal and serious disease, and much more spreadable.

People are using the lack of full licensure by the Food and Drug Administration – as opposed to emergency use authorization – as an excuse not to get vaccinated. A biologics license application takes time to approve. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of millions of doses that have been well tolerated and incredibly effective.

Another aspect to consider regarding containment is that about 110 million Americans have already had COVID-19, even though only about 30 million cases have been confirmed. Most of these people have immune protection, although it’s not as good as if they have one vaccine dose. But they have enough protection to be part of the story here of the wall against COVID-19 and will help us get through this.

That’s a silver lining of having an unchecked epidemic for the entire year of 2020. The good part is that’s helping to get us to achieve an incredible level of containment when we haven’t even been close. Right now, we’re as good as the country has been in the pandemic, but we still have a long gap to get down to that 1 per 100,000. That’s what we should be working toward, and we can get there.

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

Editor in Chief of this news organization Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and professor of molecular medicine, has been closely following COVID-19 data since the pandemic began. He spoke with writer Miriam E. Tucker about the latest on SARS-CoV-2 variants and their impact on vaccine efficacy. The conversation serves as a follow-up to his April 13, 2021, New York Times opinion piece, in which he advised readers that “all variants are innocent until proven guilty.”

You have expressed overall confidence in the efficacy of the vaccines thus far despite the emergence of variants, with some caveats. How do you see the current situation?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated five “variants of concern,” but only three of them are real concerns – B.1.1.7, first detected in the United Kingdom; P.1, in Brazil and Japan; and B.1.351, in South Africa. Yet, all three are susceptible to our current vaccines.

The U.K. B.1.1.7 is the worst variant of all because it’s hypertransmissible, so I call it a “superspreader strain.” It also causes more severe illness independent of the spread, so it’s a double whammy. It’s clear that it also causes more deaths. The only arguable point is whether it’s 30% or 50% more deaths, but regardless, it’s more lethal and more transmissible.

The B.1.1.7 is going to be the dominant strain worldwide. It could develop new mutations within it that could come back to haunt us. We must keep watch.

But for now, it’s fully responsive to all the vaccines, which is great because if we didn’t have them, we wouldn’t have gotten through this U.S. pandemic like we have, and neither would Israel and the United Kingdom and other countries that have been able to get out of the crisis. We met the enemy and put it in check.

As for the South Africa variant of concern, B.1.351, we just got some encouraging news showing that it›s very responsive to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine in large numbers of people. The study was conducted in Qatar following that country’s mass immunization campaign in which a total of 385,853 people had received at least one vaccine dose and 265,410 had completed the two doses as of March 31, 2021.

At 2 weeks past the second dose, the vaccine was 75% effective at preventing any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant and 89.5% effective against B.1.1.7. The vaccine’s effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was greater than 97.4% for all circulating strains in Qatar, where B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 are most prominent.

We also know that B.1.351 is very responsive to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the Novavax [vaccine in development] to a lesser degree. It is the most immune-evading variant we’ve seen thus far, with the highest likelihood of providing some vaccine resistance, yet not enough to interfere with vaccination campaigns. So that’s great news.

The caveats here are that you definitely need two doses of the mRNA vaccines to combat the B.1.351 variant. Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine failed to prevent it in South Africa. However, that study was hard to judge because it was underpowered for number of people with mild infections. So, it didn’t look as if it had any efficacy, but maybe it would if tested in a real trial.

The P.1 (Brazil) variant is the second-highest concern after B.1.1.7 because it’s the only one in the United States that’s still headed up. It seems to be competing a bit with B.1.1.7 here. We know it was associated with the crisis in Brazil, in Chile, and some other South American countries. It has some immune escape, but not as bad as B.1.351. It also appears to have somewhat greater transmissibility but not as much as B.1.1.7.

With P.1, we just don’t know enough yet. It was difficult to assess in Brazil because they were in the midst of a catastrophe – like India is now – and you don’t know how much of it is dragged by the catastrophe vs driving it.

We have to respond to P.1 carefully. There are some good data that it does respond to the Chinese vaccine Sinovac and the AstraZeneca vaccine, and it appears to respond to the others as well, based on serum studies. So it doesn’t look like vaccines will be the worry with this variant. Rather, it could be competing with B.1.1.7 and could lead to breakthrough infections in vaccinated people or reinfections in unvaccinated people who had COVID-19. We need several more weeks to sort it out.

Although the B.1.427 and B.1.429 variants initially seen in California remain on the CDC’s concern list, I’m not worried about them.
 

You mentioned the current COVID-19 crisis in India, where a new variant has been described as a “double mutant,” but on Twitter you called it a “scariant.” Why?

First of all, the B.1.617 variant isn’t a double mutant. It has 15 mutations. It’s a stupid term, focusing on two mutations which largely have been put aside as to concern. One of them is the L452R, which is the same as one of the California variants, and that hasn’t proved to be particularly serious or concerning. The other is the 484Q, and it’s not clear whether that has any function.

The B.1.617 is not the driver of the catastrophe in India. It may be contributing a small amount, but it has been overhyped as the double mutant that’s causing it all. Adding to that are what I call “scariant” headlines here in the United States when a few cases of that variant have been seen.

I coined the term scariant in early February because it was a pretty clear trend. People don’t know what variants are. They know a little bit about mutations but not variants, and they’re scared. A few variants are concerning, but we keep learning more and more things to decrease the concern. That’s why I wrote the New York Times op-ed, to try to provide some reassurance, since there’s such paranoia.
 

Do you think booster vaccinations will be necessary? If so, will those be of the original vaccines or new ones that incorporate the variants?

As we go forward, there’s still potential for new variants that we haven’t seen yet that combine the worst of all features – transmissibility and immune evasion – especially since we have a world where COVID-19 is unchecked. So, we’re not out of it yet, but at least for the moment, we have vaccines that are capable of protecting against all variants.

In most people, the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 is very durable and strong and may well last for years. With the most closely related SARS-CoV-1, people still had immune responses up to 18 years later. However, some people will have less robust vaccine responses, including the elderly and the immunocompromised. If they don’t have great responses to the vaccine to start with, over time they’re likely to become more vulnerable, especially if they’re exposed to the variants with some degree of immune evasion.

I think we need to study these individuals post vaccination. A lot of people fit into those categories, including seniors, people being treated for cancer or autoimmune conditions, or post organ transplant. We could set up a prospective study to see whether they develop symptomatic COVID-19 and if so, from what – the original strain, B.1.1.7, or the newer variants.

That’s where I think booster shots may be needed. They may not be necessary across the board, but perhaps just in these special subgroups.

All of the current vaccines can be tweaked to include new variants, but the need for that is uncertain as of now. Moderna is working on a so-called bivalent vaccine that includes the original SARS-CoV-2 strain plus the B.1.351 variant, but it isn’t clear that that’s going to be necessary.

Currently, at least 200 COVID-19 vaccines are in development. There will be vaccines you can inhale, room temperature mRNA vaccines, and potentially even oral vaccines.

In the near future, Novavax is close, and there will likely be a two-dose Johnson & Johnson version that has the same potency as the mRNA vaccines. There are a lot of moving parts here.

There may be a step down in efficacy from mRNA to the others, though, and that shouldn’t be discounted. All of the available vaccines so far protect very well against severe disease and death, but some are less effective against mild to moderate infections, which may then lead to long COVID. We don’t yet know whether those who get mild infection post vaccination can still get long COVID.
 

What do you think it will take to achieve herd immunity?

I prefer the term “containment.” It’s quantitative. If you get to an infection rate of less than 1 in 100,000 people, as they’ve done in Israel, with 0.8 per 100,000, then you have the virus in check, and there will be very little spread when it’s at that controlled rate, with no outbreaks. The United States is currently at about 15 per 100,000. California is at 4. That still has to get lower.

It will be a challenge to get to President Biden’s goal of having 70% of U.S. adults given at least one dose by July 4. We’re now at about 57%. To get that next 13% of adults is going to take an all-out effort: mobile units, going to homes, making it ultraconvenient, education for people with safety concerns, incentivization, and days off.

We also need to get employers, universities, and health systems to get to the mandatory level. We haven’t done that yet. Some universities have mandated it for students, faculty, and staff. We need it in more health care systems. Right now, we only have a couple. We mandate flu shots, and flu is nothing, compared with COVID-19. And the COVID-19 vaccine is far more efficacious – flu shots are 40% efficacious, while these are 95%. COVID-19 is a tenfold more lethal and serious disease, and much more spreadable.

People are using the lack of full licensure by the Food and Drug Administration – as opposed to emergency use authorization – as an excuse not to get vaccinated. A biologics license application takes time to approve. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of millions of doses that have been well tolerated and incredibly effective.

Another aspect to consider regarding containment is that about 110 million Americans have already had COVID-19, even though only about 30 million cases have been confirmed. Most of these people have immune protection, although it’s not as good as if they have one vaccine dose. But they have enough protection to be part of the story here of the wall against COVID-19 and will help us get through this.

That’s a silver lining of having an unchecked epidemic for the entire year of 2020. The good part is that’s helping to get us to achieve an incredible level of containment when we haven’t even been close. Right now, we’re as good as the country has been in the pandemic, but we still have a long gap to get down to that 1 per 100,000. That’s what we should be working toward, and we can get there.

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

Chronic insomnia is often underrecognized and misunderstood in primary care, sleep expert Christopher Lettieri, MD, told attendees at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Too often, medications are the treatment of choice, and when used long term they can perpetuate a problematic cycle, said Dr. Lettieri, professor in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

However, medications alone won’t work without other behavior modifications and they come with potential side effects, he said in his talk. Prescription medications typically don’t treat the cause of the insomnia, just the symptoms.

“In the 15 years I’ve been practicing sleep medicine, I can honestly say I only have a handful of patients that I treat with long-term pharmacotherapy,” Dr. Lettieri said.

He said he typically uses pharmacotherapy only when conservative measures have failed or to help jump-start patients to behavior modifications.

Restricted sleep is a good place to start for chronic insomnia, he continued.

Physicians should ask patients the latest time they can wake up to make it to school, work, etc. If that time is 6 a.m., the goal is to move bedtime back to 10 p.m.–11 p.m. If the patient, however, is unable to sleep until 12:30 a.m., move bedtime there, he said.

Though the 5.5-hour window is not ideal, it’s better to get into bed when ready for sleep. From there, try to get the patient to move bedtime back 15 minutes each week as they train themselves to fall asleep earlier, he said.

“I promise you this works in the majority of patients and doesn’t require any medication. You can also accomplish this with one or two office visits, so it is not a huge drain on resources,” he said.
 

Sleep specialists in short supply

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is “without question the best way to treat chronic insomnia and it’s recommended as first-line therapy by all published guidelines,” Dr. Lettieri said.

He defined chronic insomnia as happening most nights over at least 3 months. It affects twice as many women as men.

CBT offers a formalized way of changing sleep patterns with the help of an expert in sleep behavior disorders. It combines cognitive therapies with education about sleep and stimulus control and uses techniques such as mindfulness and relaxation.

However, most programs take 4-8 sessions with a sleep medicine provider and are usually not covered by insurance. In addition, the number of insomnia specialists is not nearly adequate to meet demand, he added.

Online and mobile-platform CBT programs are widely effective, Dr. Lettieri said. Many are free and all are convenient for patients to use. He said many of his patients use Sleepio, but many other online programs are effective.

“You can provide sufficient therapy for many of your patients and reserve CBT for patients who can’t be fixed with more conservative measures,” he said.
 

Insomnia among older patients

Interest in helping older patients with insomnia dominated the chat session associated with the talk.

Insomnia increases with age and older patients have often been using prescription or over-the-counter sleep aids for decades.

Additionally, “insomnia is the second-most common reason why people get admitted to long-term care facilities, second only to urinary incontinence,” Dr. Lettieri said.

If physicians use medications with older patients, he said, extra caution is needed. Older people have more neurocognitive impairments than younger adults and may already be taking several other medications. Sleep medications may come with longer elimination half-lives. Polypharmacy may increase risk for falls and have other consequences.

“If you have to go to a medication, try something simple like melatonin,” he said, adding that it should be pharmaceutical grade and extended release.

Also, bright lights during the day, movement throughout the day, and dim lights closer to bedtime are especially important for the elderly, Dr. Lettieri said.

Andrew Corr, MD, a geriatric specialist in primary care with the Riverside (Calif.) Medical Clinic, said in an interview the main message he will take back to his physician group is more CBT and less medication.

He said that, although he has long known CBT is the top first-line treatment, it is difficult to find experts in his area who are trained to do CBT for insomnia, so he was glad to hear online programs and self-directed reading are typically effective.

He also said there’s a common misperception that there’s no harm in prescribing medications such as trazodone (Desyrel), an antidepressant commonly used off label as a sleep aid.

Dr. Lettieri’s talk highlighted his recommendation against using trazodone for sleep. “Despite several recommendations against its use for insomnia, it is still commonly prescribed. You just shouldn’t use it for insomnia,” Dr. Lettieri said.

“It has no measurable effect in a third of patients and at least unacceptable side effects in another third.  Right off the bat, it’s not efficacious in two thirds of patients.”

Additionally, priapism, a prolonged erection, has been associated with trazodone, Dr. Lettieri said, “and I have literally never met a patient on trazodone who was counseled about this.”

Trazodone also has a black box warning from the Food and Drug Administration warning about increased risk for suicidal thoughts.

Dr. Lettieri and Dr. Corr disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Chronic insomnia is often underrecognized and misunderstood in primary care, sleep expert Christopher Lettieri, MD, told attendees at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Too often, medications are the treatment of choice, and when used long term they can perpetuate a problematic cycle, said Dr. Lettieri, professor in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

However, medications alone won’t work without other behavior modifications and they come with potential side effects, he said in his talk. Prescription medications typically don’t treat the cause of the insomnia, just the symptoms.

