Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Federal advisers have supported the efforts of pharmaceutical companies in four of six cases in which these firms are fighting to maintain cancer indications for approved drugs. The advisers voted against the companies in two cases.

The staff of the Food and Drug Administration will now consider these votes as they decide what to do regarding the six cases of what they have termed “dangling” accelerated approvals.

“One of the reasons I think we’re convening today is to prevent these accelerated approvals from dangling ad infinitum,” commented one of the members of the advisory panel.

In these cases, companies have been unable to prove the expected benefits that led the FDA to grant accelerated approvals for these indications.

These accelerated approvals, which are often based on surrogate endpoints, such as overall response rates, are granted on the condition that further findings show a clinical benefit – such as in progression-free survival or overall survival – in larger trials.

The FDA tasked its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) with conducting the review of the six accelerated approvals for cancer indications at a 3-day meeting (April 27-29).

These reviews were only for specific cancer indications and will not lead to the removal of drugs from the market. These drugs have already been approved for several cancer indications. For example, one of the drugs that was reviewed, pembrolizumab (Keytruda), is approved in the United States for 28 indications.

The FDA is facing growing pains in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immune checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials, owing in part to the agency’s willingness to accept surrogate markers for accelerated approvals. Although some companies have struggled with these, others have built strong cases for the use of their checkpoint inhibitors for these indications.

The ODAC panelists, for example, noted the emergence of nivolumab (Opdivo) as an option for patients with gastric cancer as a reason for seeking to withdraw an indication for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for this disease.

Just weeks before the meeting, on April 16, the FDA approved nivolumab plus chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, gastroesophageal junction cancer, and esophageal adenocarcinoma. This was a full approval based on data showing an overall survival benefit from a phase 3 trial.
 

Votes by indication

On April 29, the last day of the meeting, the ODAC panel voted 6-2 against maintaining pembrolizumab’s indication as monotherapy for an advanced form of gastric cancer. This was an accelerated approval (granted in 2017) that was based on overall response rates from an open-label trial.

That last day of the meeting also saw another negative vote. On April 29, the ODAC panel voted 5-4 against maintaining an indication for nivolumab in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who were previously treated with sorafenib (Nexavar).

This accelerated approval for nivolumab was granted in 2017. The FDA said it had requested ODAC’s feedback on this indication because of the recent full approval of another checkpoint inhibitor for HCC, atezolizumab (Tecentriq), in combination with bevacizumab (Avastin) for patients with unresectable or metastatic diseases who have not received prior systemic therapy. This full approval (in May 2020) was based on an overall survival benefit.

There was one last vote on the third day of the meeting, and it was positive. The ODAC panel voted 8-0 in favor of maintaining the indication for the use of pembrolizumab as monotherapy for patients with HCC who have previously been treated with sorafenib.

The FDA altered the composition of the ODAC panel during the week, adding members in some cases who had expertise in particular cancers. That led to different totals for the week’s ODAC votes, as shown in the tallies summarized below.

On the first day of the meeting (April 27), the ODAC panel voted 7-2 in favor of maintaining a breast cancer indication for atezolizumab (Tecentriq). This covered use of the immunotherapy in combination with nab-paclitaxel for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer whose tumors express PD-L1.

The second day of the meeting (April 28) also saw two positive votes. The ODAC panel voted 10-1 for maintaining the indication for atezolizumab for the first-line treatment of cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma, pending final overall survival results from the IMvigor130 trial. The panel also voted 5-3 for maintaining the indication for pembrolizumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and whose tumors express PD-L1.

The FDA is not bound to follow the voting and recommendations of its advisory panels, but it usually does so.
 

Managing shifts in treatment

In both of the cases in which ODAC voted against maintaining indications, Richard Pazdur, MD, the FDA’s top regulator for cancer medicines, jumped into the debate. Dr. Pazdur countered arguments put forward by representatives of the manufacturers as they sought to maintain indications for their drugs.

Merck officials and representatives argued for pembrolizumab, saying that maintaining the gastric cancer indication might help patients whose disease has progressed despite earlier treatment.

Dr. Pazdur emphasized that the agency would help Merck and physicians to have access to pembrolizumab for these patients even if this one indication were to be withdrawn. But Dr. Pazdur and ODAC members also noted the recent shift in the landscape for gastric cancer, with the recent approval of a new indication for nivolumab.

“I want to emphasize to the patient community out there [that] we firmly believe in the role of checkpoint inhibitors in this disease,” Dr. Pazdur said during the discussion of the indication for pembrolizumab for gastric cancer. “We have to be cognizant of what is the appropriate setting for that, and it currently is in the first line.”

Dr. Pazdur noted that two studies had failed to confirm the expected benefit from pembrolizumab for patients with more advanced disease. Still, if “small numbers” of patients with advanced disease wanted access to Merck’s drug, the FDA and the company could accommodate them. The FDA could delay the removal of the gastric indication to allow patients to continue receiving it. The FDA also could work with physicians on other routes to provide the medicine, such as through single-patient investigational new drug applications or an expanded access program.

“Or Merck can alternatively give the drug gratis to patients,” Dr. Pazdur said.
 

#ProjectFacilitate for expanded access

One of Merck’s speakers at the ODAC meeting, Peter Enzinger, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, objected to Dr. Pazdur’s plan.

A loss of the gastric indication for pembrolizumab would result in patients with advanced cancer missing out on a chance to try this therapy. Some patients will not have had a chance to try a checkpoint inhibitor earlier in their treatment, and a loss of the indication would cost them that opportunity, he said.

“An expanded-access program sounds very nice, but the reality is that our patients are incredibly sick and that weeks matter,” Dr. Enzinger said, citing administrative hurdles as a barrier to treatment.

“Our patients just don’t have the time for that, and therefore I don’t think an expanded access program is the way to go,” Dr. Enzinger said.

Dr. Pazdur responded to these objections by highlighting an initiative called Project Facilitate at the FDA’s Oncology Center for Excellence. During the meeting, Dr. Pazdur’s division used its @FDAOncology Twitter handle to draw attention to this project.

ODAC panelist Diane Reidy-Lagunes, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said she had struggled with this vote. She was one of the two panelists to vote in favor of keeping the indication.

“This is also incredibly hard for me. I actually changed it at the last minute,” she said of her vote.

But Dr. Reidy-Lagunes said she was concerned that some patients with advanced disease might not be able to get a checkpoint inhibitor.

“With disparities in healthcare and differences in the way that patients are treated throughout our country, I was nervous that they may not be able to get treated,” she said, noting that she shared her fellow panelists’ doubts about use of pembrolizumab as third-line treatment, owing to negative results in trials.

ODAC member David Mitchell, who served as a consumer representative, also said he found the vote on the gastric indication for pembrolizumab to be a difficult decision.

“As a patient with incurable cancer who’s now being given all three major classes of drugs to treat my disease in combination, these issues really cut close to home,” Mr. Mitchell said.

He said the expectation that the FDA’s expanded access program could help patients with advanced disease try pembrolizumab helped him decide to vote with the 6-2 majority against maintaining this gastric cancer approval.

His vote was based on “the changing treatment landscape.” There is general agreement that the patients in question should receive checkpoint inhibitors as first-line treatment, not third-line treatment, Mr. Mitchell said. The FDA should delay a withdrawal of the approval for pembrolizumab in this case and should allow a transition for those who missed out on treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor earlier in the disease course, he suggested.

“To protect the safety and well-being of patients, we have to base decisions on data,” Mr. Mitchell said. “The data don’t support maintaining the indication” for pembrolizumab.

 

Close split on nivolumab

In contrast to the 6-2 vote against maintaining the pembrolizumab indication, the ODAC panel split more closely, 5-4, on the question of maintaining an indication for the use as monotherapy of nivolumab in HCC.

ODAC panelist Philip C. Hoffman, MD, of the University of Chicago was among those who supported keeping the indication.

“There’s still an unmet need for second-line immunotherapy because there will always be some patients who are poor candidates for bevacizumab or who are not tolerating or responding to sorafenib,” he said.

ODAC panelist Mark A. Lewis, MD, of Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, said he voted “no” in part because he doubted that Bristol-Myers Squibb would be able to soon produce data for nivolumab that was needed to support this indication.

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

Federal advisers have supported the efforts of pharmaceutical companies in four of six cases in which these firms are fighting to maintain cancer indications for approved drugs. The advisers voted against the companies in two cases.

The staff of the Food and Drug Administration will now consider these votes as they decide what to do regarding the six cases of what they have termed “dangling” accelerated approvals.

“One of the reasons I think we’re convening today is to prevent these accelerated approvals from dangling ad infinitum,” commented one of the members of the advisory panel.

In these cases, companies have been unable to prove the expected benefits that led the FDA to grant accelerated approvals for these indications.

These accelerated approvals, which are often based on surrogate endpoints, such as overall response rates, are granted on the condition that further findings show a clinical benefit – such as in progression-free survival or overall survival – in larger trials.

The FDA tasked its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) with conducting the review of the six accelerated approvals for cancer indications at a 3-day meeting (April 27-29).

These reviews were only for specific cancer indications and will not lead to the removal of drugs from the market. These drugs have already been approved for several cancer indications. For example, one of the drugs that was reviewed, pembrolizumab (Keytruda), is approved in the United States for 28 indications.

The FDA is facing growing pains in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immune checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials, owing in part to the agency’s willingness to accept surrogate markers for accelerated approvals. Although some companies have struggled with these, others have built strong cases for the use of their checkpoint inhibitors for these indications.

The ODAC panelists, for example, noted the emergence of nivolumab (Opdivo) as an option for patients with gastric cancer as a reason for seeking to withdraw an indication for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for this disease.

Just weeks before the meeting, on April 16, the FDA approved nivolumab plus chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, gastroesophageal junction cancer, and esophageal adenocarcinoma. This was a full approval based on data showing an overall survival benefit from a phase 3 trial.
 

Votes by indication

On April 29, the last day of the meeting, the ODAC panel voted 6-2 against maintaining pembrolizumab’s indication as monotherapy for an advanced form of gastric cancer. This was an accelerated approval (granted in 2017) that was based on overall response rates from an open-label trial.

That last day of the meeting also saw another negative vote. On April 29, the ODAC panel voted 5-4 against maintaining an indication for nivolumab in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who were previously treated with sorafenib (Nexavar).

This accelerated approval for nivolumab was granted in 2017. The FDA said it had requested ODAC’s feedback on this indication because of the recent full approval of another checkpoint inhibitor for HCC, atezolizumab (Tecentriq), in combination with bevacizumab (Avastin) for patients with unresectable or metastatic diseases who have not received prior systemic therapy. This full approval (in May 2020) was based on an overall survival benefit.

There was one last vote on the third day of the meeting, and it was positive. The ODAC panel voted 8-0 in favor of maintaining the indication for the use of pembrolizumab as monotherapy for patients with HCC who have previously been treated with sorafenib.

The FDA altered the composition of the ODAC panel during the week, adding members in some cases who had expertise in particular cancers. That led to different totals for the week’s ODAC votes, as shown in the tallies summarized below.

On the first day of the meeting (April 27), the ODAC panel voted 7-2 in favor of maintaining a breast cancer indication for atezolizumab (Tecentriq). This covered use of the immunotherapy in combination with nab-paclitaxel for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer whose tumors express PD-L1.

The second day of the meeting (April 28) also saw two positive votes. The ODAC panel voted 10-1 for maintaining the indication for atezolizumab for the first-line treatment of cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma, pending final overall survival results from the IMvigor130 trial. The panel also voted 5-3 for maintaining the indication for pembrolizumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and whose tumors express PD-L1.

The FDA is not bound to follow the voting and recommendations of its advisory panels, but it usually does so.
 

Managing shifts in treatment

In both of the cases in which ODAC voted against maintaining indications, Richard Pazdur, MD, the FDA’s top regulator for cancer medicines, jumped into the debate. Dr. Pazdur countered arguments put forward by representatives of the manufacturers as they sought to maintain indications for their drugs.

Merck officials and representatives argued for pembrolizumab, saying that maintaining the gastric cancer indication might help patients whose disease has progressed despite earlier treatment.

Dr. Pazdur emphasized that the agency would help Merck and physicians to have access to pembrolizumab for these patients even if this one indication were to be withdrawn. But Dr. Pazdur and ODAC members also noted the recent shift in the landscape for gastric cancer, with the recent approval of a new indication for nivolumab.

“I want to emphasize to the patient community out there [that] we firmly believe in the role of checkpoint inhibitors in this disease,” Dr. Pazdur said during the discussion of the indication for pembrolizumab for gastric cancer. “We have to be cognizant of what is the appropriate setting for that, and it currently is in the first line.”

Dr. Pazdur noted that two studies had failed to confirm the expected benefit from pembrolizumab for patients with more advanced disease. Still, if “small numbers” of patients with advanced disease wanted access to Merck’s drug, the FDA and the company could accommodate them. The FDA could delay the removal of the gastric indication to allow patients to continue receiving it. The FDA also could work with physicians on other routes to provide the medicine, such as through single-patient investigational new drug applications or an expanded access program.

“Or Merck can alternatively give the drug gratis to patients,” Dr. Pazdur said.
 

#ProjectFacilitate for expanded access

One of Merck’s speakers at the ODAC meeting, Peter Enzinger, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, objected to Dr. Pazdur’s plan.

A loss of the gastric indication for pembrolizumab would result in patients with advanced cancer missing out on a chance to try this therapy. Some patients will not have had a chance to try a checkpoint inhibitor earlier in their treatment, and a loss of the indication would cost them that opportunity, he said.

“An expanded-access program sounds very nice, but the reality is that our patients are incredibly sick and that weeks matter,” Dr. Enzinger said, citing administrative hurdles as a barrier to treatment.

“Our patients just don’t have the time for that, and therefore I don’t think an expanded access program is the way to go,” Dr. Enzinger said.

Dr. Pazdur responded to these objections by highlighting an initiative called Project Facilitate at the FDA’s Oncology Center for Excellence. During the meeting, Dr. Pazdur’s division used its @FDAOncology Twitter handle to draw attention to this project.

ODAC panelist Diane Reidy-Lagunes, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said she had struggled with this vote. She was one of the two panelists to vote in favor of keeping the indication.

“This is also incredibly hard for me. I actually changed it at the last minute,” she said of her vote.

But Dr. Reidy-Lagunes said she was concerned that some patients with advanced disease might not be able to get a checkpoint inhibitor.

“With disparities in healthcare and differences in the way that patients are treated throughout our country, I was nervous that they may not be able to get treated,” she said, noting that she shared her fellow panelists’ doubts about use of pembrolizumab as third-line treatment, owing to negative results in trials.

ODAC member David Mitchell, who served as a consumer representative, also said he found the vote on the gastric indication for pembrolizumab to be a difficult decision.

“As a patient with incurable cancer who’s now being given all three major classes of drugs to treat my disease in combination, these issues really cut close to home,” Mr. Mitchell said.

He said the expectation that the FDA’s expanded access program could help patients with advanced disease try pembrolizumab helped him decide to vote with the 6-2 majority against maintaining this gastric cancer approval.

His vote was based on “the changing treatment landscape.” There is general agreement that the patients in question should receive checkpoint inhibitors as first-line treatment, not third-line treatment, Mr. Mitchell said. The FDA should delay a withdrawal of the approval for pembrolizumab in this case and should allow a transition for those who missed out on treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor earlier in the disease course, he suggested.

“To protect the safety and well-being of patients, we have to base decisions on data,” Mr. Mitchell said. “The data don’t support maintaining the indication” for pembrolizumab.

 

Close split on nivolumab

In contrast to the 6-2 vote against maintaining the pembrolizumab indication, the ODAC panel split more closely, 5-4, on the question of maintaining an indication for the use as monotherapy of nivolumab in HCC.

ODAC panelist Philip C. Hoffman, MD, of the University of Chicago was among those who supported keeping the indication.

“There’s still an unmet need for second-line immunotherapy because there will always be some patients who are poor candidates for bevacizumab or who are not tolerating or responding to sorafenib,” he said.

ODAC panelist Mark A. Lewis, MD, of Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, said he voted “no” in part because he doubted that Bristol-Myers Squibb would be able to soon produce data for nivolumab that was needed to support this indication.

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

Federal advisers have supported the efforts of pharmaceutical companies in four of six cases in which these firms are fighting to maintain cancer indications for approved drugs. The advisers voted against the companies in two cases.

The staff of the Food and Drug Administration will now consider these votes as they decide what to do regarding the six cases of what they have termed “dangling” accelerated approvals.

“One of the reasons I think we’re convening today is to prevent these accelerated approvals from dangling ad infinitum,” commented one of the members of the advisory panel.

In these cases, companies have been unable to prove the expected benefits that led the FDA to grant accelerated approvals for these indications.

These accelerated approvals, which are often based on surrogate endpoints, such as overall response rates, are granted on the condition that further findings show a clinical benefit – such as in progression-free survival or overall survival – in larger trials.

The FDA tasked its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) with conducting the review of the six accelerated approvals for cancer indications at a 3-day meeting (April 27-29).

These reviews were only for specific cancer indications and will not lead to the removal of drugs from the market. These drugs have already been approved for several cancer indications. For example, one of the drugs that was reviewed, pembrolizumab (Keytruda), is approved in the United States for 28 indications.

The FDA is facing growing pains in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immune checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials, owing in part to the agency’s willingness to accept surrogate markers for accelerated approvals. Although some companies have struggled with these, others have built strong cases for the use of their checkpoint inhibitors for these indications.

The ODAC panelists, for example, noted the emergence of nivolumab (Opdivo) as an option for patients with gastric cancer as a reason for seeking to withdraw an indication for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for this disease.