“In the 15 years I’ve been practicing sleep medicine, I can honestly say I only have a handful of patients that I treat with long-term pharmacotherapy,” Dr. Lettieri said.

He said he typically uses pharmacotherapy only when conservative measures have failed or to help jump-start patients to behavior modifications.

Restricted sleep is a good place to start for chronic insomnia, he continued.

Physicians should ask patients the latest time they can wake up to make it to school, work, etc. If that time is 6 a.m., the goal is to move bedtime back to 10 p.m.–11 p.m. If the patient, however, is unable to sleep until 12:30 a.m., move bedtime there, he said.

Though the 5.5-hour window is not ideal, it’s better to get into bed when ready for sleep. From there, try to get the patient to move bedtime back 15 minutes each week as they train themselves to fall asleep earlier, he said.

“I promise you this works in the majority of patients and doesn’t require any medication. You can also accomplish this with one or two office visits, so it is not a huge drain on resources,” he said.
 

Sleep specialists in short supply

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is “without question the best way to treat chronic insomnia and it’s recommended as first-line therapy by all published guidelines,” Dr. Lettieri said.

He defined chronic insomnia as happening most nights over at least 3 months. It affects twice as many women as men.

CBT offers a formalized way of changing sleep patterns with the help of an expert in sleep behavior disorders. It combines cognitive therapies with education about sleep and stimulus control and uses techniques such as mindfulness and relaxation.

However, most programs take 4-8 sessions with a sleep medicine provider and are usually not covered by insurance. In addition, the number of insomnia specialists is not nearly adequate to meet demand, he added.

Online and mobile-platform CBT programs are widely effective, Dr. Lettieri said. Many are free and all are convenient for patients to use. He said many of his patients use Sleepio, but many other online programs are effective.

“You can provide sufficient therapy for many of your patients and reserve CBT for patients who can’t be fixed with more conservative measures,” he said.
 

Insomnia among older patients

Interest in helping older patients with insomnia dominated the chat session associated with the talk.

Insomnia increases with age and older patients have often been using prescription or over-the-counter sleep aids for decades.

Additionally, “insomnia is the second-most common reason why people get admitted to long-term care facilities, second only to urinary incontinence,” Dr. Lettieri said.

If physicians use medications with older patients, he said, extra caution is needed. Older people have more neurocognitive impairments than younger adults and may already be taking several other medications. Sleep medications may come with longer elimination half-lives. Polypharmacy may increase risk for falls and have other consequences.

“If you have to go to a medication, try something simple like melatonin,” he said, adding that it should be pharmaceutical grade and extended release.

Also, bright lights during the day, movement throughout the day, and dim lights closer to bedtime are especially important for the elderly, Dr. Lettieri said.

Andrew Corr, MD, a geriatric specialist in primary care with the Riverside (Calif.) Medical Clinic, said in an interview the main message he will take back to his physician group is more CBT and less medication.

He said that, although he has long known CBT is the top first-line treatment, it is difficult to find experts in his area who are trained to do CBT for insomnia, so he was glad to hear online programs and self-directed reading are typically effective.

He also said there’s a common misperception that there’s no harm in prescribing medications such as trazodone (Desyrel), an antidepressant commonly used off label as a sleep aid.

Dr. Lettieri’s talk highlighted his recommendation against using trazodone for sleep. “Despite several recommendations against its use for insomnia, it is still commonly prescribed. You just shouldn’t use it for insomnia,” Dr. Lettieri said.

“It has no measurable effect in a third of patients and at least unacceptable side effects in another third.  Right off the bat, it’s not efficacious in two thirds of patients.”

Additionally, priapism, a prolonged erection, has been associated with trazodone, Dr. Lettieri said, “and I have literally never met a patient on trazodone who was counseled about this.”

Trazodone also has a black box warning from the Food and Drug Administration warning about increased risk for suicidal thoughts.

Dr. Lettieri and Dr. Corr disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Chronic insomnia is often underrecognized and misunderstood in primary care, sleep expert Christopher Lettieri, MD, told attendees at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Too often, medications are the treatment of choice, and when used long term they can perpetuate a problematic cycle, said Dr. Lettieri, professor in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

However, medications alone won’t work without other behavior modifications and they come with potential side effects, he said in his talk. Prescription medications typically don’t treat the cause of the insomnia, just the symptoms.

“In the 15 years I’ve been practicing sleep medicine, I can honestly say I only have a handful of patients that I treat with long-term pharmacotherapy,” Dr. Lettieri said.

He said he typically uses pharmacotherapy only when conservative measures have failed or to help jump-start patients to behavior modifications.

Restricted sleep is a good place to start for chronic insomnia, he continued.

Physicians should ask patients the latest time they can wake up to make it to school, work, etc. If that time is 6 a.m., the goal is to move bedtime back to 10 p.m.–11 p.m. If the patient, however, is unable to sleep until 12:30 a.m., move bedtime there, he said.

Though the 5.5-hour window is not ideal, it’s better to get into bed when ready for sleep. From there, try to get the patient to move bedtime back 15 minutes each week as they train themselves to fall asleep earlier, he said.

“I promise you this works in the majority of patients and doesn’t require any medication. You can also accomplish this with one or two office visits, so it is not a huge drain on resources,” he said.
 

Sleep specialists in short supply

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is “without question the best way to treat chronic insomnia and it’s recommended as first-line therapy by all published guidelines,” Dr. Lettieri said.

He defined chronic insomnia as happening most nights over at least 3 months. It affects twice as many women as men.

CBT offers a formalized way of changing sleep patterns with the help of an expert in sleep behavior disorders. It combines cognitive therapies with education about sleep and stimulus control and uses techniques such as mindfulness and relaxation.

However, most programs take 4-8 sessions with a sleep medicine provider and are usually not covered by insurance. In addition, the number of insomnia specialists is not nearly adequate to meet demand, he added.

Online and mobile-platform CBT programs are widely effective, Dr. Lettieri said. Many are free and all are convenient for patients to use. He said many of his patients use Sleepio, but many other online programs are effective.

“You can provide sufficient therapy for many of your patients and reserve CBT for patients who can’t be fixed with more conservative measures,” he said.
 

Insomnia among older patients

Interest in helping older patients with insomnia dominated the chat session associated with the talk.

Insomnia increases with age and older patients have often been using prescription or over-the-counter sleep aids for decades.

Additionally, “insomnia is the second-most common reason why people get admitted to long-term care facilities, second only to urinary incontinence,” Dr. Lettieri said.

If physicians use medications with older patients, he said, extra caution is needed. Older people have more neurocognitive impairments than younger adults and may already be taking several other medications. Sleep medications may come with longer elimination half-lives. Polypharmacy may increase risk for falls and have other consequences.

“If you have to go to a medication, try something simple like melatonin,” he said, adding that it should be pharmaceutical grade and extended release.

Also, bright lights during the day, movement throughout the day, and dim lights closer to bedtime are especially important for the elderly, Dr. Lettieri said.

Andrew Corr, MD, a geriatric specialist in primary care with the Riverside (Calif.) Medical Clinic, said in an interview the main message he will take back to his physician group is more CBT and less medication.

He said that, although he has long known CBT is the top first-line treatment, it is difficult to find experts in his area who are trained to do CBT for insomnia, so he was glad to hear online programs and self-directed reading are typically effective.

He also said there’s a common misperception that there’s no harm in prescribing medications such as trazodone (Desyrel), an antidepressant commonly used off label as a sleep aid.

Dr. Lettieri’s talk highlighted his recommendation against using trazodone for sleep. “Despite several recommendations against its use for insomnia, it is still commonly prescribed. You just shouldn’t use it for insomnia,” Dr. Lettieri said.

“It has no measurable effect in a third of patients and at least unacceptable side effects in another third.  Right off the bat, it’s not efficacious in two thirds of patients.”

Additionally, priapism, a prolonged erection, has been associated with trazodone, Dr. Lettieri said, “and I have literally never met a patient on trazodone who was counseled about this.”

Trazodone also has a black box warning from the Food and Drug Administration warning about increased risk for suicidal thoughts.

Dr. Lettieri and Dr. Corr disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A panel of federal advisers on May 6 lent support to the ChemoCentryx bid for approval of avacopan for a rare and serious autoimmune condition. But they also flagged concerns about both the evidence supporting claims of a benefit for this experimental drug and its safety.

At a meeting of the Food and Drug Administration’s Arthritis Advisory Committee, panelists voted 10-8 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.

ChemoCentryx is seeking approval of avacopan for antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis in the subtypes of granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA).

Regardless of their vote on this approval question, the panelists shared an interest in avacopan’s potential to reduce glucocorticoid use among some patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, also called AAV. Mara L. Becker, MD, MSCE, the chair of the FDA’s panel, was among the panelists who said they reluctantly voted no.

“It pains me because I really want more steroid-sparing” medicines, said Dr. Becker of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cited a need to gather more data on avacopan.

Margrit Wiesendanger, MD, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was among the panelists voting yes, spoke of a need for caution if the FDA approves avacopan.

“Judicious use of this new medication will be warranted and perhaps additional guidance could be given to rheumatologists to help them decide for whom this medication is best,” she said.

Panelists had spoken earlier of avacopan as a possible alternative medicine for people with AAV who have conditions that make glucocorticoids riskier for them, such as those who have diabetes.
 

Close votes on safety profile, efficacy

The panel also voted 10-8 on a question about whether the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

In addition, the panel voted 9-9 on a question about whether efficacy data support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

The FDA considers the recommendations of its advisory panels, but is not bound by them.

The FDA staff clearly expressed the view that ChemoCentryx fell short with the evidence presented for avacopan approval. Shares of San Carlos, Calif.–based ChemoCentryx dropped sharply from a May 3 closing price of $48.82 to a May 4 closing price of $26.63 after the FDA released the staff’s review of avacopan.

In a briefing prepared for the meeting, FDA staff detailed concerns about the evidence ChemoCentryx is using to seek approval. While acknowledging a need for new treatments for AAV as a rare condition, FDA staff honed in on what they described flaws in the testing of this experimental medicine, which is a small-molecule antagonist of the receptor of C5a, an end product of the complement cascade that acts as a potent neutrophil chemoattractant and agonist.

The FDA usually requires two phase 3 studies for approval of a new medicine but will do so with a single trial in cases of exceptional need, the agency staff said. But in these cases, the bar rises for the evidence provided from that single trial.
 

Difficulties in interpretation of complex study design

In the case of avacopan, though, the data from the key avacopan trial, Study CL010_168, known as ADVOCATE, there were substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.

In the briefing document, the FDA staff noted that it had “communicated many of the concerns” about ChemoCentryx’s research earlier to the company.

“Complexities of the study design, as detailed in the briefing document, raise questions about the interpretability of the data to define a clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of AAV,” the FDA staff wrote.

“We acknowledge that AAV is a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality. It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies. However, FDA wants to ensure that new products have a defined context of use, i.e., how a product would be used, and a favorable benefit-risk assessment for patients,” the staff added.

In addition, there were differences in the assessments performed by investigators and the adjudication committee, most frequently related to the attribution of persistent vasculitis, the FDA staff noted.

Statistical analyses of the primary endpoint using investigators’ estimates “resulted in more conservative estimates of treatment effect, e.g., statistical significance for superiority would no longer be demonstrated,” the FDA staff noted. “While the prespecified analysis used the Adjudicator assessments, the assessment based on the Investigators, experienced in management of vasculitis, may better reflect real-world use.”
 

Imbalances in use of glucocorticoids and maintenance therapy

Also among the complications in assessing the ADVOCATE trial data were the glucocorticoids taken by patients in the study, the FDA staff said.

In the avacopan arm of the trial, 86% of patients received non–study-supplied glucocorticoids. In addition, more avacopan‐treated patients experienced adverse events and serious adverse events within the hepatobiliary system leading to discontinuation.

Subgroups given different treatments represented another challenge in interpreting ADVOCATE results for the FDA staff.

At week 26, the proportion of patients in disease remission in the avacopan group (72.3%) was noninferior to the prednisone group (70.1%), the FDA staff said in the briefing document.

But at week 52, a disparity was observed between subgroups that had received rituximab and cyclophosphamide (intravenous and oral) induction treatment. The estimated risk difference for disease remission at week 52 was 15.0% (95% CI, 2.2%-27.7%) in the subgroup receiving induction with rituximab and 3.3% (95% CI, –14.8% to 21.4%) in the cyclophosphamide plus maintenance azathioprine subgroup, the agency’s staff said.

“Based on the data, there is no evidence of clinically meaningful treatment effect in the cyclophosphamide induction subgroup,” the FDA staff wrote. “Further, the treatment comparison in the complementary rituximab induction subgroup may not be considered meaningful because these patients did not receive maintenance therapy, i.e., due to undertreating of patients, the effect observed in the rituximab subgroup may not represent a clinically meaningful treatment effect, compared to standard of care.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Rachel L. Glaser, MD, clinical team leader in FDA’s division of rheumatology and transplant medicine, reiterated these concerns to the advisory committee at the May 6 meeting.

“Throughout the development program, FDA advised the applicant that a noninferiority comparison would not be sufficient to show that avacopan can replaced glucocorticoids as it would be difficult to establish whether avacopan is effective or whether an effect was due to the rituximab or cyclophosphamide administered to both treatment arms,” she said.

In its briefing for the meeting, ChemoCentryx noted the limits of treatments now available for AAV. It also emphasized the toll of the condition, ranging from skin manifestations to glomerulonephritis to life-threatening pulmonary hemorrhage. If untreated, 80% of patients with GPA or MPA die within 2 years of disease onset, ChemoCentryx said in its briefing materials for the meeting.

The side effects of glucocorticoids were well known to the FDA panelists and the ChemoCentryx presenters. Witnesses at an open public hearing told their own stories of depression, anxiety, and irritability caused by these medicines.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

During the ChemoCentryx presentation, a presenter for the company, Peter Merkel, MD, MPH, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said avacopan would provide patients with AAV with an alternative allowing them “to go on a much lower glucocorticoids regimen.”

A similar view was presented in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, titled “Avacopan – Time to Replace Glucocorticoids?” Written by Kenneth J. Warrington, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., the opinion article called the ADVOCATE trial “a milestone in the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis; complement inhibition with avacopan has glucocorticoid-sparing effects and results in superior disease control.”

Dr. Warrington reported no conflicts in connection with his editorial nor payments from ChemoCentryx. He did report grants from other firms such as Eli Lilly.

Julia Lewis, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., was among the more skeptical members of the FDA panel. She was among the “nays” in all three voting questions put to the panel. Still, she said there were signs of “clinically meaningful benefit” in the data presented, but noted that the nonstudy use of glucocorticoids made it difficult to interpret the ADVOCATE results.

Dr. Lewis noted that the FDA usually requires two studies for a drug approval, particularly with a compound not yet cleared for any use. While ANCA-associated vasculitis is rare, it would be possible to recruit patients for another trial of avacopan, adding to the results reported already for avacopan from ADVOCATE, she said.

“Were there to be another study, this would certainly be a supportive study and maybe qualify as two studies,” she said.

A panel of federal advisers on May 6 lent support to the ChemoCentryx bid for approval of avacopan for a rare and serious autoimmune condition. But they also flagged concerns about both the evidence supporting claims of a benefit for this experimental drug and its safety.

At a meeting of the Food and Drug Administration’s Arthritis Advisory Committee, panelists voted 10-8 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.

ChemoCentryx is seeking approval of avacopan for antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis in the subtypes of granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA).

Regardless of their vote on this approval question, the panelists shared an interest in avacopan’s potential to reduce glucocorticoid use among some patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, also called AAV. Mara L. Becker, MD, MSCE, the chair of the FDA’s panel, was among the panelists who said they reluctantly voted no.

“It pains me because I really want more steroid-sparing” medicines, said Dr. Becker of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cited a need to gather more data on avacopan.

Margrit Wiesendanger, MD, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was among the panelists voting yes, spoke of a need for caution if the FDA approves avacopan.

“Judicious use of this new medication will be warranted and perhaps additional guidance could be given to rheumatologists to help them decide for whom this medication is best,” she said.

Panelists had spoken earlier of avacopan as a possible alternative medicine for people with AAV who have conditions that make glucocorticoids riskier for them, such as those who have diabetes.
 

Close votes on safety profile, efficacy

The panel also voted 10-8 on a question about whether the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

In addition, the panel voted 9-9 on a question about whether efficacy data support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

The FDA considers the recommendations of its advisory panels, but is not bound by them.

The FDA staff clearly expressed the view that ChemoCentryx fell short with the evidence presented for avacopan approval. Shares of San Carlos, Calif.–based ChemoCentryx dropped sharply from a May 3 closing price of $48.82 to a May 4 closing price of $26.63 after the FDA released the staff’s review of avacopan.

In a briefing prepared for the meeting, FDA staff detailed concerns about the evidence ChemoCentryx is using to seek approval. While acknowledging a need for new treatments for AAV as a rare condition, FDA staff honed in on what they described flaws in the testing of this experimental medicine, which is a small-molecule antagonist of the receptor of C5a, an end product of the complement cascade that acts as a potent neutrophil chemoattractant and agonist.

The FDA usually requires two phase 3 studies for approval of a new medicine but will do so with a single trial in cases of exceptional need, the agency staff said. But in these cases, the bar rises for the evidence provided from that single trial.
 

Difficulties in interpretation of complex study design

In the case of avacopan, though, the data from the key avacopan trial, Study CL010_168, known as ADVOCATE, there were substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.

In the briefing document, the FDA staff noted that it had “communicated many of the concerns” about ChemoCentryx’s research earlier to the company.

“Complexities of the study design, as detailed in the briefing document, raise questions about the interpretability of the data to define a clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of AAV,” the FDA staff wrote.

“We acknowledge that AAV is a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality. It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies. However, FDA wants to ensure that new products have a defined context of use, i.e., how a product would be used, and a favorable benefit-risk assessment for patients,” the staff added.

In addition, there were differences in the assessments performed by investigators and the adjudication committee, most frequently related to the attribution of persistent vasculitis, the FDA staff noted.

Statistical analyses of the primary endpoint using investigators’ estimates “resulted in more conservative estimates of treatment effect, e.g., statistical significance for superiority would no longer be demonstrated,” the FDA staff noted. “While the prespecified analysis used the Adjudicator assessments, the assessment based on the Investigators, experienced in management of vasculitis, may better reflect real-world use.”
 

Imbalances in use of glucocorticoids and maintenance therapy

Also among the complications in assessing the ADVOCATE trial data were the glucocorticoids taken by patients in the study, the FDA staff said.

In the avacopan arm of the trial, 86% of patients received non–study-supplied glucocorticoids. In addition, more avacopan‐treated patients experienced adverse events and serious adverse events within the hepatobiliary system leading to discontinuation.

Subgroups given different treatments represented another challenge in interpreting ADVOCATE results for the FDA staff.

At week 26, the proportion of patients in disease remission in the avacopan group (72.3%) was noninferior to the prednisone group (70.1%), the FDA staff said in the briefing document.

But at week 52, a disparity was observed between subgroups that had received rituximab and cyclophosphamide (intravenous and oral) induction treatment. The estimated risk difference for disease remission at week 52 was 15.0% (95% CI, 2.2%-27.7%) in the subgroup receiving induction with rituximab and 3.3% (95% CI, –14.8% to 21.4%) in the cyclophosphamide plus maintenance azathioprine subgroup, the agency’s staff said.

“Based on the data, there is no evidence of clinically meaningful treatment effect in the cyclophosphamide induction subgroup,” the FDA staff wrote. “Further, the treatment comparison in the complementary rituximab induction subgroup may not be considered meaningful because these patients did not receive maintenance therapy, i.e., due to undertreating of patients, the effect observed in the rituximab subgroup may not represent a clinically meaningful treatment effect, compared to standard of care.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Rachel L. Glaser, MD, clinical team leader in FDA’s division of rheumatology and transplant medicine, reiterated these concerns to the advisory committee at the May 6 meeting.

“Throughout the development program, FDA advised the applicant that a noninferiority comparison would not be sufficient to show that avacopan can replaced glucocorticoids as it would be difficult to establish whether avacopan is effective or whether an effect was due to the rituximab or cyclophosphamide administered to both treatment arms,” she said.

In its briefing for the meeting, ChemoCentryx noted the limits of treatments now available for AAV. It also emphasized the toll of the condition, ranging from skin manifestations to glomerulonephritis to life-threatening pulmonary hemorrhage. If untreated, 80% of patients with GPA or MPA die within 2 years of disease onset, ChemoCentryx said in its briefing materials for the meeting.

The side effects of glucocorticoids were well known to the FDA panelists and the ChemoCentryx presenters. Witnesses at an open public hearing told their own stories of depression, anxiety, and irritability caused by these medicines.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

During the ChemoCentryx presentation, a presenter for the company, Peter Merkel, MD, MPH, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said avacopan would provide patients with AAV with an alternative allowing them “to go on a much lower glucocorticoids regimen.”

A similar view was presented in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, titled “Avacopan – Time to Replace Glucocorticoids?” Written by Kenneth J. Warrington, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., the opinion article called the ADVOCATE trial “a milestone in the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis; complement inhibition with avacopan has glucocorticoid-sparing effects and results in superior disease control.”

Dr. Warrington reported no conflicts in connection with his editorial nor payments from ChemoCentryx. He did report grants from other firms such as Eli Lilly.

Julia Lewis, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., was among the more skeptical members of the FDA panel. She was among the “nays” in all three voting questions put to the panel. Still, she said there were signs of “clinically meaningful benefit” in the data presented, but noted that the nonstudy use of glucocorticoids made it difficult to interpret the ADVOCATE results.

Dr. Lewis noted that the FDA usually requires two studies for a drug approval, particularly with a compound not yet cleared for any use. While ANCA-associated vasculitis is rare, it would be possible to recruit patients for another trial of avacopan, adding to the results reported already for avacopan from ADVOCATE, she said.

“Were there to be another study, this would certainly be a supportive study and maybe qualify as two studies,” she said.

A panel of federal advisers on May 6 lent support to the ChemoCentryx bid for approval of avacopan for a rare and serious autoimmune condition. But they also flagged concerns about both the evidence supporting claims of a benefit for this experimental drug and its safety.

At a meeting of the Food and Drug Administration’s Arthritis Advisory Committee, panelists voted 10-8 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.

ChemoCentryx is seeking approval of avacopan for antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis in the subtypes of granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA).

Regardless of their vote on this approval question, the panelists shared an interest in avacopan’s potential to reduce glucocorticoid use among some patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, also called AAV. Mara L. Becker, MD, MSCE, the chair of the FDA’s panel, was among the panelists who said they reluctantly voted no.

“It pains me because I really want more steroid-sparing” medicines, said Dr. Becker of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cited a need to gather more data on avacopan.

Margrit Wiesendanger, MD, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was among the panelists voting yes, spoke of a need for caution if the FDA approves avacopan.

“Judicious use of this new medication will be warranted and perhaps additional guidance could be given to rheumatologists to help them decide for whom this medication is best,” she said.

Panelists had spoken earlier of avacopan as a possible alternative medicine for people with AAV who have conditions that make glucocorticoids riskier for them, such as those who have diabetes.
 

Close votes on safety profile, efficacy

The panel also voted 10-8 on a question about whether the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

In addition, the panel voted 9-9 on a question about whether efficacy data support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

The FDA considers the recommendations of its advisory panels, but is not bound by them.

The FDA staff clearly expressed the view that ChemoCentryx fell short with the evidence presented for avacopan approval. Shares of San Carlos, Calif.–based ChemoCentryx dropped sharply from a May 3 closing price of $48.82 to a May 4 closing price of $26.63 after the FDA released the staff’s review of avacopan.

In a briefing prepared for the meeting, FDA staff detailed concerns about the evidence ChemoCentryx is using to seek approval. While acknowledging a need for new treatments for AAV as a rare condition, FDA staff honed in on what they described flaws in the testing of this experimental medicine, which is a small-molecule antagonist of the receptor of C5a, an end product of the complement cascade that acts as a potent neutrophil chemoattractant and agonist.

The FDA usually requires two phase 3 studies for approval of a new medicine but will do so with a single trial in cases of exceptional need, the agency staff said. But in these cases, the bar rises for the evidence provided from that single trial.
 

Difficulties in interpretation of complex study design

In the case of avacopan, though, the data from the key avacopan trial, Study CL010_168, known as ADVOCATE, there were substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.

In the briefing document, the FDA staff noted that it had “communicated many of the concerns” about ChemoCentryx’s research earlier to the company.

“Complexities of the study design, as detailed in the briefing document, raise questions about the interpretability of the data to define a clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of AAV,” the FDA staff wrote.

“We acknowledge that AAV is a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality. It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies. However, FDA wants to ensure that new products have a defined context of use, i.e., how a product would be used, and a favorable benefit-risk assessment for patients,” the staff added.

In addition, there were differences in the assessments performed by investigators and the adjudication committee, most frequently related to the attribution of persistent vasculitis, the FDA staff noted.

Statistical analyses of the primary endpoint using investigators’ estimates “resulted in more conservative estimates of treatment effect, e.g., statistical significance for superiority would no longer be demonstrated,” the FDA staff noted. “While the prespecified analysis used the Adjudicator assessments, the assessment based on the Investigators, experienced in management of vasculitis, may better reflect real-world use.”
 

Imbalances in use of glucocorticoids and maintenance therapy

Also among the complications in assessing the ADVOCATE trial data were the glucocorticoids taken by patients in the study, the FDA staff said.

In the avacopan arm of the trial, 86% of patients received non–study-supplied glucocorticoids. In addition, more avacopan‐treated patients experienced adverse events and serious adverse events within the hepatobiliary system leading to discontinuation.

Subgroups given different treatments represented another challenge in interpreting ADVOCATE results for the FDA staff.

At week 26, the proportion of patients in disease remission in the avacopan group (72.3%) was noninferior to the prednisone group (70.1%), the FDA staff said in the briefing document.

But at week 52, a disparity was observed between subgroups that had received rituximab and cyclophosphamide (intravenous and oral) induction treatment. The estimated risk difference for disease remission at week 52 was 15.0% (95% CI, 2.2%-27.7%) in the subgroup receiving induction with rituximab and 3.3% (95% CI, –14.8% to 21.4%) in the cyclophosphamide plus maintenance azathioprine subgroup, the agency’s staff said.

“Based on the data, there is no evidence of clinically meaningful treatment effect in the cyclophosphamide induction subgroup,” the FDA staff wrote. “Further, the treatment comparison in the complementary rituximab induction subgroup may not be considered meaningful because these patients did not receive maintenance therapy, i.e., due to undertreating of patients, the effect observed in the rituximab subgroup may not represent a clinically meaningful treatment effect, compared to standard of care.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Rachel L. Glaser, MD, clinical team leader in FDA’s division of rheumatology and transplant medicine, reiterated these concerns to the advisory committee at the May 6 meeting.

“Throughout the development program, FDA advised the applicant that a noninferiority comparison would not be sufficient to show that avacopan can replaced glucocorticoids as it would be difficult to establish whether avacopan is effective or whether an effect was due to the rituximab or cyclophosphamide administered to both treatment arms,” she said.

In its briefing for the meeting, ChemoCentryx noted the limits of treatments now available for AAV. It also emphasized the toll of the condition, ranging from skin manifestations to glomerulonephritis to life-threatening pulmonary hemorrhage. If untreated, 80% of patients with GPA or MPA die within 2 years of disease onset, ChemoCentryx said in its briefing materials for the meeting.