Just weeks before the meeting, on April 16, the FDA approved nivolumab plus chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, gastroesophageal junction cancer, and esophageal adenocarcinoma. This was a full approval based on data showing an overall survival benefit from a phase 3 trial.
 

Votes by indication

On April 29, the last day of the meeting, the ODAC panel voted 6-2 against maintaining pembrolizumab’s indication as monotherapy for an advanced form of gastric cancer. This was an accelerated approval (granted in 2017) that was based on overall response rates from an open-label trial.

That last day of the meeting also saw another negative vote. On April 29, the ODAC panel voted 5-4 against maintaining an indication for nivolumab in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who were previously treated with sorafenib (Nexavar).

This accelerated approval for nivolumab was granted in 2017. The FDA said it had requested ODAC’s feedback on this indication because of the recent full approval of another checkpoint inhibitor for HCC, atezolizumab (Tecentriq), in combination with bevacizumab (Avastin) for patients with unresectable or metastatic diseases who have not received prior systemic therapy. This full approval (in May 2020) was based on an overall survival benefit.

There was one last vote on the third day of the meeting, and it was positive. The ODAC panel voted 8-0 in favor of maintaining the indication for the use of pembrolizumab as monotherapy for patients with HCC who have previously been treated with sorafenib.

The FDA altered the composition of the ODAC panel during the week, adding members in some cases who had expertise in particular cancers. That led to different totals for the week’s ODAC votes, as shown in the tallies summarized below.

On the first day of the meeting (April 27), the ODAC panel voted 7-2 in favor of maintaining a breast cancer indication for atezolizumab (Tecentriq). This covered use of the immunotherapy in combination with nab-paclitaxel for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer whose tumors express PD-L1.

The second day of the meeting (April 28) also saw two positive votes. The ODAC panel voted 10-1 for maintaining the indication for atezolizumab for the first-line treatment of cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma, pending final overall survival results from the IMvigor130 trial. The panel also voted 5-3 for maintaining the indication for pembrolizumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and whose tumors express PD-L1.

The FDA is not bound to follow the voting and recommendations of its advisory panels, but it usually does so.
 

Managing shifts in treatment

In both of the cases in which ODAC voted against maintaining indications, Richard Pazdur, MD, the FDA’s top regulator for cancer medicines, jumped into the debate. Dr. Pazdur countered arguments put forward by representatives of the manufacturers as they sought to maintain indications for their drugs.

Merck officials and representatives argued for pembrolizumab, saying that maintaining the gastric cancer indication might help patients whose disease has progressed despite earlier treatment.

Dr. Pazdur emphasized that the agency would help Merck and physicians to have access to pembrolizumab for these patients even if this one indication were to be withdrawn. But Dr. Pazdur and ODAC members also noted the recent shift in the landscape for gastric cancer, with the recent approval of a new indication for nivolumab.

“I want to emphasize to the patient community out there [that] we firmly believe in the role of checkpoint inhibitors in this disease,” Dr. Pazdur said during the discussion of the indication for pembrolizumab for gastric cancer. “We have to be cognizant of what is the appropriate setting for that, and it currently is in the first line.”

Dr. Pazdur noted that two studies had failed to confirm the expected benefit from pembrolizumab for patients with more advanced disease. Still, if “small numbers” of patients with advanced disease wanted access to Merck’s drug, the FDA and the company could accommodate them. The FDA could delay the removal of the gastric indication to allow patients to continue receiving it. The FDA also could work with physicians on other routes to provide the medicine, such as through single-patient investigational new drug applications or an expanded access program.

“Or Merck can alternatively give the drug gratis to patients,” Dr. Pazdur said.
 

#ProjectFacilitate for expanded access

One of Merck’s speakers at the ODAC meeting, Peter Enzinger, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, objected to Dr. Pazdur’s plan.

A loss of the gastric indication for pembrolizumab would result in patients with advanced cancer missing out on a chance to try this therapy. Some patients will not have had a chance to try a checkpoint inhibitor earlier in their treatment, and a loss of the indication would cost them that opportunity, he said.

“An expanded-access program sounds very nice, but the reality is that our patients are incredibly sick and that weeks matter,” Dr. Enzinger said, citing administrative hurdles as a barrier to treatment.

“Our patients just don’t have the time for that, and therefore I don’t think an expanded access program is the way to go,” Dr. Enzinger said.

Dr. Pazdur responded to these objections by highlighting an initiative called Project Facilitate at the FDA’s Oncology Center for Excellence. During the meeting, Dr. Pazdur’s division used its @FDAOncology Twitter handle to draw attention to this project.

ODAC panelist Diane Reidy-Lagunes, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said she had struggled with this vote. She was one of the two panelists to vote in favor of keeping the indication.

“This is also incredibly hard for me. I actually changed it at the last minute,” she said of her vote.

But Dr. Reidy-Lagunes said she was concerned that some patients with advanced disease might not be able to get a checkpoint inhibitor.

“With disparities in healthcare and differences in the way that patients are treated throughout our country, I was nervous that they may not be able to get treated,” she said, noting that she shared her fellow panelists’ doubts about use of pembrolizumab as third-line treatment, owing to negative results in trials.

ODAC member David Mitchell, who served as a consumer representative, also said he found the vote on the gastric indication for pembrolizumab to be a difficult decision.

“As a patient with incurable cancer who’s now being given all three major classes of drugs to treat my disease in combination, these issues really cut close to home,” Mr. Mitchell said.

He said the expectation that the FDA’s expanded access program could help patients with advanced disease try pembrolizumab helped him decide to vote with the 6-2 majority against maintaining this gastric cancer approval.

His vote was based on “the changing treatment landscape.” There is general agreement that the patients in question should receive checkpoint inhibitors as first-line treatment, not third-line treatment, Mr. Mitchell said. The FDA should delay a withdrawal of the approval for pembrolizumab in this case and should allow a transition for those who missed out on treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor earlier in the disease course, he suggested.

“To protect the safety and well-being of patients, we have to base decisions on data,” Mr. Mitchell said. “The data don’t support maintaining the indication” for pembrolizumab.

 

Close split on nivolumab

In contrast to the 6-2 vote against maintaining the pembrolizumab indication, the ODAC panel split more closely, 5-4, on the question of maintaining an indication for the use as monotherapy of nivolumab in HCC.

ODAC panelist Philip C. Hoffman, MD, of the University of Chicago was among those who supported keeping the indication.

“There’s still an unmet need for second-line immunotherapy because there will always be some patients who are poor candidates for bevacizumab or who are not tolerating or responding to sorafenib,” he said.

ODAC panelist Mark A. Lewis, MD, of Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, said he voted “no” in part because he doubted that Bristol-Myers Squibb would be able to soon produce data for nivolumab that was needed to support this indication.

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

Cordis, part of Cardinal Health, has recalled certain lots of its Precise PRO Rx carotid stent system because of a risk of separation of the distal tip of the sheathed delivery system during use.

The Food and Drug Administration has classified this recall as class I, the most serious type, because of the potential for serious injury or death.

“If the device separates during use this may cause serious adverse events such as removal of the separated tip from the carotid artery, embolization distally, or stroke,” noted the recall notice posted on the FDA website.

To date, there have been seven complaints, including five reported injuries, related to this device issue. No deaths have been reported.

The Precise PRO Rx stent system is used in patients with stenotic lesions of the carotid arteries. The system includes a metal (nitinol) self-expanding stent preloaded on a delivery catheter used to place the stent.

The recall covers 7,300 devices made between October 2019 and August 2020 and distributed between Dec. 6, 2019, to Feb. 8, 2021.

The FDA has a complete list of product and lot numbers for the recalled devices on their website.

The company sent an urgent medical device recall letter to all affected customers asking them to check inventories and providing instructions on how to return any recalled product they have on hand.

Health care providers with questions about this recall can contact the company by email at [email protected] or by phone at 786-313-2087.

Health care providers can report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

Cordis, part of Cardinal Health, has recalled certain lots of its Precise PRO Rx carotid stent system because of a risk of separation of the distal tip of the sheathed delivery system during use.

The Food and Drug Administration has classified this recall as class I, the most serious type, because of the potential for serious injury or death.

“If the device separates during use this may cause serious adverse events such as removal of the separated tip from the carotid artery, embolization distally, or stroke,” noted the recall notice posted on the FDA website.

To date, there have been seven complaints, including five reported injuries, related to this device issue. No deaths have been reported.

The Precise PRO Rx stent system is used in patients with stenotic lesions of the carotid arteries. The system includes a metal (nitinol) self-expanding stent preloaded on a delivery catheter used to place the stent.

The recall covers 7,300 devices made between October 2019 and August 2020 and distributed between Dec. 6, 2019, to Feb. 8, 2021.

The FDA has a complete list of product and lot numbers for the recalled devices on their website.

The company sent an urgent medical device recall letter to all affected customers asking them to check inventories and providing instructions on how to return any recalled product they have on hand.

Health care providers with questions about this recall can contact the company by email at [email protected] or by phone at 786-313-2087.

Health care providers can report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

Cordis, part of Cardinal Health, has recalled certain lots of its Precise PRO Rx carotid stent system because of a risk of separation of the distal tip of the sheathed delivery system during use.

The Food and Drug Administration has classified this recall as class I, the most serious type, because of the potential for serious injury or death.

“If the device separates during use this may cause serious adverse events such as removal of the separated tip from the carotid artery, embolization distally, or stroke,” noted the recall notice posted on the FDA website.

To date, there have been seven complaints, including five reported injuries, related to this device issue. No deaths have been reported.

The Precise PRO Rx stent system is used in patients with stenotic lesions of the carotid arteries. The system includes a metal (nitinol) self-expanding stent preloaded on a delivery catheter used to place the stent.

The recall covers 7,300 devices made between October 2019 and August 2020 and distributed between Dec. 6, 2019, to Feb. 8, 2021.

The FDA has a complete list of product and lot numbers for the recalled devices on their website.

The company sent an urgent medical device recall letter to all affected customers asking them to check inventories and providing instructions on how to return any recalled product they have on hand.

Health care providers with questions about this recall can contact the company by email at [email protected] or by phone at 786-313-2087.

Health care providers can report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

What started as an attempt to standardize care for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock at a handful of Detroit-area hospitals has led to markedly better survival rates than the traditional flip of a coin, in a nationwide analysis.

Final results from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCSI) show 71% of patients survived to discharge and 68% were alive at 30 days.

Patients presenting in stage C or D shock, who comprised the bulk of patients in previous trials, had survival rates of 79% and 77%, respectively.

Among stage E patients, who are in extremis and have typical survival rates of less than 20%, survival was 54% at discharge and 49% at 30 days, co–principal investigator Babar Basir, DO, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, reported at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) annual scientific sessions, held virtually.

“This is the first push to really be able to consistently get survival rates over 50%, particularly in those patients who presented in stage C and D shock,” he said. “Really, it’s important to emphasize here the hard work it’s taken to get to this point and all the research that’s been done.”

The NCSI protocol emphasizes rapid identification and support of cardiogenic shock (door to support time <90 minutes), early placement of the Impella (Abiomed) ventricular assist device prior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and right heart monitoring to reduce the use of inotropes and vasopressors.

Co–principal investigator William O’Neill, MD, also from Henry Ford, previously reported results from the pilot study showing 84% of 30 patients survived to discharge.

The present analysis was based on outcomes of 406 consecutive acute MI patients (mean age, 63.7 years; 24% female) who presented with cardiogenic shock at 32 academic and 48 community hospitals in 29 states and the District of Columbia.

Dr. Basir emphasized that this is the largest prospective North American acute MI cardiogenic shock study in 20 years and recruited “one of the sickest cohorts ever studied.” The average blood pressure among the patients was 77/50 mm Hg; 77% had a lactate of at least 2 mmol/L (mean, 4.8 mmol/L), and 25% were in stage E shock.

One-quarter of patients were transferred from other institutions, 82% presented with ST-segment elevation MI, two-thirds had multivessel disease, and 13% had a left main culprit lesion.

Right heart catheterization was used in 90% of patients, an Impella CP device in 92%, an Impella 2.5 device in 5%, femoral access PCI in 78%, and aspiration thrombectomy in a full 27%.

Despite this sick cohort, survival at 30 days was better than in any previous study of cardiogenic shock, Dr. Basir said. In comparison, 30-day survival rates were 53%, 60%, and 49% in the SHOCK, IABP SHOCK, and CULPRIT SHOCK trials, respectively.

That said, survival over the course of the first year fell to 53% in the entire cohort, 62% in patients with stage C or D shock, and 31% in those in stage E shock.

“One-year mortality continues to be a problem for these patients and emphasizes the need for goal-directed medical therapy, early advanced heart failure follow-up, and novel therapies such as what we are planning with the evaluation of [supersaturated oxygen] SSO₂ to reduce infarct sizes in the ISO-SHOCK trial,” set to begin later this year, Dr. Basir said.

Given the promising results in the NCSI, the randomized controlled RECOVER IV trial is planned to begin in 2022, he noted. It will assess whether Impella pre-PCI is superior to PCI without Impella in patients with inclusion criteria similar to that of the NCSI. The DanGer Shock randomized trial is ongoing in Denmark and Germany and assessing all-cause mortality at 6 months with the Impella CP device compared with standard of care.

“We hypothesize that greater utilization of this protocol, and refinement of the escalation strategies will consistently lead to a survival rate greater than 80%,” Dr. Basir concluded.

Past SCAI president Kirk Garratt, MD, Christiana Care, Newark, Del., who moderated a press conference where the data were highlighted, noted that late complications led to a roughly 20% absolute mortality increase from discharge to 1 year, and questioned what percentage could be attributed to the mechanical support offered.

Dr. Basir said that information was not specifically tracked but that many patients presented with multiorgan failure and, irrespective of that, the majority died from ongoing heart failure.

During the formal presentation, panelist Ron Waksman, MD, MedStar Heart Institute, Washington, questioned whether results were different between academic and community centers, but also pointed to the lack of a comparator in the single-arm study.

“It’s very hard to do any comparison historically; we do need to have a control group,” he said. “If you would have opened it to any treatment at the time of the initiative, which is great, but not just limit it to use of the Impella devices, we would have better understanding if there is really a differentiation between one device versus the other devices.”

Dr. Basir replied, “I think that is a very reasonable comment and, in regard to your question, it is always difficult to differentiate between academic and community centers, but these were large community programs that have all of the technologies available in an academic center.”

NCIS is funded in part by unrestricted grants from Abiomed and Chiesi. Dr. Basir reported consulting for Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, Procyrion, and Zoll.

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

What started as an attempt to standardize care for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock at a handful of Detroit-area hospitals has led to markedly better survival rates than the traditional flip of a coin, in a nationwide analysis.

Final results from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCSI) show 71% of patients survived to discharge and 68% were alive at 30 days.

Patients presenting in stage C or D shock, who comprised the bulk of patients in previous trials, had survival rates of 79% and 77%, respectively.

Among stage E patients, who are in extremis and have typical survival rates of less than 20%, survival was 54% at discharge and 49% at 30 days, co–principal investigator Babar Basir, DO, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, reported at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) annual scientific sessions, held virtually.

“This is the first push to really be able to consistently get survival rates over 50%, particularly in those patients who presented in stage C and D shock,” he said. “Really, it’s important to emphasize here the hard work it’s taken to get to this point and all the research that’s been done.”

The NCSI protocol emphasizes rapid identification and support of cardiogenic shock (door to support time <90 minutes), early placement of the Impella (Abiomed) ventricular assist device prior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and right heart monitoring to reduce the use of inotropes and vasopressors.

Co–principal investigator William O’Neill, MD, also from Henry Ford, previously reported results from the pilot study showing 84% of 30 patients survived to discharge.

The present analysis was based on outcomes of 406 consecutive acute MI patients (mean age, 63.7 years; 24% female) who presented with cardiogenic shock at 32 academic and 48 community hospitals in 29 states and the District of Columbia.

Dr. Basir emphasized that this is the largest prospective North American acute MI cardiogenic shock study in 20 years and recruited “one of the sickest cohorts ever studied.” The average blood pressure among the patients was 77/50 mm Hg; 77% had a lactate of at least 2 mmol/L (mean, 4.8 mmol/L), and 25% were in stage E shock.

One-quarter of patients were transferred from other institutions, 82% presented with ST-segment elevation MI, two-thirds had multivessel disease, and 13% had a left main culprit lesion.

Right heart catheterization was used in 90% of patients, an Impella CP device in 92%, an Impella 2.5 device in 5%, femoral access PCI in 78%, and aspiration thrombectomy in a full 27%.

Despite this sick cohort, survival at 30 days was better than in any previous study of cardiogenic shock, Dr. Basir said. In comparison, 30-day survival rates were 53%, 60%, and 49% in the SHOCK, IABP SHOCK, and CULPRIT SHOCK trials, respectively.

That said, survival over the course of the first year fell to 53% in the entire cohort, 62% in patients with stage C or D shock, and 31% in those in stage E shock.

“One-year mortality continues to be a problem for these patients and emphasizes the need for goal-directed medical therapy, early advanced heart failure follow-up, and novel therapies such as what we are planning with the evaluation of [supersaturated oxygen] SSO₂ to reduce infarct sizes in the ISO-SHOCK trial,” set to begin later this year, Dr. Basir said.

Given the promising results in the NCSI, the randomized controlled RECOVER IV trial is planned to begin in 2022, he noted. It will assess whether Impella pre-PCI is superior to PCI without Impella in patients with inclusion criteria similar to that of the NCSI. The DanGer Shock randomized trial is ongoing in Denmark and Germany and assessing all-cause mortality at 6 months with the Impella CP device compared with standard of care.