The side effects of glucocorticoids were well known to the FDA panelists and the ChemoCentryx presenters. Witnesses at an open public hearing told their own stories of depression, anxiety, and irritability caused by these medicines.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

During the ChemoCentryx presentation, a presenter for the company, Peter Merkel, MD, MPH, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said avacopan would provide patients with AAV with an alternative allowing them “to go on a much lower glucocorticoids regimen.”

A similar view was presented in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, titled “Avacopan – Time to Replace Glucocorticoids?” Written by Kenneth J. Warrington, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., the opinion article called the ADVOCATE trial “a milestone in the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis; complement inhibition with avacopan has glucocorticoid-sparing effects and results in superior disease control.”

Dr. Warrington reported no conflicts in connection with his editorial nor payments from ChemoCentryx. He did report grants from other firms such as Eli Lilly.

Julia Lewis, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., was among the more skeptical members of the FDA panel. She was among the “nays” in all three voting questions put to the panel. Still, she said there were signs of “clinically meaningful benefit” in the data presented, but noted that the nonstudy use of glucocorticoids made it difficult to interpret the ADVOCATE results.

Dr. Lewis noted that the FDA usually requires two studies for a drug approval, particularly with a compound not yet cleared for any use. While ANCA-associated vasculitis is rare, it would be possible to recruit patients for another trial of avacopan, adding to the results reported already for avacopan from ADVOCATE, she said.

“Were there to be another study, this would certainly be a supportive study and maybe qualify as two studies,” she said.

The Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in combination with other agents for the first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma.

The checkpoint inhibitor is to be used in conjunction with trastuzumab (Herceptin) and fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy.

Previously, pembrolizumab was approved as a single agent for these cancers for patients whose tumors express PD-L1 and whose disease progressed after two or more lines of treatment that included chemotherapy and HER2-targeted therapy.

The new approval comes about a year after the FDA’s first-ever approval of a checkpoint inhibitor (nivolumab [Opdivo] in combination with chemotherapies) for the frontline treatment of gastric cancers, as reported by this news organization.

The new approval is based on interim data from the first 264 patients of the ongoing KEYNOTE-811 trial, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with HER2-positive advanced gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma who had not previously received systemic therapy for their metastatic disease.

Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either pembrolizumab at 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks in combination with trastuzumab and either fluorouracil plus cisplatin or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin.

The overall response rate, which is the primary outcome, was 74% in the pembrolizumab arm and 52% in the placebo arm (one-sided P < .0001).

The median duration of response was 10.6 months in the pembrolizumab arm and 9.5 months in the placebo arm.

The adverse-reaction profile for patients receiving pembrolizumab is consistent with the known pembrolizumab safety profile, the FDA said in a statement.

The recommended pembrolizumab dose in this setting is 200 mg every 3 weeks or 400 mg every 6 weeks.

The FDA’s review, which was granted priority status, used the Real-Time Oncology Review pilot program, which allows streamlined data submission prior to the filing of the full clinical application, and Assessment Aid, a voluntary submission that facilitates the FDA’s assessment.

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

The Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in combination with other agents for the first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma.

The checkpoint inhibitor is to be used in conjunction with trastuzumab (Herceptin) and fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy.

Previously, pembrolizumab was approved as a single agent for these cancers for patients whose tumors express PD-L1 and whose disease progressed after two or more lines of treatment that included chemotherapy and HER2-targeted therapy.

The new approval comes about a year after the FDA’s first-ever approval of a checkpoint inhibitor (nivolumab [Opdivo] in combination with chemotherapies) for the frontline treatment of gastric cancers, as reported by this news organization.

The new approval is based on interim data from the first 264 patients of the ongoing KEYNOTE-811 trial, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with HER2-positive advanced gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma who had not previously received systemic therapy for their metastatic disease.

Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either pembrolizumab at 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks in combination with trastuzumab and either fluorouracil plus cisplatin or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin.

The overall response rate, which is the primary outcome, was 74% in the pembrolizumab arm and 52% in the placebo arm (one-sided P < .0001).

The median duration of response was 10.6 months in the pembrolizumab arm and 9.5 months in the placebo arm.

The adverse-reaction profile for patients receiving pembrolizumab is consistent with the known pembrolizumab safety profile, the FDA said in a statement.

The recommended pembrolizumab dose in this setting is 200 mg every 3 weeks or 400 mg every 6 weeks.

The FDA’s review, which was granted priority status, used the Real-Time Oncology Review pilot program, which allows streamlined data submission prior to the filing of the full clinical application, and Assessment Aid, a voluntary submission that facilitates the FDA’s assessment.

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

The Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in combination with other agents for the first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma.

The checkpoint inhibitor is to be used in conjunction with trastuzumab (Herceptin) and fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy.

Previously, pembrolizumab was approved as a single agent for these cancers for patients whose tumors express PD-L1 and whose disease progressed after two or more lines of treatment that included chemotherapy and HER2-targeted therapy.

The new approval comes about a year after the FDA’s first-ever approval of a checkpoint inhibitor (nivolumab [Opdivo] in combination with chemotherapies) for the frontline treatment of gastric cancers, as reported by this news organization.

The new approval is based on interim data from the first 264 patients of the ongoing KEYNOTE-811 trial, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with HER2-positive advanced gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma who had not previously received systemic therapy for their metastatic disease.

Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either pembrolizumab at 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks in combination with trastuzumab and either fluorouracil plus cisplatin or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin.

The overall response rate, which is the primary outcome, was 74% in the pembrolizumab arm and 52% in the placebo arm (one-sided P < .0001).

The median duration of response was 10.6 months in the pembrolizumab arm and 9.5 months in the placebo arm.

The adverse-reaction profile for patients receiving pembrolizumab is consistent with the known pembrolizumab safety profile, the FDA said in a statement.

The recommended pembrolizumab dose in this setting is 200 mg every 3 weeks or 400 mg every 6 weeks.

The FDA’s review, which was granted priority status, used the Real-Time Oncology Review pilot program, which allows streamlined data submission prior to the filing of the full clinical application, and Assessment Aid, a voluntary submission that facilitates the FDA’s assessment.

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

Personalized nutritional support for adults hospitalized with chronic heart failure and deemed to be at high nutritional risk reduced the risk of death or adverse cardiovascular events, compared with standard hospital food, new research indicates.
 

The Swiss EFFORT trial focused on patients with chronic heart failure and high risk of malnutrition defined by low body mass index, weight loss, and low food intake upon hospital admission.

“This high-risk group of chronic heart failure patients showed a significant improvement in mortality over 30 and 180 days, as well as other clinical outcomes, when individualized nutritional support interventions were offered to patients,” Philipp Schuetz, MD, MPH, Kantonsspital Aarau, Switzerland, said in an interview.

“While monitoring the nutritional status should be done also in outpatient settings by [general practitioners], malnutrition screening upon hospital admission may help to identify high-risk patients with high risk for nutritional status deterioration during the hospital stay who will benefit from nutritional assessment and treatment,” said Dr. Schuetz.

The study was published online May 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

It’s not all about salt

The findings are based on a prespecified secondary analysis of outcomes in 645 patients (median age, 78.8 years, 52% men) hospitalized with chronic heart failure who participated in the open-label EFFORT study.  

One-third of patients were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure and two-thirds had chronic heart failure and other acute medical illnesses requiring hospitalization.

All patients were at risk of malnutrition based on a Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS) score of 3 points or higher. They were randomly allocated 1:1 to individualized nutritional support to reach energy, protein, and micronutrient goals or usual hospital food (control group). 

By 30 days, 27 of 321 patients (8.4%) receiving nutritional support had died compared with 48 of 324 patients (14.8%) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.75; P = .002)

Patients with high nutritional risk (NRS >4 points) showed the most benefit from nutritional support.

Compared with patients with moderate nutritional risk scores (NRS score 3-4), those with high nutritional risk (NRS >4) had a highly significant 65% increased mortality risk over 180 days.

The individual component of the NRS with the strongest association with mortality was low food intake in the week before hospitalization.

Patients who received nutritional support in the hospital also had a lower risk for major cardiovascular events at 30 days (17.4% vs. 26.9%; OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.75; P = .001).

“Historically, cardiologists and internists caring for patients with heart failure have mainly focused on salt-restrictive diets to reduce blood volume and thus optimize heart function. Yet, reduction of salt intake has not been shown to effectively improve clinical outcome but may, on the contrary, increase the risk of malnutrition as low-salt diets are often not tasty,” Dr. Schuetz said.

“Our data suggest that we should move our focus away from salt-restrictive diets to high-protein diets to cover individual nutritional goals in this high-risk group of patients, which includes screening, assessment, and nutritional support by dietitians,” Dr. Schuetz said.

In a linked editorial, Sheldon Gottlieb, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said there has been “relatively little attention” paid to the role of diet in heart failure other than recommending reduced salt intake. 

In fact, in the 2021 American College of Cardiology expert consensus recommendations for optimizing heart failure treatment, roughly five words are devoted to diet and exercise and there is no mention of nutrition assessment by a dietitian, he points out.

“This study adds another tile to the still-fragmentary mosaic picture of the patient with heart failure at nutritional risk who might benefit from nutritional support,” Dr. Dr. Gottlieb wrote.

“ ‘Good medical care’ dictates that all hospitalized patients deserve to have a standardized nutritional assessment; the challenge remains: how to determine which patient with heart failure at nutritional risk will benefit by medical nutrition therapy,” Dr. Gottlieb said.

The Swiss National Science Foundation and the Research Council of the Kantonsspital Aarau provided funding for the trial. Dr. Schuetz’s institution has previously received unrestricted grant money unrelated to this project from Nestle Health Science and Abbott Nutrition. Dr. Gottlieb owns a federal trademark for the “Greens, Beans, and Leans” diet, and has a pending federal trademark for “FLOATS”: flax + oats cereal.

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

Personalized nutritional support for adults hospitalized with chronic heart failure and deemed to be at high nutritional risk reduced the risk of death or adverse cardiovascular events, compared with standard hospital food, new research indicates.
 

The Swiss EFFORT trial focused on patients with chronic heart failure and high risk of malnutrition defined by low body mass index, weight loss, and low food intake upon hospital admission.

“This high-risk group of chronic heart failure patients showed a significant improvement in mortality over 30 and 180 days, as well as other clinical outcomes, when individualized nutritional support interventions were offered to patients,” Philipp Schuetz, MD, MPH, Kantonsspital Aarau, Switzerland, said in an interview.

“While monitoring the nutritional status should be done also in outpatient settings by [general practitioners], malnutrition screening upon hospital admission may help to identify high-risk patients with high risk for nutritional status deterioration during the hospital stay who will benefit from nutritional assessment and treatment,” said Dr. Schuetz.

The study was published online May 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

It’s not all about salt

The findings are based on a prespecified secondary analysis of outcomes in 645 patients (median age, 78.8 years, 52% men) hospitalized with chronic heart failure who participated in the open-label EFFORT study.  

One-third of patients were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure and two-thirds had chronic heart failure and other acute medical illnesses requiring hospitalization.

All patients were at risk of malnutrition based on a Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS) score of 3 points or higher. They were randomly allocated 1:1 to individualized nutritional support to reach energy, protein, and micronutrient goals or usual hospital food (control group). 

By 30 days, 27 of 321 patients (8.4%) receiving nutritional support had died compared with 48 of 324 patients (14.8%) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.75; P = .002)

Patients with high nutritional risk (NRS >4 points) showed the most benefit from nutritional support.

Compared with patients with moderate nutritional risk scores (NRS score 3-4), those with high nutritional risk (NRS >4) had a highly significant 65% increased mortality risk over 180 days.

The individual component of the NRS with the strongest association with mortality was low food intake in the week before hospitalization.

Patients who received nutritional support in the hospital also had a lower risk for major cardiovascular events at 30 days (17.4% vs. 26.9%; OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.75; P = .001).

“Historically, cardiologists and internists caring for patients with heart failure have mainly focused on salt-restrictive diets to reduce blood volume and thus optimize heart function. Yet, reduction of salt intake has not been shown to effectively improve clinical outcome but may, on the contrary, increase the risk of malnutrition as low-salt diets are often not tasty,” Dr. Schuetz said.

“Our data suggest that we should move our focus away from salt-restrictive diets to high-protein diets to cover individual nutritional goals in this high-risk group of patients, which includes screening, assessment, and nutritional support by dietitians,” Dr. Schuetz said.

In a linked editorial, Sheldon Gottlieb, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said there has been “relatively little attention” paid to the role of diet in heart failure other than recommending reduced salt intake. 

In fact, in the 2021 American College of Cardiology expert consensus recommendations for optimizing heart failure treatment, roughly five words are devoted to diet and exercise and there is no mention of nutrition assessment by a dietitian, he points out.

“This study adds another tile to the still-fragmentary mosaic picture of the patient with heart failure at nutritional risk who might benefit from nutritional support,” Dr. Dr. Gottlieb wrote.

“ ‘Good medical care’ dictates that all hospitalized patients deserve to have a standardized nutritional assessment; the challenge remains: how to determine which patient with heart failure at nutritional risk will benefit by medical nutrition therapy,” Dr. Gottlieb said.

The Swiss National Science Foundation and the Research Council of the Kantonsspital Aarau provided funding for the trial. Dr. Schuetz’s institution has previously received unrestricted grant money unrelated to this project from Nestle Health Science and Abbott Nutrition. Dr. Gottlieb owns a federal trademark for the “Greens, Beans, and Leans” diet, and has a pending federal trademark for “FLOATS”: flax + oats cereal.

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

Personalized nutritional support for adults hospitalized with chronic heart failure and deemed to be at high nutritional risk reduced the risk of death or adverse cardiovascular events, compared with standard hospital food, new research indicates.
 

The Swiss EFFORT trial focused on patients with chronic heart failure and high risk of malnutrition defined by low body mass index, weight loss, and low food intake upon hospital admission.

“This high-risk group of chronic heart failure patients showed a significant improvement in mortality over 30 and 180 days, as well as other clinical outcomes, when individualized nutritional support interventions were offered to patients,” Philipp Schuetz, MD, MPH, Kantonsspital Aarau, Switzerland, said in an interview.