“We hypothesize that greater utilization of this protocol, and refinement of the escalation strategies will consistently lead to a survival rate greater than 80%,” Dr. Basir concluded.

Past SCAI president Kirk Garratt, MD, Christiana Care, Newark, Del., who moderated a press conference where the data were highlighted, noted that late complications led to a roughly 20% absolute mortality increase from discharge to 1 year, and questioned what percentage could be attributed to the mechanical support offered.

Dr. Basir said that information was not specifically tracked but that many patients presented with multiorgan failure and, irrespective of that, the majority died from ongoing heart failure.

During the formal presentation, panelist Ron Waksman, MD, MedStar Heart Institute, Washington, questioned whether results were different between academic and community centers, but also pointed to the lack of a comparator in the single-arm study.

“It’s very hard to do any comparison historically; we do need to have a control group,” he said. “If you would have opened it to any treatment at the time of the initiative, which is great, but not just limit it to use of the Impella devices, we would have better understanding if there is really a differentiation between one device versus the other devices.”

Dr. Basir replied, “I think that is a very reasonable comment and, in regard to your question, it is always difficult to differentiate between academic and community centers, but these were large community programs that have all of the technologies available in an academic center.”

NCIS is funded in part by unrestricted grants from Abiomed and Chiesi. Dr. Basir reported consulting for Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, Procyrion, and Zoll.

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

What started as an attempt to standardize care for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock at a handful of Detroit-area hospitals has led to markedly better survival rates than the traditional flip of a coin, in a nationwide analysis.

Final results from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCSI) show 71% of patients survived to discharge and 68% were alive at 30 days.

Patients presenting in stage C or D shock, who comprised the bulk of patients in previous trials, had survival rates of 79% and 77%, respectively.

Among stage E patients, who are in extremis and have typical survival rates of less than 20%, survival was 54% at discharge and 49% at 30 days, co–principal investigator Babar Basir, DO, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, reported at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) annual scientific sessions, held virtually.

“This is the first push to really be able to consistently get survival rates over 50%, particularly in those patients who presented in stage C and D shock,” he said. “Really, it’s important to emphasize here the hard work it’s taken to get to this point and all the research that’s been done.”

The NCSI protocol emphasizes rapid identification and support of cardiogenic shock (door to support time <90 minutes), early placement of the Impella (Abiomed) ventricular assist device prior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and right heart monitoring to reduce the use of inotropes and vasopressors.

Co–principal investigator William O’Neill, MD, also from Henry Ford, previously reported results from the pilot study showing 84% of 30 patients survived to discharge.

The present analysis was based on outcomes of 406 consecutive acute MI patients (mean age, 63.7 years; 24% female) who presented with cardiogenic shock at 32 academic and 48 community hospitals in 29 states and the District of Columbia.

Dr. Basir emphasized that this is the largest prospective North American acute MI cardiogenic shock study in 20 years and recruited “one of the sickest cohorts ever studied.” The average blood pressure among the patients was 77/50 mm Hg; 77% had a lactate of at least 2 mmol/L (mean, 4.8 mmol/L), and 25% were in stage E shock.

One-quarter of patients were transferred from other institutions, 82% presented with ST-segment elevation MI, two-thirds had multivessel disease, and 13% had a left main culprit lesion.

Right heart catheterization was used in 90% of patients, an Impella CP device in 92%, an Impella 2.5 device in 5%, femoral access PCI in 78%, and aspiration thrombectomy in a full 27%.

Despite this sick cohort, survival at 30 days was better than in any previous study of cardiogenic shock, Dr. Basir said. In comparison, 30-day survival rates were 53%, 60%, and 49% in the SHOCK, IABP SHOCK, and CULPRIT SHOCK trials, respectively.

That said, survival over the course of the first year fell to 53% in the entire cohort, 62% in patients with stage C or D shock, and 31% in those in stage E shock.

“One-year mortality continues to be a problem for these patients and emphasizes the need for goal-directed medical therapy, early advanced heart failure follow-up, and novel therapies such as what we are planning with the evaluation of [supersaturated oxygen] SSO₂ to reduce infarct sizes in the ISO-SHOCK trial,” set to begin later this year, Dr. Basir said.

Given the promising results in the NCSI, the randomized controlled RECOVER IV trial is planned to begin in 2022, he noted. It will assess whether Impella pre-PCI is superior to PCI without Impella in patients with inclusion criteria similar to that of the NCSI. The DanGer Shock randomized trial is ongoing in Denmark and Germany and assessing all-cause mortality at 6 months with the Impella CP device compared with standard of care.

“We hypothesize that greater utilization of this protocol, and refinement of the escalation strategies will consistently lead to a survival rate greater than 80%,” Dr. Basir concluded.

Past SCAI president Kirk Garratt, MD, Christiana Care, Newark, Del., who moderated a press conference where the data were highlighted, noted that late complications led to a roughly 20% absolute mortality increase from discharge to 1 year, and questioned what percentage could be attributed to the mechanical support offered.

Dr. Basir said that information was not specifically tracked but that many patients presented with multiorgan failure and, irrespective of that, the majority died from ongoing heart failure.

During the formal presentation, panelist Ron Waksman, MD, MedStar Heart Institute, Washington, questioned whether results were different between academic and community centers, but also pointed to the lack of a comparator in the single-arm study.

“It’s very hard to do any comparison historically; we do need to have a control group,” he said. “If you would have opened it to any treatment at the time of the initiative, which is great, but not just limit it to use of the Impella devices, we would have better understanding if there is really a differentiation between one device versus the other devices.”

Dr. Basir replied, “I think that is a very reasonable comment and, in regard to your question, it is always difficult to differentiate between academic and community centers, but these were large community programs that have all of the technologies available in an academic center.”

NCIS is funded in part by unrestricted grants from Abiomed and Chiesi. Dr. Basir reported consulting for Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, Procyrion, and Zoll.

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

The inadequacies and challenges of transitioning pediatric rheumatology patients to adult care were highlighted in several research studies shared at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

Steve Debenport/Getty Images

“Not surprisingly, these studies demonstrate that transition challenges remain pervasive,” Rebecca Sadun, MD, PhD, who was not involved in any of the research, said in an interview. Nevertheless, she pointed out that one of the studies showed that eight of nine sites participating in one of the studies had at least developed a formal transition policy, and three were able to fully integrate that policy into their health care system despite the ongoing pandemic.

In that study, Joyce Chang, MD, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and colleagues used structured interviews and then quantitative research to explore processes for transition polices across nine rheumatology sites. Aside from the three that had already implemented their policies, three others were preparing implementation. The other three withdrew because of COVID-19. None of the sites had reached sustainment phase. Six of the sites had access to a social work network, and two sites had fewer than four providers.

The authors found that a higher level of change efficacy or change commitment using the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change framework did not correspond with reaching implementation.

“The first sites to reach implementation had access to [information technology] support and involved nursing, though this was not sufficient or necessary,” the authors wrote. They noted the need for strategies to reduce the burden of data collection to improve the resilience of implementation efforts against health care system stress.
 

Who more often transitions to adult care?

Effective transition policies can help reduce the likelihood of young patients falling through the cracks as they grow from adolescence into young adulthood, especially those at highest risk for losing continuity of care.

“Young adults who are both medically and socially complex are at highest risk,” said Dr. Sadun, an assistant professor of adult and pediatric rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “This is especially true for patients with systemic illnesses, patients requiring biologic medications, and patients with custody, transportation, and financial barriers.”

Research led by Emily A. Smitherman, MD, an assistant professor of pediatric rheumatology at Children’s of Alabama in Birmingham, looked more closely at who is and is not transitioning their care. The researchers analyzed retrospective data from the CARRA Registry, including the Long-Term Follow-Up Call Registry, through December 2019. Among 1,311 patients with inactive status, 537 of these patients had juvenile idiopathic arthritis and were aged at least 18 years. Only 186 of those patients, however, had data in the Long-Term Follow-Up Registry. Patients who were Black or had lower income were less likely to have data in the Long-Term Follow-Up Registry.

Just over half the patients in the long-term registry had transferred their care to an adult rheumatologist, and 83% overall were under the care of any physician. Patients who transferred their care were significantly more likely to have private insurance (87% vs. 70%; P = .009) and were more likely to be full-time students (74% vs. 58%; P = .036).

The researchers found no association between patients’ disease status at their last CARRA Registry visit and a successful transition to adult care. However, those who had transferred care to an adult rheumatologist tended to have a higher median level of pain (4 vs. 2 on a scale of 0-10) and more disease activity (3 vs. 1 on 0-10 scale) than did those who had not transferred care (P = .022 and P = .011, respectively). A higher proportion of those who transferred care had also experienced morning stiffness over the past week (49% vs. 30%; P = .015).
 

How young adults prefer to learn transition skills

The third study aimed to better understand the experience and preferences of young adults themselves as they transitioned from pediatric to adult care. Kristine Carandang, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues first conducted focus groups with 39 adolescents and young adults, ages 16-28 years, who had rheumatic conditions. Using the qualitative data from the focus groups, they designed a survey to capture quantitative data on young patients’ experiences.

“What we’re always trying to work on is, how do we bring that youth voice more clearly into the research literature?” Courtney K. Wells, PhD, MSW, an assistant professor of social work at the University of Wisconsin–River Falls, said in an interview. She noted that both she and Dr. Carandang were patients with rheumatic diseases, so they had lived and grown up with disease themselves and then become researchers.

“We have the information that’s in the literature, but then we also both work with youth in a couple different ways, and what we hear from youth is what we heard in our paper, but it isn’t all represented in the literature,” Dr. Wells said. That disconnect is why they also included two young adults as coauthors in the study.

“As much as we appreciate the model of the six components [of health care transition], we recognize that the youth voice isn’t represented very well,” Dr. Wells said. “The way it’s written is more for doctors and policy makers and targeted for the health care system rather than the young people themselves.”

Their research bore that out. Among 137 survey respondents, aged 18-28 years, the vast majority (89%) were women and most (75%) were White. Half the patients (50%) had a diagnosis of lupus.

“For 9 out of 11 self-management and self-advocacy skills examined, there was a significant difference between how adolescent and young adult patients experienced learning self- management skills versus how they would have preferred to learn the skills,” the researchers concluded. “Overall, adolescent and young adult patients most frequently learned about transition skills from their parents. Most participants would have preferred to learn these skills from their rheumatology team.”

For example, 46.7% of the respondents learned how to communicate their medical history from their parents, but 48.5% would have preferred to learn that from their rheumatology team. Only a quarter (24.8%) had learned that skill from their health care team.

“For most of these skills, they were getting that information from their parents, which is concerning because their parents don’t necessarily have information that is accurate,” Dr. Wells said. “Their parents managed their health care, and they taught them to do it the way they were doing it.”

Just over one-third of respondents said they learned from their parents how to track their symptoms so they could answer the rheumatologists’ questions. Only one in five respondents (20.4%) had learned this skill from their rheumatology team, but 41.2% would have preferred hearing it from their health care team, compared with 22.1% who preferred learning it from their parents.

Nearly half the respondents reported learning from their parents how to advocate for themselves when dissatisfied with their care or symptoms (49.6%) and how to talk to the office staff to make appointments, fill out paperwork, and access health records (47.4%). Just over half (51.5%) would have preferred to learn about office communication from their health care team. Preferences on self-advocacy were split between learning from parents (36.8%) and learning from their health care team (31.6%).

An opportunity for other organizations to support transition

The researchers noted that education did not necessarily need to come only from rheumatologists. Other health care professionals, including nurses and social workers, could help young patients develop skills as well.

“They said they’re also open to talking to other people, but they want their rheumatologist to lead the whole process,” Dr. Wells said. While reimbursement gaps may have presented a barrier in the past, Dr. Wells said that current billing codes have removed that obstacle, allowing physicians to bill for discussing transition skills and care.

“Largely, it’s a time issue,” Dr. Wells said. “Rheumatologists are going to tell patients first about their disease, ask how their medication is working and how their health is. Then, if we have time, we’ll cover the transition pieces, and what it boils down to is that they just don’t have time.”

The respondents indicated an interest in technology that can help their education and transition, such as patient portals, telehealth, and smartphone apps.

While 66.4% of respondents said they would attend an in-person health care appointment to learn skills for transitioning to adult care, 74.5% would attend a telehealth appointment, and 77.2% would complete a structured program within a patient portal.

Dr. Wells said she doesn’t see many of the health care system pressures easing up to allow rheumatologists more time for transition care, but she sees an opportunity for organizations, such as the Arthritis Foundation or Lupus Foundation of America, to step in and help.

“It is a matter of being creative and that, ultimately, is the barrier: Whose job is it to make it happen?” she said. “That’s where some other groups are going to need to be advocates.”

Another notable set of findings from this research was the need for young patients’ access to mental health and sexual/reproductive health services. Just over two-thirds of respondents preferred to discuss these topics with their rheumatology team, but only 59.1% felt comfortable starting the conversation about mental health, and only 47.4% felt comfortable broaching the topic of reproductive/sexual health. Even more patients preferred discussing use of drugs and alcohol with their health care team (71.5%), but more patients also felt comfortable initiating that discussion (72.2%).

“It may be that somebody who’s trained to address those issues, especially the mental health piece, may be more appropriate to have that role, and that’s part of the transition, too, these other larger life issues,” Dr. Wells said. “One of the benefits of going to an adult rheumatologist is that they are the most knowledgeable and prepared to help you with those topics.”

None of the individuals quoted in this story had any disclosures to report.

The inadequacies and challenges of transitioning pediatric rheumatology patients to adult care were highlighted in several research studies shared at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

Steve Debenport/Getty Images

“Not surprisingly, these studies demonstrate that transition challenges remain pervasive,” Rebecca Sadun, MD, PhD, who was not involved in any of the research, said in an interview. Nevertheless, she pointed out that one of the studies showed that eight of nine sites participating in one of the studies had at least developed a formal transition policy, and three were able to fully integrate that policy into their health care system despite the ongoing pandemic.

In that study, Joyce Chang, MD, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and colleagues used structured interviews and then quantitative research to explore processes for transition polices across nine rheumatology sites. Aside from the three that had already implemented their policies, three others were preparing implementation. The other three withdrew because of COVID-19. None of the sites had reached sustainment phase. Six of the sites had access to a social work network, and two sites had fewer than four providers.

The authors found that a higher level of change efficacy or change commitment using the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change framework did not correspond with reaching implementation.

“The first sites to reach implementation had access to [information technology] support and involved nursing, though this was not sufficient or necessary,” the authors wrote. They noted the need for strategies to reduce the burden of data collection to improve the resilience of implementation efforts against health care system stress.
 

Who more often transitions to adult care?

Effective transition policies can help reduce the likelihood of young patients falling through the cracks as they grow from adolescence into young adulthood, especially those at highest risk for losing continuity of care.

“Young adults who are both medically and socially complex are at highest risk,” said Dr. Sadun, an assistant professor of adult and pediatric rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “This is especially true for patients with systemic illnesses, patients requiring biologic medications, and patients with custody, transportation, and financial barriers.”

Research led by Emily A. Smitherman, MD, an assistant professor of pediatric rheumatology at Children’s of Alabama in Birmingham, looked more closely at who is and is not transitioning their care. The researchers analyzed retrospective data from the CARRA Registry, including the Long-Term Follow-Up Call Registry, through December 2019. Among 1,311 patients with inactive status, 537 of these patients had juvenile idiopathic arthritis and were aged at least 18 years. Only 186 of those patients, however, had data in the Long-Term Follow-Up Registry. Patients who were Black or had lower income were less likely to have data in the Long-Term Follow-Up Registry.

Just over half the patients in the long-term registry had transferred their care to an adult rheumatologist, and 83% overall were under the care of any physician. Patients who transferred their care were significantly more likely to have private insurance (87% vs. 70%; P = .009) and were more likely to be full-time students (74% vs. 58%; P = .036).

The researchers found no association between patients’ disease status at their last CARRA Registry visit and a successful transition to adult care. However, those who had transferred care to an adult rheumatologist tended to have a higher median level of pain (4 vs. 2 on a scale of 0-10) and more disease activity (3 vs. 1 on 0-10 scale) than did those who had not transferred care (P = .022 and P = .011, respectively). A higher proportion of those who transferred care had also experienced morning stiffness over the past week (49% vs. 30%; P = .015).
 

How young adults prefer to learn transition skills

The third study aimed to better understand the experience and preferences of young adults themselves as they transitioned from pediatric to adult care. Kristine Carandang, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues first conducted focus groups with 39 adolescents and young adults, ages 16-28 years, who had rheumatic conditions. Using the qualitative data from the focus groups, they designed a survey to capture quantitative data on young patients’ experiences.

“What we’re always trying to work on is, how do we bring that youth voice more clearly into the research literature?” Courtney K. Wells, PhD, MSW, an assistant professor of social work at the University of Wisconsin–River Falls, said in an interview. She noted that both she and Dr. Carandang were patients with rheumatic diseases, so they had lived and grown up with disease themselves and then become researchers.

“We have the information that’s in the literature, but then we also both work with youth in a couple different ways, and what we hear from youth is what we heard in our paper, but it isn’t all represented in the literature,” Dr. Wells said. That disconnect is why they also included two young adults as coauthors in the study.

“As much as we appreciate the model of the six components [of health care transition], we recognize that the youth voice isn’t represented very well,” Dr. Wells said. “The way it’s written is more for doctors and policy makers and targeted for the health care system rather than the young people themselves.”

Their research bore that out. Among 137 survey respondents, aged 18-28 years, the vast majority (89%) were women and most (75%) were White. Half the patients (50%) had a diagnosis of lupus.

“For 9 out of 11 self-management and self-advocacy skills examined, there was a significant difference between how adolescent and young adult patients experienced learning self- management skills versus how they would have preferred to learn the skills,” the researchers concluded. “Overall, adolescent and young adult patients most frequently learned about transition skills from their parents. Most participants would have preferred to learn these skills from their rheumatology team.”

For example, 46.7% of the respondents learned how to communicate their medical history from their parents, but 48.5% would have preferred to learn that from their rheumatology team. Only a quarter (24.8%) had learned that skill from their health care team.

“For most of these skills, they were getting that information from their parents, which is concerning because their parents don’t necessarily have information that is accurate,” Dr. Wells said. “Their parents managed their health care, and they taught them to do it the way they were doing it.”

Just over one-third of respondents said they learned from their parents how to track their symptoms so they could answer the rheumatologists’ questions. Only one in five respondents (20.4%) had learned this skill from their rheumatology team, but 41.2% would have preferred hearing it from their health care team, compared with 22.1% who preferred learning it from their parents.

Nearly half the respondents reported learning from their parents how to advocate for themselves when dissatisfied with their care or symptoms (49.6%) and how to talk to the office staff to make appointments, fill out paperwork, and access health records (47.4%). Just over half (51.5%) would have preferred to learn about office communication from their health care team. Preferences on self-advocacy were split between learning from parents (36.8%) and learning from their health care team (31.6%).

An opportunity for other organizations to support transition

The researchers noted that education did not necessarily need to come only from rheumatologists. Other health care professionals, including nurses and social workers, could help young patients develop skills as well.

“They said they’re also open to talking to other people, but they want their rheumatologist to lead the whole process,” Dr. Wells said. While reimbursement gaps may have presented a barrier in the past, Dr. Wells said that current billing codes have removed that obstacle, allowing physicians to bill for discussing transition skills and care.

“Largely, it’s a time issue,” Dr. Wells said. “Rheumatologists are going to tell patients first about their disease, ask how their medication is working and how their health is. Then, if we have time, we’ll cover the transition pieces, and what it boils down to is that they just don’t have time.”

The respondents indicated an interest in technology that can help their education and transition, such as patient portals, telehealth, and smartphone apps.

While 66.4% of respondents said they would attend an in-person health care appointment to learn skills for transitioning to adult care, 74.5% would attend a telehealth appointment, and 77.2% would complete a structured program within a patient portal.

Dr. Wells said she doesn’t see many of the health care system pressures easing up to allow rheumatologists more time for transition care, but she sees an opportunity for organizations, such as the Arthritis Foundation or Lupus Foundation of America, to step in and help.

“It is a matter of being creative and that, ultimately, is the barrier: Whose job is it to make it happen?” she said. “That’s where some other groups are going to need to be advocates.”

Another notable set of findings from this research was the need for young patients’ access to mental health and sexual/reproductive health services. Just over two-thirds of respondents preferred to discuss these topics with their rheumatology team, but only 59.1% felt comfortable starting the conversation about mental health, and only 47.4% felt comfortable broaching the topic of reproductive/sexual health. Even more patients preferred discussing use of drugs and alcohol with their health care team (71.5%), but more patients also felt comfortable initiating that discussion (72.2%).

“It may be that somebody who’s trained to address those issues, especially the mental health piece, may be more appropriate to have that role, and that’s part of the transition, too, these other larger life issues,” Dr. Wells said. “One of the benefits of going to an adult rheumatologist is that they are the most knowledgeable and prepared to help you with those topics.”

None of the individuals quoted in this story had any disclosures to report.

The inadequacies and challenges of transitioning pediatric rheumatology patients to adult care were highlighted in several research studies shared at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

Steve Debenport/Getty Images

“Not surprisingly, these studies demonstrate that transition challenges remain pervasive,” Rebecca Sadun, MD, PhD, who was not involved in any of the research, said in an interview. Nevertheless, she pointed out that one of the studies showed that eight of nine sites participating in one of the studies had at least developed a formal transition policy, and three were able to fully integrate that policy into their health care system despite the ongoing pandemic.

In that study, Joyce Chang, MD, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and colleagues used structured interviews and then quantitative research to explore processes for transition polices across nine rheumatology sites. Aside from the three that had already implemented their policies, three others were preparing implementation. The other three withdrew because of COVID-19. None of the sites had reached sustainment phase. Six of the sites had access to a social work network, and two sites had fewer than four providers.

The authors found that a higher level of change efficacy or change commitment using the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change framework did not correspond with reaching implementation.

“The first sites to reach implementation had access to [information technology] support and involved nursing, though this was not sufficient or necessary,” the authors wrote. They noted the need for strategies to reduce the burden of data collection to improve the resilience of implementation efforts against health care system stress.
 

Who more often transitions to adult care?

Effective transition policies can help reduce the likelihood of young patients falling through the cracks as they grow from adolescence into young adulthood, especially those at highest risk for losing continuity of care.

“Young adults who are both medically and socially complex are at highest risk,” said Dr. Sadun, an assistant professor of adult and pediatric rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “This is especially true for patients with systemic illnesses, patients requiring biologic medications, and patients with custody, transportation, and financial barriers.”

Research led by Emily A. Smitherman, MD, an assistant professor of pediatric rheumatology at Children’s of Alabama in Birmingham, looked more closely at who is and is not transitioning their care. The researchers analyzed retrospective data from the CARRA Registry, including the Long-Term Follow-Up Call Registry, through December 2019. Among 1,311 patients with inactive status, 537 of these patients had juvenile idiopathic arthritis and were aged at least 18 years. Only 186 of those patients, however, had data in the Long-Term Follow-Up Registry. Patients who were Black or had lower income were less likely to have data in the Long-Term Follow-Up Registry.

Just over half the patients in the long-term registry had transferred their care to an adult rheumatologist, and 83% overall were under the care of any physician. Patients who transferred their care were significantly more likely to have private insurance (87% vs. 70%; P = .009) and were more likely to be full-time students (74% vs. 58%; P = .036).

The researchers found no association between patients’ disease status at their last CARRA Registry visit and a successful transition to adult care. However, those who had transferred care to an adult rheumatologist tended to have a higher median level of pain (4 vs. 2 on a scale of 0-10) and more disease activity (3 vs. 1 on 0-10 scale) than did those who had not transferred care (P = .022 and P = .011, respectively). A higher proportion of those who transferred care had also experienced morning stiffness over the past week (49% vs. 30%; P = .015).
 

How young adults prefer to learn transition skills

The third study aimed to better understand the experience and preferences of young adults themselves as they transitioned from pediatric to adult care. Kristine Carandang, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues first conducted focus groups with 39 adolescents and young adults, ages 16-28 years, who had rheumatic conditions. Using the qualitative data from the focus groups, they designed a survey to capture quantitative data on young patients’ experiences.

“What we’re always trying to work on is, how do we bring that youth voice more clearly into the research literature?” Courtney K. Wells, PhD, MSW, an assistant professor of social work at the University of Wisconsin–River Falls, said in an interview. She noted that both she and Dr. Carandang were patients with rheumatic diseases, so they had lived and grown up with disease themselves and then become researchers.

“We have the information that’s in the literature, but then we also both work with youth in a couple different ways, and what we hear from youth is what we heard in our paper, but it isn’t all represented in the literature,” Dr. Wells said. That disconnect is why they also included two young adults as coauthors in the study.

“As much as we appreciate the model of the six components [of health care transition], we recognize that the youth voice isn’t represented very well,” Dr. Wells said. “The way it’s written is more for doctors and policy makers and targeted for the health care system rather than the young people themselves.”

Their research bore that out. Among 137 survey respondents, aged 18-28 years, the vast majority (89%) were women and most (75%) were White. Half the patients (50%) had a diagnosis of lupus.

“For 9 out of 11 self-management and self-advocacy skills examined, there was a significant difference between how adolescent and young adult patients experienced learning self- management skills versus how they would have preferred to learn the skills,” the researchers concluded. “Overall, adolescent and young adult patients most frequently learned about transition skills from their parents. Most participants would have preferred to learn these skills from their rheumatology team.”

For example, 46.7% of the respondents learned how to communicate their medical history from their parents, but 48.5% would have preferred to learn that from their rheumatology team. Only a quarter (24.8%) had learned that skill from their health care team.

“For most of these skills, they were getting that information from their parents, which is concerning because their parents don’t necessarily have information that is accurate,” Dr. Wells said. “Their parents managed their health care, and they taught them to do it the way they were doing it.”

Just over one-third of respondents said they learned from their parents how to track their symptoms so they could answer the rheumatologists’ questions. Only one in five respondents (20.4%) had learned this skill from their rheumatology team, but 41.2% would have preferred hearing it from their health care team, compared with 22.1% who preferred learning it from their parents.

Nearly half the respondents reported learning from their parents how to advocate for themselves when dissatisfied with their care or symptoms (49.6%) and how to talk to the office staff to make appointments, fill out paperwork, and access health records (47.4%). Just over half (51.5%) would have preferred to learn about office communication from their health care team. Preferences on self-advocacy were split between learning from parents (36.8%) and learning from their health care team (31.6%).

An opportunity for other organizations to support transition

The researchers noted that education did not necessarily need to come only from rheumatologists. Other health care professionals, including nurses and social workers, could help young patients develop skills as well.

“They said they’re also open to talking to other people, but they want their rheumatologist to lead the whole process,” Dr. Wells said. While reimbursement gaps may have presented a barrier in the past, Dr. Wells said that current billing codes have removed that obstacle, allowing physicians to bill for discussing transition skills and care.

“Largely, it’s a time issue,” Dr. Wells said. “Rheumatologists are going to tell patients first about their disease, ask how their medication is working and how their health is. Then, if we have time, we’ll cover the transition pieces, and what it boils down to is that they just don’t have time.”

The respondents indicated an interest in technology that can help their education and transition, such as patient portals, telehealth, and smartphone apps.

While 66.4% of respondents said they would attend an in-person health care appointment to learn skills for transitioning to adult care, 74.5% would attend a telehealth appointment, and 77.2% would complete a structured program within a patient portal.

Dr. Wells said she doesn’t see many of the health care system pressures easing up to allow rheumatologists more time for transition care, but she sees an opportunity for organizations, such as the Arthritis Foundation or Lupus Foundation of America, to step in and help.

“It is a matter of being creative and that, ultimately, is the barrier: Whose job is it to make it happen?” she said. “That’s where some other groups are going to need to be advocates.”

Another notable set of findings from this research was the need for young patients’ access to mental health and sexual/reproductive health services. Just over two-thirds of respondents preferred to discuss these topics with their rheumatology team, but only 59.1% felt comfortable starting the conversation about mental health, and only 47.4% felt comfortable broaching the topic of reproductive/sexual health. Even more patients preferred discussing use of drugs and alcohol with their health care team (71.5%), but more patients also felt comfortable initiating that discussion (72.2%).

“It may be that somebody who’s trained to address those issues, especially the mental health piece, may be more appropriate to have that role, and that’s part of the transition, too, these other larger life issues,” Dr. Wells said. “One of the benefits of going to an adult rheumatologist is that they are the most knowledgeable and prepared to help you with those topics.”

None of the individuals quoted in this story had any disclosures to report.

The Food and Drug Administration said that within a year it will ban menthol in cigarettes and ban all flavors including menthol in cigars.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Menthol makes it easier to start smoking, and also enhances the effects of nicotine, making it more addictive and harder to quit, the FDA said in announcing its actions on Thursday.

Nineteen organizations – including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Cancer Society, American College of Chest Physicians, American Medical Association, American Heart Association, and the National Medical Association – have pushed the FDA to ban menthol for years. The agency banned all flavors in cigarettes in 2009 but did not take any action against menthol. In 2013, the groups filed a petition demanding that the FDA ban menthol, too. The agency responded months later with a notice that it would start the process.

But it never took any action. Action on Smoking and Health and the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council, later joined by the AMA and the NMA, sued in 2020 to compel the agency to do something. Now it has finally agreed to act.

The African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council welcomed the move but said the fight is not over and encouraged tobacco control activists to fight to ban menthol tobacco products at the local, state and federal level. “We know that this rule-making process could take years and we know that the tobacco industry will continue to do everything in their power to derail any attempt to remove their deadly products from the market,” Phillip Gardiner, MD, council cochair, said in a statement.

The AMA is urging the FDA to quickly implement the ban and remove the products “without further delay,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in a statement.

“FDA’s long-awaited decision to take action to eliminate menthol flavoring in cigarettes and all flavors in cigars ends a decades-long deference to the tobacco industry, which has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to profit from products that result in death,” Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said in her own statement.

Ms. Lacasse said banning menthol will help eliminate health disparities. She said 86% of Black people who smoke use menthol cigarettes, compared with 46% of Hispanic people who smoke, 39% of Asian people who smoke, and 29% of White people who smoke. “FDA’s actions today send a clear message that Big Tobacco’s strategy to profit off addicting Black communities will no longer be tolerated,” she said.

Not all groups are on board, however. The American Civil Liberties Union and several other organizations wrote to the country’s top health officials urging them to reconsider.

“Such a ban will trigger criminal penalties which will disproportionately impact people of color, as well as prioritize criminalization over public health and harm reduction,” the letter says. “A ban will also lead to unconstitutional policing and other negative interactions with local law enforcement.”

The letter calls the proposed ban “well intentioned,” but said any effort to reduce death and disease from tobacco “must avoid solutions that will create yet another reason for armed police to engage citizens on the street based on pretext or conduct that does not pose a threat to public safety.”

Instead of a ban, the organizations said, policy makers should consider increased education for adults and minors, stop-smoking programs, and increased funding for health centers in communities of color.

The Biden administration, however, pressed the point that banning menthol will bring many positives. Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD said in a statement that banning menthol “will help significantly reduce youth initiation, increase the chances of smoking cessation among current smokers, and address health disparities experienced by communities of color, low-income populations, and LGBTQ-plus individuals, all of whom are far more likely to use these tobacco products.”

The FDA cited data showing that, in the first year or so after a ban goes into effect, an additional 923,000 smokers would quit, including 230,000 African Americans. Another study suggests that 633,000 deaths would be averted, including 237,000 Black Americans.

Dr. Woodcock added that, “armed with strong scientific evidence, and with full support from the [Biden] administration, we believe these actions will launch us on a trajectory toward ending tobacco-related disease and death in the U.S.”

The FDA estimates that 18.6 million Americans who are current smokers use menthol cigarettes, with a disproportionately high number being Black people. Menthol cigarette use among Black and Hispanic youth increased from 2011 to 2018, but declined for non-Hispanic White youth.

Flavored mass-produced cigars and cigarillos are disproportionately popular among youth, especially non-Hispanic Black high school students, who in 2020 reported past 30-day cigar smoking at levels twice as high as their White counterparts, said the FDA. Three-quarters of 12- to 17-year-olds reported they smoke cigars because they like the flavors. In 2020, more young people tried a cigar every day than tried a cigarette, reports the agency.

“This long-overdue decision will protect future generations of young people from nicotine addiction, especially Black children and communities, which have disproportionately suffered from menthol tobacco use due to targeted efforts from the tobacco industry,” Lee Savio Beers, MD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said in a statement.

The FDA’s announcement “is only a first step that must be followed with urgent, comprehensive action to remove these flavored products from the market,” he said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration said that within a year it will ban menthol in cigarettes and ban all flavors including menthol in cigars.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Menthol makes it easier to start smoking, and also enhances the effects of nicotine, making it more addictive and harder to quit, the FDA said in announcing its actions on Thursday.

Nineteen organizations – including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Cancer Society, American College of Chest Physicians, American Medical Association, American Heart Association, and the National Medical Association – have pushed the FDA to ban menthol for years. The agency banned all flavors in cigarettes in 2009 but did not take any action against menthol. In 2013, the groups filed a petition demanding that the FDA ban menthol, too. The agency responded months later with a notice that it would start the process.

But it never took any action. Action on Smoking and Health and the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council, later joined by the AMA and the NMA, sued in 2020 to compel the agency to do something. Now it has finally agreed to act.

The African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council welcomed the move but said the fight is not over and encouraged tobacco control activists to fight to ban menthol tobacco products at the local, state and federal level. “We know that this rule-making process could take years and we know that the tobacco industry will continue to do everything in their power to derail any attempt to remove their deadly products from the market,” Phillip Gardiner, MD, council cochair, said in a statement.

The AMA is urging the FDA to quickly implement the ban and remove the products “without further delay,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in a statement.

“FDA’s long-awaited decision to take action to eliminate menthol flavoring in cigarettes and all flavors in cigars ends a decades-long deference to the tobacco industry, which has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to profit from products that result in death,” Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said in her own statement.

Ms. Lacasse said banning menthol will help eliminate health disparities. She said 86% of Black people who smoke use menthol cigarettes, compared with 46% of Hispanic people who smoke, 39% of Asian people who smoke, and 29% of White people who smoke. “FDA’s actions today send a clear message that Big Tobacco’s strategy to profit off addicting Black communities will no longer be tolerated,” she said.

Not all groups are on board, however. The American Civil Liberties Union and several other organizations wrote to the country’s top health officials urging them to reconsider.

“Such a ban will trigger criminal penalties which will disproportionately impact people of color, as well as prioritize criminalization over public health and harm reduction,” the letter says. “A ban will also lead to unconstitutional policing and other negative interactions with local law enforcement.”

The letter calls the proposed ban “well intentioned,” but said any effort to reduce death and disease from tobacco “must avoid solutions that will create yet another reason for armed police to engage citizens on the street based on pretext or conduct that does not pose a threat to public safety.”