“While monitoring the nutritional status should be done also in outpatient settings by [general practitioners], malnutrition screening upon hospital admission may help to identify high-risk patients with high risk for nutritional status deterioration during the hospital stay who will benefit from nutritional assessment and treatment,” said Dr. Schuetz.

The study was published online May 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

It’s not all about salt

The findings are based on a prespecified secondary analysis of outcomes in 645 patients (median age, 78.8 years, 52% men) hospitalized with chronic heart failure who participated in the open-label EFFORT study.  

One-third of patients were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure and two-thirds had chronic heart failure and other acute medical illnesses requiring hospitalization.

All patients were at risk of malnutrition based on a Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS) score of 3 points or higher. They were randomly allocated 1:1 to individualized nutritional support to reach energy, protein, and micronutrient goals or usual hospital food (control group). 

By 30 days, 27 of 321 patients (8.4%) receiving nutritional support had died compared with 48 of 324 patients (14.8%) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.75; P = .002)

Patients with high nutritional risk (NRS >4 points) showed the most benefit from nutritional support.

Compared with patients with moderate nutritional risk scores (NRS score 3-4), those with high nutritional risk (NRS >4) had a highly significant 65% increased mortality risk over 180 days.

The individual component of the NRS with the strongest association with mortality was low food intake in the week before hospitalization.

Patients who received nutritional support in the hospital also had a lower risk for major cardiovascular events at 30 days (17.4% vs. 26.9%; OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.75; P = .001).

“Historically, cardiologists and internists caring for patients with heart failure have mainly focused on salt-restrictive diets to reduce blood volume and thus optimize heart function. Yet, reduction of salt intake has not been shown to effectively improve clinical outcome but may, on the contrary, increase the risk of malnutrition as low-salt diets are often not tasty,” Dr. Schuetz said.

“Our data suggest that we should move our focus away from salt-restrictive diets to high-protein diets to cover individual nutritional goals in this high-risk group of patients, which includes screening, assessment, and nutritional support by dietitians,” Dr. Schuetz said.

In a linked editorial, Sheldon Gottlieb, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said there has been “relatively little attention” paid to the role of diet in heart failure other than recommending reduced salt intake. 

In fact, in the 2021 American College of Cardiology expert consensus recommendations for optimizing heart failure treatment, roughly five words are devoted to diet and exercise and there is no mention of nutrition assessment by a dietitian, he points out.

“This study adds another tile to the still-fragmentary mosaic picture of the patient with heart failure at nutritional risk who might benefit from nutritional support,” Dr. Dr. Gottlieb wrote.

“ ‘Good medical care’ dictates that all hospitalized patients deserve to have a standardized nutritional assessment; the challenge remains: how to determine which patient with heart failure at nutritional risk will benefit by medical nutrition therapy,” Dr. Gottlieb said.

The Swiss National Science Foundation and the Research Council of the Kantonsspital Aarau provided funding for the trial. Dr. Schuetz’s institution has previously received unrestricted grant money unrelated to this project from Nestle Health Science and Abbott Nutrition. Dr. Gottlieb owns a federal trademark for the “Greens, Beans, and Leans” diet, and has a pending federal trademark for “FLOATS”: flax + oats cereal.

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

Physicians and nonphysicians clearly differ in whether or not a PhD or EdD should be able to call themselves ‘doctor,’ a new Medscape poll Who Should Get to Be Called ‘Doctor’? shows. The topic has clearly struck a nerve, since a record number of respondents – over 12,000 – voted in the poll.

Most physicians think it’s appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees such as a PhD or EdD to call themselves ‘doctor,’ although slightly more than half said it depends on the context.

The controversy over who gets to be called a doctor was reignited when a Wall Street Journal opinion piece criticized First Lady Jill Biden, EdD, for wanting to be called “Dr Biden.” The piece also challenged the idea that having a PhD is worth the honorific of ‘doctor.’

Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, disagreed with that viewpoint, saying the context matters. For example, he prefers to be called “professor” when he’s introduced to the public rather than “doctor” to avoid any confusion about his professional status.

More than 12,000 clinicians including physicians, medical students, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care professionals responded to the poll. The non-MD clinicians were the most likely to say it was always appropriate to be called “doctor” while physicians were the least likely.
 

Context matters

Large percentages of clinicians – 54% of doctors, 62% of medical students, and 41% of nurses – said that the context matters for being called “doctor.’’

“I earned my PhD in 1995 and my MD in 2000. I think it is contextual. In a research or University setting, “Dr.” seems appropriate for a PhD. That same person in public should probably not hold themselves out as “Dr.” So, maybe MDs and DOs can choose, while others maintain the title in their specific setting.” 

Some readers proposed that people with MDs call themselves physicians rather than doctors. Said one: “Anyone with a terminal doctorate degree has the right to use the word doctor.  As a physician when someone asks what I do, I say: ‘I am a physician.’ Problem solved. There can only be one physician but there are many types of doctors.”

Physicians and nurses differed most in their views. Just 24% of physicians said it was always appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees to call themselves doctor whereas about an equal number (22%) thought it was never appropriate.

In contrast, 43% of nurses (including advance practice nurses) said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorates to be called doctor. Only 16% said it’s never appropriate. 

This difference may reflect the growing number of nurses with doctorate degrees, either a DNP or PhD, who want to be called doctor in clinical settings.

Age made a difference too. Only 16% of physicians younger than age 45 said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorate degrees to be called doctor, compared with 27% of physicians aged 45 and up.

Medical students (31%) were also more likely than physicians to say it was always appropriate for non-MD doctorates to use the title “doctor” and 64% said it depends on the context. This was noteworthy because twice as many medical students as physicians (16% vs. 8%) said they work in academia, research, or military government settings.
 

Too many ‘doctors’ confuse the public

Physicians (70%) were also more likely to say it was always or often confusing for the public to hear someone without a medical degree addressed as “doctor.” Only 6% of physicians thought it was never or rarely confusing.

Nurses disagreed. Just 45% said that it was always or often confusing while 16% said it was never or rarely confusing.

Medical students were more aligned with physicians on this issue – 60% said it was always or often confusing to the public and just 10% said it was never or rarely confusing.  

One reader commented, “The problem is the confusion the ‘doctor’ title causes for patients, especially in a hospital setting. Is the ‘doctor’ a physician, a pharmacist, a psychologist, a nurse, etc., etc.? We need to think not of our own egos but if and how  the confusion about this plethora of titles may be hindering good patient care.”

These concerns are not unfounded. The American Medical Association reported in its Truth in Advertising campaign that “patients mistake physicians with nonphysician providers” based on an online survey of 802 adults in 2018. The participants thought these specialists were MDs: dentists (61%), podiatrists (67%), optometrists (47%), psychologists (43%), doctors of nursing (39%), and chiropractors (27%).

The AMA has advocated that states pass the “Health Care Professional Transparency Act,” which New Jersey has enacted. The law requires all health care professionals dealing with patients to wear a name tag that clearly identifies their licensure. Health care professionals must also display their education, training, and licensure in their office.

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

Physicians and nonphysicians clearly differ in whether or not a PhD or EdD should be able to call themselves ‘doctor,’ a new Medscape poll Who Should Get to Be Called ‘Doctor’? shows. The topic has clearly struck a nerve, since a record number of respondents – over 12,000 – voted in the poll.

Most physicians think it’s appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees such as a PhD or EdD to call themselves ‘doctor,’ although slightly more than half said it depends on the context.

The controversy over who gets to be called a doctor was reignited when a Wall Street Journal opinion piece criticized First Lady Jill Biden, EdD, for wanting to be called “Dr Biden.” The piece also challenged the idea that having a PhD is worth the honorific of ‘doctor.’

Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, disagreed with that viewpoint, saying the context matters. For example, he prefers to be called “professor” when he’s introduced to the public rather than “doctor” to avoid any confusion about his professional status.

More than 12,000 clinicians including physicians, medical students, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care professionals responded to the poll. The non-MD clinicians were the most likely to say it was always appropriate to be called “doctor” while physicians were the least likely.
 

Context matters

Large percentages of clinicians – 54% of doctors, 62% of medical students, and 41% of nurses – said that the context matters for being called “doctor.’’

“I earned my PhD in 1995 and my MD in 2000. I think it is contextual. In a research or University setting, “Dr.” seems appropriate for a PhD. That same person in public should probably not hold themselves out as “Dr.” So, maybe MDs and DOs can choose, while others maintain the title in their specific setting.” 

Some readers proposed that people with MDs call themselves physicians rather than doctors. Said one: “Anyone with a terminal doctorate degree has the right to use the word doctor.  As a physician when someone asks what I do, I say: ‘I am a physician.’ Problem solved. There can only be one physician but there are many types of doctors.”

Physicians and nurses differed most in their views. Just 24% of physicians said it was always appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees to call themselves doctor whereas about an equal number (22%) thought it was never appropriate.

In contrast, 43% of nurses (including advance practice nurses) said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorates to be called doctor. Only 16% said it’s never appropriate. 

This difference may reflect the growing number of nurses with doctorate degrees, either a DNP or PhD, who want to be called doctor in clinical settings.

Age made a difference too. Only 16% of physicians younger than age 45 said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorate degrees to be called doctor, compared with 27% of physicians aged 45 and up.

Medical students (31%) were also more likely than physicians to say it was always appropriate for non-MD doctorates to use the title “doctor” and 64% said it depends on the context. This was noteworthy because twice as many medical students as physicians (16% vs. 8%) said they work in academia, research, or military government settings.
 

Too many ‘doctors’ confuse the public

Physicians (70%) were also more likely to say it was always or often confusing for the public to hear someone without a medical degree addressed as “doctor.” Only 6% of physicians thought it was never or rarely confusing.

Nurses disagreed. Just 45% said that it was always or often confusing while 16% said it was never or rarely confusing.

Medical students were more aligned with physicians on this issue – 60% said it was always or often confusing to the public and just 10% said it was never or rarely confusing.  

One reader commented, “The problem is the confusion the ‘doctor’ title causes for patients, especially in a hospital setting. Is the ‘doctor’ a physician, a pharmacist, a psychologist, a nurse, etc., etc.? We need to think not of our own egos but if and how  the confusion about this plethora of titles may be hindering good patient care.”

These concerns are not unfounded. The American Medical Association reported in its Truth in Advertising campaign that “patients mistake physicians with nonphysician providers” based on an online survey of 802 adults in 2018. The participants thought these specialists were MDs: dentists (61%), podiatrists (67%), optometrists (47%), psychologists (43%), doctors of nursing (39%), and chiropractors (27%).

The AMA has advocated that states pass the “Health Care Professional Transparency Act,” which New Jersey has enacted. The law requires all health care professionals dealing with patients to wear a name tag that clearly identifies their licensure. Health care professionals must also display their education, training, and licensure in their office.

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

Physicians and nonphysicians clearly differ in whether or not a PhD or EdD should be able to call themselves ‘doctor,’ a new Medscape poll Who Should Get to Be Called ‘Doctor’? shows. The topic has clearly struck a nerve, since a record number of respondents – over 12,000 – voted in the poll.

Most physicians think it’s appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees such as a PhD or EdD to call themselves ‘doctor,’ although slightly more than half said it depends on the context.

The controversy over who gets to be called a doctor was reignited when a Wall Street Journal opinion piece criticized First Lady Jill Biden, EdD, for wanting to be called “Dr Biden.” The piece also challenged the idea that having a PhD is worth the honorific of ‘doctor.’

Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, disagreed with that viewpoint, saying the context matters. For example, he prefers to be called “professor” when he’s introduced to the public rather than “doctor” to avoid any confusion about his professional status.

More than 12,000 clinicians including physicians, medical students, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care professionals responded to the poll. The non-MD clinicians were the most likely to say it was always appropriate to be called “doctor” while physicians were the least likely.
 

Context matters

Large percentages of clinicians – 54% of doctors, 62% of medical students, and 41% of nurses – said that the context matters for being called “doctor.’’

“I earned my PhD in 1995 and my MD in 2000. I think it is contextual. In a research or University setting, “Dr.” seems appropriate for a PhD. That same person in public should probably not hold themselves out as “Dr.” So, maybe MDs and DOs can choose, while others maintain the title in their specific setting.” 

Some readers proposed that people with MDs call themselves physicians rather than doctors. Said one: “Anyone with a terminal doctorate degree has the right to use the word doctor.  As a physician when someone asks what I do, I say: ‘I am a physician.’ Problem solved. There can only be one physician but there are many types of doctors.”

Physicians and nurses differed most in their views. Just 24% of physicians said it was always appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees to call themselves doctor whereas about an equal number (22%) thought it was never appropriate.

In contrast, 43% of nurses (including advance practice nurses) said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorates to be called doctor. Only 16% said it’s never appropriate. 

This difference may reflect the growing number of nurses with doctorate degrees, either a DNP or PhD, who want to be called doctor in clinical settings.

Age made a difference too. Only 16% of physicians younger than age 45 said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorate degrees to be called doctor, compared with 27% of physicians aged 45 and up.

Medical students (31%) were also more likely than physicians to say it was always appropriate for non-MD doctorates to use the title “doctor” and 64% said it depends on the context. This was noteworthy because twice as many medical students as physicians (16% vs. 8%) said they work in academia, research, or military government settings.
 

Too many ‘doctors’ confuse the public

Physicians (70%) were also more likely to say it was always or often confusing for the public to hear someone without a medical degree addressed as “doctor.” Only 6% of physicians thought it was never or rarely confusing.

Nurses disagreed. Just 45% said that it was always or often confusing while 16% said it was never or rarely confusing.

Medical students were more aligned with physicians on this issue – 60% said it was always or often confusing to the public and just 10% said it was never or rarely confusing.  