Instead of a ban, the organizations said, policy makers should consider increased education for adults and minors, stop-smoking programs, and increased funding for health centers in communities of color.

The Biden administration, however, pressed the point that banning menthol will bring many positives. Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD said in a statement that banning menthol “will help significantly reduce youth initiation, increase the chances of smoking cessation among current smokers, and address health disparities experienced by communities of color, low-income populations, and LGBTQ-plus individuals, all of whom are far more likely to use these tobacco products.”

The FDA cited data showing that, in the first year or so after a ban goes into effect, an additional 923,000 smokers would quit, including 230,000 African Americans. Another study suggests that 633,000 deaths would be averted, including 237,000 Black Americans.

Dr. Woodcock added that, “armed with strong scientific evidence, and with full support from the [Biden] administration, we believe these actions will launch us on a trajectory toward ending tobacco-related disease and death in the U.S.”

The FDA estimates that 18.6 million Americans who are current smokers use menthol cigarettes, with a disproportionately high number being Black people. Menthol cigarette use among Black and Hispanic youth increased from 2011 to 2018, but declined for non-Hispanic White youth.

Flavored mass-produced cigars and cigarillos are disproportionately popular among youth, especially non-Hispanic Black high school students, who in 2020 reported past 30-day cigar smoking at levels twice as high as their White counterparts, said the FDA. Three-quarters of 12- to 17-year-olds reported they smoke cigars because they like the flavors. In 2020, more young people tried a cigar every day than tried a cigarette, reports the agency.

“This long-overdue decision will protect future generations of young people from nicotine addiction, especially Black children and communities, which have disproportionately suffered from menthol tobacco use due to targeted efforts from the tobacco industry,” Lee Savio Beers, MD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said in a statement.

The FDA’s announcement “is only a first step that must be followed with urgent, comprehensive action to remove these flavored products from the market,” he said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration said that within a year it will ban menthol in cigarettes and ban all flavors including menthol in cigars.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Menthol makes it easier to start smoking, and also enhances the effects of nicotine, making it more addictive and harder to quit, the FDA said in announcing its actions on Thursday.

Nineteen organizations – including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Cancer Society, American College of Chest Physicians, American Medical Association, American Heart Association, and the National Medical Association – have pushed the FDA to ban menthol for years. The agency banned all flavors in cigarettes in 2009 but did not take any action against menthol. In 2013, the groups filed a petition demanding that the FDA ban menthol, too. The agency responded months later with a notice that it would start the process.

But it never took any action. Action on Smoking and Health and the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council, later joined by the AMA and the NMA, sued in 2020 to compel the agency to do something. Now it has finally agreed to act.

The African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council welcomed the move but said the fight is not over and encouraged tobacco control activists to fight to ban menthol tobacco products at the local, state and federal level. “We know that this rule-making process could take years and we know that the tobacco industry will continue to do everything in their power to derail any attempt to remove their deadly products from the market,” Phillip Gardiner, MD, council cochair, said in a statement.

The AMA is urging the FDA to quickly implement the ban and remove the products “without further delay,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in a statement.

“FDA’s long-awaited decision to take action to eliminate menthol flavoring in cigarettes and all flavors in cigars ends a decades-long deference to the tobacco industry, which has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to profit from products that result in death,” Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said in her own statement.

Ms. Lacasse said banning menthol will help eliminate health disparities. She said 86% of Black people who smoke use menthol cigarettes, compared with 46% of Hispanic people who smoke, 39% of Asian people who smoke, and 29% of White people who smoke. “FDA’s actions today send a clear message that Big Tobacco’s strategy to profit off addicting Black communities will no longer be tolerated,” she said.

Not all groups are on board, however. The American Civil Liberties Union and several other organizations wrote to the country’s top health officials urging them to reconsider.

“Such a ban will trigger criminal penalties which will disproportionately impact people of color, as well as prioritize criminalization over public health and harm reduction,” the letter says. “A ban will also lead to unconstitutional policing and other negative interactions with local law enforcement.”

The letter calls the proposed ban “well intentioned,” but said any effort to reduce death and disease from tobacco “must avoid solutions that will create yet another reason for armed police to engage citizens on the street based on pretext or conduct that does not pose a threat to public safety.”

Instead of a ban, the organizations said, policy makers should consider increased education for adults and minors, stop-smoking programs, and increased funding for health centers in communities of color.

The Biden administration, however, pressed the point that banning menthol will bring many positives. Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD said in a statement that banning menthol “will help significantly reduce youth initiation, increase the chances of smoking cessation among current smokers, and address health disparities experienced by communities of color, low-income populations, and LGBTQ-plus individuals, all of whom are far more likely to use these tobacco products.”

The FDA cited data showing that, in the first year or so after a ban goes into effect, an additional 923,000 smokers would quit, including 230,000 African Americans. Another study suggests that 633,000 deaths would be averted, including 237,000 Black Americans.

Dr. Woodcock added that, “armed with strong scientific evidence, and with full support from the [Biden] administration, we believe these actions will launch us on a trajectory toward ending tobacco-related disease and death in the U.S.”

The FDA estimates that 18.6 million Americans who are current smokers use menthol cigarettes, with a disproportionately high number being Black people. Menthol cigarette use among Black and Hispanic youth increased from 2011 to 2018, but declined for non-Hispanic White youth.

Flavored mass-produced cigars and cigarillos are disproportionately popular among youth, especially non-Hispanic Black high school students, who in 2020 reported past 30-day cigar smoking at levels twice as high as their White counterparts, said the FDA. Three-quarters of 12- to 17-year-olds reported they smoke cigars because they like the flavors. In 2020, more young people tried a cigar every day than tried a cigarette, reports the agency.

“This long-overdue decision will protect future generations of young people from nicotine addiction, especially Black children and communities, which have disproportionately suffered from menthol tobacco use due to targeted efforts from the tobacco industry,” Lee Savio Beers, MD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said in a statement.

The FDA’s announcement “is only a first step that must be followed with urgent, comprehensive action to remove these flavored products from the market,” he said.

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

The investigational drug tolebrutinib effectively reduces brain lesions in patients with highly active relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (MS), new research suggests. After 12 weeks of treatment, MRI revealed the drug, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was associated with a 93% reduction in new gadolinium-enhancing lesions and an 89% reduction in new and enlarging T2 lesions, compared with placebo.

The analysis supports that tolebrutinib is as effective in this group of patients with highly active relapsing remitting MS as it is in the overall patient population, study investigator said Anthony Traboulsee, MD, professor and research chair of the MS Society of Canada at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

“What is additionally exciting is that this effect was seen within a relatively short period of time – within 3 months. This will be important for patients and physicians to know how soon to expect a treatment to work if they have high-risk baseline features,” he added.

The findings were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

New drug class

BTK inhibitors are a new class of oral therapies, and phase 2 trials in patients with relapsing remitting MS show they are safe and effective. BTK inhibitors modulate B lymphocytes without causing depletion, thus reducing the risk for lymphopenia or immunoglobulin depletion.

Tolebrutinib is a covalent, irreversible BTK inhibitor that penetrates the central nervous system well. In a previous randomized, double-blind, phase 2b trial, it was well tolerated and was associated with a dose-dependent reduction in new or enlarging MRI lesions. Of the four doses studied, the 60-mg dose was the most effective.

Because highly active MS is associated with a more aggressive disease course, the investigators examined tolebrutinib’s efficacy and safety in patients with highly active disease who were participants in the phase 2b trial. This subgroup analysis had been predefined in the study’s statistical analysis plan.

The investigators defined highly active disease as one relapse in the year before screening and one or more gadolinium-enhancing lesions on MRI performed within 6 months before screening, or nine or more T2 lesions at baseline, or two or more relapses in the year before screening.

Of the 130 participants enrolled in the study, 61 (47%) met criteria for highly active disease at baseline. These patients represented 44% of the placebo group (29 of 66 participants) who later crossed over to tolebrutinib treatment.

At baseline, demographics in patients with highly active disease were similar to those of the overall study population, although it was slightly younger with slightly shorter disease duration, slightly less disability, and a greater likelihood of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at baseline versus the overall study population.

The proportion of patients with highly active disease was 36% in the 5-mg group, 59% in the 15-mg group, 48% in the 30-mg group, and 44% in the 60-mg group.

The study’s primary objective was to examine the dose-response relationship after 12 weeks of treatment with tolebrutinib.
 

Good safety, tolerability

After 12 weeks, the mean number of new gadolinium-enhancing lesions in patients with highly active disease was 0.82 in the 5-mg group, 0.50 in the 15-mg group, 0.38 in the 30-mg group, and 0.08 in the 60-mg group. The corresponding measurements in the overall study population were 1.39 in the 5-mg group, 0.77 in the 15-mg group, 0.76 in the 30-mg group, and 0.13 in the 60-mg group.

After 12 weeks, numbers of new or enlarging T2 lesions among patients with highly active disease were 1.09 (5 mg), 0.89 (15 mg), 0.75 (30 mg) and 0.15 (60 mg). The corresponding measurements in the overall population were 1.90 (5 mg), 1.32 (15 mg) 1.30 (30 mg) and 0.23 (60 mg).

Tolebrutinib had excellent safety and tolerability in patients with highly active disease and in the overall population, said Dr. Traboulsee.

No adverse events were linked to the study drug. One patient with highly active disease who received 60 mg of tolebrutinib had transient elevated ALT levels greater than three times the upper limit of normal. This patient also previously had elevated ALT at baseline.

One serious adverse event occurred during the study. One patient was hospitalized for MS relapse. The patient had been assigned to the 60-mg dose of tolebrutinib. The patient recovered and remained on study treatment.

Two independent studies have indicated that BTK inhibition is an effective treatment approach for relapsing remitting MS. The main advantage of tolebrutinib is its ability to penetrate the CNS.

“Most, if not all, MS therapies mostly affect the peripheral immune system, preventing autoreactive lymphocytes crossing the blood-brain barrier and causing damage,” said Dr. Traboulsee.

Therapies that enter the CNS can target abnormal immune cells, including microglia that are believed to promote disease progression. “If this is an important target, then we now have a highly CNS-penetrant drug that could potentially change the course of progression,” said Dr. Traboulsee.

Serum biomarkers and advanced imaging data collected during the phase 2 trial could help clarify the mechanisms of disease progression and the effects of tolebrutinib, he added. “Ultimately though, it is the clinical outcomes in the phase 3 programs that are essential to know where to place tolebrutinib in the future care of relapsing and progressive forms of MS.”
 

Not an unmet need

Commenting on the findings, Joseph R. Berger, MD, professor of neurology and associate chief of the MS division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said there are several available treatments that effectively suppress clinical and radiologic evidence of acute inflammation in relapsing remitting MS.

“Any new drug that is to be added to that pharmacological armamentarium should have distinct advantages over what is currently available. Treating relapsing remitting MS is not, in my opinion, an unmet need in MS; treating progressive disease is,” he said.

Dr. Berger said that tolebrutinib appears to be better than placebo in suppressing disease activity, particularly at higher doses. “However, the study is small – only 61 patients,” noted Dr. Berger, who was not involved in the study.

In addition, disease activity was assessed after 4 weeks with placebo and at 12 weeks with tolebrutinib treatment.

“As there is a regression to the mean with respect to disease activity, the interpretation of the apparent response to tolebrutinib needs to be tempered with that in mind,” said Dr. Berger.

Evaluating how tolebrutinib compares with other BTK inhibitors will require a head-to-head trial. “I’d be more interested in whether the drug has an effect on progressive disease,” Dr. Berger concluded.

The study was supported by Sanofi Genzyme, which is developing tolebrutinib. Dr. Traboulsee has received research grant support, honoraria for consulting, and honoraria for participating in a speakers’ bureau from Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Berger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The investigational drug tolebrutinib effectively reduces brain lesions in patients with highly active relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (MS), new research suggests. After 12 weeks of treatment, MRI revealed the drug, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was associated with a 93% reduction in new gadolinium-enhancing lesions and an 89% reduction in new and enlarging T2 lesions, compared with placebo.

The analysis supports that tolebrutinib is as effective in this group of patients with highly active relapsing remitting MS as it is in the overall patient population, study investigator said Anthony Traboulsee, MD, professor and research chair of the MS Society of Canada at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

“What is additionally exciting is that this effect was seen within a relatively short period of time – within 3 months. This will be important for patients and physicians to know how soon to expect a treatment to work if they have high-risk baseline features,” he added.

The findings were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

New drug class

BTK inhibitors are a new class of oral therapies, and phase 2 trials in patients with relapsing remitting MS show they are safe and effective. BTK inhibitors modulate B lymphocytes without causing depletion, thus reducing the risk for lymphopenia or immunoglobulin depletion.

Tolebrutinib is a covalent, irreversible BTK inhibitor that penetrates the central nervous system well. In a previous randomized, double-blind, phase 2b trial, it was well tolerated and was associated with a dose-dependent reduction in new or enlarging MRI lesions. Of the four doses studied, the 60-mg dose was the most effective.

Because highly active MS is associated with a more aggressive disease course, the investigators examined tolebrutinib’s efficacy and safety in patients with highly active disease who were participants in the phase 2b trial. This subgroup analysis had been predefined in the study’s statistical analysis plan.

The investigators defined highly active disease as one relapse in the year before screening and one or more gadolinium-enhancing lesions on MRI performed within 6 months before screening, or nine or more T2 lesions at baseline, or two or more relapses in the year before screening.

Of the 130 participants enrolled in the study, 61 (47%) met criteria for highly active disease at baseline. These patients represented 44% of the placebo group (29 of 66 participants) who later crossed over to tolebrutinib treatment.

At baseline, demographics in patients with highly active disease were similar to those of the overall study population, although it was slightly younger with slightly shorter disease duration, slightly less disability, and a greater likelihood of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at baseline versus the overall study population.

The proportion of patients with highly active disease was 36% in the 5-mg group, 59% in the 15-mg group, 48% in the 30-mg group, and 44% in the 60-mg group.

The study’s primary objective was to examine the dose-response relationship after 12 weeks of treatment with tolebrutinib.
 

Good safety, tolerability

After 12 weeks, the mean number of new gadolinium-enhancing lesions in patients with highly active disease was 0.82 in the 5-mg group, 0.50 in the 15-mg group, 0.38 in the 30-mg group, and 0.08 in the 60-mg group. The corresponding measurements in the overall study population were 1.39 in the 5-mg group, 0.77 in the 15-mg group, 0.76 in the 30-mg group, and 0.13 in the 60-mg group.

After 12 weeks, numbers of new or enlarging T2 lesions among patients with highly active disease were 1.09 (5 mg), 0.89 (15 mg), 0.75 (30 mg) and 0.15 (60 mg). The corresponding measurements in the overall population were 1.90 (5 mg), 1.32 (15 mg) 1.30 (30 mg) and 0.23 (60 mg).

Tolebrutinib had excellent safety and tolerability in patients with highly active disease and in the overall population, said Dr. Traboulsee.

No adverse events were linked to the study drug. One patient with highly active disease who received 60 mg of tolebrutinib had transient elevated ALT levels greater than three times the upper limit of normal. This patient also previously had elevated ALT at baseline.

One serious adverse event occurred during the study. One patient was hospitalized for MS relapse. The patient had been assigned to the 60-mg dose of tolebrutinib. The patient recovered and remained on study treatment.

Two independent studies have indicated that BTK inhibition is an effective treatment approach for relapsing remitting MS. The main advantage of tolebrutinib is its ability to penetrate the CNS.

“Most, if not all, MS therapies mostly affect the peripheral immune system, preventing autoreactive lymphocytes crossing the blood-brain barrier and causing damage,” said Dr. Traboulsee.

Therapies that enter the CNS can target abnormal immune cells, including microglia that are believed to promote disease progression. “If this is an important target, then we now have a highly CNS-penetrant drug that could potentially change the course of progression,” said Dr. Traboulsee.

Serum biomarkers and advanced imaging data collected during the phase 2 trial could help clarify the mechanisms of disease progression and the effects of tolebrutinib, he added. “Ultimately though, it is the clinical outcomes in the phase 3 programs that are essential to know where to place tolebrutinib in the future care of relapsing and progressive forms of MS.”
 

Not an unmet need

Commenting on the findings, Joseph R. Berger, MD, professor of neurology and associate chief of the MS division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said there are several available treatments that effectively suppress clinical and radiologic evidence of acute inflammation in relapsing remitting MS.

“Any new drug that is to be added to that pharmacological armamentarium should have distinct advantages over what is currently available. Treating relapsing remitting MS is not, in my opinion, an unmet need in MS; treating progressive disease is,” he said.

Dr. Berger said that tolebrutinib appears to be better than placebo in suppressing disease activity, particularly at higher doses. “However, the study is small – only 61 patients,” noted Dr. Berger, who was not involved in the study.

In addition, disease activity was assessed after 4 weeks with placebo and at 12 weeks with tolebrutinib treatment.

“As there is a regression to the mean with respect to disease activity, the interpretation of the apparent response to tolebrutinib needs to be tempered with that in mind,” said Dr. Berger.

Evaluating how tolebrutinib compares with other BTK inhibitors will require a head-to-head trial. “I’d be more interested in whether the drug has an effect on progressive disease,” Dr. Berger concluded.

The study was supported by Sanofi Genzyme, which is developing tolebrutinib. Dr. Traboulsee has received research grant support, honoraria for consulting, and honoraria for participating in a speakers’ bureau from Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Berger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The investigational drug tolebrutinib effectively reduces brain lesions in patients with highly active relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (MS), new research suggests. After 12 weeks of treatment, MRI revealed the drug, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was associated with a 93% reduction in new gadolinium-enhancing lesions and an 89% reduction in new and enlarging T2 lesions, compared with placebo.