One reader commented, “The problem is the confusion the ‘doctor’ title causes for patients, especially in a hospital setting. Is the ‘doctor’ a physician, a pharmacist, a psychologist, a nurse, etc., etc.? We need to think not of our own egos but if and how  the confusion about this plethora of titles may be hindering good patient care.”

These concerns are not unfounded. The American Medical Association reported in its Truth in Advertising campaign that “patients mistake physicians with nonphysician providers” based on an online survey of 802 adults in 2018. The participants thought these specialists were MDs: dentists (61%), podiatrists (67%), optometrists (47%), psychologists (43%), doctors of nursing (39%), and chiropractors (27%).

The AMA has advocated that states pass the “Health Care Professional Transparency Act,” which New Jersey has enacted. The law requires all health care professionals dealing with patients to wear a name tag that clearly identifies their licensure. Health care professionals must also display their education, training, and licensure in their office.

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

The Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster developed specifically with variant B.1.351 in mind shows efficacy against that strain and the P1 variant among people already vaccinated for COVID-19, according to first results released May 5.
 

Furthermore, data from the company’s ongoing phase 2 study show the variant-specific booster, known as mRNA-1273.351, achieved higher antibody titers against the B.1.351 variant than did a booster with the original Moderna vaccine.

“We are encouraged by these new data, which reinforce our confidence that our booster strategy should be protective against these newly detected variants. The strong and rapid boost in titers to levels above primary vaccination also clearly demonstrates the ability of mRNA-1273 to induce immune memory,” Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said in a statement.

The phase 2 study researchers also are evaluating a multivariant booster that is a 50/50 mix of mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273, the initial vaccine given Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, in a single vial.

Unlike the two-dose regimen with the original vaccine, the boosters are administered as a single dose immunization.

The trial participants received a booster 6-8 months after primary vaccination. Titers to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus remained high and detectable in 37 out of 40 participants. However, prior to the booster, titers against the two variants of concern, B.1.351 and P.1, were lower, with about half of participants showing undetectable levels.

In contrast, 2 weeks after a booster with the original vaccine or the B.1.351 strain-specific product, pseudovirus neutralizing titers were boosted in all participants and all variants tested.

“Following [the] boost, geometric mean titers against the wild-type, B.1.351, and P.1 variants increased to levels similar to or higher than the previously reported peak titers against the ancestral (D614G) strain following primary vaccination,” the company stated.

Both mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273 booster doses were generally well tolerated, the company reported. Safety and tolerability were generally comparable to those reported after the second dose of the original vaccine. Most adverse events were mild to moderate, with injection site pain most common in both groups. Participants also reported fatigue, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia.

The company plans to release data shortly on the booster efficacy at additional time points beyond 2 weeks for mRNA-1273.351, a lower-dose booster with mRNA-1272/351, as well as data on the multivariant mRNA vaccine booster.

In addition to the company’s phase 2 study, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is conducting a separate phase 1 study of mRNA-1273.351.

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

The Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster developed specifically with variant B.1.351 in mind shows efficacy against that strain and the P1 variant among people already vaccinated for COVID-19, according to first results released May 5.
 

Furthermore, data from the company’s ongoing phase 2 study show the variant-specific booster, known as mRNA-1273.351, achieved higher antibody titers against the B.1.351 variant than did a booster with the original Moderna vaccine.

“We are encouraged by these new data, which reinforce our confidence that our booster strategy should be protective against these newly detected variants. The strong and rapid boost in titers to levels above primary vaccination also clearly demonstrates the ability of mRNA-1273 to induce immune memory,” Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said in a statement.

The phase 2 study researchers also are evaluating a multivariant booster that is a 50/50 mix of mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273, the initial vaccine given Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, in a single vial.

Unlike the two-dose regimen with the original vaccine, the boosters are administered as a single dose immunization.

The trial participants received a booster 6-8 months after primary vaccination. Titers to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus remained high and detectable in 37 out of 40 participants. However, prior to the booster, titers against the two variants of concern, B.1.351 and P.1, were lower, with about half of participants showing undetectable levels.

In contrast, 2 weeks after a booster with the original vaccine or the B.1.351 strain-specific product, pseudovirus neutralizing titers were boosted in all participants and all variants tested.

“Following [the] boost, geometric mean titers against the wild-type, B.1.351, and P.1 variants increased to levels similar to or higher than the previously reported peak titers against the ancestral (D614G) strain following primary vaccination,” the company stated.

Both mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273 booster doses were generally well tolerated, the company reported. Safety and tolerability were generally comparable to those reported after the second dose of the original vaccine. Most adverse events were mild to moderate, with injection site pain most common in both groups. Participants also reported fatigue, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia.

The company plans to release data shortly on the booster efficacy at additional time points beyond 2 weeks for mRNA-1273.351, a lower-dose booster with mRNA-1272/351, as well as data on the multivariant mRNA vaccine booster.

In addition to the company’s phase 2 study, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is conducting a separate phase 1 study of mRNA-1273.351.

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

The Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster developed specifically with variant B.1.351 in mind shows efficacy against that strain and the P1 variant among people already vaccinated for COVID-19, according to first results released May 5.
 

Furthermore, data from the company’s ongoing phase 2 study show the variant-specific booster, known as mRNA-1273.351, achieved higher antibody titers against the B.1.351 variant than did a booster with the original Moderna vaccine.

“We are encouraged by these new data, which reinforce our confidence that our booster strategy should be protective against these newly detected variants. The strong and rapid boost in titers to levels above primary vaccination also clearly demonstrates the ability of mRNA-1273 to induce immune memory,” Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said in a statement.

The phase 2 study researchers also are evaluating a multivariant booster that is a 50/50 mix of mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273, the initial vaccine given Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, in a single vial.

Unlike the two-dose regimen with the original vaccine, the boosters are administered as a single dose immunization.

The trial participants received a booster 6-8 months after primary vaccination. Titers to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus remained high and detectable in 37 out of 40 participants. However, prior to the booster, titers against the two variants of concern, B.1.351 and P.1, were lower, with about half of participants showing undetectable levels.

In contrast, 2 weeks after a booster with the original vaccine or the B.1.351 strain-specific product, pseudovirus neutralizing titers were boosted in all participants and all variants tested.

“Following [the] boost, geometric mean titers against the wild-type, B.1.351, and P.1 variants increased to levels similar to or higher than the previously reported peak titers against the ancestral (D614G) strain following primary vaccination,” the company stated.

Both mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273 booster doses were generally well tolerated, the company reported. Safety and tolerability were generally comparable to those reported after the second dose of the original vaccine. Most adverse events were mild to moderate, with injection site pain most common in both groups. Participants also reported fatigue, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia.

The company plans to release data shortly on the booster efficacy at additional time points beyond 2 weeks for mRNA-1273.351, a lower-dose booster with mRNA-1272/351, as well as data on the multivariant mRNA vaccine booster.

In addition to the company’s phase 2 study, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is conducting a separate phase 1 study of mRNA-1273.351.

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

Nearly one out of five American adults with hypertension is on a prescription drug known to raise blood pressure, based on analysis of more than 27,000 people included in recent reports from the recurring National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Nearly half of these American adults had hypertension, and in this subgroup, 18.5% reported using a prescription drug known to increase blood pressure. The most widely used class of agents with this effect was antidepressants, used by 8.7%; followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), used by 6.5%; steroids, 1.9%; estrogens, 1.7%; and several other agents each used by fewer than 1% of the study cohort, John Vitarello, MD, said during a press briefing on reports from the upcoming annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

He and his associates estimated that this use of prescription drugs known to raise blood pressure could be what stands in the way of some 560,000-2.2 million Americans from having their hypertension under control, depending on the exact blood pressure impact that various pressure-increasing drugs have and presuming that half of those on blood pressure increasing agents could stop them and switch to alternative agents, said Dr. Vitarello, a researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

He also highlighted that the study assessed only prescription drugs and did not examine OTC drug use, which may be especially relevant for the many people who regularly take NSAIDs.

“Clinicians should review the prescription and OTC drug use of patients with hypertension and consider stopping drugs that increase blood pressure or switching the patient to alternatives” that are blood pressure neutral, Dr. Vitarello said during the briefing. He cautioned that maintaining hypertensive patients on agents that raise their blood pressure can result in “prescribing cascades” where taking drugs that boost blood pressure results in need for intensified antihypertensive treatment.
 

An opportunity for NSAID alternatives

“This study hopefully raises awareness that there is a very high use of medications that increase blood pressure, and use of OTC agents could increase the rate even higher” said Eugene Yang, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program of the University of Washington, Seattle. Substituting for certain antidepressant agents may often not be realistic, but an opportunity exists for reducing NSAID use, a class also linked with an increased risk for bleeding and other adverse effects, Dr. Yang said during the briefing. Minimizing use of NSAIDs including ibuprofen and naproxen use “is something to think about,” he suggested.

“The effect of NSAIDs on blood pressure is not well studied and can vary from person to person” noted Dr. Vitarello, who added that higher NSAID dosages and more prolonged use likely increase the risk for an adverse effect on blood pressure. One reasonable option is to encourage patients to use an alternative class of pain reliever such as acetaminophen.

It remains “a challenge” to discern differences in adverse blood pressure effects, and in all adverse cardiovascular effects among different NSAIDs, said Dr. Yang. Results from “some studies show that certain NSAIDs may be safer, but other studies did not. We need to be very careful using NSAIDs because, on average, they increase blood pressure by about 3 mm Hg. We need to be mindful to try to prescribe alternative agents, like acetaminophen.”
 

A decade of data from NHANES

The analysis run by Dr. Vitarello and associates used data from 27,599 American adults included in the NHANES during 2009-2018, and focused on the 44% who either had an average blood pressure measurement of at least 130/80 mm Hg or reported having ever been told by a clinician that they had hypertension. The NHANES assessments included the prescription medications taken by each participant. The prevalence of using at least one prescription drug known to raise blood pressure was 24% among women and 14% among men, and 4% of those with hypertension were on two or more pressure-increasing agents.

The researchers based their identification of pressure-increasing prescription drugs on the list included in the 2017 guideline for managing high blood pressure from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. This list specifies that the antidepressants that raise blood pressure are the monoamine oxidase inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants.

Dr. Vitarello and Dr. Yang had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Nearly one out of five American adults with hypertension is on a prescription drug known to raise blood pressure, based on analysis of more than 27,000 people included in recent reports from the recurring National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Nearly half of these American adults had hypertension, and in this subgroup, 18.5% reported using a prescription drug known to increase blood pressure. The most widely used class of agents with this effect was antidepressants, used by 8.7%; followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), used by 6.5%; steroids, 1.9%; estrogens, 1.7%; and several other agents each used by fewer than 1% of the study cohort, John Vitarello, MD, said during a press briefing on reports from the upcoming annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

He and his associates estimated that this use of prescription drugs known to raise blood pressure could be what stands in the way of some 560,000-2.2 million Americans from having their hypertension under control, depending on the exact blood pressure impact that various pressure-increasing drugs have and presuming that half of those on blood pressure increasing agents could stop them and switch to alternative agents, said Dr. Vitarello, a researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

He also highlighted that the study assessed only prescription drugs and did not examine OTC drug use, which may be especially relevant for the many people who regularly take NSAIDs.

“Clinicians should review the prescription and OTC drug use of patients with hypertension and consider stopping drugs that increase blood pressure or switching the patient to alternatives” that are blood pressure neutral, Dr. Vitarello said during the briefing. He cautioned that maintaining hypertensive patients on agents that raise their blood pressure can result in “prescribing cascades” where taking drugs that boost blood pressure results in need for intensified antihypertensive treatment.
 

An opportunity for NSAID alternatives

“This study hopefully raises awareness that there is a very high use of medications that increase blood pressure, and use of OTC agents could increase the rate even higher” said Eugene Yang, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program of the University of Washington, Seattle. Substituting for certain antidepressant agents may often not be realistic, but an opportunity exists for reducing NSAID use, a class also linked with an increased risk for bleeding and other adverse effects, Dr. Yang said during the briefing. Minimizing use of NSAIDs including ibuprofen and naproxen use “is something to think about,” he suggested.

“The effect of NSAIDs on blood pressure is not well studied and can vary from person to person” noted Dr. Vitarello, who added that higher NSAID dosages and more prolonged use likely increase the risk for an adverse effect on blood pressure. One reasonable option is to encourage patients to use an alternative class of pain reliever such as acetaminophen.

It remains “a challenge” to discern differences in adverse blood pressure effects, and in all adverse cardiovascular effects among different NSAIDs, said Dr. Yang. Results from “some studies show that certain NSAIDs may be safer, but other studies did not. We need to be very careful using NSAIDs because, on average, they increase blood pressure by about 3 mm Hg. We need to be mindful to try to prescribe alternative agents, like acetaminophen.”
 

A decade of data from NHANES

The analysis run by Dr. Vitarello and associates used data from 27,599 American adults included in the NHANES during 2009-2018, and focused on the 44% who either had an average blood pressure measurement of at least 130/80 mm Hg or reported having ever been told by a clinician that they had hypertension. The NHANES assessments included the prescription medications taken by each participant. The prevalence of using at least one prescription drug known to raise blood pressure was 24% among women and 14% among men, and 4% of those with hypertension were on two or more pressure-increasing agents.

The researchers based their identification of pressure-increasing prescription drugs on the list included in the 2017 guideline for managing high blood pressure from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. This list specifies that the antidepressants that raise blood pressure are the monoamine oxidase inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants.

Dr. Vitarello and Dr. Yang had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Nearly one out of five American adults with hypertension is on a prescription drug known to raise blood pressure, based on analysis of more than 27,000 people included in recent reports from the recurring National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Nearly half of these American adults had hypertension, and in this subgroup, 18.5% reported using a prescription drug known to increase blood pressure. The most widely used class of agents with this effect was antidepressants, used by 8.7%; followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), used by 6.5%; steroids, 1.9%; estrogens, 1.7%; and several other agents each used by fewer than 1% of the study cohort, John Vitarello, MD, said during a press briefing on reports from the upcoming annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

He and his associates estimated that this use of prescription drugs known to raise blood pressure could be what stands in the way of some 560,000-2.2 million Americans from having their hypertension under control, depending on the exact blood pressure impact that various pressure-increasing drugs have and presuming that half of those on blood pressure increasing agents could stop them and switch to alternative agents, said Dr. Vitarello, a researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

He also highlighted that the study assessed only prescription drugs and did not examine OTC drug use, which may be especially relevant for the many people who regularly take NSAIDs.

“Clinicians should review the prescription and OTC drug use of patients with hypertension and consider stopping drugs that increase blood pressure or switching the patient to alternatives” that are blood pressure neutral, Dr. Vitarello said during the briefing. He cautioned that maintaining hypertensive patients on agents that raise their blood pressure can result in “prescribing cascades” where taking drugs that boost blood pressure results in need for intensified antihypertensive treatment.
 

An opportunity for NSAID alternatives

“This study hopefully raises awareness that there is a very high use of medications that increase blood pressure, and use of OTC agents could increase the rate even higher” said Eugene Yang, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program of the University of Washington, Seattle. Substituting for certain antidepressant agents may often not be realistic, but an opportunity exists for reducing NSAID use, a class also linked with an increased risk for bleeding and other adverse effects, Dr. Yang said during the briefing. Minimizing use of NSAIDs including ibuprofen and naproxen use “is something to think about,” he suggested.

“The effect of NSAIDs on blood pressure is not well studied and can vary from person to person” noted Dr. Vitarello, who added that higher NSAID dosages and more prolonged use likely increase the risk for an adverse effect on blood pressure. One reasonable option is to encourage patients to use an alternative class of pain reliever such as acetaminophen.

It remains “a challenge” to discern differences in adverse blood pressure effects, and in all adverse cardiovascular effects among different NSAIDs, said Dr. Yang. Results from “some studies show that certain NSAIDs may be safer, but other studies did not. We need to be very careful using NSAIDs because, on average, they increase blood pressure by about 3 mm Hg. We need to be mindful to try to prescribe alternative agents, like acetaminophen.”
 

A decade of data from NHANES

The analysis run by Dr. Vitarello and associates used data from 27,599 American adults included in the NHANES during 2009-2018, and focused on the 44% who either had an average blood pressure measurement of at least 130/80 mm Hg or reported having ever been told by a clinician that they had hypertension. The NHANES assessments included the prescription medications taken by each participant. The prevalence of using at least one prescription drug known to raise blood pressure was 24% among women and 14% among men, and 4% of those with hypertension were on two or more pressure-increasing agents.

The researchers based their identification of pressure-increasing prescription drugs on the list included in the 2017 guideline for managing high blood pressure from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. This list specifies that the antidepressants that raise blood pressure are the monoamine oxidase inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants.

Dr. Vitarello and Dr. Yang had no disclosures.

[email protected]

For persons with obesity who lost a substantial amount of weight on a low-calorie diet, the combination of exercise and medication significantly improved weight-loss maintenance, and more so than either strategy alone, according to results of a randomized, head-to-head trial.

A year after starting moderate to vigorous exercise coupled with liraglutide treatment, study participants had a weight loss 9.5 kg more than those who received placebo and usual activity, study results show.

Reductions in both weight and fat loss seen with exercise and liraglutide was roughly twice as much as what was achieved at 1 year with the strategies of liraglutide or exercise alone, according to authors of the study, which appears in the New England Journal of Medicine .

Although the findings may not apply to those who can’t or won’t perform moderate to vigorous exercise, the intervention in this study was nevertheless feasible in this group of persons with obesity who had a very low level of fitness, according to the authors.
 

Hope for healthy weight loss maintenance

Investigator Signe S. Torekov, PhD, said in an interview that these results provide hope that more-intensive exercise regimens, with or without medication, can be useful and well accepted among individuals struggling with obesity.

“When we started our study, we were told, ‘you are never going to have people with obesity exercising that much, and for that long’ – but people were actually very happy about the exercise,” said Dr. Torekov, a professor in the department of biomedical sciences at the University of Copenhagen.

“If you actually set up a program where people are monitored and you have a feedback system, then exercise is an excellent component in obesity treatment that should be much more actively used – not only for its weight-lowering component, but also for improving health and quality of life,” she said in an interview.

Weight-management specialist John D. Clark, MD, PhD, said results of this study can be used to help inform patients about how successful different strategies incorporating exercise and medication may be following initial weight loss.

“When patients plateau on a consistent, calorie-restricted dietary plan, we can educate them and manage expectations about what options may be available to them after their initial weight loss,” said Dr. Clark, of the University of Texas, Dallas.

“If the patient’s goal specifically is weight loss at all costs, then I may suggest, ‘let’s consider liraglutide or liraglutide in combination with exercise,’ ” he said in an interview. “Exercise improves body composition, even if it may not on its own be as successful in the next phase of their weight-loss journey, as shown in this study.”
 

Obesity and weight-loss challenges

Although it’s not uncommon for obese patients to lose a large amount of weight, keeping the weight off is frequently a challenge unless the patient follows a structured weight maintenance program, according to Dr. Torekov and coauthors.

The rapid weight regain seen in many obese patients could be a result of reductions in total energy expenditure or increased appetite. Exercise is one strategy to sustain weight loss, though according to the authors, very few studies have looked at exercise in isolation to quantify its contribution to maintenance.

Accordingly, the present study sought to determine whether exercise, medication, or the combination thereof works best to keep weight off.

The study incorporated liraglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist indicated for chronic weight management, along with a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity, in adults with elevated body mass index and at least one weight-related comorbidity.

The investigator-initiated phase 3 trial included 215 adults with a body mass index of 32-43. Individuals with type 2 diabetes were excluded. All participants followed an 8-week, low-calorie diet comprising 800 calories per day.

Participants who lost 5% or more of their body weight were then randomized to 1 year of exercise plus liraglutide, exercise plus placebo, usual activity plus liraglutide, or usual activity plus placebo.

The exercise program – which was structured but flexible, according to investigators – included group exercise sessions that incorporated 30 minutes of indoor cycling and 15 minutes of circuit training 2 days each week. Participants wore heart rate monitors during exercise to make sure they reached targets for moderate to vigorous intensity.

Instructors trained in exercise physiology planned and monitored individualized exercise programs for each participant in the exercise-medication or exercise-only arms of the study.

Participants in all groups attended 12 one-on-one consultations where body weight was measured and dietetic support was provided.
 

Weight loss with exercise and medication

Out of 215 individuals enrolled in the study, 195 lost at least 5% of body weight and continued on to the randomized portion, the investigators reported. During the diet phase, they lost a mean of 13.1 kg, translating into a 12% mean reduction in body weight.

The mean frequency of exercise was 2.4 times per week in the exercise-plus-medication group and 2.5 times per week in the exercise-only group. About one-third of the exercise took place in the group sessions, and there was no difference in relative intensity between group and individual exercise regimens, the investigators said.

Individuals in the exercise plus medication group continued to lose more weight, such that, at the end of 1 year, the weight loss decreased even further, by a mean of –3.4 kg. By contrast, weight increased by a mean of 6.1 kg for the placebo group, adding up to a treatment difference of –9.5 kg (95% confidence interval, –13.1 to –5.9; P < .001), according to the report.

That treatment effect was also seen, but more muted, in the exercise- and liraglutide-only groups, at –4.1 kg and –6.8 kg, respectively.

A significant treatment effect was observed for exercise plus liraglutide, compared with exercise alone, at –5.4 kg (P = .004), while the treatment effect for the combination versus liraglutide alone was not significant at –2.7 kg (P = .13), the data show.

Body-fat reduction at 52 weeks was –3.9 percentage points for exercise plus liraglutide as compared with placebo, or roughly twice the reductions seen in the exercise- and liraglutide-alone groups, the investigators said, adding that the combination preserved lean mass.

Reductions in hemoglobin A1c, which are generally thought to reduce diabetes risk, were reduced in both the liraglutide and liraglutide-exercise combination group, according to their report.

The research was supported in part by grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

For persons with obesity who lost a substantial amount of weight on a low-calorie diet, the combination of exercise and medication significantly improved weight-loss maintenance, and more so than either strategy alone, according to results of a randomized, head-to-head trial.

A year after starting moderate to vigorous exercise coupled with liraglutide treatment, study participants had a weight loss 9.5 kg more than those who received placebo and usual activity, study results show.

Reductions in both weight and fat loss seen with exercise and liraglutide was roughly twice as much as what was achieved at 1 year with the strategies of liraglutide or exercise alone, according to authors of the study, which appears in the New England Journal of Medicine .

Although the findings may not apply to those who can’t or won’t perform moderate to vigorous exercise, the intervention in this study was nevertheless feasible in this group of persons with obesity who had a very low level of fitness, according to the authors.
 

Hope for healthy weight loss maintenance

Investigator Signe S. Torekov, PhD, said in an interview that these results provide hope that more-intensive exercise regimens, with or without medication, can be useful and well accepted among individuals struggling with obesity.

“When we started our study, we were told, ‘you are never going to have people with obesity exercising that much, and for that long’ – but people were actually very happy about the exercise,” said Dr. Torekov, a professor in the department of biomedical sciences at the University of Copenhagen.

“If you actually set up a program where people are monitored and you have a feedback system, then exercise is an excellent component in obesity treatment that should be much more actively used – not only for its weight-lowering component, but also for improving health and quality of life,” she said in an interview.

Weight-management specialist John D. Clark, MD, PhD, said results of this study can be used to help inform patients about how successful different strategies incorporating exercise and medication may be following initial weight loss.

“When patients plateau on a consistent, calorie-restricted dietary plan, we can educate them and manage expectations about what options may be available to them after their initial weight loss,” said Dr. Clark, of the University of Texas, Dallas.

“If the patient’s goal specifically is weight loss at all costs, then I may suggest, ‘let’s consider liraglutide or liraglutide in combination with exercise,’ ” he said in an interview. “Exercise improves body composition, even if it may not on its own be as successful in the next phase of their weight-loss journey, as shown in this study.”
 

Obesity and weight-loss challenges

Although it’s not uncommon for obese patients to lose a large amount of weight, keeping the weight off is frequently a challenge unless the patient follows a structured weight maintenance program, according to Dr. Torekov and coauthors.

The rapid weight regain seen in many obese patients could be a result of reductions in total energy expenditure or increased appetite. Exercise is one strategy to sustain weight loss, though according to the authors, very few studies have looked at exercise in isolation to quantify its contribution to maintenance.

Accordingly, the present study sought to determine whether exercise, medication, or the combination thereof works best to keep weight off.

The study incorporated liraglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist indicated for chronic weight management, along with a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity, in adults with elevated body mass index and at least one weight-related comorbidity.

The investigator-initiated phase 3 trial included 215 adults with a body mass index of 32-43. Individuals with type 2 diabetes were excluded. All participants followed an 8-week, low-calorie diet comprising 800 calories per day.

Participants who lost 5% or more of their body weight were then randomized to 1 year of exercise plus liraglutide, exercise plus placebo, usual activity plus liraglutide, or usual activity plus placebo.

The exercise program – which was structured but flexible, according to investigators – included group exercise sessions that incorporated 30 minutes of indoor cycling and 15 minutes of circuit training 2 days each week. Participants wore heart rate monitors during exercise to make sure they reached targets for moderate to vigorous intensity.

Instructors trained in exercise physiology planned and monitored individualized exercise programs for each participant in the exercise-medication or exercise-only arms of the study.

Participants in all groups attended 12 one-on-one consultations where body weight was measured and dietetic support was provided.
 

Weight loss with exercise and medication

Out of 215 individuals enrolled in the study, 195 lost at least 5% of body weight and continued on to the randomized portion, the investigators reported. During the diet phase, they lost a mean of 13.1 kg, translating into a 12% mean reduction in body weight.

The mean frequency of exercise was 2.4 times per week in the exercise-plus-medication group and 2.5 times per week in the exercise-only group. About one-third of the exercise took place in the group sessions, and there was no difference in relative intensity between group and individual exercise regimens, the investigators said.

Individuals in the exercise plus medication group continued to lose more weight, such that, at the end of 1 year, the weight loss decreased even further, by a mean of –3.4 kg. By contrast, weight increased by a mean of 6.1 kg for the placebo group, adding up to a treatment difference of –9.5 kg (95% confidence interval, –13.1 to –5.9; P < .001), according to the report.

That treatment effect was also seen, but more muted, in the exercise- and liraglutide-only groups, at –4.1 kg and –6.8 kg, respectively.

A significant treatment effect was observed for exercise plus liraglutide, compared with exercise alone, at –5.4 kg (P = .004), while the treatment effect for the combination versus liraglutide alone was not significant at –2.7 kg (P = .13), the data show.

Body-fat reduction at 52 weeks was –3.9 percentage points for exercise plus liraglutide as compared with placebo, or roughly twice the reductions seen in the exercise- and liraglutide-alone groups, the investigators said, adding that the combination preserved lean mass.

Reductions in hemoglobin A1c, which are generally thought to reduce diabetes risk, were reduced in both the liraglutide and liraglutide-exercise combination group, according to their report.

The research was supported in part by grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

For persons with obesity who lost a substantial amount of weight on a low-calorie diet, the combination of exercise and medication significantly improved weight-loss maintenance, and more so than either strategy alone, according to results of a randomized, head-to-head trial.

A year after starting moderate to vigorous exercise coupled with liraglutide treatment, study participants had a weight loss 9.5 kg more than those who received placebo and usual activity, study results show.

Reductions in both weight and fat loss seen with exercise and liraglutide was roughly twice as much as what was achieved at 1 year with the strategies of liraglutide or exercise alone, according to authors of the study, which appears in the New England Journal of Medicine .

Although the findings may not apply to those who can’t or won’t perform moderate to vigorous exercise, the intervention in this study was nevertheless feasible in this group of persons with obesity who had a very low level of fitness, according to the authors.
 