The analysis supports that tolebrutinib is as effective in this group of patients with highly active relapsing remitting MS as it is in the overall patient population, study investigator said Anthony Traboulsee, MD, professor and research chair of the MS Society of Canada at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

“What is additionally exciting is that this effect was seen within a relatively short period of time – within 3 months. This will be important for patients and physicians to know how soon to expect a treatment to work if they have high-risk baseline features,” he added.

The findings were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

New drug class

BTK inhibitors are a new class of oral therapies, and phase 2 trials in patients with relapsing remitting MS show they are safe and effective. BTK inhibitors modulate B lymphocytes without causing depletion, thus reducing the risk for lymphopenia or immunoglobulin depletion.

Tolebrutinib is a covalent, irreversible BTK inhibitor that penetrates the central nervous system well. In a previous randomized, double-blind, phase 2b trial, it was well tolerated and was associated with a dose-dependent reduction in new or enlarging MRI lesions. Of the four doses studied, the 60-mg dose was the most effective.

Because highly active MS is associated with a more aggressive disease course, the investigators examined tolebrutinib’s efficacy and safety in patients with highly active disease who were participants in the phase 2b trial. This subgroup analysis had been predefined in the study’s statistical analysis plan.

The investigators defined highly active disease as one relapse in the year before screening and one or more gadolinium-enhancing lesions on MRI performed within 6 months before screening, or nine or more T2 lesions at baseline, or two or more relapses in the year before screening.

Of the 130 participants enrolled in the study, 61 (47%) met criteria for highly active disease at baseline. These patients represented 44% of the placebo group (29 of 66 participants) who later crossed over to tolebrutinib treatment.

At baseline, demographics in patients with highly active disease were similar to those of the overall study population, although it was slightly younger with slightly shorter disease duration, slightly less disability, and a greater likelihood of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at baseline versus the overall study population.

The proportion of patients with highly active disease was 36% in the 5-mg group, 59% in the 15-mg group, 48% in the 30-mg group, and 44% in the 60-mg group.

The study’s primary objective was to examine the dose-response relationship after 12 weeks of treatment with tolebrutinib.
 

Good safety, tolerability

After 12 weeks, the mean number of new gadolinium-enhancing lesions in patients with highly active disease was 0.82 in the 5-mg group, 0.50 in the 15-mg group, 0.38 in the 30-mg group, and 0.08 in the 60-mg group. The corresponding measurements in the overall study population were 1.39 in the 5-mg group, 0.77 in the 15-mg group, 0.76 in the 30-mg group, and 0.13 in the 60-mg group.

After 12 weeks, numbers of new or enlarging T2 lesions among patients with highly active disease were 1.09 (5 mg), 0.89 (15 mg), 0.75 (30 mg) and 0.15 (60 mg). The corresponding measurements in the overall population were 1.90 (5 mg), 1.32 (15 mg) 1.30 (30 mg) and 0.23 (60 mg).

Tolebrutinib had excellent safety and tolerability in patients with highly active disease and in the overall population, said Dr. Traboulsee.

No adverse events were linked to the study drug. One patient with highly active disease who received 60 mg of tolebrutinib had transient elevated ALT levels greater than three times the upper limit of normal. This patient also previously had elevated ALT at baseline.

One serious adverse event occurred during the study. One patient was hospitalized for MS relapse. The patient had been assigned to the 60-mg dose of tolebrutinib. The patient recovered and remained on study treatment.

Two independent studies have indicated that BTK inhibition is an effective treatment approach for relapsing remitting MS. The main advantage of tolebrutinib is its ability to penetrate the CNS.

“Most, if not all, MS therapies mostly affect the peripheral immune system, preventing autoreactive lymphocytes crossing the blood-brain barrier and causing damage,” said Dr. Traboulsee.

Therapies that enter the CNS can target abnormal immune cells, including microglia that are believed to promote disease progression. “If this is an important target, then we now have a highly CNS-penetrant drug that could potentially change the course of progression,” said Dr. Traboulsee.

Serum biomarkers and advanced imaging data collected during the phase 2 trial could help clarify the mechanisms of disease progression and the effects of tolebrutinib, he added. “Ultimately though, it is the clinical outcomes in the phase 3 programs that are essential to know where to place tolebrutinib in the future care of relapsing and progressive forms of MS.”
 

Not an unmet need

Commenting on the findings, Joseph R. Berger, MD, professor of neurology and associate chief of the MS division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said there are several available treatments that effectively suppress clinical and radiologic evidence of acute inflammation in relapsing remitting MS.

“Any new drug that is to be added to that pharmacological armamentarium should have distinct advantages over what is currently available. Treating relapsing remitting MS is not, in my opinion, an unmet need in MS; treating progressive disease is,” he said.

Dr. Berger said that tolebrutinib appears to be better than placebo in suppressing disease activity, particularly at higher doses. “However, the study is small – only 61 patients,” noted Dr. Berger, who was not involved in the study.

In addition, disease activity was assessed after 4 weeks with placebo and at 12 weeks with tolebrutinib treatment.

“As there is a regression to the mean with respect to disease activity, the interpretation of the apparent response to tolebrutinib needs to be tempered with that in mind,” said Dr. Berger.

Evaluating how tolebrutinib compares with other BTK inhibitors will require a head-to-head trial. “I’d be more interested in whether the drug has an effect on progressive disease,” Dr. Berger concluded.

The study was supported by Sanofi Genzyme, which is developing tolebrutinib. Dr. Traboulsee has received research grant support, honoraria for consulting, and honoraria for participating in a speakers’ bureau from Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Berger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 survivors are at risk from a possible second pandemic, this time of opioid addiction, given the high rate of painkillers being prescribed to these patients, health experts say.

sdominick/Getty Images

A new study in Nature found alarmingly high rates of opioid use among COVID survivors with lingering symptoms at Veterans Affairs facilities. About 10% of COVID survivors develop “long COVID,” struggling with often disabling health problems even 6 months or longer after a diagnosis.

For every 1,000 long-COVID patients, known as “long-haulers,” who were treated at a VA facility, doctors wrote nine more prescriptions for opioids than they otherwise would have, along with 22 additional prescriptions for benzodiazepines, which include Xanax and other addictive pills used to treat anxiety.

Although previous studies have found many COVID survivors experience persistent health problems, the new article is the first to show they’re using more addictive medications, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the paper’s lead author.

He’s concerned that even an apparently small increase in the inappropriate use of addictive pain pills will lead to a resurgence of the prescription opioid crisis, given the large number of COVID survivors. More than 3 million of the 31 million Americans infected with COVID develop long-term symptoms, which can include fatigue, shortness of breath, depression, anxiety, and memory problems known as “brain fog.”

The new study also found many patients have significant muscle and bone pain.

The frequent use of opioids was surprising, given concerns about their potential for addiction, said Dr. Al-Aly, chief of research and education service at the VA St. Louis Health Care System.

“Physicians now are supposed to shy away from prescribing opioids,” said Dr. Al-Aly, who studied more than 73,000 patients in the VA system. When Dr. Al-Aly saw the number of opioids prescriptions, he said, he thought to himself: “Is this really happening all over again?”

Doctors need to act now, before “it’s too late to do something,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “We must act now and ensure that people are getting the care they need. We do not want this to balloon into a suicide crisis or another opioid epidemic.”

As more doctors became aware of their addictive potential, new opioid prescriptions fell, by more than half since 2012. But U.S. doctors still prescribe far more of the drugs – which include OxyContin, Vicodin, and codeine – than physicians in other countries, said Andrew Kolodny, MD, medical director of opioid policy research at Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass.

Some patients who became addicted to prescription painkillers switched to heroin, either because it was cheaper or because they could no longer obtain opioids from their doctors. Overdose deaths surged in recent years as drug dealers began spiking heroin with a powerful synthetic opioid called fentanyl.

More than 88,000 Americans died from overdoses during the 12 months ending in August 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health experts now advise doctors to avoid prescribing opioids for long periods.

The new study “suggests to me that many clinicians still don’t get it,” Dr. Kolodny said. “Many clinicians are under the false impression that opioids are appropriate for chronic pain patients.”

Hospitalized COVID patients often receive a lot of medication to control pain and anxiety, especially in ICUs, said Greg Martin, MD, president of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Patients placed on ventilators, for example, are often sedated to make them more comfortable.

Martin said he’s concerned by the study’s findings, which suggest patients are unnecessarily continuing medications after leaving the hospital.

“I worry that COVID-19 patients, especially those who are severely and critically ill, receive a lot of medications during the hospitalization, and because they have persistent symptoms, the medications are continued after hospital discharge,” Dr. Martin said.

While some COVID patients are experiencing muscle and bone pain for the first time, others say the illness has intensified their preexisting pain.

Rachael Sunshine Burnett has suffered from chronic pain in her back and feet for 20 years, ever since an accident at a warehouse where she once worked. But Ms. Burnett, who first was diagnosed with COVID in April 2020, said the pain soon became 10 times worse and spread to the area between her shoulders and spine. Although she was already taking long-acting OxyContin twice a day, her doctor prescribed an additional opioid called oxycodone, which relieves pain immediately. She was reinfected with COVID in December.

“It’s been a horrible, horrible year,” said Ms. Burnett, 43, of Coxsackie, N.Y.

Doctors should recognize that pain can be a part of long COVID, Dr. Martin said. “We need to find the proper nonnarcotic treatment for it, just like we do with other forms of chronic pain,” he said.

The CDC recommends a number of alternatives to opioids – from physical therapy to biofeedback, over-the-counter anti-inflammatories, antidepressants, and antiseizure drugs that also relieve nerve pain.

The country also needs an overall strategy to cope with the wave of post-COVID complications, Dr. Al-Aly said.

“It’s better to be prepared than to be caught off guard years from now, when doctors realize: ‘Oh, we have a resurgence in opioids,’ ” Dr. Al-Aly said.

Dr. Al-Aly noted that his study may not capture the full complexity of post-COVID patient needs. Although women make up the majority of long-COVID patients in most studies, most patients in the VA system are men.

The study of VA patients makes it “abundantly clear that we are not prepared to meet the needs of 3 million Americans with long COVID,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego. “We desperately need an intervention that will effectively treat these individuals.”

Dr. Al-Aly said COVID survivors may need care for years.

“That’s going to be a huge, significant burden on the health care system,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “Long COVID will reverberate in the health system for years or even decades to come.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

COVID-19 survivors are at risk from a possible second pandemic, this time of opioid addiction, given the high rate of painkillers being prescribed to these patients, health experts say.

sdominick/Getty Images

A new study in Nature found alarmingly high rates of opioid use among COVID survivors with lingering symptoms at Veterans Affairs facilities. About 10% of COVID survivors develop “long COVID,” struggling with often disabling health problems even 6 months or longer after a diagnosis.

For every 1,000 long-COVID patients, known as “long-haulers,” who were treated at a VA facility, doctors wrote nine more prescriptions for opioids than they otherwise would have, along with 22 additional prescriptions for benzodiazepines, which include Xanax and other addictive pills used to treat anxiety.

Although previous studies have found many COVID survivors experience persistent health problems, the new article is the first to show they’re using more addictive medications, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the paper’s lead author.

He’s concerned that even an apparently small increase in the inappropriate use of addictive pain pills will lead to a resurgence of the prescription opioid crisis, given the large number of COVID survivors. More than 3 million of the 31 million Americans infected with COVID develop long-term symptoms, which can include fatigue, shortness of breath, depression, anxiety, and memory problems known as “brain fog.”

The new study also found many patients have significant muscle and bone pain.

The frequent use of opioids was surprising, given concerns about their potential for addiction, said Dr. Al-Aly, chief of research and education service at the VA St. Louis Health Care System.

“Physicians now are supposed to shy away from prescribing opioids,” said Dr. Al-Aly, who studied more than 73,000 patients in the VA system. When Dr. Al-Aly saw the number of opioids prescriptions, he said, he thought to himself: “Is this really happening all over again?”

Doctors need to act now, before “it’s too late to do something,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “We must act now and ensure that people are getting the care they need. We do not want this to balloon into a suicide crisis or another opioid epidemic.”

As more doctors became aware of their addictive potential, new opioid prescriptions fell, by more than half since 2012. But U.S. doctors still prescribe far more of the drugs – which include OxyContin, Vicodin, and codeine – than physicians in other countries, said Andrew Kolodny, MD, medical director of opioid policy research at Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass.

Some patients who became addicted to prescription painkillers switched to heroin, either because it was cheaper or because they could no longer obtain opioids from their doctors. Overdose deaths surged in recent years as drug dealers began spiking heroin with a powerful synthetic opioid called fentanyl.

More than 88,000 Americans died from overdoses during the 12 months ending in August 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health experts now advise doctors to avoid prescribing opioids for long periods.

The new study “suggests to me that many clinicians still don’t get it,” Dr. Kolodny said. “Many clinicians are under the false impression that opioids are appropriate for chronic pain patients.”

Hospitalized COVID patients often receive a lot of medication to control pain and anxiety, especially in ICUs, said Greg Martin, MD, president of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Patients placed on ventilators, for example, are often sedated to make them more comfortable.

Martin said he’s concerned by the study’s findings, which suggest patients are unnecessarily continuing medications after leaving the hospital.

“I worry that COVID-19 patients, especially those who are severely and critically ill, receive a lot of medications during the hospitalization, and because they have persistent symptoms, the medications are continued after hospital discharge,” Dr. Martin said.

While some COVID patients are experiencing muscle and bone pain for the first time, others say the illness has intensified their preexisting pain.

Rachael Sunshine Burnett has suffered from chronic pain in her back and feet for 20 years, ever since an accident at a warehouse where she once worked. But Ms. Burnett, who first was diagnosed with COVID in April 2020, said the pain soon became 10 times worse and spread to the area between her shoulders and spine. Although she was already taking long-acting OxyContin twice a day, her doctor prescribed an additional opioid called oxycodone, which relieves pain immediately. She was reinfected with COVID in December.

“It’s been a horrible, horrible year,” said Ms. Burnett, 43, of Coxsackie, N.Y.

Doctors should recognize that pain can be a part of long COVID, Dr. Martin said. “We need to find the proper nonnarcotic treatment for it, just like we do with other forms of chronic pain,” he said.

The CDC recommends a number of alternatives to opioids – from physical therapy to biofeedback, over-the-counter anti-inflammatories, antidepressants, and antiseizure drugs that also relieve nerve pain.

The country also needs an overall strategy to cope with the wave of post-COVID complications, Dr. Al-Aly said.

“It’s better to be prepared than to be caught off guard years from now, when doctors realize: ‘Oh, we have a resurgence in opioids,’ ” Dr. Al-Aly said.

Dr. Al-Aly noted that his study may not capture the full complexity of post-COVID patient needs. Although women make up the majority of long-COVID patients in most studies, most patients in the VA system are men.

The study of VA patients makes it “abundantly clear that we are not prepared to meet the needs of 3 million Americans with long COVID,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego. “We desperately need an intervention that will effectively treat these individuals.”

Dr. Al-Aly said COVID survivors may need care for years.

“That’s going to be a huge, significant burden on the health care system,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “Long COVID will reverberate in the health system for years or even decades to come.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

COVID-19 survivors are at risk from a possible second pandemic, this time of opioid addiction, given the high rate of painkillers being prescribed to these patients, health experts say.

sdominick/Getty Images

A new study in Nature found alarmingly high rates of opioid use among COVID survivors with lingering symptoms at Veterans Affairs facilities. About 10% of COVID survivors develop “long COVID,” struggling with often disabling health problems even 6 months or longer after a diagnosis.

For every 1,000 long-COVID patients, known as “long-haulers,” who were treated at a VA facility, doctors wrote nine more prescriptions for opioids than they otherwise would have, along with 22 additional prescriptions for benzodiazepines, which include Xanax and other addictive pills used to treat anxiety.

Although previous studies have found many COVID survivors experience persistent health problems, the new article is the first to show they’re using more addictive medications, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the paper’s lead author.

He’s concerned that even an apparently small increase in the inappropriate use of addictive pain pills will lead to a resurgence of the prescription opioid crisis, given the large number of COVID survivors. More than 3 million of the 31 million Americans infected with COVID develop long-term symptoms, which can include fatigue, shortness of breath, depression, anxiety, and memory problems known as “brain fog.”

The new study also found many patients have significant muscle and bone pain.

The frequent use of opioids was surprising, given concerns about their potential for addiction, said Dr. Al-Aly, chief of research and education service at the VA St. Louis Health Care System.

“Physicians now are supposed to shy away from prescribing opioids,” said Dr. Al-Aly, who studied more than 73,000 patients in the VA system. When Dr. Al-Aly saw the number of opioids prescriptions, he said, he thought to himself: “Is this really happening all over again?”

Doctors need to act now, before “it’s too late to do something,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “We must act now and ensure that people are getting the care they need. We do not want this to balloon into a suicide crisis or another opioid epidemic.”

As more doctors became aware of their addictive potential, new opioid prescriptions fell, by more than half since 2012. But U.S. doctors still prescribe far more of the drugs – which include OxyContin, Vicodin, and codeine – than physicians in other countries, said Andrew Kolodny, MD, medical director of opioid policy research at Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass.

Some patients who became addicted to prescription painkillers switched to heroin, either because it was cheaper or because they could no longer obtain opioids from their doctors. Overdose deaths surged in recent years as drug dealers began spiking heroin with a powerful synthetic opioid called fentanyl.

More than 88,000 Americans died from overdoses during the 12 months ending in August 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health experts now advise doctors to avoid prescribing opioids for long periods.