Hope for healthy weight loss maintenance

Investigator Signe S. Torekov, PhD, said in an interview that these results provide hope that more-intensive exercise regimens, with or without medication, can be useful and well accepted among individuals struggling with obesity.

“When we started our study, we were told, ‘you are never going to have people with obesity exercising that much, and for that long’ – but people were actually very happy about the exercise,” said Dr. Torekov, a professor in the department of biomedical sciences at the University of Copenhagen.

“If you actually set up a program where people are monitored and you have a feedback system, then exercise is an excellent component in obesity treatment that should be much more actively used – not only for its weight-lowering component, but also for improving health and quality of life,” she said in an interview.

Weight-management specialist John D. Clark, MD, PhD, said results of this study can be used to help inform patients about how successful different strategies incorporating exercise and medication may be following initial weight loss.

“When patients plateau on a consistent, calorie-restricted dietary plan, we can educate them and manage expectations about what options may be available to them after their initial weight loss,” said Dr. Clark, of the University of Texas, Dallas.

“If the patient’s goal specifically is weight loss at all costs, then I may suggest, ‘let’s consider liraglutide or liraglutide in combination with exercise,’ ” he said in an interview. “Exercise improves body composition, even if it may not on its own be as successful in the next phase of their weight-loss journey, as shown in this study.”
 

Obesity and weight-loss challenges

Although it’s not uncommon for obese patients to lose a large amount of weight, keeping the weight off is frequently a challenge unless the patient follows a structured weight maintenance program, according to Dr. Torekov and coauthors.

The rapid weight regain seen in many obese patients could be a result of reductions in total energy expenditure or increased appetite. Exercise is one strategy to sustain weight loss, though according to the authors, very few studies have looked at exercise in isolation to quantify its contribution to maintenance.

Accordingly, the present study sought to determine whether exercise, medication, or the combination thereof works best to keep weight off.

The study incorporated liraglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist indicated for chronic weight management, along with a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity, in adults with elevated body mass index and at least one weight-related comorbidity.

The investigator-initiated phase 3 trial included 215 adults with a body mass index of 32-43. Individuals with type 2 diabetes were excluded. All participants followed an 8-week, low-calorie diet comprising 800 calories per day.

Participants who lost 5% or more of their body weight were then randomized to 1 year of exercise plus liraglutide, exercise plus placebo, usual activity plus liraglutide, or usual activity plus placebo.

The exercise program – which was structured but flexible, according to investigators – included group exercise sessions that incorporated 30 minutes of indoor cycling and 15 minutes of circuit training 2 days each week. Participants wore heart rate monitors during exercise to make sure they reached targets for moderate to vigorous intensity.

Instructors trained in exercise physiology planned and monitored individualized exercise programs for each participant in the exercise-medication or exercise-only arms of the study.

Participants in all groups attended 12 one-on-one consultations where body weight was measured and dietetic support was provided.
 

Weight loss with exercise and medication

Out of 215 individuals enrolled in the study, 195 lost at least 5% of body weight and continued on to the randomized portion, the investigators reported. During the diet phase, they lost a mean of 13.1 kg, translating into a 12% mean reduction in body weight.

The mean frequency of exercise was 2.4 times per week in the exercise-plus-medication group and 2.5 times per week in the exercise-only group. About one-third of the exercise took place in the group sessions, and there was no difference in relative intensity between group and individual exercise regimens, the investigators said.

Individuals in the exercise plus medication group continued to lose more weight, such that, at the end of 1 year, the weight loss decreased even further, by a mean of –3.4 kg. By contrast, weight increased by a mean of 6.1 kg for the placebo group, adding up to a treatment difference of –9.5 kg (95% confidence interval, –13.1 to –5.9; P < .001), according to the report.

That treatment effect was also seen, but more muted, in the exercise- and liraglutide-only groups, at –4.1 kg and –6.8 kg, respectively.

A significant treatment effect was observed for exercise plus liraglutide, compared with exercise alone, at –5.4 kg (P = .004), while the treatment effect for the combination versus liraglutide alone was not significant at –2.7 kg (P = .13), the data show.

Body-fat reduction at 52 weeks was –3.9 percentage points for exercise plus liraglutide as compared with placebo, or roughly twice the reductions seen in the exercise- and liraglutide-alone groups, the investigators said, adding that the combination preserved lean mass.

Reductions in hemoglobin A1c, which are generally thought to reduce diabetes risk, were reduced in both the liraglutide and liraglutide-exercise combination group, according to their report.

The research was supported in part by grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

In 2017-2018, only one in three U.S. adults with diabetes received five basic elements of care recommended by the American Diabetes Association, new research indicates.

BakiBG

The proportions of patients who visited a physician for diabetes care and received hemoglobin A1c testing, foot and eye exams, and cholesterol testing increased from 2005 to 2018. However, this increase was primarily among those aged 65 years and older, and therefore eligible for Medicare.

“Our study suggests that providing affordable health care coverage can help ensure people with diabetes get recommended care. We also found that patients who were not receiving recommended care were more likely to be younger, newly diagnosed with diabetes, and not on diabetes medication. Clinicians can pay more attention to these patient populations to improve recommended care delivery and prevent diabetes-related complications,” lead author Jung-Im Shin, MD, said in an interview.

The data predate the COVID-19 pandemic, which has also had major effects on delivery of diabetes care, added Dr. Shin of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“Routine visits to the doctor and important screenings for retinopathy or foot examination have been postponed. People with diabetes have had to reschedule or cancel nonurgent visits, some have lost ... insurance following unemployment, and many have avoided health care facilities out of fear. We are only just beginning to understand the consequences of the pandemic on the health of people with diabetes,” Dr. Shin noted.
 

Overall improvements seen only in those aged 65 and older

The data, from 4,069 adults aged 20 years and older from the 2005-2018 National Health and Nutrition and Examination Survey (NHANES), were published online April 16, 2021, in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Shin and colleagues defined receipt of diabetes care as meeting all of the following five criteria in the past 12 months, based on the ADA Standards of Care and NHANES data availability: seeing a primary doctor for diabetes care, receiving A1c testing, receiving a foot examination, receiving an eye examination, and receiving cholesterol testing.

Over the entire 13-year period, 29.2% of respondents reported having received all five components.

That proportion increased significantly over time, from 25.0% in 2005-2006 to 34.1% in 2017-2018 (P = .004). However, among the individual components, only receiving A1c testing increased significantly over time, from 64.4% to 85.3%, in all age groups (P < .001).

Moreover, when stratified by age, receipt of all five components only increased significantly among participants aged 65 and older, from 29.3% in 2005-2006 to 44.2% in 2017-2018 (P = .001).

The proportion remained unchanged among those aged 40-64 (25.2% to 25.8%; P =  .457) and showed a nonsignificant increase in those aged 20-39 (9.9% to 26.0%; P = .401).

In adjusted analyses, older age, higher income and education, health insurance, longer duration of diabetes, use of diabetes medications, and hypercholesterolemia were significantly associated with receipt of ADA guideline–recommended diabetes care.

Factors not found to be associated with care receipt included sex, race/ethnicity, body mass index, smoking status, A1c, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and depressive symptoms.

Participants who received ADA guideline–recommended care were significantly more likely to achieve A1c below 7.5% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.52), blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg (aOR, 1.47), and LDL cholesterol below 100 mg/dL (aOR, 1.47), and to receive cholesterol-lowering medication (aOR, 1.79).

Dr. Shin said that it will be “important to study the impact of COVID-19 on diabetes care when new data are available.”

The project was supported by a research grant from Merck to Johns Hopkins University. Shin has reported receiving a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Two coauthors are Merck employees.

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

In 2017-2018, only one in three U.S. adults with diabetes received five basic elements of care recommended by the American Diabetes Association, new research indicates.

BakiBG

The proportions of patients who visited a physician for diabetes care and received hemoglobin A1c testing, foot and eye exams, and cholesterol testing increased from 2005 to 2018. However, this increase was primarily among those aged 65 years and older, and therefore eligible for Medicare.

“Our study suggests that providing affordable health care coverage can help ensure people with diabetes get recommended care. We also found that patients who were not receiving recommended care were more likely to be younger, newly diagnosed with diabetes, and not on diabetes medication. Clinicians can pay more attention to these patient populations to improve recommended care delivery and prevent diabetes-related complications,” lead author Jung-Im Shin, MD, said in an interview.

The data predate the COVID-19 pandemic, which has also had major effects on delivery of diabetes care, added Dr. Shin of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“Routine visits to the doctor and important screenings for retinopathy or foot examination have been postponed. People with diabetes have had to reschedule or cancel nonurgent visits, some have lost ... insurance following unemployment, and many have avoided health care facilities out of fear. We are only just beginning to understand the consequences of the pandemic on the health of people with diabetes,” Dr. Shin noted.
 

Overall improvements seen only in those aged 65 and older

The data, from 4,069 adults aged 20 years and older from the 2005-2018 National Health and Nutrition and Examination Survey (NHANES), were published online April 16, 2021, in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Shin and colleagues defined receipt of diabetes care as meeting all of the following five criteria in the past 12 months, based on the ADA Standards of Care and NHANES data availability: seeing a primary doctor for diabetes care, receiving A1c testing, receiving a foot examination, receiving an eye examination, and receiving cholesterol testing.

Over the entire 13-year period, 29.2% of respondents reported having received all five components.

That proportion increased significantly over time, from 25.0% in 2005-2006 to 34.1% in 2017-2018 (P = .004). However, among the individual components, only receiving A1c testing increased significantly over time, from 64.4% to 85.3%, in all age groups (P < .001).

Moreover, when stratified by age, receipt of all five components only increased significantly among participants aged 65 and older, from 29.3% in 2005-2006 to 44.2% in 2017-2018 (P = .001).

The proportion remained unchanged among those aged 40-64 (25.2% to 25.8%; P =  .457) and showed a nonsignificant increase in those aged 20-39 (9.9% to 26.0%; P = .401).

In adjusted analyses, older age, higher income and education, health insurance, longer duration of diabetes, use of diabetes medications, and hypercholesterolemia were significantly associated with receipt of ADA guideline–recommended diabetes care.

Factors not found to be associated with care receipt included sex, race/ethnicity, body mass index, smoking status, A1c, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and depressive symptoms.

Participants who received ADA guideline–recommended care were significantly more likely to achieve A1c below 7.5% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.52), blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg (aOR, 1.47), and LDL cholesterol below 100 mg/dL (aOR, 1.47), and to receive cholesterol-lowering medication (aOR, 1.79).

Dr. Shin said that it will be “important to study the impact of COVID-19 on diabetes care when new data are available.”

The project was supported by a research grant from Merck to Johns Hopkins University. Shin has reported receiving a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Two coauthors are Merck employees.

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

In 2017-2018, only one in three U.S. adults with diabetes received five basic elements of care recommended by the American Diabetes Association, new research indicates.

BakiBG

The proportions of patients who visited a physician for diabetes care and received hemoglobin A1c testing, foot and eye exams, and cholesterol testing increased from 2005 to 2018. However, this increase was primarily among those aged 65 years and older, and therefore eligible for Medicare.

“Our study suggests that providing affordable health care coverage can help ensure people with diabetes get recommended care. We also found that patients who were not receiving recommended care were more likely to be younger, newly diagnosed with diabetes, and not on diabetes medication. Clinicians can pay more attention to these patient populations to improve recommended care delivery and prevent diabetes-related complications,” lead author Jung-Im Shin, MD, said in an interview.

The data predate the COVID-19 pandemic, which has also had major effects on delivery of diabetes care, added Dr. Shin of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“Routine visits to the doctor and important screenings for retinopathy or foot examination have been postponed. People with diabetes have had to reschedule or cancel nonurgent visits, some have lost ... insurance following unemployment, and many have avoided health care facilities out of fear. We are only just beginning to understand the consequences of the pandemic on the health of people with diabetes,” Dr. Shin noted.
 

Overall improvements seen only in those aged 65 and older

The data, from 4,069 adults aged 20 years and older from the 2005-2018 National Health and Nutrition and Examination Survey (NHANES), were published online April 16, 2021, in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Shin and colleagues defined receipt of diabetes care as meeting all of the following five criteria in the past 12 months, based on the ADA Standards of Care and NHANES data availability: seeing a primary doctor for diabetes care, receiving A1c testing, receiving a foot examination, receiving an eye examination, and receiving cholesterol testing.

Over the entire 13-year period, 29.2% of respondents reported having received all five components.

That proportion increased significantly over time, from 25.0% in 2005-2006 to 34.1% in 2017-2018 (P = .004). However, among the individual components, only receiving A1c testing increased significantly over time, from 64.4% to 85.3%, in all age groups (P < .001).

Moreover, when stratified by age, receipt of all five components only increased significantly among participants aged 65 and older, from 29.3% in 2005-2006 to 44.2% in 2017-2018 (P = .001).

The proportion remained unchanged among those aged 40-64 (25.2% to 25.8%; P =  .457) and showed a nonsignificant increase in those aged 20-39 (9.9% to 26.0%; P = .401).

In adjusted analyses, older age, higher income and education, health insurance, longer duration of diabetes, use of diabetes medications, and hypercholesterolemia were significantly associated with receipt of ADA guideline–recommended diabetes care.

Factors not found to be associated with care receipt included sex, race/ethnicity, body mass index, smoking status, A1c, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and depressive symptoms.

Participants who received ADA guideline–recommended care were significantly more likely to achieve A1c below 7.5% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.52), blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg (aOR, 1.47), and LDL cholesterol below 100 mg/dL (aOR, 1.47), and to receive cholesterol-lowering medication (aOR, 1.79).

Dr. Shin said that it will be “important to study the impact of COVID-19 on diabetes care when new data are available.”

The project was supported by a research grant from Merck to Johns Hopkins University. Shin has reported receiving a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Two coauthors are Merck employees.

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