The new study “suggests to me that many clinicians still don’t get it,” Dr. Kolodny said. “Many clinicians are under the false impression that opioids are appropriate for chronic pain patients.”

Hospitalized COVID patients often receive a lot of medication to control pain and anxiety, especially in ICUs, said Greg Martin, MD, president of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Patients placed on ventilators, for example, are often sedated to make them more comfortable.

Martin said he’s concerned by the study’s findings, which suggest patients are unnecessarily continuing medications after leaving the hospital.

“I worry that COVID-19 patients, especially those who are severely and critically ill, receive a lot of medications during the hospitalization, and because they have persistent symptoms, the medications are continued after hospital discharge,” Dr. Martin said.

While some COVID patients are experiencing muscle and bone pain for the first time, others say the illness has intensified their preexisting pain.

Rachael Sunshine Burnett has suffered from chronic pain in her back and feet for 20 years, ever since an accident at a warehouse where she once worked. But Ms. Burnett, who first was diagnosed with COVID in April 2020, said the pain soon became 10 times worse and spread to the area between her shoulders and spine. Although she was already taking long-acting OxyContin twice a day, her doctor prescribed an additional opioid called oxycodone, which relieves pain immediately. She was reinfected with COVID in December.

“It’s been a horrible, horrible year,” said Ms. Burnett, 43, of Coxsackie, N.Y.

Doctors should recognize that pain can be a part of long COVID, Dr. Martin said. “We need to find the proper nonnarcotic treatment for it, just like we do with other forms of chronic pain,” he said.

The CDC recommends a number of alternatives to opioids – from physical therapy to biofeedback, over-the-counter anti-inflammatories, antidepressants, and antiseizure drugs that also relieve nerve pain.

The country also needs an overall strategy to cope with the wave of post-COVID complications, Dr. Al-Aly said.

“It’s better to be prepared than to be caught off guard years from now, when doctors realize: ‘Oh, we have a resurgence in opioids,’ ” Dr. Al-Aly said.

Dr. Al-Aly noted that his study may not capture the full complexity of post-COVID patient needs. Although women make up the majority of long-COVID patients in most studies, most patients in the VA system are men.

The study of VA patients makes it “abundantly clear that we are not prepared to meet the needs of 3 million Americans with long COVID,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego. “We desperately need an intervention that will effectively treat these individuals.”

Dr. Al-Aly said COVID survivors may need care for years.

“That’s going to be a huge, significant burden on the health care system,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “Long COVID will reverberate in the health system for years or even decades to come.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is finalizing new guidelines to help clinicians diagnose and manage long COVID, or postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

In a day-long congressional hearing on April 28, John Brooks, MD, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention, testified that the guidelines were going through the clearance process at the agency, but would be forthcoming.

“They should be coming out very shortly,” Dr. Brooks said.

The guidelines, which were developed in collaboration with newly established long-COVID clinics and patient advocacy groups, will “illustrate how to diagnose and begin to pull together what we know about management,” of the complex condition, he said.

For many doctors and patients who are struggling to understand symptoms that persist for months after the initial viral infection, the guidelines can’t come soon enough.

National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, who also testified at the hearing, estimated that as many as 3 million people could be left with chronic health problems after even mild COVID infections.

“I can’t overstate how serious this issue is for the health of our nation,” he said.

Dr. Collins said his estimate was based on studies showing that roughly 10% of people who get COVID could be affected by this and whose “long-term course is uncertain,” he said. So far, more than 32 million Americans are known to have been infected with the new coronavirus.

“We need to make sure we put our arms around them and bring answers and care to them,” said Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health.

Jennifer Possick, MD, who directs the post-COVID recovery program at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital, testified that the tidal wave of patients she and her colleagues were seeing was overwhelming.

“We are a well-resourced program at an academic medical center, but we are swamped by the need in our community. This year, we have seen more patients with post COVID-19 conditions in our clinic alone than we have new cases of asthma and COPD combined,” she said. “The magnitude of the challenge is daunting.”

Dr. Possick estimated that there are “over 60” clinics in the United States that have started to treat long-COVID patients, but said they are grassroots efforts and all very different from each other.

“Whoever had the resources, had the time, [and] was able to take the initiative and forge to the relationships because most of them are multidisciplinary, did so,” she said.
 

Patients testify

Several representatives shared moving personal stories of loved ones or staffers who remained ill months after a COVID diagnosis.

Rep. Ann Kuster, from New Hampshire, talked about her 34-year-old niece, a member of the U.S. Ski Team, who had COVID just over a year ago and “continues to struggle with everything, even the simplest activities of daily living” she said. “She has to choose between taking a shower or making dinner. I’m so proud of her for hanging in there.”

Long-COVID patients invited to testify by the subcommittee described months of disability that left them with soaring medical bills and no ability to work to pay them.

“I am now a poor, Black, disabled woman, living with long COVID,” said Chimere Smith, who said she had been a school teacher in Baltimore. “Saying it aloud makes it no more easy to accept.”

She said COVID had affected her ability to think clearly and caused debilitating fatigue, which prevented her from working. She said she lost her vision for almost 5 months because doctors misdiagnosed a cataract caused by long COVID as dry eye.

“If I did not have a loving family, I [would] be speaking to you today [from] my car, the only property I now own.”

Ms. Smith said that long-COVID clinics, which are mostly housed within academic medical centers, were not going to be accessible for all long-haulers, who are disproportionately women of color. She has started a clinic, based out of her church, to help other patients from her community.

“No one wants to hear that long COVID has decimated my life or the lives of other black women in less than a year,” Ms. Smith said. “We’ve just been waiting and hoping for compassionate doctors and politicians who would acknowledge us.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is finalizing new guidelines to help clinicians diagnose and manage long COVID, or postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

In a day-long congressional hearing on April 28, John Brooks, MD, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention, testified that the guidelines were going through the clearance process at the agency, but would be forthcoming.

“They should be coming out very shortly,” Dr. Brooks said.

The guidelines, which were developed in collaboration with newly established long-COVID clinics and patient advocacy groups, will “illustrate how to diagnose and begin to pull together what we know about management,” of the complex condition, he said.

For many doctors and patients who are struggling to understand symptoms that persist for months after the initial viral infection, the guidelines can’t come soon enough.

National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, who also testified at the hearing, estimated that as many as 3 million people could be left with chronic health problems after even mild COVID infections.

“I can’t overstate how serious this issue is for the health of our nation,” he said.

Dr. Collins said his estimate was based on studies showing that roughly 10% of people who get COVID could be affected by this and whose “long-term course is uncertain,” he said. So far, more than 32 million Americans are known to have been infected with the new coronavirus.

“We need to make sure we put our arms around them and bring answers and care to them,” said Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health.

Jennifer Possick, MD, who directs the post-COVID recovery program at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital, testified that the tidal wave of patients she and her colleagues were seeing was overwhelming.

“We are a well-resourced program at an academic medical center, but we are swamped by the need in our community. This year, we have seen more patients with post COVID-19 conditions in our clinic alone than we have new cases of asthma and COPD combined,” she said. “The magnitude of the challenge is daunting.”

Dr. Possick estimated that there are “over 60” clinics in the United States that have started to treat long-COVID patients, but said they are grassroots efforts and all very different from each other.

“Whoever had the resources, had the time, [and] was able to take the initiative and forge to the relationships because most of them are multidisciplinary, did so,” she said.
 

Patients testify

Several representatives shared moving personal stories of loved ones or staffers who remained ill months after a COVID diagnosis.

Rep. Ann Kuster, from New Hampshire, talked about her 34-year-old niece, a member of the U.S. Ski Team, who had COVID just over a year ago and “continues to struggle with everything, even the simplest activities of daily living” she said. “She has to choose between taking a shower or making dinner. I’m so proud of her for hanging in there.”

Long-COVID patients invited to testify by the subcommittee described months of disability that left them with soaring medical bills and no ability to work to pay them.

“I am now a poor, Black, disabled woman, living with long COVID,” said Chimere Smith, who said she had been a school teacher in Baltimore. “Saying it aloud makes it no more easy to accept.”

She said COVID had affected her ability to think clearly and caused debilitating fatigue, which prevented her from working. She said she lost her vision for almost 5 months because doctors misdiagnosed a cataract caused by long COVID as dry eye.

“If I did not have a loving family, I [would] be speaking to you today [from] my car, the only property I now own.”

Ms. Smith said that long-COVID clinics, which are mostly housed within academic medical centers, were not going to be accessible for all long-haulers, who are disproportionately women of color. She has started a clinic, based out of her church, to help other patients from her community.

“No one wants to hear that long COVID has decimated my life or the lives of other black women in less than a year,” Ms. Smith said. “We’ve just been waiting and hoping for compassionate doctors and politicians who would acknowledge us.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is finalizing new guidelines to help clinicians diagnose and manage long COVID, or postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

In a day-long congressional hearing on April 28, John Brooks, MD, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention, testified that the guidelines were going through the clearance process at the agency, but would be forthcoming.

“They should be coming out very shortly,” Dr. Brooks said.

The guidelines, which were developed in collaboration with newly established long-COVID clinics and patient advocacy groups, will “illustrate how to diagnose and begin to pull together what we know about management,” of the complex condition, he said.

For many doctors and patients who are struggling to understand symptoms that persist for months after the initial viral infection, the guidelines can’t come soon enough.

National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, who also testified at the hearing, estimated that as many as 3 million people could be left with chronic health problems after even mild COVID infections.

“I can’t overstate how serious this issue is for the health of our nation,” he said.

Dr. Collins said his estimate was based on studies showing that roughly 10% of people who get COVID could be affected by this and whose “long-term course is uncertain,” he said. So far, more than 32 million Americans are known to have been infected with the new coronavirus.

“We need to make sure we put our arms around them and bring answers and care to them,” said Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health.

Jennifer Possick, MD, who directs the post-COVID recovery program at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital, testified that the tidal wave of patients she and her colleagues were seeing was overwhelming.

“We are a well-resourced program at an academic medical center, but we are swamped by the need in our community. This year, we have seen more patients with post COVID-19 conditions in our clinic alone than we have new cases of asthma and COPD combined,” she said. “The magnitude of the challenge is daunting.”

Dr. Possick estimated that there are “over 60” clinics in the United States that have started to treat long-COVID patients, but said they are grassroots efforts and all very different from each other.

“Whoever had the resources, had the time, [and] was able to take the initiative and forge to the relationships because most of them are multidisciplinary, did so,” she said.
 

Patients testify

Several representatives shared moving personal stories of loved ones or staffers who remained ill months after a COVID diagnosis.

Rep. Ann Kuster, from New Hampshire, talked about her 34-year-old niece, a member of the U.S. Ski Team, who had COVID just over a year ago and “continues to struggle with everything, even the simplest activities of daily living” she said. “She has to choose between taking a shower or making dinner. I’m so proud of her for hanging in there.”

Long-COVID patients invited to testify by the subcommittee described months of disability that left them with soaring medical bills and no ability to work to pay them.

“I am now a poor, Black, disabled woman, living with long COVID,” said Chimere Smith, who said she had been a school teacher in Baltimore. “Saying it aloud makes it no more easy to accept.”

She said COVID had affected her ability to think clearly and caused debilitating fatigue, which prevented her from working. She said she lost her vision for almost 5 months because doctors misdiagnosed a cataract caused by long COVID as dry eye.

“If I did not have a loving family, I [would] be speaking to you today [from] my car, the only property I now own.”

Ms. Smith said that long-COVID clinics, which are mostly housed within academic medical centers, were not going to be accessible for all long-haulers, who are disproportionately women of color. She has started a clinic, based out of her church, to help other patients from her community.

“No one wants to hear that long COVID has decimated my life or the lives of other black women in less than a year,” Ms. Smith said. “We’ve just been waiting and hoping for compassionate doctors and politicians who would acknowledge us.”

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

In a global meta-analysis of more than 7,000 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19, individuals with overweight or obesity were more likely to need respiratory support but were not more likely to die in the hospital, compared to individuals of normal weight.
 

Compared to patients without diabetes, those with diabetes had higher odds of needing invasive respiratory support (with intubation) but not for needing noninvasive respiratory support or of dying in the hospital.

“Surprisingly,” among patients with diabetes, being overweight or having obesity did not further increase the odds of any of these outcomes, the researchers wrote. The finding needs to be confirmed in larger studies, they said, because the sample sizes in these subanalyses were small and the confidence intervals were large.

The study by Danielle K. Longmore, PhD, of Murdoch Children’s Research Institute (MCRI), Melbourne, and colleagues from the International BMI-COVID consortium, was published online April 15 in Diabetes Care.

This new research “adds to the known data on the associations between obesity and severe COVID-19 disease and extends these findings” to patients who are overweight and/or have diabetes, Dr. Longmore, a pediatric endocrinologist with a clinical and research interest in childhood and youth obesity, said in an interview.

Immunologist Siroon Bekkering, PhD, of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, explained that never before have so much data of different types regarding obesity been combined in one large study. Dr. Bekkering is a coauthor of the article and was a principal investigator.

“Several national and international observations already showed the important role of overweight and obesity in a more severe COVID-19 course. This study adds to those observations by combining data from several countries with the possibility to look at the risk factors separately,” she said in a statement from her institution.

“Regardless of other risk factors (such as heart disease or diabetes), we now see that too high a BMI [body mass index] can actually lead to a more severe course in [coronavirus] infection,” she said.
 

Study implications: Data show that overweight, obesity add to risk

These latest findings highlight the urgent need to develop public health policies to address socioeconomic and psychological drivers of obesity, Dr. Longmore said.

“Although taking steps to address obesity in the short term is unlikely to have an immediate impact in the COVID-19 pandemic, it will likely reduce the disease burden in future viral pandemics and reduce risks of complications like heart disease and stroke,” she observed in a statement issued by MCRI.

Coauthor Kirsty R. Short, PhD, a research fellow at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, noted that “obesity is associated with numerous poor health outcomes, including increased risk of cardiometabolic and respiratory disease and more severe viral disease including influenza, dengue, and SARS-CoV-1.

“Given the large scale of this study,” she said, “we have conclusively shown that being overweight or obese are independent risk factors for worse outcomes in adults hospitalized with COVID-19.”

“At the moment, the World Health Organization has not had enough high-quality data to include being overweight or obese as a risk factor for severe COVID-19 disease,” added another author, David P. Burgner, PhD, a pediatric infectious diseases clinician scientist from MCRI.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Does being overweight up risk of worse COVID-19 outcomes?

About 13% of the world’s population are overweight, and 40% have obesity. There are wide between-country variations in these data, and about 90% of patients with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese, the researchers noted.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reported that the prevalence of obesity in 2016-2017 was 5.7% to 8.9% in Asia, 9.8% to 16.8% in Europe, 26.5% in South Africa, and 40.0% in the United States, they added.

Obesity is common and has emerged as an important risk factor for severe COVID-19. However, most previous studies of COVID-19 and elevated BMI were conducted in single centers and did not focus on patients with overweight.

To investigate, the researchers identified 7,244 patients (two-thirds were overweight or obese) who were hospitalized with COVID-19 in 69 hospitals (18 sites) in 11 countries from Jan. 17, 2020, to June 2, 2020.

Most patients were hospitalized with COVID-19 in the Netherlands (2,260), followed by New York City (1,682), Switzerland (920), St. Louis (805), Norway, Italy, China, South Africa, Indonesia, Denmark, Los Angeles, Austria, and Singapore.

Just over half (60%) of the individuals were male, and 52% were older than 65.

Overall, 34.8% were overweight, and 30.8% had obesity, but the average weight varied considerably between countries and sites.
 

Increased need for respiratory support, same mortality risk

Compared with patients with normal weight, patients who were overweight had a 44% increased risk of needing supplemental oxygen/noninvasive ventilation, and those with obesity had a 75% increased risk of this, after adjustment for age (< 65, ≥ 65), sex, hypertension, diabetes, or preexisting cardiovascular disease or respiratory conditions.

Patients who were overweight had a 22% increased risk of needing invasive (mechanical) ventilation, and those with obesity had a 73% increased risk of this, after multivariable adjustment.

Being overweight or having obesity was not associated with a significantly increased risk of dying in the hospital, however.

“In other viral respiratory infections, such as influenza, there is a similar pattern of increased requirement for ventilatory support but lower in-hospital mortality among individuals with obesity, when compared to those with normal range BMI,” Dr. Longmore noted. She said that larger studies are needed to further explore this finding regarding COVID-19.

Compared to patients without diabetes, those with diabetes had a 21% increased risk of requiring invasive ventilation, but they did not have an increased risk of needing noninvasive ventilation or of dying in the hospital.

As in previous studies, individuals who had cardiovascular and preexisting respiratory diseases were not at greater risk of needing oxygen or mechanical ventilation but were at increased risk for in-hospital death. Men had a greater risk of needing invasive mechanical ventilation, and individuals who were older than 65 had an increased risk of requiring oxygen or of dying in the hospital.
 

A living meta-analysis, call for more collaborators

“We consider this a ‘living meta-analysis’ and invite other centers to join us,” Dr. Longmore said. “We hope to update the analyses as more data are contributed.”

No specific project funded the study. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a global meta-analysis of more than 7,000 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19, individuals with overweight or obesity were more likely to need respiratory support but were not more likely to die in the hospital, compared to individuals of normal weight.
 

Compared to patients without diabetes, those with diabetes had higher odds of needing invasive respiratory support (with intubation) but not for needing noninvasive respiratory support or of dying in the hospital.

“Surprisingly,” among patients with diabetes, being overweight or having obesity did not further increase the odds of any of these outcomes, the researchers wrote. The finding needs to be confirmed in larger studies, they said, because the sample sizes in these subanalyses were small and the confidence intervals were large.

The study by Danielle K. Longmore, PhD, of Murdoch Children’s Research Institute (MCRI), Melbourne, and colleagues from the International BMI-COVID consortium, was published online April 15 in Diabetes Care.

This new research “adds to the known data on the associations between obesity and severe COVID-19 disease and extends these findings” to patients who are overweight and/or have diabetes, Dr. Longmore, a pediatric endocrinologist with a clinical and research interest in childhood and youth obesity, said in an interview.

Immunologist Siroon Bekkering, PhD, of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, explained that never before have so much data of different types regarding obesity been combined in one large study. Dr. Bekkering is a coauthor of the article and was a principal investigator.

“Several national and international observations already showed the important role of overweight and obesity in a more severe COVID-19 course. This study adds to those observations by combining data from several countries with the possibility to look at the risk factors separately,” she said in a statement from her institution.

“Regardless of other risk factors (such as heart disease or diabetes), we now see that too high a BMI [body mass index] can actually lead to a more severe course in [coronavirus] infection,” she said.
 

Study implications: Data show that overweight, obesity add to risk

These latest findings highlight the urgent need to develop public health policies to address socioeconomic and psychological drivers of obesity, Dr. Longmore said.

“Although taking steps to address obesity in the short term is unlikely to have an immediate impact in the COVID-19 pandemic, it will likely reduce the disease burden in future viral pandemics and reduce risks of complications like heart disease and stroke,” she observed in a statement issued by MCRI.

Coauthor Kirsty R. Short, PhD, a research fellow at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, noted that “obesity is associated with numerous poor health outcomes, including increased risk of cardiometabolic and respiratory disease and more severe viral disease including influenza, dengue, and SARS-CoV-1.

“Given the large scale of this study,” she said, “we have conclusively shown that being overweight or obese are independent risk factors for worse outcomes in adults hospitalized with COVID-19.”

“At the moment, the World Health Organization has not had enough high-quality data to include being overweight or obese as a risk factor for severe COVID-19 disease,” added another author, David P. Burgner, PhD, a pediatric infectious diseases clinician scientist from MCRI.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Does being overweight up risk of worse COVID-19 outcomes?

About 13% of the world’s population are overweight, and 40% have obesity. There are wide between-country variations in these data, and about 90% of patients with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese, the researchers noted.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reported that the prevalence of obesity in 2016-2017 was 5.7% to 8.9% in Asia, 9.8% to 16.8% in Europe, 26.5% in South Africa, and 40.0% in the United States, they added.

Obesity is common and has emerged as an important risk factor for severe COVID-19. However, most previous studies of COVID-19 and elevated BMI were conducted in single centers and did not focus on patients with overweight.

To investigate, the researchers identified 7,244 patients (two-thirds were overweight or obese) who were hospitalized with COVID-19 in 69 hospitals (18 sites) in 11 countries from Jan. 17, 2020, to June 2, 2020.

Most patients were hospitalized with COVID-19 in the Netherlands (2,260), followed by New York City (1,682), Switzerland (920), St. Louis (805), Norway, Italy, China, South Africa, Indonesia, Denmark, Los Angeles, Austria, and Singapore.

Just over half (60%) of the individuals were male, and 52% were older than 65.

Overall, 34.8% were overweight, and 30.8% had obesity, but the average weight varied considerably between countries and sites.
 

Increased need for respiratory support, same mortality risk

Compared with patients with normal weight, patients who were overweight had a 44% increased risk of needing supplemental oxygen/noninvasive ventilation, and those with obesity had a 75% increased risk of this, after adjustment for age (< 65, ≥ 65), sex, hypertension, diabetes, or preexisting cardiovascular disease or respiratory conditions.

Patients who were overweight had a 22% increased risk of needing invasive (mechanical) ventilation, and those with obesity had a 73% increased risk of this, after multivariable adjustment.

Being overweight or having obesity was not associated with a significantly increased risk of dying in the hospital, however.

“In other viral respiratory infections, such as influenza, there is a similar pattern of increased requirement for ventilatory support but lower in-hospital mortality among individuals with obesity, when compared to those with normal range BMI,” Dr. Longmore noted. She said that larger studies are needed to further explore this finding regarding COVID-19.

Compared to patients without diabetes, those with diabetes had a 21% increased risk of requiring invasive ventilation, but they did not have an increased risk of needing noninvasive ventilation or of dying in the hospital.

As in previous studies, individuals who had cardiovascular and preexisting respiratory diseases were not at greater risk of needing oxygen or mechanical ventilation but were at increased risk for in-hospital death. Men had a greater risk of needing invasive mechanical ventilation, and individuals who were older than 65 had an increased risk of requiring oxygen or of dying in the hospital.
 

A living meta-analysis, call for more collaborators

“We consider this a ‘living meta-analysis’ and invite other centers to join us,” Dr. Longmore said. “We hope to update the analyses as more data are contributed.”

No specific project funded the study. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a global meta-analysis of more than 7,000 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19, individuals with overweight or obesity were more likely to need respiratory support but were not more likely to die in the hospital, compared to individuals of normal weight.
 

Compared to patients without diabetes, those with diabetes had higher odds of needing invasive respiratory support (with intubation) but not for needing noninvasive respiratory support or of dying in the hospital.

“Surprisingly,” among patients with diabetes, being overweight or having obesity did not further increase the odds of any of these outcomes, the researchers wrote. The finding needs to be confirmed in larger studies, they said, because the sample sizes in these subanalyses were small and the confidence intervals were large.

The study by Danielle K. Longmore, PhD, of Murdoch Children’s Research Institute (MCRI), Melbourne, and colleagues from the International BMI-COVID consortium, was published online April 15 in Diabetes Care.

This new research “adds to the known data on the associations between obesity and severe COVID-19 disease and extends these findings” to patients who are overweight and/or have diabetes, Dr. Longmore, a pediatric endocrinologist with a clinical and research interest in childhood and youth obesity, said in an interview.

Immunologist Siroon Bekkering, PhD, of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, explained that never before have so much data of different types regarding obesity been combined in one large study. Dr. Bekkering is a coauthor of the article and was a principal investigator.

“Several national and international observations already showed the important role of overweight and obesity in a more severe COVID-19 course. This study adds to those observations by combining data from several countries with the possibility to look at the risk factors separately,” she said in a statement from her institution.

“Regardless of other risk factors (such as heart disease or diabetes), we now see that too high a BMI [body mass index] can actually lead to a more severe course in [coronavirus] infection,” she said.
 

Study implications: Data show that overweight, obesity add to risk

These latest findings highlight the urgent need to develop public health policies to address socioeconomic and psychological drivers of obesity, Dr. Longmore said.

“Although taking steps to address obesity in the short term is unlikely to have an immediate impact in the COVID-19 pandemic, it will likely reduce the disease burden in future viral pandemics and reduce risks of complications like heart disease and stroke,” she observed in a statement issued by MCRI.

Coauthor Kirsty R. Short, PhD, a research fellow at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, noted that “obesity is associated with numerous poor health outcomes, including increased risk of cardiometabolic and respiratory disease and more severe viral disease including influenza, dengue, and SARS-CoV-1.

“Given the large scale of this study,” she said, “we have conclusively shown that being overweight or obese are independent risk factors for worse outcomes in adults hospitalized with COVID-19.”

“At the moment, the World Health Organization has not had enough high-quality data to include being overweight or obese as a risk factor for severe COVID-19 disease,” added another author, David P. Burgner, PhD, a pediatric infectious diseases clinician scientist from MCRI.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Does being overweight up risk of worse COVID-19 outcomes?

About 13% of the world’s population are overweight, and 40% have obesity. There are wide between-country variations in these data, and about 90% of patients with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese, the researchers noted.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reported that the prevalence of obesity in 2016-2017 was 5.7% to 8.9% in Asia, 9.8% to 16.8% in Europe, 26.5% in South Africa, and 40.0% in the United States, they added.

Obesity is common and has emerged as an important risk factor for severe COVID-19. However, most previous studies of COVID-19 and elevated BMI were conducted in single centers and did not focus on patients with overweight.

To investigate, the researchers identified 7,244 patients (two-thirds were overweight or obese) who were hospitalized with COVID-19 in 69 hospitals (18 sites) in 11 countries from Jan. 17, 2020, to June 2, 2020.

Most patients were hospitalized with COVID-19 in the Netherlands (2,260), followed by New York City (1,682), Switzerland (920), St. Louis (805), Norway, Italy, China, South Africa, Indonesia, Denmark, Los Angeles, Austria, and Singapore.

Just over half (60%) of the individuals were male, and 52% were older than 65.

Overall, 34.8% were overweight, and 30.8% had obesity, but the average weight varied considerably between countries and sites.
 

Increased need for respiratory support, same mortality risk

Compared with patients with normal weight, patients who were overweight had a 44% increased risk of needing supplemental oxygen/noninvasive ventilation, and those with obesity had a 75% increased risk of this, after adjustment for age (< 65, ≥ 65), sex, hypertension, diabetes, or preexisting cardiovascular disease or respiratory conditions.

Patients who were overweight had a 22% increased risk of needing invasive (mechanical) ventilation, and those with obesity had a 73% increased risk of this, after multivariable adjustment.

Being overweight or having obesity was not associated with a significantly increased risk of dying in the hospital, however.

“In other viral respiratory infections, such as influenza, there is a similar pattern of increased requirement for ventilatory support but lower in-hospital mortality among individuals with obesity, when compared to those with normal range BMI,” Dr. Longmore noted. She said that larger studies are needed to further explore this finding regarding COVID-19.

Compared to patients without diabetes, those with diabetes had a 21% increased risk of requiring invasive ventilation, but they did not have an increased risk of needing noninvasive ventilation or of dying in the hospital.

As in previous studies, individuals who had cardiovascular and preexisting respiratory diseases were not at greater risk of needing oxygen or mechanical ventilation but were at increased risk for in-hospital death. Men had a greater risk of needing invasive mechanical ventilation, and individuals who were older than 65 had an increased risk of requiring oxygen or of dying in the hospital.
 

A living meta-analysis, call for more collaborators

“We consider this a ‘living meta-analysis’ and invite other centers to join us,” Dr. Longmore said. “We hope to update the analyses as more data are contributed.”

No specific project funded the study. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force continues to recommend that clinicians screen all adults aged 18 years and older for high blood pressure and that they confirm a diagnosis of hypertension with blood pressure measurements taken outside the office before starting treatment.

mixetto/Serbia/Getty Images

This grade A recommendation is consistent with the 2015 recommendation from the task force.

Hypertension affects approximately 45% of adults in the United States and is a major contributing risk factor for heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and chronic kidney disease.

Using a reaffirmation deliberation process, the USPSTF concluded with high certainty that there was “substantial net benefit” from screening adults for hypertension in clinical office settings.

The reaffirmation recommendation clarifies that initial screening should be performed with office-based blood pressure measurement.

The task force found “convincing” evidence that screening for and treatment of hypertension detected in clinical office settings substantially reduces cardiovascular events and have few major harms.

To confirm a diagnosis of hypertension outside the office before starting treatment, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring or home blood pressure monitoring is recommended. Blood pressure measurements should be taken at the brachial artery with a validated and accurate device in a seated position after 5 minutes of rest.

Although evidence regarding optimal screening intervals is limited, the task force says “reasonable” options include screening for hypertension every year for adults aged 40 years or older and for adults who are at increased risk for hypertension, such as Black persons, persons with high-normal blood pressure, or those who are overweight or obese.

Screening less frequently (every 3-5 years) is appropriate for adults aged 18-39 years who are not at increased risk for hypertension and who have received a prior blood pressure reading that was in the normal range, said the task force, led by Alex Krist, MD, MPH, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

The recommendation and supporting evidence report were published online April 27, 2021, in JAMA.
 

‘Screening is just the first step’

In a JAMA editorial, Marwah Abdalla, MD, MPH, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and coauthors said the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that “rapid and significant innovation in science, health care, and society is possible. Implementing the latest USPSTF recommendations will require widespread changes to how the health care system and other entities screen for hypertension.

“Yet screening is just the first step in a long road to controlling hypertension. Medicine and society need to implement a variety of interventions proven to be effective in controlling blood pressure at scale,” the editorialists said.

“Additionally, these efforts need to consider how to achieve success for all people. This will require working to address the roots of structural racism and reduce the racial disparities that increase hypertension-related morbidity and mortality for vulnerable populations,” they added.

“These changes will take innovation in how care delivery is provided at both the individual and population levels – lessons the health care system and society learned are achievable through the response to the COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Abdalla and colleagues concluded.

The USPSTF and Dr. Abdalla reported no relevant financial relationships. One editorialist reported receiving personal fees from Livongo and Cerner and grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force continues to recommend that clinicians screen all adults aged 18 years and older for high blood pressure and that they confirm a diagnosis of hypertension with blood pressure measurements taken outside the office before starting treatment.

mixetto/Serbia/Getty Images

This grade A recommendation is consistent with the 2015 recommendation from the task force.

Hypertension affects approximately 45% of adults in the United States and is a major contributing risk factor for heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and chronic kidney disease.

Using a reaffirmation deliberation process, the USPSTF concluded with high certainty that there was “substantial net benefit” from screening adults for hypertension in clinical office settings.

The reaffirmation recommendation clarifies that initial screening should be performed with office-based blood pressure measurement.

The task force found “convincing” evidence that screening for and treatment of hypertension detected in clinical office settings substantially reduces cardiovascular events and have few major harms.

To confirm a diagnosis of hypertension outside the office before starting treatment, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring or home blood pressure monitoring is recommended. Blood pressure measurements should be taken at the brachial artery with a validated and accurate device in a seated position after 5 minutes of rest.

Although evidence regarding optimal screening intervals is limited, the task force says “reasonable” options include screening for hypertension every year for adults aged 40 years or older and for adults who are at increased risk for hypertension, such as Black persons, persons with high-normal blood pressure, or those who are overweight or obese.

Screening less frequently (every 3-5 years) is appropriate for adults aged 18-39 years who are not at increased risk for hypertension and who have received a prior blood pressure reading that was in the normal range, said the task force, led by Alex Krist, MD, MPH, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

The recommendation and supporting evidence report were published online April 27, 2021, in JAMA.
 

‘Screening is just the first step’

In a JAMA editorial, Marwah Abdalla, MD, MPH, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and coauthors said the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that “rapid and significant innovation in science, health care, and society is possible. Implementing the latest USPSTF recommendations will require widespread changes to how the health care system and other entities screen for hypertension.

“Yet screening is just the first step in a long road to controlling hypertension. Medicine and society need to implement a variety of interventions proven to be effective in controlling blood pressure at scale,” the editorialists said.

“Additionally, these efforts need to consider how to achieve success for all people. This will require working to address the roots of structural racism and reduce the racial disparities that increase hypertension-related morbidity and mortality for vulnerable populations,” they added.

“These changes will take innovation in how care delivery is provided at both the individual and population levels – lessons the health care system and society learned are achievable through the response to the COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Abdalla and colleagues concluded.

The USPSTF and Dr. Abdalla reported no relevant financial relationships. One editorialist reported receiving personal fees from Livongo and Cerner and grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force continues to recommend that clinicians screen all adults aged 18 years and older for high blood pressure and that they confirm a diagnosis of hypertension with blood pressure measurements taken outside the office before starting treatment.

mixetto/Serbia/Getty Images

This grade A recommendation is consistent with the 2015 recommendation from the task force.

Hypertension affects approximately 45% of adults in the United States and is a major contributing risk factor for heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and chronic kidney disease.

Using a reaffirmation deliberation process, the USPSTF concluded with high certainty that there was “substantial net benefit” from screening adults for hypertension in clinical office settings.

The reaffirmation recommendation clarifies that initial screening should be performed with office-based blood pressure measurement.

The task force found “convincing” evidence that screening for and treatment of hypertension detected in clinical office settings substantially reduces cardiovascular events and have few major harms.

To confirm a diagnosis of hypertension outside the office before starting treatment, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring or home blood pressure monitoring is recommended. Blood pressure measurements should be taken at the brachial artery with a validated and accurate device in a seated position after 5 minutes of rest.

Although evidence regarding optimal screening intervals is limited, the task force says “reasonable” options include screening for hypertension every year for adults aged 40 years or older and for adults who are at increased risk for hypertension, such as Black persons, persons with high-normal blood pressure, or those who are overweight or obese.

Screening less frequently (every 3-5 years) is appropriate for adults aged 18-39 years who are not at increased risk for hypertension and who have received a prior blood pressure reading that was in the normal range, said the task force, led by Alex Krist, MD, MPH, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

The recommendation and supporting evidence report were published online April 27, 2021, in JAMA.
 

‘Screening is just the first step’

In a JAMA editorial, Marwah Abdalla, MD, MPH, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and coauthors said the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that “rapid and significant innovation in science, health care, and society is possible. Implementing the latest USPSTF recommendations will require widespread changes to how the health care system and other entities screen for hypertension.

“Yet screening is just the first step in a long road to controlling hypertension. Medicine and society need to implement a variety of interventions proven to be effective in controlling blood pressure at scale,” the editorialists said.

“Additionally, these efforts need to consider how to achieve success for all people. This will require working to address the roots of structural racism and reduce the racial disparities that increase hypertension-related morbidity and mortality for vulnerable populations,” they added.

“These changes will take innovation in how care delivery is provided at both the individual and population levels – lessons the health care system and society learned are achievable through the response to the COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Abdalla and colleagues concluded.

The USPSTF and Dr. Abdalla reported no relevant financial relationships. One editorialist reported receiving personal fees from Livongo and Cerner and grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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